>Important
>issues are too "mundane" for
>them, and they rather gossip
>or clown around. I'll
>get into this a lil
>further below.

Not necessarily. Some folks just have other things to talk about that are more important to them. What is more pressing to me, paying the rent, or musings of a few cats at the Trilateral commission?

>The comment was not meant to
>be taken as the United
>States is the sole/top authority
>in the world.

It is by default, at least currently.

>It
>means our system is the
>most successful in the history
>of the world.

What about the Romans? The Moors? The Chinese?

Like I
>said, people can model our
>success, but that doesn't mean
>we will necessarily take their
>other wishes in high regard,
>at least until we see
>that they work.

It depends on what you mean by work. Most folks in western european socialist/capitalist spots are taken care of. They don't really have the freedom to be rich or poor though.

>I do think they can govern
>themselves, but not each other.

Does that include their families?

> People are individuals.
>We are all born with
>individual thoughts, grow up having
>individual experiences, and we each
>have individual desires. Therefore,
>why try to clump everyone
>under one whole group?
>That doesn't make sense.

Everyone realizes this. That's why we have something like majority rule. The main idea is that all our our competing interests will counteract each other, until we get to one thing that everyone can agree on.

>So, when you allow "the people"
>to try to decide what's
>best for each other, instead
>of simply minimizing government to
>the point where people are
>individually in control of their
>own lives and own prosperity,
>then you are taking away
>the freedoms of the people
>who don't agree with the
>status quo.

But minimizing government does the same thing. Without the federal govt's bureaucracy a state government could do practically anything to it's unpopular members.

You can not have this discussion in absence of understanding both federal and state rights.

>Government is/shouldn't be established as a
>national parent council. Government
>should be there to keep
>the nation together, and to
>prevent other people from taking
>away your human rights,

In our system you have 2 competing interests. What if the majority members in a state want to persecute the minority members? The only thing that protects Black Georgians from White Georgians is the federal government.

along
>with your right to life,
>liberty, and property. Those
>ideals shouldn't be established by
>the fickle and wishy-washyness of
>the opinions of men, it
>should be based on something
>concrete, something that doesn't vary.

Which would be?

> What better way to
>do this than put it
>on paper for all to
>see and abide by?

Are you talking about the US constitution? Or Constitutions in general? You realize other govts have constitutions that are not at all effective. You should read the Soviet cons. They had all sorts of "freedoms" ignored by their ruling party.

>Then there is no question
>whatsoever about what the law
>is, or what the principles
>of that law are based
>on. Any future laws
>and acts should be based
>on those principles.

Actually there are plenty of questions. That is why we have a Supreme Court. You should study constitutional history.

>When you base a nation on
>men and not laws, then
>what you're doing is weakening
>the laws, saying they should
>be scrapped for certain purposes.

That is the nature of the beast. We are not automatons or photons.

> Laws are not flexible;
>they shouldn't be scrapped or
>overridden because of public opinion.

What is a law other than the proclaiment of public opinion? The laws of man are not like the laws of physics.

> Law should be constant,
>whether you're on the right
>side of it or the
>wrong side of it.

There are gray areas and competing interests.

>That way, everyone knows where
>the law stands, and don't
>have to worry about if
>a certain law only appeals
>to just them or appeals
>to everyone.

There are specific laws for specific people. Our military, those who protect our laws, live by a different set of laws.

>I feel I should be
>able to do what I
>want as long as I
>am not hurting others.

Then you get into a contest of measuring causation. Maybe what you do doesn't hurt others directly, but it could be that you damage others down the line.

>If my opinions and theories
>are against the majority opinion,
>I want to know that
>the law protects my voice
>and my wishes as well
>as the majority.

So when wishes collide, whom does the law protect? If the national public wants to protect endangered animals but you like to kill bald eagles, who should be right?

>Am I not
>entitled to the same influence
>others have?

Why should you? What entitles you to that influence?

Why should
>they have direction over MY
>life?

It's not should, but a question of do they have the power. You realize lots of non-political entities have lots of power over your life. 3 credit bureaus for instance can control where you live and how you move around this country. These guys aren't subject to direct political control.

>So I ask, what's stopping people,
>if they feel strongly about
>certain issues, from doing it
>themselves individually?

Nothing.

If you
>feel that charity funds should
>go over to help people
>in Rawanda, what's stopping you
>from pulling cash out of
>your pocket to make that
>happen?

Nothing.

>Do you have
>to force other people to
>do it also?

They don't force other people to do it. My duly elected representative makes that choice for me. And If I'm mad at him for sending my money to Rwanda, I elect someone else.

>If you
>don't believe in abortions, then
>don't have one.

I also believe in protecting the rights of the powerless from the powerful. If a father wants to molest his daughter, the one that he pays for, feeds, and clothes, what right do I as a stranger have to protect her?

>Why
>must you force other people
>not to also?

We are talking about more than one set of rights. I might believe in choice, but to believe in choice I also have to acknowledge that the fetus has no rights. Anti-Abortionists do not make that same acknowledgement.

If
>you want to make more
>money, why can't you get
>it yourself?

Lots of reasons. But if you want it, you can get it.

> Why must
>you force other people to
>give it up?

Are you talking about taxes? If rich folks are scared of a communist takeover in Vietnam, why should the sons and daughters of poor people have to go fight for cats in Washington. There is no reason other than force. Our government is really only restrained violence.

But we exchange our freedom for security.

There
>are no options when it
>comes to government; everything they
>do is through force, because
>they are the law.

Because we are the law, we are the government. Why are you separating the politicians from the polity?

> When you make ideals
>laws, there are no ifs
>ands or buts; if you
>don't abide by it, you
>have to pay the consequences.

In a perfect world sure. In our world if you have the right opportunities you can ignore many of our ideals.

>That's what the Tyler quote means.
> It means that voters
>are going to vote for
>candidates that look out for
>their best interests and not
>necessarily for the interests of
>all. What better interest
>is there than having money
>in your pocket?

Staying alive.

>Why should the masses collectively have
>power over what everyone else
>does?

Should they, I don't know. Do they, Yes they do.

>The simple fact is that "the
>people", as well-intentional as they
>may seem, do not know
>what's best for me, just
>as I and others don't
>know what's best for them.

But even though we come from different backgrounds and have different interests there are a few things that we agree on. And I might not want you to get a military base in your city, and you might not want to put a supercollider in mine, we can both agree to build a highway or a hospital.

> Therefore, they shouldn't make
>decisions that affect my life
>and my prosperity.

You already agreed to be apart of the society, so you must abide by their rules. If you don't agree you can leave.

They
>don't know how my money
>should be spent. They
>don't know what is going
>on in domestic, national, and
>foreign affairs every minute.

The people that make those decisions do. That is why we have a national legislature and not a national referendum.

>They all don't know what's
>best for the economy.

No one knows what is best for the economy. None of it works. You can take the best minds of the world and they don't know. (read anything about Long Term Capital if you don't believe me)

>
>If you want people to be
>involved/interested in daily affairs, you
>can't just simply invite them
>to. You have to
>educate them, and show them
>why they should.

In essence force them to.


>So, I will never approve of
>democracy. Maybe representation, but
>never legislation based on public
>opinion.

You mean direct public opinion.

peace
k. orr