Consensus in Politics

[jackson33]

In no way do I agree with the general trend of US Government, the increasing dominance over the public, the size or inefficiency of that government or the demand seemingly generated from the public for a cradle to death care system.

 

So long as 'law' dominates, corrections or direction of government can be changed. The system is working; Illegal Immigration attitudes, energy production just a couple in todays news and Jidal in Louisiana, is a stark change for that State.

 

There are also solutions built into the system, for massive change in both direction and current Federal involvement, in what should be state issues. Think you will find Newt Gingrich has many ideas on this, leading efforts in many states to elect meaningful conservative people. There are people in many states, trying to get folks elected at state level to instigate a national convention to address many of the issues your concerned with. I just don't think condemnation of the total has any beneficial purpose in promoting the basic foundation. If that foundation fails, the next would not be what you or I would like to see...

[nutronjon]

"Democracy is no more than MOB rule" where 51% of the mob can force compliance to 49%. Jefferson.

 

Jefferson, as most of the founders worried the average individual 'White Male Property/Business owners' would base decisions on person interest, with regards to National or International Issues or put another way would not become informed.

 

Madison/Hamilton, in writing the 'Federalist Paper' were promoting the acceptance of the 'Constitution'. So to speak, advertising for the acceptance by the various colonial legislatures, through the appropriate people. Neither these papers or the Constitution itself was dependent on any person, who was not WHITE, MALE, OWNED PROPERTY or deemed vested in the interest of the fledgling Republic.

 

The Revolutionary War, was fought against a force that had rejected the Declaration for Independence. The Declaration itself, was based on opposition to the then King of England, but as Jefferson said when submitting his text of the document ("This pretty well has been the view of American's, in the 17th and 18th centuries"). Although 'Taxation w/o representation' is often used for cause, it was a relatively minor point. Actually this taxation, involved whats known as a 'Stamp Act', which had been in progress with in England for some time. As for a 'Holy War' or a fight for human rights....NO. The rights granted under the Amendments AFTER the Constitution was ratified, offered those rights. Even then, they cames from George Mason's Virgina 'Rights of People' and they came in most part from the English 'Magna Carta' written in 1215 AD.

 

 

Freestar; It would be hard to discuss a consensus, with out an understanding where that consensus should come from. In a 'Representative REPUBLIC' and my opinion, that should be from the representation of the total states. Consensus, then would be the majority of the three branches of the government, in some cases or if needed. Many things, now law and frankly argued today are and have never been those from the majority of Individuals.

Its this unique character of rule, I believe, that has made our system work.

 

 

Nitack; Not everything or every one who disagrees with any ideology is necessarily a 'nutjob' either from the left or right. Just as the opposing sides during the late 18th century fought over issue, they have many times through our history. Frankly and even with up to a hundred times the people, there is less today than then.

 

 

I hopefully read what you wrote carefully. I reread it a couple of times, because what I think you said is so unbelievable to me. I wonder how it is people know of history facts and yet not understand our history at all. Like so much is missing from what you said, I am overwhelmed and don't know where to begin. I guess I begin with links proving the American revolution was indeed a holy war. What do know of Martin Luther and his relationship with authority? How about Calvin and the Puritans? How about the conflict between Britan and France that was a Protestant and Catholic conflict, and what this had to do both with mobilizing the war and with the US switching from persecuting Catholics to embracing them? Like I am trying to get a feel of where to begin?

 

The Amercian Revolution began as a consciousness revolution, long before any shots were fired. The revolution has everything to do with our relationship with God and with each other.

 

I have to run and will leave you these quotes and the site where I found them and you can get more information.

 

Religion and the American Revolution

 

Religion and the American Revolution by Jerald C. Brauer (ed.)

 

....from the Declaration of Independence

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation -- We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. -- That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

And from the Gettysburg Address the opening and the closing statements:

 

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. . . . It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- . . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth

.

 

PS When Lincoln spoke of "government of the people, by the people, for the people" he was quoting Pericles of Athens.

In the decade before 500 B.C., the Athenians government was carried to its classical form by the reforms of Perciles a half-century later, and it was in the Athens shaped by Perciles that the greatest achievements of the Greeks took place.

