Don't the states have the ability to be enact a constitutional convention?schwarzesonne wrote:@Anna I agree 100%. But, then, on the other hand, it is also the responsibility of the states to insure that the Federal Government's actions are Constitutional as well—a responsibility most of the states are now to ch*ck*nsh*t to do.
Libertarians
-
Bathilde
- Egil
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:59 pm
- Belief System: Fyrnsidu
- Title: Thegn
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
Re: Libertarians
Re: Libertarians
Nope, your all wrong. <--That's supposed to be a sarcastic joke, I know that text does not add emotion required to get this, some will be offended by it, so I added this note.
The heavily centralized government concept must hold a belief that there exists a single solution that will be effective to the whole. If one solution were to exist, then its opponents in a debate would be based on principle and principle only, it would have to ignore variations of success and failure.
If a government is too centralized, then it is in effect a pyramidal structure with a few at the top who can order their will to the echelons below. The ability to make decisions is given in one direction and that is down with the masses below. Eventually the board of members at the top will place their trust in a bonafide leader and for good or for bad that becomes the definition of a monarch.
A decentralized government blindly is under the assumption that the force necessary to act as one nation will be undeniable and abrupt that the separate states of the union will lack deniablity of the imminent and create a cohesive agreement on a solution and implement it before returning back to a state of separatism.
Yet without constraint from any form of government, individuals or co-operations will amass influence through either wealth or force to a degree stronger than that of its government, then no law or documented right of the people without proper intervention will be acknowledged. Laws and even exemptions will be made with the full intent to keep a power base to those who have power resulting in an inability to resist the will of a few and invention will be limited by the enforcers for fear of competition. The stagnant state will cause a parasitical decay of the society as all oligarchy eventually become as innovations from the outside world where allowed leave the corporate controlled country obsolete.
Furthermore a state of true democracy will allow the majority to over rule the minority to a point at which the needs of the few will be out voted by the wants of the many. Prosperity will move at the speed of the slowest person where in all matters of success by the individual, the extreme minority, will be subjugated and assets seized and dispersed among all. Groups of lower population will be over run by the democratic voice of the majority. Paranoia will grip those who will seek out minorities attempting to breed their voice into existence as a potential threat. Any voice questioning the motives of the divine voice of the people will be deemed a treasonous heretic and euthanized for charges of creating new gods and corrupting the youth.
Representatives implemented into democracy may use issues of minorities to justify decisions against the majority. Any justification and sophist persuasions is more effective on a less populated congress rather than an overpopulated boule for matters of principle yet function equally for personal gain. Without term limits representatives job security is only threatened during voting season and well seasoned political veterans will only constrain their party line stonewalling or push briberous offerings when the polls require it.
There are other forms of government or even lack of government, and they also all don't work. But in a redeeming attempt to not sound like Loki, why not try just being good people and if you see someone in need, help them out?
Woden Kyn
The heavily centralized government concept must hold a belief that there exists a single solution that will be effective to the whole. If one solution were to exist, then its opponents in a debate would be based on principle and principle only, it would have to ignore variations of success and failure.
If a government is too centralized, then it is in effect a pyramidal structure with a few at the top who can order their will to the echelons below. The ability to make decisions is given in one direction and that is down with the masses below. Eventually the board of members at the top will place their trust in a bonafide leader and for good or for bad that becomes the definition of a monarch.
A decentralized government blindly is under the assumption that the force necessary to act as one nation will be undeniable and abrupt that the separate states of the union will lack deniablity of the imminent and create a cohesive agreement on a solution and implement it before returning back to a state of separatism.
Yet without constraint from any form of government, individuals or co-operations will amass influence through either wealth or force to a degree stronger than that of its government, then no law or documented right of the people without proper intervention will be acknowledged. Laws and even exemptions will be made with the full intent to keep a power base to those who have power resulting in an inability to resist the will of a few and invention will be limited by the enforcers for fear of competition. The stagnant state will cause a parasitical decay of the society as all oligarchy eventually become as innovations from the outside world where allowed leave the corporate controlled country obsolete.
Furthermore a state of true democracy will allow the majority to over rule the minority to a point at which the needs of the few will be out voted by the wants of the many. Prosperity will move at the speed of the slowest person where in all matters of success by the individual, the extreme minority, will be subjugated and assets seized and dispersed among all. Groups of lower population will be over run by the democratic voice of the majority. Paranoia will grip those who will seek out minorities attempting to breed their voice into existence as a potential threat. Any voice questioning the motives of the divine voice of the people will be deemed a treasonous heretic and euthanized for charges of creating new gods and corrupting the youth.
Representatives implemented into democracy may use issues of minorities to justify decisions against the majority. Any justification and sophist persuasions is more effective on a less populated congress rather than an overpopulated boule for matters of principle yet function equally for personal gain. Without term limits representatives job security is only threatened during voting season and well seasoned political veterans will only constrain their party line stonewalling or push briberous offerings when the polls require it.
There are other forms of government or even lack of government, and they also all don't work. But in a redeeming attempt to not sound like Loki, why not try just being good people and if you see someone in need, help them out?
Woden Kyn
-
Bathilde
- Egil
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:59 pm
- Belief System: Fyrnsidu
- Title: Thegn
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
Re: Libertarians
we don't have a true democracy here. We have a democratic republic. The majority can have slavery to their hearts content, but they don't get to vote it into law, because it violates constitution. Or for a more recent example, states barring marriage between homosexuals are finding themselves having to argue the merit of such laws in court as they are also found unconstitutional. So the whole "tyranny of the majority" is a red herring.
Considering some states have made cannabis legal, for either medicinal or recreational use shows that our government isn't as centralized as some would claim. I also think having a strong federal government gives us the ability to do great things that a weaker one wouldn't be able to do.
All of this is just theorized talk, because until we can get the money out of politics then corporations and their lobbyists have control over what goes on and who gets voted in most of the time. Is it a coincidence that the candidates with the MOST money are the ones usually elected into office? I don't think it is.
Considering some states have made cannabis legal, for either medicinal or recreational use shows that our government isn't as centralized as some would claim. I also think having a strong federal government gives us the ability to do great things that a weaker one wouldn't be able to do.
All of this is just theorized talk, because until we can get the money out of politics then corporations and their lobbyists have control over what goes on and who gets voted in most of the time. Is it a coincidence that the candidates with the MOST money are the ones usually elected into office? I don't think it is.
-
Bathilde
- Egil
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:59 pm
- Belief System: Fyrnsidu
- Title: Thegn
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
Re: Libertarians
Easily noted by using a smiley I would think.Woden Kyn wrote:Nope, your all wrong. <--That's supposed to be a sarcastic joke, I know that text does not add emotion required to get this, some will be offended by it, so I added this note.
Re: Libertarians
I like some Libertarian values. I am most online with the American Freedom Party. 
-
Bathilde
- Egil
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:59 pm
- Belief System: Fyrnsidu
- Title: Thegn
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
Re: Libertarians
What is the American Freedom Party?
For some reason when something is given a patriotic sounding name it often displays characteristics in the opposite direction.
I'm Modern Whig Party here, it's the party of reason.
For some reason when something is given a patriotic sounding name it often displays characteristics in the opposite direction.
I'm Modern Whig Party here, it's the party of reason.
-
BelindaCoags
- Trogdor
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2023 11:52 am
- Belief System: Fyrnsidu
- Title: s
- Location: Somalia
- Contact:
