Was Jefferson right?

[jjmonroe]

In 1779, Thomas Jefferson said:

"It [appears] that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience [has] shown that, even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." --Thomas Jefferson: Diffusion of Knowledge Bill, 1779.

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-jeffquot?specfile=/web/data/jefferson/quotations/www/jeffquot.o2w&act=surround&offset=480902&tag=22.+Elective+Government&query=experience+has+shown

Do you agree with Jefferson?

[Raoul Duke]

yes

[Residential Bob]

More true for Democrats than for Republicans.

[Raoul Duke]

More true for Democrats than with Republicans.

not even a little bit...

[Rurudyne]

Experience has shown him to be correct.

Not because it is the nature of entities to be corrupt but because it is the nature of people to be be corrupt ... and you need people to manage any 'entity'.

Which brings me to one of the biggest illogical points 'backing' progressive policy: it is sold partly on the premise that people aren't good and wise to do right by their neighbors (i.e. charity) AND YET it must assume that people are good and wise to be trusted with both neigh limitless power and the public purse without becoming corrupt.

[Residential Bob]

not even a little bit...More than a little bit.

[Raoul Duke]

More than a little bit.
blindly believing that they are different is part of the reason we got here

[jjmonroe]

Experience has shown him to be correct.

Not because it is the nature of entities to be corrupt but because it is the nature of people to be be corrupt ... and you need people to manage any 'entity'.

Which brings me to one of the biggest illogical points 'backing' progressive policy: it is sold partly on the premise that people aren't good and wise to do right by their neighbors (i.e. charity) AND YET it must assume that people are good and wise to be trusted with both neigh limitless power and the public purse without becoming corrupt.

How right you are. Why is it that people who aren't bright enough to understand this, and who continue to wish to put government on a pedestal, are allowed to vote?

[ChaosControl]

Yes and that is why that too much power should never be consolidated into one place. That is why governments, and corporations, should not be so large.

[Iggy]

More true for Democrats than for Republicans.

If you think that one is worse than the other, you haven't been paying attention for the last 8 years.

[Residential Bob]

blindly believing that they are different is part of the reason we got hereBlindly believing they're the same is preposterous considering the amount of polarization we're experiencing.

[johnrocks]

blindly believing that they are different is part of the reason we got here

Exactly, both parties are full of big government power grabbing tyrants.

[Residential Bob]

If you think that one is worse than the other, you haven't been paying attention for the last 8 years.I've been around for more than eight years.

The parties are very different. Though I would say they're more similar now than they have been in history.

[jjmonroe]

Yes and that is why that too much power should never be consolidated into one place. That is why governments, and corporations, should not be so large.

Fundamentally, I agree with you. The true culprit is consolidation of power. I have often wondered what the arguments are for government allowing for the formation of entities that can amass such huge amounts of wealth that they become dangerous. i.e. Why do we have limited liability corporations?

[Rurudyne]

Exactly, both parties are full of big government power grabbing tyrants.
Yeppers. "Moderates" are a poorly named bunch. They are only 'moderate' in comparison to the LBJ style radicals who surpassed them for lawlessness.

Of course, now we labor to service Alinsky style uber radicals who make even LBJ and FDR look moderate.

[ChaosControl]

Blindly believing they're the same is preposterous considering the amount of polarization we're experiencing.

What has changed?
We went from being a warmongering interventionist deficit spending corporate whoring privacy invading inefficient government to being a warmongering interventionist deficit spending corporate whoring privacy invading inefficient government. We went from being a government of the elite, by the elite, for the elite to a government of the elite, by the elite, for the elite.

Nothing has changed. Corruption to corruption.

[ChaosControl]

Fundamentally, I agree with you. The true culprit is consolidation of power. I have often wondered what the arguments are for government allowing for the formation of entities that can amass such huge amounts of wealth that they become dangerous. i.e. Why do we have limited liability corporations?

Because those that have power who are not in government have a strong influence in government and use those in government to gain favors. Limited liability and corporate personhood are only the beginning of the corporate whoring that has taken place.

[jjmonroe]

More true for Democrats than for Republicans.


I think that our country would be far better off if we stopped treating politics like football. We are not rooting for "our team". If you read what was written by most of the founders of this country, you realize that it is always a choice between the lesser of two evils.

[Residential Bob]

What has changed?
We went from being a warmongering interventionist deficit spending corporate whoring privacy invading inefficient government to being a warmongering interventionist deficit spending corporate whoring privacy invading inefficient government. We went from being a government of the elite, by the elite, for the elite to a government of the elite, by the elite, for the elite.

Nothing has changed. Corruption to corruption.Did we have a warmongering interventionist deficit spending corporate whoring privacy invading inefficient government in 1790? 1830?