Pericles of Athens and the Birth of Democracy by Donald Kagan

[jackson33]

As the new world, the Colony's were a depository for every religious concept on the planet escaping persecution or some denial of practice. The 16th century (1500's) saw Muslim/Christan extremism at its worst and break off factions heading every which way, not to mention some 300 wars (1400-1750), most often to instill one belief over another. Even England, writers of the Human Rights 'Magna Carta (1215)' threw out the Catholic Religion in 1505 or so, mandating no other acceptable philosophy.

 

By the late 1700's, after a couple hundred years of Monarchy rule, these same people and their descendants with those very basic religious beliefs, in short had enough, at least per their chosen leaders, but no place in their decree to the English was religious freedom mentioned. The founders and authors were, in most part religious, understood what their actions could mean to them, their families and their country. It would surprise me to no end, even as an agnostic, that those people, under those condition would not lean on their life long religious beliefs, in those days, privately or publicly

a display of humility.

 

No historian I am aware of, feels the Greek experiment in what later was called democracy was in any way real or that it was the foundation for governing anything. Forcing populations into participation is no less than forced democracy.

[InfiniteNow]

No historian I am aware of, feels the Greek experiment in what later was called democracy was in any way real or that it was the foundation for governing anything. Forcing populations into participation is no less than forced democracy.

 

So, are you suggesting then that compulsory voting in countries like Australia is an inherently flawed system? Please clarify your intended meaning.

[nutronjon]

As the new world, the Colony's were a depository for every religious concept on the planet escaping persecution or some denial of practice. The 16th century (1500's) saw Muslim/Christan extremism at its worst and break off factions heading every which way, not to mention some 300 wars (1400-1750), most often to instill one belief over another. Even England, writers of the Human Rights 'Magna Carta (1215)' threw out the Catholic Religion in 1505 or so, mandating no other acceptable philosophy.

 

By the late 1700's, after a couple hundred years of Monarchy rule, these same people and their descendants with those very basic religious beliefs, in short had enough, at least per their chosen leaders, but no place in their decree to the English was religious freedom mentioned. The founders and authors were, in most part religious, understood what their actions could mean to them, their families and their country. It would surprise me to no end, even as an agnostic, that those people, under those condition would not lean on their life long religious beliefs, in those days, privately or publicly

a display of humility.

 

No historian I am aware of, feels the Greek experiment in what later was called democracy was in any way real or that it was the foundation for governing anything. Forcing populations into participation is no less than forced democracy.

 

 

Excellent. But some stuff is still missing. Unfortunately, I am too tired to think, but recalling the Puritans (round heads) rebellion against the king, and the very serious religious conflict, is the first thing that comes to me. Next I recall the fear of the king establishing his church as the offical church in the colonies, which really mobilized rebellion. Added to this was Britan sanctioning the Catholics in Canada, and Protestants saw Catholics and the devils mates, and feared Britian would allow their population to grow, until the Canadian Catholics could win a war against the portestant colonist, but then it was realized to get France an an allie, they needed to accept the Catholics. Washington, being a military man did the most to get establish religious freedom. He wanted to unite everyone in the fight against Britian, so he insisted on religious tolerance, although there were sited religious reasons for going to war against the king. It is all a little complex.

 

I am passionate about Athens being the foundation of our democracy, but that takes more think energy than I have tonight. Hopefully, in the morning I will be able to persuade you to accept the importance of Athens.

[Nitack]

So, are you suggesting then that compulsory voting in countries like Australia is an inherently flawed system? Please clarify your intended meaning.

 

Part of the right to cast a vote is the right to not cast it in protest (although for most it is laziness or apathy). What should sincerely be considered in any form of democracy is a binding "None of thee above" option that forces a new election where none of the previously listed candidates are eligible. It would give people the option of casting a vote for a new field rather than having to select the lesser of all evils.

[InfiniteNow]

What should sincerely be considered in any form of democracy is a binding "None of thee above" option that forces a new election where none of the previously listed candidates are eligible. It would give people the option of casting a vote for a new field rather than having to select the lesser of all evils.

 

I like this option, coupled with compulsory voting, very much. The laziness and apathy you mentioned, in my mind, is not a valid form of protest.

