Conversation thread

"Equal distribution of wealth" means the shared democratic ownership over our own means of production, which is already the most equal combo of individual freedom and social responsibility.

Not to mention that it’s not a reduction, but an expansion of democracy, the very ideal that so many Americans love.

Democracy is BS

For all practical considerations, we are a democracy. A republic is a FORM of democracy, with a constitution attached to state the rights and powers of people. Unitary Executive Theory was only really interpreted to a go so far, the way it’s going to be under Trump’s administration is a MAXIMALIST interpretation. You claim to love talking about Natural Rights, and the Enumerated Powers, yet support a candidate who would try to remove 2 Enlightenment ideals in the same term: Separation of Powers, Separation of Church and State

I think the fundamental difference between you and I is that you think political power, the legal privilege of using brute force on innocent people, is totally fine if it's democratic, whereas I believe it's fine under no circumstances and ought to be absolutely minimised because it is EVIL. You support trusting majorities with political power, I am too much of a realist and have seen too much of human nature to trust such unnatural power to ANYONE UNDER THE SUN. You support maximising the authority of majorities, allowing the 51% to enslave the 49%, I support maximising the authori…  Read morety of individual men and women over their own lives, because no one knows how to run their lives, liberties, and properties better than themselves. A republic is not a form of democracy, a true republic is a government that stays in its one and only lane – defence against aggressive crimes and invasions, and protecting property rights – thus maximising individual autonomy and sovereignty and minimising the ability of anyone to rule over another.

A LOT of assumptions are made about my opinions in this message alone, so let’s address it all shall we? For starters, I don’t support brute force, in fact, I’m mostly anti-police force in most aspects. I don’t want people’s lives oppressed, it’s about the corporations and the choice of the people. The choice isn’t by as slim of a margin as 51-49, if we are truly split on something at that level, then, depending upon circumstances, we should try and ignore that issue until the margin is higher. I believe that the benefit of the entire whole is greater…  Read more than that of a tiny portion’s comfort, which is why I’d suggest a progressive fair tax system. We are also neither exclusively a democracy, nor a republic, we are BOTH.

The "assumptions" I made were not, in fact, drawn from just this comment, but endless interactions and debates we have had in the past on a wide, wide range of political issues. By brute force, I meant far more than just the police, I meant economic power as well. The government is the only human institution that can tell us to obey its will or it will drag us off in chains to prison at gunpoint. The government is the only human institution that can take our money without permission and not. be punished for it (this is known as taxation, or LEGALIZED THEFT. That's all part of…  Read more the brute force equation. A progressive tax system is not fair in any sense of the word, as it punishes hard workers, who tend to be more successful, and subsidies through the Welfare State lazy crackheads and drug addicts easily bribed by the political ruling class. I never said we were, in fact, a true Republic, I was merely explaining to you what we were originally, from 1776 to 1861, when Lincoln invaded the South.

If we are purely referring to economic power, then lessening restrictions on a companies economic maneuvering quite literally makes them just as capable, if not more, of becoming an institution worse than government. Also, the government is NOT the only institution capable of doing that, it is merely the strongest. Terrorist organizations, invading militaries, they all have that power too.

During the time of the nations founding, they were fleeing a government that was using religion to its own means, while the government itself practically worshipped the religion. Overall, religious leaders…  Read more had more influence than their politicians, giving them their own influence while those politicians worked symbiotically to eject their own ideals into that religion. The two enabled one another, and religions seem like the more intent ones to stay close to the government, as shown by the many overly religious politicians allowing religious beliefs, most of which aren’t shared by others, to pilot their own government. The only way to actually keep the wall between them high, is if religious organizations are kept away from it, and if politicians do not make their decisions ENTIRELY BASED ON religious belief, rather than reason and personal conviction. Christian values might sound nice as the sole driver of our government, but it doesn’t happen or work well, that’s what was proven by the Roman Catholic Church of the last several centuries. The pure ideals would be nice, but as the very followers of religious organizations aren’t going to follow them nearly as well, it’ll slide down to much worse than before if the wall between church and state is broken.

