Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Notes from a Libertarian Paradise
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="grasping the after wind" data-source="post: 65054653" data-attributes="member: 256417"><p>It is not possible to return to something that never existed. </p><p></p><p>I have used my brain to figure out what is just yet not everyone agrees with me. Are they all evil and can their disagreement with my perfect vision of right and wrong simply be ignored no matter how much they protest that they are not evil just have a differing opinion?</p><p>Democracy= majority vote. Therefore whatever is popular with more people than not is just. Human rights in this scenario are whatever 50% plus one at any given time want them to be. A constitution would possibly insist that there are certain rights that no amount of unpopularity would be able legally strip from the citizen or that no right to another particular thing exists no matter how popular it might be to declare that it did. </p><p>I think the question implies that we are not all in agreement upon what constitutes a decent society and that one person's ideal society is another person's worst nightmare. </p><p></p><p>It is impossible to consider anything to be justice without making a moral judgement. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Good. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I would agree with that and IMO a good Constitution has within it mechanisms for changing like the amendment process for the US Constitution. There are too many that prefer to just change it at any time in any manner that they wish rather than go through the proper processes spelled out in the document for changing it. </p><p></p><p>I do believe that ought to precede the writing of any constitution and usually does. I also think that those coming after rather than ignoring that fact and assuming not only that they are somehow less fallible but also that they are the first to consider what might be just, ought to study the ideas of the writers on that score and see if those writer's thoughts were reasonable before dismissing them as lesser beings of lesser intelligence or moral fiber that could never understand the complexities of the modern world or their thoughts as antiquated and out of touch. Finally, if a Constitution is indeed in place, and the rules it sets forth for limiting government and safegaurding the rights of the populace are able to be amended to suit new or different situations or new or different POVs by a straight forward and easily understood process, why wouldn't an honest government official attempt to amend that Constitution by using those rules( especially after taking a solemn oath to protect and defend that Constitution ) rather than circumventing the Constitution altogether in order to be sure that his/ her will was what was carried out ? A will not only not necessarily the will of the consensus of the citizenry but not necessarily what is just but only concerned with that which was desired by that particular official on a certain subject.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="grasping the after wind, post: 65054653, member: 256417"] It is not possible to return to something that never existed. I have used my brain to figure out what is just yet not everyone agrees with me. Are they all evil and can their disagreement with my perfect vision of right and wrong simply be ignored no matter how much they protest that they are not evil just have a differing opinion? Democracy= majority vote. Therefore whatever is popular with more people than not is just. Human rights in this scenario are whatever 50% plus one at any given time want them to be. A constitution would possibly insist that there are certain rights that no amount of unpopularity would be able legally strip from the citizen or that no right to another particular thing exists no matter how popular it might be to declare that it did. I think the question implies that we are not all in agreement upon what constitutes a decent society and that one person's ideal society is another person's worst nightmare. It is impossible to consider anything to be justice without making a moral judgement. Good. I would agree with that and IMO a good Constitution has within it mechanisms for changing like the amendment process for the US Constitution. There are too many that prefer to just change it at any time in any manner that they wish rather than go through the proper processes spelled out in the document for changing it. I do believe that ought to precede the writing of any constitution and usually does. I also think that those coming after rather than ignoring that fact and assuming not only that they are somehow less fallible but also that they are the first to consider what might be just, ought to study the ideas of the writers on that score and see if those writer's thoughts were reasonable before dismissing them as lesser beings of lesser intelligence or moral fiber that could never understand the complexities of the modern world or their thoughts as antiquated and out of touch. Finally, if a Constitution is indeed in place, and the rules it sets forth for limiting government and safegaurding the rights of the populace are able to be amended to suit new or different situations or new or different POVs by a straight forward and easily understood process, why wouldn't an honest government official attempt to amend that Constitution by using those rules( especially after taking a solemn oath to protect and defend that Constitution ) rather than circumventing the Constitution altogether in order to be sure that his/ her will was what was carried out ? A will not only not necessarily the will of the consensus of the citizenry but not necessarily what is just but only concerned with that which was desired by that particular official on a certain subject. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Notes from a Libertarian Paradise
Top
Bottom