Our political divide, Part 1

I take it you would not have been first off the landing craft on Omaha Beach.

 

Nor should you the point here is that individual liberty and prosperity are the only real path to promote the general welfare. Any other pretense is but a scam foisted on us by power seekers for the purpose of enhancing their power by playing one against another.

 

I've had to fight to defend myself, my compatriots and my property. I've not been to war, but I have been shot twice, stabbed three times and hit in the face with a baseball bat. I've had to defend my self defense in court. I know that I can return fire when under fire. The ideals that justified what I did are the same exact ideals that justified what we did on Omaha Beach. I'd do it again, alone or side by side with many others, like they did on that beach.

 

Good...which branch of service were you in? And, another question: What would you do if the state exercised their right of imminent domain on your property?

 

Do you know what God said about the people of Babel just before He confused their language? He said that, and I paraphrase, "If these people continue to work together like this, there'll be nothing they can't do." So, apparently, cooperation is not, in and of itself, the goal God has for us. In the bible story I refer to, God's goal for man was what His goal has always been. God's goal is for human beings to multiply, fill the Earth and subdue it. In the story I refer to, God confused their language because they refused to multiply, fill the Earth and subdue it. They refused to spread out; well, He spread them out alright.

I'm only reminded of this story because of how many people today are left to believe that the worst problem on Earth, the problem that all other problems extend from, is exactly human beings multiplying, filling the Earth and subduing it. They believe in the "unnatural". They believe that human beings are "unnatural". Indeed, the very word "unnatural" is a misanthropic term reserved for human beings and things that are uniquely human. I don't believe in the "unnatural". I believe in the natural and the supernatural, but I don't believe that anything is unnatural.

 

As I wrote above, I have not been to war. I stood my own ground on many occasions. I don't know what it would be like to storm Omaha Beach; but I can tell you this, a one on one, point black shoot, out in a confined space, is pretty trucking scary. I don't know if fighting as part of a large group would mitigate or exasperate the terror, but I do know that I can return fire when under fire. Many, if not most people cannot do that all on their own. 10% of men flee. 10% of men fight. 80% of men freeze.

 

Second question? And, for the record, Patrick Henry's "give me liberty or give me death," was in reference to the State of Virginia vs. the British Empire.

 

If the state has a good legal reason for an eminent domain case one negotiates for the best possible price and replaces the property in a new location. Now, a regulatory taking is far more bothersome, one loses the use of the property but does not receive payment for that loss.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_taking

 

Thanks for explaining the difference...and the spelling correction.

 

The thing is if you bless one, in spite of all you do, that blessing will affect all those around him. If you curse one that curse will impact all those around him as well. Taxes, that do go to some nebulous attempt to redress the cosmic balance, i.e. income redistribution, are a species of curse.

 

Excellent post. This issue needs much more exposure. I've been preaching the same message to deaf ears from the agriculture and environmental perspective for twenty years. People refuse to listen no matter how many examples I offer.

Regulations are the main driver of business concentration, the big getting bigger. This concentration of big businesses is also the main factor in income and wealth disparity. The people that created wealth disparity through their advocacy now complain the most about wealth disparity.

 

Lol Just TDS . It consumes these people and they lose self control . They get caught in a loop and are powerless to get out of it. My neighbor has something similar. He obsessively washes his hands every 5 minutes. They are always red and chaffed. I bought him some lotion but after he puts it on he must wash his hands again . We want to help such people but we may as well try to teach a pig to sing. Not only is it a waste of time but it also annoys the pig .

In regards to the OP it is far too abstract for me . Some detailed examples of what he is talking about would be helpful.

 

Both parties should be complimented for allowing those elites to rig and change the economy in their own self interests. This scheme yielded even more than they had hoped for.

Trump was elected because he was not the people in both parties that allowed this scheme to be enacted

The sad thing is the dems who have suffeted too from the scheme side with the people in DC who allowed this scheme in the first place!

 

We’ve been in post-Constitutional America since the 1960’s. Some of are are glad about that. Some of us are not. That’s the divide.

 

Who said it does that?

Don't kid yerself, pilgrim. All it needs is a convenient definition of liberty.

So what do you suppose happens to individual liberty when the general welfare is degraded?

 

As to E. D., it depends on the particulars. If it has a nexus to the defense of individual life, liberty or property - perhaps.
If it's only justification is the promotion of the general welfare - no.

 

Taxes are not a moral issue, and equal outcomes are not a noble goal.

 

You misunderstsnd, it is always those who argue that we must limit individual liberty in order to promote the general welfare that are the problem, I've yet to see would be totalitarians argue that we must limit government in order to insure individual liberty and prosperity.

 

No, you do.

Not necessarily. Depends on what they mean by liberty.

 

What do you mean by liberty? To be at liberty is to be free from slavery to any one or any thing.

 

For the moment that doesn't matter. What matters is what those who propose to limit "liberty" to promote the general welfare mean by it.

As you probably know, just lately some people feel at liberty to drop their loads on certain city sidewalks, and some politicians have seen fit to protect that "liberty", which has adverse effects not just on the general welfare of such cities, but also on the individual liberties of those residents who prefer not to live like animals - which of course exemplifies what I was getting at in post #65.

 

Any evil one can imagine has been, at times, in places, perfectly legal. Any good one can imagine has been, at times, in places completely illegal. Legal and illegal are no good measure of right and wrong. Therefore, we each have a personal responsibility to pick and choose which laws we obey because compliance with law is no excuse for being complicit with what is evil, immoral or just plain wrong.

 

Civil disobedience is an acceptable response, but that wasn't exactly my question, which was more to the nature of your response to a legal decision that went against you. Would you accept the verdict of a jury of your peers?

 

Sorry but those people are in the streets in the first place because they have chosen to be slaves to addiction or are slaves to mental health issues beyond their control. Sadly the state of California has chosen to leave them in the vile state if slavery rather than look for a way to help them.