If not, then something has changed. Your guess, no doubt, is as good as mine.

[ChaosControl]

Did we have a warmongering interventionist deficit spending corporate whoring privacy invading inefficient government in 1790? 1830?

If not, then something has changed. Your guess, no doubt, is as good as mine.

Actually we did. Just not nearly as bad as now.

[johnrocks]

What has changed?
We went from being a warmongering interventionist deficit spending corporate whoring privacy invading inefficient government to being a warmongering interventionist deficit spending corporate whoring privacy invading inefficient government. We went from being a government of the elite, by the elite, for the elite to a government of the elite, by the elite, for the elite.

Nothing has changed. Corruption to corruption.

lol, post of the day so far.:lol:

[LadyGunSlinger]

Absolutely.

[Residential Bob]

Actually we did. Just not nearly as bad as now.So we've changed, then.

I have no doubt that if our country had remained the republic that the founders established, "those entrusted with power [would] have, in time and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" by much smaller degrees than those entrusted with power actually have been with the encroachment of democracy.

Though the two viable parties may not represent their philosophies as soundly as they once have - particulary the Republican Party - their differences are fundamental: small government vs big government. Hence the more rapid growth of tyranny in a democracy than in a republic.

[ModerateVoice]

What has changed?
We went from being a warmongering interventionist deficit spending corporate whoring privacy invading inefficient government to being a warmongering interventionist deficit spending corporate whoring privacy invading inefficient government. We went from being a government of the elite, by the elite, for the elite to a government of the elite, by the elite, for the elite.

Nothing has changed. Corruption to corruption.

Which was in essence the core argument of the protest at the Tea Parties...

Hopefully, the libs will eventually realized their party has been raped by the elites in the same way conservatives have come to express their disgust at the GOP for selling out our core values in the name of everything you listed above.

[ChaosControl]

So we've changed, then.

I have no doubt that if our country had remained the republic that the founders established, "those entrusted with power [would] have, in time and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" by much smaller degrees than those entrusted with power actually have been with the encroachment of democracy.

Though the two viable parties may not represent their philosophies as soundly as they once have - particulary the Republican Party - their differences are fundamental: small government vs big government. Hence the more rapid growth of tyranny in a democracy than in a republic.

It is not small government vs big government.
It is big government vs big government. Each administration grows it more than the last, it has nothing to do with party. When was the last administration that actually shrunk government?

[Residential Bob]

It is not small government vs big government.
It is big government vs big government. Each administration grows it more than the last, it has nothing to do with party. When was the last administration that actually shrunk government?Ideally, small government vs big government. Realistically, big government vs bigger government.

[ChaosControl]

Which was in essence the core argument of the protest at the Tea Parties...

Hopefully, the libs will eventually realized their party has been raped by the elites in the same way conservatives have come to express their disgust at the GOP for selling out our core values in the name of everything you listed above.

It is kind of funny. As far to the extreme right as I may be, I probably have more in common with the extreme left than I do the center. The extreme left also realizes that the parties are owned by the elite and cater to the elite. They know that bankers are way too powerful, that corporatism is a major problem. They know that the government invades way too much privacy and that warmongering is wrong. Yes I disagree with them drastically what I disagree with them on, such as the free markets as a whole, but I think even the extreme left would be better than the elitist corporatist scumbags we have now.

[Stars&Stripes]

Question is, what can we do about it?

And in the future:

Can a country make liberalism illegal?

Is that possible?

Is it possible to, say, make Marxism, socialism, communism, etc, illegal and make it illegal, say, for college professors, politicians and so on to promote it?

[ChaosControl]

So you oppose the first amendment huh?

[curtis123]

In 1779, Thomas Jefferson said:

"It [appears] that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience [has] shown that, even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." --Thomas Jefferson: Diffusion of Knowledge Bill, 1779.

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-jeffquot?specfile=/web/data/jefferson/quotations/www/jeffquot.o2w&act=surround&offset=480902&tag=22.+Elective+Government&query=experience+has+shown

Do you agree with Jefferson?

In other words, power corrupts. And the Democrats are just an Al Franken away from absolute power.

[ChazBedlam]

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.



Thomas Jefferson

Exactly what our government is doing...:mad:

[MookyBlalock]

Question is, what can we do about it?

And in the future:

Can a country make liberalism illegal?

Is that possible?

Is it possible to, say, make Marxism, socialism, communism, etc, illegal and make it illegal, say, for college professors, politicians and so on to promote it?
That would be a breach of the First Amendment.

[MookyBlalock]

in other words, power corrupts. And the democrats are just an al franken away from absolute power.
muhahahahahahahah!!!!!