[Nitack]

I like this option, coupled with compulsory voting, very much. The laziness and apathy you mentioned, in my mind, is not a valid form of protest.

 

Correct, but with out that option, choosing not to vote is what is left.

[nutronjon]

Democracy is about so much more than voting. I have really pulled away from politics, because campaigning candidates have taken to hurting their opponnet as badly as they can, and it is just too painful for me. I don't want to hear what they have to say, if they have nothing better to say, than to hurt the other guy.

 

Sometimes I don't vote because I do not have enough information, and after everything I do in a day, I do not have the energy to get the information. I think it is irresponsible to vote when not well informed, and if I get attacked for making this statement, my defense will be to question how well informed people are, and question how we to become so informed.

 

Besides voting, there is a matter of how we spend our money. We can do a lot with money to encourage the growth of some things and discourage others.

 

I write letters to the editors of newspapers, and commiunicate with those in office once in awhile. I participate in public demonstrations, and have testified at the city, country, and state level of government.

 

Reading the legal language of bills, is so boring! But if we really care, it is also necessary. When we ask our legislators for information on a bill, we get not a simple letter, but several pages of really boring information. This is a huge turn off, and then being the only one getting the information and trying to motivate others to pay attention and take action, is often a very painful experience. Just look at the responses in the Federal government mandates driver's license thread. This is a huge step in the federal government gaining control over individual lives and no one gives a ****. In fact, people seem to favor it without doing the reseach and thinking about it, that something this important demands.

 

In short, don't get self righteous about voting, because this is one of the least important things self governing people have to do.

[Nitack]

In short, don't get self righteous about voting, because this is one of the least important things self governing people have to do.

 

Has anyone else ever read a statement that was so hypocritical it is sad before? Just to know that the person is so out of touch with reality and deluded that you actually feel sorry for them?

 

You are also so wrong it is RIDICULOUS. We live in a representative democracy. I am unsure how many times I will have to explain this concept for you, but I am starting to doubt you will ever actually understand it. Unless you are an elected official you have ZERO say in the direct governing of your country, state, or community (limited exceptions in certain states, however even those options require you to VOTE). Only by voting do you exercise your part in the process. If you chose not to vote then you chose to abdicate any power you have. Go ahead and give money, write letters to the editor, testify where ever you want, but an elected official can completely ignore all of those activities and it will make no difference. Only by voting, or running for office yourself, can you actually take an active part in your countries government.

 

For all of you who warned me in private messages to not even engage this nutjob, you were right and I should have listened. Government and the rights of the people are passionate topics for me and it kills me to see such misinformation and propaganda posted here. However, I have learned my lesson and will ignore the troll.

[nutronjon]

No historian I am aware of, feels the Greek experiment in what later was called democracy was in any way real or that it was the foundation for governing anything. Forcing populations into participation is no less than forced democracy.

 

Oh I see how the discussion about voting got started. :shade:

 

There are plenty of historians who speak of the importance of Greeks, and this information used to be in children's school text books. I can quote from them if you like, because I began collecting old text books and other old books dealing with education, and turned myself into an education historian, because of what education for technology has done to our culture, and the lack of awareness of what happen and lack of understanding the change. The young would not notice a change, because things were so changed before their time, they have no memory of difference and can not contrast their present, to a different past, when we had a very different relationship with authority. Many elderly people are dropping out of society because they will not cooperate with the new damands for varification and identification that have been steadily mandated by the federal government.

 

What is really, really important to know, is the democratic/republic of the US is based on Greek and Roman classics. The classics provide very different reasoning, than that taught by education for a technological society with unknown values, that is rushing to a police state with more power over individuals than anything known in past, and making our war with Iraq and very sick joke. Saddam might have been a mean SOB, but he had nothing like the power over citizens, that the US government is taking, while the thing that concerns the young is the effeciency in which things are done. Ouch, ouch, I wish there were greater awarenss of what happen and why.

