4 ms·

Would you consider the US at any time in its history to be authoritarian?

by boon 13y ago

gnaritas 13y ago
That's not an answer to my question or a good faith reply. I asked for a third option, you implied you had one, either you do or you don't. This isn't a school lesson, I'm not your pupil, do not Socratic method me. If you have something to say, say it.
- boon 13y ago
  If you're afraid of where the question goes, don't answer.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    If you're afraid to offer a third option, then don't answer.
    - boon 13y ago
      I'll just make a statement that if "Preventing people from voting is authoritarian." then the US system of government at various points would have to be considered authoritarian.
      - gnaritas 13y ago
        Not the least bit relevant to the conversation, so I'll say it one more time: I'm happy to hear of any third option that isn't authoritarian. Either you have an answer or you don't. The history of the U.S. is completely irrelevant to this question. I don't live in time when blacks couldn't vote or women couldn't vote, it's irrelevant to the conversation what the U.S. used to be or used to do. Perhaps your panties are in a bunch because you think I think you're advocating a return to monarchy; I don't think that, so let it go. I think you're advocating for a return to the 1800's view of the constitution because you think it was a golden age of freedom before the federal government got so powerful. This is a typical anarcho-capitalist view and one I also disagree with. However, trying to prevent people from voting is authoritarian whether it's from a king or from a congress and I won't support it under any circumstance. The people would certainly never vote to remove their right to vote.
        boon 13y ago
        I'm just challenging your absolutist statement. I don't have to come up with a third solution. That was never my objective. My point is that it's not wrong to think about it, and the act of going down that theoretical path doesn't automatically make it authoritarian.
        gnaritas 13y ago
        So you basically have no actual point to make, no solution to propose; good, we're done, you're boring me.
        boon 13y ago
        YOU'RE the one challenging what I'm saying. Leave whenever you want.
        dragontamer 13y ago
        We claim that removing the rights of others is authoritarian, and that the right to vote is a natural right. FYI, you're making a logical fallacy, an Argument from Ignorance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
        boon 13y ago
        How could the right to vote possibly be a natural right? Ignoring your second part. (But I'm guessing you'll focus on this rather than my first sentence.)
        dragontamer 13y ago
        "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." -- Declaration of Independence 1776 The words "Natural Law" and "Natural Rights" only makes sense in the philosophies of John Lock, which inspired the Declaration of Independence. The ability to alter and change governments has been declared as a Natural Right in the declaration of independence. Aside from that, "Natural Rights" don't exist. They are a concept created by our founding fathers to attempt to unite the nation. If you disagree with the founding father's definition of "Natural Rights", then the concept is dead and there is no point continuing to talk about the matter. After all, like everything else that has been created by humans, these concepts are all imagination and fiction. Natural Rights do not exist in the real world, they are merely a concept created by people hundreds of years ago to attempt to unify this country. Basically, a "Natural Right" is simply the rights that the United States of America were founded upon, the foundation of our Constitution, the foundation of our Revolution, and the foundation of the philosophies that created this country. These rights are not shared with other countries, these concepts do not exist in other hypothetical governments. "Natural Rights" are simply the rights our founding fathers believed in. Nothing more, nothing less.

Would you consider the US at any time in its history to be authoritarian?

by boon 13y ago

Would you consider the US at any time in its history to be authoritarian?

That's not an answer to my question or a good faith reply. I asked for a third option, you implied you had one, either you do or you don't. This isn't a school lesson, I'm not your pupil, do not Socratic method me. If you have something to say, say it.

boon 13y ago
If you're afraid of where the question goes, don't answer.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  If you're afraid to offer a third option, then don't answer.
  - boon 13y ago
    I'll just make a statement that if "Preventing people from voting is authoritarian." then the US system of government at various points would have to be considered authoritarian.
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      Not the least bit relevant to the conversation, so I'll say it one more time: I'm happy to hear of any third option that isn't authoritarian. Either you have an answer or you don't. The history of the U.S. is completely irrelevant to this question. I don't live in time when blacks couldn't vote or women couldn't vote, it's irrelevant to the conversation what the U.S. used to be or used to do. Perhaps your panties are in a bunch because you think I think you're advocating a return to monarchy; I don't think that, so let it go. I think you're advocating for a return to the 1800's view of the constitution because you think it was a golden age of freedom before the federal government got so powerful. This is a typical anarcho-capitalist view and one I also disagree with. However, trying to prevent people from voting is authoritarian whether it's from a king or from a congress and I won't support it under any circumstance. The people would certainly never vote to remove their right to vote.
      - boon 13y ago
        I'm just challenging your absolutist statement. I don't have to come up with a third solution. That was never my objective. My point is that it's not wrong to think about it, and the act of going down that theoretical path doesn't automatically make it authoritarian.
        gnaritas 13y ago
        So you basically have no actual point to make, no solution to propose; good, we're done, you're boring me.
        boon 13y ago
        YOU'RE the one challenging what I'm saying. Leave whenever you want.
        dragontamer 13y ago
        We claim that removing the rights of others is authoritarian, and that the right to vote is a natural right. FYI, you're making a logical fallacy, an Argument from Ignorance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
        boon 13y ago
        How could the right to vote possibly be a natural right? Ignoring your second part. (But I'm guessing you'll focus on this rather than my first sentence.)
        dragontamer 13y ago
        "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." -- Declaration of Independence 1776 The words "Natural Law" and "Natural Rights" only makes sense in the philosophies of John Lock, which inspired the Declaration of Independence. The ability to alter and change governments has been declared as a Natural Right in the declaration of independence. Aside from that, "Natural Rights" don't exist. They are a concept created by our founding fathers to attempt to unite the nation. If you disagree with the founding father's definition of "Natural Rights", then the concept is dead and there is no point continuing to talk about the matter. After all, like everything else that has been created by humans, these concepts are all imagination and fiction. Natural Rights do not exist in the real world, they are merely a concept created by people hundreds of years ago to attempt to unify this country. Basically, a "Natural Right" is simply the rights that the United States of America were founded upon, the foundation of our Constitution, the foundation of our Revolution, and the foundation of the philosophies that created this country. These rights are not shared with other countries, these concepts do not exist in other hypothetical governments. "Natural Rights" are simply the rights our founding fathers believed in. Nothing more, nothing less.