[IndyBec]

It is kind of funny. As far to the extreme right as I may be, I probably have more in common with the extreme left than I do the center. The extreme left also realizes that the parties are owned by the elite and cater to the elite. They know that bankers are way too powerful, that corporatism is a major problem. They know that the government invades way too much privacy and that warmongering is wrong. Yes I disagree with them drastically what I disagree with them on, such as the free markets as a whole, but I think even the extreme left would be better than the elitist corporatist scumbags we have now.


Me too. And we want to grow our own food and raise free-thinking children, judging from the lefties I've met in unschooling groups.

[Residential Bob]

Question is, what can we do about it?

And in the future:

Can a country make liberalism illegal?

Is that possible?

Is it possible to, say, make Marxism, socialism, communism, etc, illegal and make it illegal, say, for college professors, politicians and so on to promote it?Yes, a country can make the promotion of Marxism and communism illegal. I'm not sure making liberalism illegal is possible, though.

I would even say that, in the United States, Marxism, communism, democracy, etc. should not have infiltrated the federal government. Though people may preach them and exercise them in their own communities to their hearts desire.

[2Parties1GlobalistGoal]

I agree with the quote and it's just one of many reasons why small government should not be the solution. Small government just turns into Leviathan.

[ChaosControl]

Me too. And we want to grow our own food and raise free-thinking children, judging from the lefties I've met in unschooling groups.

I strongly encourage everyone to grow their own food and home school their children. The more "off grid" activity, the better. The U.S. government is a greater threat to the American people than any foreign nation has ever been or ever will be. I just want to be left alone.

[ChaosControl]

I agree with the quote and it's just one of many reasons why small government should not be the solution. Small government just turns into Leviathan.

You an AC? Or an Agorist?

[Mustang JEB]

Certainly was prophetic, wasn't he?

[2Parties1GlobalistGoal]

You an AC? Or an Agorist?

Anarcho-capitalist is closest to what I support.

[jjmonroe]

Because those that have power who are not in government have a strong influence in government and use those in government to gain favors. Limited liability and corporate personhood are only the beginning of the corporate whoring that has taken place.

This is why I say to anyone who is concerned about our government "being bought": Let's reduce the problem by seeing to it that our government has very little to buy. You can't eliminate it, but you can drastically reduce it. As soon as Obama pushes through his national health care, I wonder what companies are going to be vying for that pile of money.

On another note, you just reminded me of another issue. Some years ago I was watching a commercial on TV. It was for GE's mammogram machine. The commercial touted the benefits of their particular machine saying things like "GE can invest the right amount of money and GE can hire the very best engineers." At the end of the commercial, the narrator said "But there's one thing that GE can't do. Make you get a mammogram." That really brought home to me the major difference between a private corporation and the government. If you don't do what the government wants you to do (or refrain from doing what they don't want you to do), they can put you in jail, or possibly even take your life. They are the only entity in our society with the legitimate use of deadly force or incarceration.

[IndyBec]

Small government is not the same as de-centralized, but I prefer both.

[jjmonroe]

Small government is not the same as de-centralized, but I prefer both.


I've been a software engineer for the past 40 years, so I keep up with what's going on in the computer world. At one time, everyone thought that huge mainframes were the way to go. A few decades ago, someone realized that distributed processing is much more efficient.

To me, that epitomizes the difference between a huge central government and a decentralized one.

[ChaosControl]

De-centralized is good as a whole. For government and companies.

[ChazBedlam]

Yes, a country can make the promotion of Marxism and communism illegal. I'm not sure making liberalism illegal is possible, though.

I would even say that, in the United States, Marxism, communism, democracy, etc. should not have infiltrated the federal government. Though people may preach them and exercise them in their own communities to their hearts desire.

Technically, communism, fascism and socialism are Unconstitutional, and therefore, illegal. IMHO.

[James Juno]

I've been a software engineer for the past 40 years, so I keep up with what's going on in the computer world. At one time, everyone thought that huge mainframes were the way to go. A few decades ago, someone realized that distributed processing is much more efficient.

To me, that epitomizes the difference between a huge central government and a decentralized one.

Extending the analogy: Today, we have this push for so-called "cloud computing" which is really a fancy term for going back to old-school centralized computing with distributed dumb terminals (that I personally want nothing to do with -- I'll take care of my own data, thank you very much). Maybe cycles are unavoidable.

Good to see you again, JJ.

[James Juno]

De-centralized is good as a whole. For government and companies.

Absolutely. Decentralization is a natural tendency for good reason.

[Residential Bob]

Technically, communism, fascism and socialism are Unconstitutional, and therefore, illegal. IMHO.Yes, that is why I say that democracy should not have infiltrated the federal government. And democracy is the agenda of the Democratic Party.