 

Anyway, literate at the time of our father's meant literate in Greek and Roman classics. All the people of their time, who were influencing what people think, were literate in the classics. Athens was not the end all of the development of democracy, as Rome made a huge and very important contribution to democracy and the government form of the republic. Cicero, a Roman statesman, was educated in Athens, and wrote many books, which were very important reading for the literate forefathers of the US democratic republic. (democracy is the foundation of the culture and republic is the form of government)

 

Democracy is so much more than government. It changed the order of human organizations, making the American Revoluton a holy war, that had everything to do with the Laws of Nature and human rights. This stood against the Christian world of Europe. The bible is a book of slaves and kings, and taught people to be masters and servants. Martin Luther who is credited with starting the Protestant Reformation Moverment, is a firm believer in the necessity of witch hunts and the order of masters and servants. This is the order of the autocratic industry in the US, military service and churches. But the order of democracy, is one of equality and especially equality in human rights. No more privileged people lording it over servants- except- our democracy is soaked Christianity and our instutitions were soaked in Christianity that supported the autocracy of Europe, and without literacy in the classics, Christianity returns to a bad thing, like obediently allowing the federal government to make mandates giving government power over the minute details of our lives and each individual.

[nutronjon]

Has anyone else ever read a statement that was so hypocritical it is sad before? Just to know that the person is so out of touch with reality and deluded that you actually feel sorry for them?

 

You are also so wrong it is RIDICULOUS. We live in a representative democracy. I am unsure how many times I will have to explain this concept for you, but I am starting to doubt you will ever actually understand it. Unless you are an elected official you have ZERO say in the direct governing of your country, state, or community (limited exceptions in certain states, however even those options require you to VOTE). Only by voting do you exercise your part in the process. If you chose not to vote then you chose to abdicate any power you have. Go ahead and give money, write letters to the editor, testify where ever you want, but an elected official can completely ignore all of those activities and it will make no difference. Only by voting, or running for office yourself, can you actually take an active part in your countries government.

 

For all of you who warned me in private messages to not even engage this nutjob, you were right and I should have listened. Government and the rights of the people are passionate topics for me and it kills me to see such misinformation and propaganda posted here. However, I have learned my lesson and will ignore the troll.

 

 

I don't read beyond insults. I thought those attracted to a science forum would be disciplined in reason, but often I am attacked and there is no effort to address the subject.

[jackson33]

Excellent. But some stuff is still missing. Unfortunately, I am too tired to think, but recalling the Puritans (round heads) rebellion against the king, and the very serious religious conflict, is the first thing that comes to me. Next I recall the fear of the king establishing his church as the offical church in the colonies, which really mobilized rebellion. Added to this was Britan sanctioning the Catholics in Canada, and Protestants saw Catholics and the devils mates, and feared Britian would allow their population to grow, until the Canadian Catholics could win a war against the portestant colonist, but then it was realized to get France an an allie, they needed to accept the Catholics. Washington, being a military man did the most to get establish religious freedom. He wanted to unite everyone in the fight against Britian, so he insisted on religious tolerance, although there were sited religious reasons for going to war against the king. It is all a little complex.

 

I am passionate about Athens being the foundation of our democracy, but that takes more think energy than I have tonight. Hopefully, in the morning I will be able to persuade you to accept the importance of Athens.

 

Washington, realized the Colonial Army, could not defeat the British without the aid of a Navy and the only viable/available Navy at the time was the French. Washington a member of the 'Church of England' and was one that felt religion was a personal thing.

 

Influencing the French, King Louis XVI at the time for the assistance is somewhat disputed. Catholic/Religion, I seriously doubt an issue. IMO; Louie, was somewhat gullible, even admiring the idea of American Independence. How he got there is the question. Ben Franklin was admired by him and might add most all leaders in Europe, who certainly played a role. Jefferson another personality, also played a role and John Adams as Ambassador made several impassioned speeches. All could have been instrumental or any one. Keep in mind, long after the War and after the execution of Louis 16th, Washington as President denied assistance to French in their quest for Independence. Jefferson, when president in 1803 and after France acquired the Louisiana Territory from Spain by treaty, purchased that territory including debts.

 

Greek Culture and mythology, I think played major roles in the social structure of all todays. If for no other reason, it was well recorded and passed around.

Democracy, the word comes from their language.

