Our political divide, Part 1

And that contravenes what I said how, exactly?

 

What you feel and reality are often at variance.

 

I might. I might not. It depends on the details.

 

And what I said is at variance with reality how, exactly?

 

Let's see my original post was that defending individual liberty, and prosperity was the surest way to promote the general welfare. You then made some silly comment about people redefining what liberty was, which was at best tangential to my argument. Understand there are always people willing to argue about what 'is' means. You take their arguments seriously at your peril.
You cannot have real prosperity without individual liberty. Liberty is the freedom from servitude to man or vice. I would not expect those addicted to drugs or mentally ill beyond their ability to function meaningfully in society to accurately define liberty. Nor would I expect those addicted to power to properly define liberty. Leftist are almost constantly trying to redefine terms simply to justify their lust for power and control. We, however, live in a society in which the ability of humans to control things is largely ephemeral. The more you push the sooner you get push back. The very attempt to control begets unexpected consequences that can't be predicted or often times understood. The Trump phenomenon is one of those unexpected consequences.

 

I'll simplify further...do you believe in the rule of law and the right of the state to prosecute you for breaking the law and punishing you, if you're found guilty?

 

I don't think that it really is the "this or that" style choice that you have framed it to be. I think that by placing the liberty of the individual as sacrosanct, you are actually serving to fulfill the responsibility to promote the general welfare.

The issue I have with your statement is "constituted priorities". The very framing of your question illustrates that "constituted priorities" are up for interpretation, and there in lies the actual problem. People will interpret any writing to mean what the want it to say, in alignment with their own belief system.

This is exactly why the laws written on any paper mean nothing to me, and thus no matter the law I can not agree as laws are currently embodies by government, manipulated to mean what the ruling elite wants them to mean and are enforced by a state monopoly of force that is routinely abused.

 

It might be different if our society followed the "Brehon" style of law.

 

Yes, I do. Moral impunity is not legal immunity.

 

OK...we agree on "the rule of law."

 

That's not accurate. This conversation began with your assertion that "[The federal gov't] can't [degrade the general welfare on the pretext of defending individual liberty.]"

How so, exactly?

More accurately, your assertion about liberty and general welfare was tangential to the the question you responded to, and didn't support your initial assertion in the least.

Thanks for your concern, but I suggest you let me worry about the credence I give to arguments that don't have a damn thing do with the point of contention here.

 

Not can't shouldn't and further that doing so was, in the end detrimental to both. Government's all together too frequently engage in counter productive actions not for the sake of the people but under the, at best, dubious belief that they can make things better if they can control everything. There is literally no historical evidence supporting this dubious idea and volumes indicating it never works well and is often disastrous for all concerned but power seekers seem wholly uninterested in ever learning this valuable lesson.

 

Swell, but that's not what you said. If you had, most likely this conversation would never have happened, as I'm not in the habit of discusssing truisms.

 

3,2,1...and Trump is brought up....sad just sad.

 

Do you agree that we each have a personal responsibility to pick and choose which laws we obey?

 

No. I think we join "the social contract" when we consciously agree to the "rule of law." That decision transfers a part of our individual sovereignty and freedom to the community in which we live...be it a rural area, a township, and all the way up to the country as a whole. The only exception might be "civil disobedience" or in defense of physical threat to self and family, but then there are laws that protect you on both. Civil disobedience, IMO, means you knowingly break a law that you believe to be unfair, but that you accept the penalty upon conviction. CD is usually a planned disobedience as in a form of protest. Self/Family defense is a reaction to a perceived threat.

 

Liberty comes with some leftist policies. Leftists favor a woman to or to not have a abortion, leftists favor someone having the freedom to use pot if they should choose to do so without imprisonment. Leftists favor awarding more voting rights as an actual right, not a privilege. Liberty and leftist ideology intertwined more than one would originally think.

On a side note, I think a divide opened up when Obama was first elected. Trump was the baby boomers revenge against Generation X and the early half of millennials that voted Obama in twice. The reason for the mob mentality you see on the right is they feel Obama walked all over them, now they feel it’s their turn to be reckless.

 

Any evil you can imagine has been, at times, in places, perfectly legal. Any good you can imagine has been, at times, in places, completely illegal. Legal and illegal are no measure of good and evil, or moral and immoral, or right and wrong. Compliance with law is no excuse for being complicit with what is evil, immoral or just plain wrong. That much was established in Nuremburg, Germany in 1945.

 

I'm pro-abortion. After all, there is a time to kill. I don't believe that you or I know better who to kill than their very own mothers. We need to keep abortion legal so that mothers choose the slain. After all, moms know.

 

If you believe a law is evil, then you are free to disobey it. That's what "civil disobedience" is. But, when you do that, it must be with the awareness that the State (representing all of the people) possesses the right to prosecute and try you (in criminal cases by a jury of your peers).

 

As I wrote above, moral impunity is not legal immunity. I take no moral trepidation from the illegality of a thing and no moral consolation from the legality of it. I expect no legal consolation for the morality of a thing, nor do I have any moral trepidation from the illegality of it.

Personally, I am more often morally constrained from that which is legal than I am morally compelled to violate the law.

 

You seem to define "moral impunity" as some sort of overarching concept above the law. I wouldn't deny that law often involves a "moral principle," but if so, it is generally expressed in secular, legal terminology. So, I am just not clear on how "morality" fits into your belief or non-belief in a "social contract?"

 

I don't accept the framework of a "social contract". It is extraconstitutional.
When faced with a choice between the legal and the moral, I choose the moral. If I violate law, it is for moral reasons.
Again, I point to Nuremburg. The legality of the "final solution" did not justify its immorality.

 

The Constitution is our social contract. You probably just haven't read much regarding political theory. The holocaust was a terrible event brought about by a dictator who overthrew the Weimar Republic via the Constitutional "emergency powers" voted to him by the German Reichstag (their legislative body) in the wake of the Reichstag fire (probably started by a Dutch communist acting alone). Had Congress not voted him such powers, there would have been no legal basis for the dissolution of the Constitution and, perhaps, no rise of the Nazi dictatorship. Not that familiar with the Weimar Constitution and whether or not it contained "impeachment and removal powers" for the legislature? Since it was a parliamentary system, it probably allowed for a vote of "no confidence," which would have required Hitler to step down from the Chancellorship and forced an illegal revolution by the Nazis. Beware of granting emergency powers to wanna-be dictators.

 

I didn't get past your first line. Our constitution is not a contract; it is a treaty between sovereign States. We are not the united people of America; we are the United States of America. Trump is not the president of the united people; he is the President of the United States. He is not elected by the people; he is elected by the States. Get your civics straight. This is American civics 101.