People are free to espouse democracy - publish democratic papers, air democratic radio shows, etc. - all they wish (First Amendment), but when democrats and other leftists run for - and win - public offices, the Constitution is compromised.

[MookyBlalock]

I strongly encourage everyone to grow their own food and home school their children. The more "off grid" activity, the better. The U.S. government is a greater threat to the American people than any foreign nation has ever been or ever will be. I just want to be left alone.
Me Too! I just want to be left alone, (unless my house is onfire, robbed, I'm injured, a bridge collapses, a riot occurs, it snows, my bank runs out of money, someone builds something that falls on me, ect)
Oh, and I want automatic weapons.

[ChaosControl]

Me Too! I just want to be left alone, (unless my house is onfire, robbed, I'm injured, a bridge collapses, a riot occurs, it snows, my bank runs out of money, someone builds something that falls on me, ect)
Oh, and I want automatic weapons.

Wow, you sure like to depend on others for a lot of things. I guess you must enjoy the current totalitarian state.

[MookyBlalock]

Wow, you sure like to depend on others for a lot of things. I guess you must enjoy the current totalitarian state.
So do you, you just won't admit it.

[ChaosControl]

So do you, you just won't admit it.

No I don't, sorry. I don' fit into your bubble.
There are certain services that I support, which is why I can struggle between agorism and minarchy. It is a matter of learning at this point still. As I find more solutions in agorism, the need for any government declines.

Remember a lack of government doesn't mean a lack of people serving other people, it just means a lack of a forceful entity.

[rational]

I think part of the problem is not just about power. I think that anytime one person, or a small group of people, represent a much larger group of people, they lose the ability to think. I live in a townhouse complex. We have an elected board of directors. Without anyone knowing about it (until revealed in the annual report), they authorized the construction of a fence along a portion of our common property border with an adjacent property. The bill for this fence was ~$4500. I went out and added up the component parts (posts, panels, and nails), called Home Depot to get the price. When totalled, the materials were less than $1000! The jokers who installed it didn't event concrete in the posts, so with frost heave, the thing will look like crap in a couple of years (and they used the cheapest panels available). I estimate it would have take a team of three workers one day to do the work. This is a classic example of how people in control of other people's money show incompetence, or indifference, to how the money is spent. I was partially successful in stopping a new library proposed to be built in my town. They wanted to tax our city to the tune of ~10 million dollars for it. I checked with construction companies that had built similar sized buildings, and was told it should have cost about 2 or 3 million. Fortunately, between my letter to a local paper, and other opposition, the voters turned it down.

Well, there's a new president of our homeowners association...ME!

No more shoddy work and overcharged projects on my watch!

(However, I'm starting to feel the power!!!!!!!, and might have to fund some ridiculous projects!!!!)

[Darkwind]

More true for Democrats than for Republicans.Not really.

I would say it may be more true for conservatives. But in the end, if we do not exercise due vigilance, all men corrupt and seek power.

[ChazBedlam]

Yes, that is why I say that democracy should not have infiltrated the federal government. And democracy is the agenda of the Democratic Party.

People are free to espouse democracy - publish democratic papers, air democratic radio shows, etc. - all they wish (First Amendment), but when democrats and other leftists run for - and win - public offices, the Constitution is compromised.

Yes. I should've added democratism to the my list. Good point.

[Residential Bob]

Not really.

I would say it may be more true for conservatives..In what way?

[Darkwind]

In what way?Well, conservatives tend to hold to more values that are associated with a persons character. I'm not saying that all conservatives are less prone to corruption. Only that as a whole, they tend to do the right thing when no one is watching.

I still subscribe however, to the notion that the majority of people are just no damned good and you can't trust anyone in politics, no matter what their party affiliation.

[Residential Bob]

Well, conservatives tend to hold to more values that are associated with a persons character.I'm not sure how that determines who is more tyrannical. Everyone has character. Character and values are relative and subjective.

The only value that matters is whether government ought to be big or small. Conservatives and Republicans are less prone to tyranny than liberals and Democrats are.

[Stars&Stripes]

That would be a breach of the First Amendment.

So, to be pro-1st amendment we have to let Communists have their say - the very same Communists that would destroy freedom of speech were they given the chance to.

No one should confuse you with being brilliant, that's for sure.

When it comes to Communists, they who would use freedom of speech to permanently and ultimately take away freedom of speech from others, they have to be suppressed so that they cannot do what they would like to do.

Communists, if given the chance, would use elections to get in power, and once they had power they would end free fair and open elections. That is how it is in the real world. Same with Marxists and Fascists.

That is why communism must be declared illegal.

[Darkwind]

I'm not sure how that determines who is more tyrannical. Everyone has character. Character and values are relative and subjective.