 

To tie their experiment to the total would be OK, but there was no doubt many before and after that were more practical. Societies didn't begin as Nations, but small group settlements, which no doubt formed various governing systems.

 

"Our Democracy"; I have to agree with you foe on this issue. WE, as in the United States, do not have a Democracy, never have and hopefully never will.

Now you live in a State (one of 50) that could be called a Representative Democracy opposed to Representative Republic (Union) and your State has the option to become as democratic as it likes. If practical, every issue can be by referendum (many states use to degree) and you can even mandate voting (not enforceable) or any number of pure democracy rules. The Federal is totally different and you personally are not even voting for the President or VP, but a State resident (representative) to do that for you. He/she is in no way, mandated or compelled to voice their states choice. You have heard this in reference to the 'Caucus/Primary' system, which was taken from the Constitution Elector system.

 

Most everything you attribute to Democracy, are Constitutional Rights offered in our or many of the worlds nations and their policy or constitution.

You can call them god given, unalienable or whatever, but factually its the system of government that maintains these rights. Not very long ago, it would be your right to drive a car, ride a horse, w/o a license, drinking a beer, smoking a pipe, with kids in the car, with out insurance as fast as that car could go...Rights change.

[jackson33]

So, are you suggesting then that compulsory voting in countries like Australia is an inherently flawed system? Please clarify your intended meaning.

 

The Greek system 500 BC and our Constitutional System were basically the same. Male land owners were obligated, not mandated. The Greeks however had a quorum, which if not met, required enforcement. In State Government, then or today, if only one qualified person votes, they have picked the winner.

Congress, which use quorums, simply cannot conduct business.

 

I would oppose mandated voting for the electorate, as mentioned its should be a privilege and how could it be enforced.

 

All ballots, I am aware of have a place, to write in a name, if you disapprove of your choices. (not sure of machines). None of the above means nothing with out an explanation. Also, a good many people, don't vote simply happy with their personal 'status quo'...

 

 

Nitack; It bothers me, so many people have sent you PM's advising you on this thread. It would seem to me, they should join in your defense and also tells me there are others they fear would join in against them. There are of course different viewpoints on most all issues, which is as American as you can be, to argue your side of an issue. I might add, your knowledge of history and US Government is refreshing to me and am sure to readers of this thread or others and should not be discouraged, IN ANY WAY...

[nutronjon]

The Greek system 500 BC and our Constitutional System were basically the same. Male land owners were obligated, not mandated. The Greeks however had a quorum, which if not met, required enforcement. In State Government, then or today, if only one qualified person votes, they have picked the winner.

Congress, which use quorums, simply cannot conduct business.

 

I would oppose mandated voting for the electorate, as mentioned its should be a privilege and how could it be enforced.

 

All ballots, I am aware of have a place, to write in a name, if you disapprove of your choices. (not sure of machines). None of the above means nothing with out an explanation. Also, a good many people, don't vote simply happy with their personal 'status quo'...

 

 

Nitack; It bothers me, so many people have sent you PM's advising you on this thread. It would seem to me, they should join in your defense and also tells me there are others they fear would join in against them. There are of course different viewpoints on most all issues, which is as American as you can be, to argue your side of an issue. I might add, your knowledge of history and US Government is refreshing to me and am sure to readers of this thread or others and should not be discouraged, IN ANY WAY...

 

 

wow, wow, wow, you have super won my respect!:shade:;) Either you over 30, or a very unusual person.

 

I will address the socialization of insults and building armies, or as we called them when I was in high school, clicks, to attack people, in a new thread titled Socialization.

[InfiniteNow]

I would oppose mandated voting for the electorate, as mentioned its should be a privilege and how could it be enforced.

 

They are fined if they don't vote. They still have a choice, but they would need to pay the nominal monetary punishment if that "choice" was not to vote at all.

[freeztar]

wow, wow, wow, you have super won my respect!;):doh: Either you over 30, or a very unusual person.

 

This is known as ageism, nutron. This is also not the first time you have made this type of subtle attack, so consider this a formal warning. Please refrain from making posts that make assumptions about people based on age/sex/race/etc.

 

The term has also been used to describe discrimination against teens and children, by ignoring their ideas because they're young or by assuming that they should behave a certain way because of their age.