Unbelievable – I just thoroughly debunked you and here you are claiming that, in spite of the many quotations of our founders provided, they in fact supported the opposite of what they said... Can nothing convince you? Will you not listen to any evidence contrary to your CNN-provided viewpoint? And were you aware that the phrase "separation of church and state" comes not from the Constitution, Declaration, Articles of Confederation, State Constitutions, or any legal document, but a single case in a private letter? Were you aware that the Founders supported public funding of…  Read more preachers at the state & local level, that they supported banning prostitution and other infidelities? How about that they came up with the idea of every federal official swearing an oath on the BIBLE? Are you just a blockhead, or totally ignorant about what you're talking about?...

I don’t even watch CNN, this is my own study from sources across the board. Thomas Jefferson still supported separation of church and state nonetheless, and regardless, the inequalities and injustices of a single religion ruling over other religions is FAR too much of a problem to be considered worth it. Also the phrase is enshrined in our First Amendment’s bill of rights, and not all of the founding fathers supported the idea, but Jefferson very much did. The Bible swearing in isn’t a law favoring any religion’s power or ability, merely a symbol of a common religion,…  Read more while holding no actual power or authority to give to a religion. Using Thomas Jefferson against me only works in a certain context, and he still stated:

What Thomas Jefferson was talking about in your quote was that civilians should not be required to participate in a specific church by law, which you would have known had you read that in context and not taken at face-value cherry-picked selective quotation hand-selected by the Left for ideological purposes. Jefferson supported that prayer and Protestant Christianity be taught in Virginia's public schools, and believed that all government policies must reflect the Judeo-Christian moral tradition. Just because prayer, and religion, are taught in public schools does not mean that you are barred from practicing your preferred religion – and that's what he meant. You've taken what he say WAY out of context in order to imply that he would oppose government laws meant to promote virtue and Christianity, which is blatantly false...

And yet, according to every standard we hold today the ideal of that is one of moral wrong. Just because one is not prevented from their own worship doesn’t mean that said government will not be extremely biased towards their own, and therefore overly biased against the other religions if forced to choose between one or the other. It’s not right, it’s not fair, it’s a bad idea to hide behind. If all policies reflect one groups’ beliefs, others beliefs will be discredited, harmed, or undermined by the belief that trumps, which is why the best option to go down is one of impartiality between religions and the separation of one specific religion’s values from the rest of the government. If one reigns, no matter what, it will lower the others’ freedoms in the process.

How? How would teaching creation in schools infringe upon the rights of atheists and Muslims, etc to worship as they will? How will creating policies that promote civic virtue cause anything but prosperity and integrity to any society? I don’t need to hear what you believe for the third time, I need to hear why you believe it.

Because creationism is straight up false, and unless you teach the creationist ideals of every religion in a HISTORICAL context rather than presenting it as fact, it is, in many forms, unfounded and state-sponsored conversion. Not everyone agrees with said “civic virtues” on a lot of areas. Less than 40% support a gay marriage ban, yet that’s a “civic virtue” of the Bible. Would you ban that? No, it’s a disgusting idea to govern a country by religious ideals because it ALWAYS throws someone, somewhere, someway out of the equation and openly discriminated…  Read more against them. Even if the government preaches kindness to minorities, they enable hate as they remove minority rights because of their religious beleifs. It’s an extremely unstable idea to bring the two together, and there’s nothing stopping said Christian beliefs from being affected and manipulated by churches themselves, and if we hav ego fight against one specific religion to stop it from literallly corrupting the soul of America, why the hell did we change away from the separation in the first place? The separation of church and state is better, it’s stable, it’s fair, not the one-way path where churches walk in and government is forced to do nothing.

I’m saying that if we do teach creationism, it’s from standpoint of historical context, not as an actual scientific theory, not because it’s controversial, but because it’s not scientific. That wouldn’t be begging the question, that’s stating the obvious. There is no scientific basis behind creationism besides what the Bible (a 2,000 year old book with little evidence it was actually written by the instruction of a god) states, and that is not a basis for a scientific model. Evolution on the other hand has been researched for centuries, and has basis, as…  Read more shown by Charles Darwin and his experimentation with the animals on the Galápagos Islands. If one biases the entire scientific process in America towards a theory with no proof but an old book, then we lose a lot of scientific credibility, not to mention, that religion wasn’t supposed to conflict with the development of scientific ideals in the first place.