The only value that matters is whether government ought to be big or small. Conservatives and Republicans are less prone to tyranny than liberals and Democrats are.Well, I would say conservatives. Republicans today are just Democrats who have the letter R in front of their name.

[Stars&Stripes]

So you oppose the first amendment huh?

Wrong. Look at post #59. The first amendment must be protected from people like Marxists and Communists - they who would use the first amendment to ultimately destroy it in the end.

[tha malcontent™]

blindly believing that they are different is part of the reason we got here

Blindly Regurgitating that they are Identical will get Libertarians and this Country NOWHERE...

:)

peace...

[ChaosControl]

Wrong. Look at post #59. The first amendment must be protected from people like Marxists and Communists - they who would use the first amendment to ultimately destroy it in the end.

So like I said, you don't support the first amendment.

[jmb6]

Experience has shown him to be correct.

Not because it is the nature of entities to be corrupt but because it is the nature of people to be be corrupt ... and you need people to manage any 'entity'.

Which brings me to one of the biggest illogical points 'backing' progressive policy: it is sold partly on the premise that people aren't good and wise to do right by their neighbors (i.e. charity) AND YET it must assume that people are good and wise to be trusted with both neigh limitless power and the public purse without becoming corrupt.

pfffttt. You're just not one of the enlightened few.

[PhantomPholly]

Liberalism is the theory that you can achieve a moral outcome using unethical means ("the ends justify the means"). This has been dis-proven throughout history for two simple reasons:
1. Once unethical means become the norm, no moral conclusion ever emerges. All that happens is that personal rights are eroded to the point where only the elite rulers are anything more than slaves to the State.
2. No methodology whatsoever has ever accomplished what Liberalism claims is possible. Thus being a form of a Ponzi scheme, the goal itself is a Fraud meant only to lead people down an unethical path.

[Stars&Stripes]

So like I said, you don't support the first amendment.

No, I support the 1st amendment. I am willing to potect it from Communism which would destroy it.

It is clear, given what I have said, and what you have said, that you are pro-Communism.

Please show that I am wrong and that you are not-pro-Communism. If you aren't willing to do waht it takes to keep Communists from destroying the 1st amnendment then you are pro-Communist.

Prove that you aren't pro-Communist.

[ChaosControl]

I'm pro-communism? LOL.

Oh goodness I love this forum sometimes.

So I am a pro-communist because I believe communists have just as much right to free speech as anyone else?

Free speech includes speech you don't like. If you say communists can't have free speech, then you reject the first amendment. You reject someone being able to speak freely merely because you disagree with them politically.

[Broseph]

So, to be pro-1st amendment we have to let Communists have their say - the very same Communists that would destroy freedom of speech were they given the chance to.

No one should confuse you with being brilliant, that's for sure.

When it comes to Communists, they who would use freedom of speech to permanently and ultimately take away freedom of speech from others, they have to be suppressed so that they cannot do what they would like to do.

Communists, if given the chance, would use elections to get in power, and once they had power they would end free fair and open elections. That is how it is in the real world. Same with Marxists and Fascists.

That is why communism must be declared illegal.

This post is pretty much saying, "I'm pro-first amendment... unless you say x, y or z."

Well then, no, you're not pro-first amendment, you're for limited speech.

The first amendment does not apply to only a select group of people or a group of people that hold certain beliefs. If you're actually pro-first amendment, that means that everyone has the right guaranteed by the first amendment regardless of their beliefs.

[Stars&Stripes]

So like I said, you don't support the first amendment.

CC, there is a real world outside of Hannity.com. Wake up, genius.

In that real world, Communists would use the 1st amendment in their quest to destroy the 1st amendment. hey use the 1st amendment to attain power. Once they get power, they then take away people's 1st amendment rights.

If you aren't willing to suppress them, the you are anti-1st amendment.

yep, I think I have hit it on the head.

YOU ARE ANTI-1ST AMENDMENT.

[ChaosControl]

Wow... this is better than comedy central.

So lets see.
Over time according to various posters I am now a socialist pro-communist liberal isolationist right-wing extremist terrorist libertarian conservative anarchist who is anti-first amendment.

[Broseph]

If you aren't willing to suppress them, the you are anti-1st amendment.


This line is a classic. May I use it in my sig-line? :clap:

[ChaosControl]

This line is a classic. May I use it in my sig-line? :clap:

War is peace!

[Broseph]

Wow... this is better than comedy central.

So lets see.
Over time according to various posters I am now a socialist pro-communist liberal isolationist right-wing extremist terrorist libertarian conservative anarchist who is anti-first amendment.

That's ironic.

There's nothing I hate more than socialist, pro-communist, liberal, isolationist, right-wing extremist, terrorist, libertarian, conservative anarchists that are anti-first amendment.

[Stars&Stripes]

I'm pro-communism? LOL.

Oh goodness I love this forum sometimes.

So I am a pro-communist because I believe communists have just as much right to free speech as anyone else?

Free speech includes speech you don't like. If you say communists can't have free speech, then you reject the first amendment. You reject someone being able to speak freely merely because you disagree with them politically.

Post #69 shows that your views in the 1st amendment are from a theoretical world that is divorced from the real world.

Please read it.

Communists would gladly use the 1st amendment to attain power. Once they get power, they then take away the 1st amendment from others.

If you aren't willing to protect the 1st amendment from people like them, then you are anti-1st amendment.

What do you tell people that love freedom when Commies take away their freedoms, like the 1st amendment?

People like you have no real solutions for the real world, anyway.

[ChaosControl]

By denying them the right to say what they wish, you are destroyinig it before they even have a chance to.

Would you like to round up everyone who disagrees with you politically and then say it was in the name of civil liberty, because after all these people might one day use this liberty they have to destroy it? Same idea.

Do I agree with what communists say? Heck no.
Do I agree with what neocons say? Heck no.

Do I support 100% their right to say it? Absolutely.

[Stars&Stripes]

This post is pretty much saying, "I'm pro-first amendment... unless you say x, y or z."

Well then, no, you're not pro-first amendment, you're for limited speech.

The first amendment does not apply to only a select group of people or a group of people that hold certain beliefs. If you're actually pro-first amendment, that means that everyone has the right guaranteed by the first amendment regardless of their beliefs.

So, you would be willing to let commies use the 1st amendment (freedom of speech) to attain power, even though oncethey attained power they would turn around and then end freedom of speech?

Real smart... Not.

[ChaosControl]

So, you would be willing to let commies use the 1st amendment (freedom of speech) to attain power, even though oncethey attained power they would turn around and then end freedom of speech?

Real smart... Not.

We should probably prevent communists from having guns too since they might use those guns to do away with the second amendment.

[Broseph]

So, you would be willing to let commies use the 1st amendment (freedom of speech) to attain power, even though oncethey attained power they would turn around and then end freedom of speech?

Real smart... Not.

So... what makes you better than the communists, with regards to the 1st amendment?

You want to take it away from them. They want to take it away from you. And you're trumpeting yourself as a protector of the 1st amendment? I guess they could say they are protecting the 1st amendment from capitalists, right?

[Stars&Stripes]

By denying them the right to say what they wish, you are destroyinig it before they even have a chance to.

Would you like to round up everyone who disagrees with you politically and then say it was in the name of civil liberty, because after all these people might one day use this liberty they have to destroy it.

Please stop the games.

Show me others like arxists Communists that use freedom to get power and then once they get power they then take away freedom from others.

Generically saying what you do in your last 2 lines is just you trying to make me into the boogie man, when it is Marxists and Commies that are the real boogie men.

By denying them, they are kept them from using the 1st amendment to get power and ultimately use that power to end fredeom of speech and other rights for others. Can't you see this?

Why would you ever be willing to take that chance with Commies and Marxists? Don't you care for the generations of people not born who would like to be born in freedom?

[ChaosControl]

I don't infringe on one person's liberties due to fear that they may attempt to infringe upon mine in the future. If I do, I am no better than they are.

Sorry but I am not an authoritarian.

[Stars&Stripes]

So... what makes you better than the communists, with regards to the 1st amendment?

You want to take it away from them. They want to take it away from you. And you're trumpeting yourself as a protector of the 1st amendment? I guess they could say they are protecting the 1st amendment from capitalists, right?

We can all see that you are a relativist. One who would relativize Capitalism/Communism.

We live in a real world. One where there are real consequences.

Talk coming from you and others like you is what gets people in chains as they wonder andponder and relativize whether or not to let Commies have the ability to take away freedom, even as they use freedom to get that power.

Wake up, there is a real world out there.

[Stars&Stripes]

Hmmmm.

Question:

Are there some closet Commies/Marxists here at Hannity.com?

[ChaosControl]

Well at least we know who McCarthy was reincarnated into.

[Residential Bob]

Please stop the games.

Show me others like arxists Communists that use freedom to get power and then once they get power they then take away freedom from others.

Generically saying what you do in your last 2 lines is just you trying to make me into the boogie man, when it is Marxists and Commies that are the real boogie men.

By denying them, they are kept them from using the 1st amendment to get power and ultimately use that power to end fredeom of speech and other rights for others. Can't you see this?

Why would you ever be willing to take that chance with Commies and Marxists? Don't you care for the generations of people not born who would like to be born in freedom?The US Constitution protects the speech of American Communists.

However, the Constitution says that the United States guarantees a republican form of government to the states. If Communists are elected to federal positions, then we compromise the Constitution.

[DocHolliday]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Which should give pause to the Obamabots that want to give him yet more power.

I doubt it will even slow them down. :whistle:

[DocHolliday]

The US Constitution protects the speech of American Communists.

However, the Constitution says that the United States guarantees a republican form of government to the states. If Communists are elected to federal positions, then we compromise the Constitution.

The Constitution has been getting compromised ever since the liberal activists took hold of the courts.

Freedom of religion. Nope.

Right to bear guns. Forget about that as well.

[oldgringo]

Mr. Jefferson I wish you were here, the Republic changed a lot since you been gone. I dont its going like you planned. Our forefathers are rolling in their graves.

[Stars&Stripes]

Well at least we know who McCarthy was reincarnated into.

Oh Puhleeze. :rolleyes:

You are the one who is defending the right of Communists, yet you call me the McCarthyite.

The stunt you pull here in pulling that old canard out is what all liberals pull when they are show to be defending the rights of Communists - the very ones who would take away freedoms from others.

You remind me of a caller who called intro the Alan Colmes show sometime back.

She said that it wasn't fair that Iran couldn't have nuclear weapons. We have them, she said, so she said who are we to tell Iran that they cannot have them? She said that we either had to give up nukes or let Iran have them. It wasn't fair any other way.

Real smart. Not.

We have to let Iran have them even though they would use them to blow up some of their neighbors and bring on WWIII?

No!

In order to be fair and be pro-freedom of speech you apparently think that we have to let Commies have the right to 1st amendment even though they would/could use that freedom to attain power and take away the 1st amenddemnt right of others. That is madness!

That is like thinking we need to be fair and let Iran have nukes.

[bitterclinger84]

Experience has shown him to be correct.

Not because it is the nature of entities to be corrupt but because it is the nature of people to be be corrupt ... and you need people to manage any 'entity'.

Which brings me to one of the biggest illogical points 'backing' progressive policy: it is sold partly on the premise that people aren't good and wise to do right by their neighbors (i.e. charity) AND YET it must assume that people are good and wise to be trusted with both neigh limitless power and the public purse without becoming corrupt.

+100!!

I couldn't have said it better! It's always struck me as odd that people who think that other people can't be charitable individuals think that a huge body of those same people can be charitable.

[ChaosControl]

Oh Puhleeze. :rolleyes:

You are the one who is defending the right of Communists, yet you call me the McCarthyite.

The stunt you pull here in pulling that old canard out is what all liberals pull when they are show to be defending the rights of Communists - the very ones who would take away freedoms from others.

You remind me of a caller who called intro the Alan Colmes show sometime back.

She said that it wasn't fair that Iran couldn't have nuclear weapons. We have them, she said, so she said who are we to tell Iran that they cannot have them? She said that we either had to give up nukes or let Iran have them. It wasn't fair any other way.

Real smart. Not.

We have to let Iran have them even though they would use them to blow up some of their neighbors and bring on WWIII?

No!

In order to be fair and be pro-freedom of speech you apparently think that we have to let Commies have the right to 1st amendment even though they would/could use that freedom to attain power and take away the 1st amenddemnt right of others. That is madness!

That is like thinking we need to be fair and let Iran have nukes.

Communists having the right to free speech, or any group for that matter, doesn't mean they suddenly have infinite power and can take it away from others.

How would you like it if someone thought that we shouldn't allow a certain race free speech, or capitalists free speech, or a certain religion free speech? It is the same crap. Free speech is for all, it includes speech you dislike.

The Iran thing is a foreign policy issue, it really has nothing to do with our rights here. I couldn't care less what it is fair there. Now I don't necessarily think we have the place to say who can and can't have nukes, personally I don't think any nation should, but that has really nothing to do with the rights of American citizens.

[BasicGreatGuy]

So, to be pro-1st amendment we have to let Communists have their say - the very same Communists that would destroy freedom of speech were they given the chance to.

No one should confuse you with being brilliant, that's for sure.

When it comes to Communists, they who would use freedom of speech to permanently and ultimately take away freedom of speech from others, they have to be suppressed so that they cannot do what they would like to do.

Communists, if given the chance, would use elections to get in power, and once they had power they would end free fair and open elections. That is how it is in the real world. Same with Marxists and Fascists.

That is why communism must be declared illegal.

Either you don't understand the First Amendment, or you are against the First Amendment, if the issue in question is something you don't agree with. Given your posts, I am inclined to believe you are a hit and run supporter.

[BasicGreatGuy]

As to the thread question, Jefferson was correct.

[rational]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Which should give pause to the Obamabots that want to give him yet more power.

I doubt it will even slow them down. :whistle:

But what about someone like Obama who was already corrupt before getting power?

[Rurudyne]

But what about someone like Obama who was already corrupt before getting power?
D = OC^2

Deficit = Obama * Corruption (squared)

[Raoul Duke]

funny thread!

[Mohawk5]

Just look at the behavior of elected officials.

[jjmonroe]

In other words, power corrupts. And the Democrats are just an Al Franken away from absolute power.

Woops. Looks like Arlen (or was that Arnold?) beat him to the punch.

[Liberty1980]

Original post

Yes, I agree. The only thing a person with power wants is more power.

[Droog]

In 1779, Thomas Jefferson said:

"It [appears] that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience [has] shown that, even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." --Thomas Jefferson: Diffusion of Knowledge Bill, 1779.

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-jeffquot?specfile=/web/data/jefferson/quotations/www/jeffquot.o2w&act=surround&offset=480902&tag=22.+Elective+Government&query=experience+has+shown

Do you agree with Jefferson?It's laughable that 40 people have voted in this poll and not one person disagreed with Jefferson. Not because Jefferson was wrong, but because so many of those who agree with him pay only lip service to limiting government power. How many of those who agree with Jefferson supported the Bush administration's heinous abuses of power and blatant constitutional violations? How many support Obama's same violations? How many of them supported Bush but oppose Obama? Vice versa?

[jjmonroe]

Thomas Jefferson

Exactly what our government is doing...:mad:

I'm concerned that we lost the battle in 1932, if not before. First, a major portion of our electorate helped a pretty boy get in. Then, the great lie was told that it is the job of the central government to solve every single problem that anyone has from banking to hang nails. After that, the conservatives gradually chickened out, because they were seen as meanies if they didn't go along with the big lie. Now, we have blatant Marxism in the Democrat party and "I'm a good guy too" Marxism from the Republican party. A pox on both their houses.

All of this has been aided by the horrible job that our educational system has done in teaching young people what the USA is really all about. I doubt that 1% of our population has ever read the Constitution or the Federalist Papers.

[jjmonroe]

I agree with the quote and it's just one of many reasons why small government should not be the solution. Small government just turns into Leviathan.

I must have misunderstood you. You seem to be saying that small government is not the solution because it is destined to become large government.???

[jjmonroe]

Extending the analogy: Today, we have this push for so-called "cloud computing" which is really a fancy term for going back to old-school centralized computing with distributed dumb terminals (that I personally want nothing to do with -- I'll take care of my own data, thank you very much). Maybe cycles are unavoidable.

Good to see you again, JJ.

Hi James. Same here. I'm still wrestling with how we get the government back under the control of the people. I'm concerned that Anarchy isn't much of a solution because the power grubbers love to fill a vacuum. We need to have rules layed down as we originally had in the Constitution. The trouble seems to be that the people (the majority of whom are dolts) are completely unaware that the rules are no longer being followed by politicians.

[jjmonroe]

Me Too! I just want to be left alone, (unless my house is onfire, robbed, I'm injured, a bridge collapses, a riot occurs, it snows, my bank runs out of money, someone builds something that falls on me, ect)
Oh, and I want automatic weapons.

So:

1) Pay for fire protection.
2) Pay for police protection.
3) Pay for insurance.
4) Be careful which banks you choose to put your money in.

I doubt the government can take care of you better than you can take care of yourself.

[2Parties1GlobalistGoal]

I must have misunderstood you. You seem to be saying that small government is not the solution because it is destined to become large government.???

Correct.

[jjmonroe]

I don't infringe on one person's liberties due to fear that they may attempt to infringe upon mine in the future. If I do, I am no better than they are.

Sorry but I am not an authoritarian.

...deriving it's just powers from the consent of the governed.

[jjmonroe]

Correct.

Is no government destined to become government? (Controlled by the biggest thug in the group).

[2Parties1GlobalistGoal]

Is no government destined to become government? (Controlled by the biggest thug in the group).

Maybe, maybe not. Government is morally wrong so it should be opposed regardless.

[James Juno]

Hi James. Same here. I'm still wrestling with how we get the government back under the control of the people. I'm concerned that Anarchy isn't much of a solution because the power grubbers love to fill a vacuum. We need to have rules layed down as we originally had in the Constitution. The trouble seems to be that the people (the majority of whom are dolts) are completely unaware that the rules are no longer being followed by politicians.

The dolts are also very apathetic. Most human behavior is driven by whatever stimuli exist in the moment. The devious process of government intrusion hardly registers on this particular moment's stimulus meter. The upper echelon of government operates by exploiting that simple rule.