Democracy or Theocracy
September 17th, 2006 | by Ken Grandlund |Democracy is a concept of government whereby the general population consents to abide by rules of society set in place by elected representatives. In a democracy, everyone is supposed to have a chance to speak their mind on any given issue through their vote or through direct petition to the government. In a democracy, government is entrusted with enforcing the laws and protecting individual freedoms. In a democracy, everyone can follow whatever religion they want to follow. Democracies thrive upon individuality, innovative thinking, integrity, and cooperation. Above all, democracies are flexible, allowing room for change with calm transitions. Democracy is the recognition that all people are equal at birth, and that all people have the right to find happiness in their own way, so long as they do no harm to another.
Theocracy is a concept of government where adherence to a specific religious belief is compulsory. The rules of society are taken from a holy book or relayed through religious leaders as interpretations of scriptures or updates from the god. In a theocracy, challenging the government is akin to challenging the god and is often met with harsh retribution. In a theocracy, individuals are expected to follow the laws of the church, with individual freedoms having less importance than acquiescence to the will of the god, and by extension, the government. In a theocracy, religious intolerance reaches its peak, because religious homogeny removes threats to the government’s power, especially when the religious leaders run the government. Theocracies thrive off of conformity, faith (or at least the appearance of it), fear, and exclusion. Theocracies are inflexible and accept change only through explosive confrontation. Theocracy aims to keep earthly power in the hands of the few and exploits the lives of the many, while using religion as both a pacifier and an object of control.
Given the choice, which would you prefer?
For most Americans, the answer should be pretty obvious. The United States was founded as a democracy from the very beginning. Our Constitution clearly establishes a democratic form of government with provisions relating to the election of government representatives by the citizens. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a reference to religious law. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a reference to a god, save for the common usage of the word “lord” in the signatory paragraph when referring to the year it was signed. The Constitution mentions the word religion one time, but not in an attempt to infuse it with government. In fact, it is just the opposite. The very first sentence in the Bill of Rights reads:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
What this means is that the government itself is prohibited from embracing and impressing any specific religion upon the citizenry, and government is enjoined from prohibiting any specific religious beliefs from being practiced, at least so far as those beliefs do not include ritualistic murder, rape, theft, or other antisocial activities. Government cannot promote one religion over another through legislation or appropriation. Even if every person in the country followed a single faith, laws based on religious dogma, especially those that restrict individual freedom, are not allowed under the Constitution.
It’s all there in black and white (or maybe brown and yellow due to age), so why does there seem to be a push within certain segments of society to align our government with a specific religion, namely Christianity. Claims of America being founded upon Christian principals are hard to prove, though endless debates have raged on about the subject, usually referencing various writings of the original politicians. Regardless of the personal faiths of the founding fathers, the fact that they specifically declined to advance one religion over another is evidence that they believed that government and religion would be best left apart. In their wisdom, they sensed that promotion of a certain religion above others would immediately negate the promise of freedom for anyone not believing in the state approved god, and instead would amount to the eventual creation of a theocracy and destruction of democracy. They must have felt that the governance of man, while he lived on this earth, should be directed by other men, and be flexible enough to accommodate the changing tides of history. Further, since the cost of government must be borne by all citizens, government belonged to all citizens, and must be accessible to all citizens, regardless of their spiritual beliefs. Religion, and all its trappings, belongs not in the public realm so much as to the individual. Faith, of whatever flavor, makes us who we are but it does not permit us to make others think like we do.
We talk about theocracies as if it could never happen here, but under certain conditions, it could. With public apathy at high levels, and a high number of American’s professing to be of the Christian faith, a slow but steady reversal of laws could erode the freedoms granted us by our social contracts. Our shortened attention spans and sound bite mentality make it easy for minority fringe politicians to inject bits of legislation here and there that set the stage for religious interference. At the very least, America could become a hybrid democratic theocracy where our political leaders seek guidance from religious leaders whose adherence to organized religious dogma always seeks to divide humanity instead of connecting it together. Religion is an individual salvation, but government rules our day-to-day lives and is supposed to be based on the rule of man’s law. We need to keep it that way.
[tag]democracy, theocracy[/tag]
38 Responses to “Democracy or Theocracy”
By adam on Sep 17, 2006 | Reply
the Reps and gingrich wanted PERMANENT majority. what kind of a politician wants that for america?
By gcblues costa rica on Sep 17, 2006 | Reply
adam,
uhhhh every dem. while the dems were the majority in congress not only did they try to cement their rule, they also never considered the repubs opinions. now the shoe is on the other foot and oh my gosh, you would think the repubs invented partisanship.
i always get a laugh on this blog as the socialists that run it try to characterize other’s views and misuse history. virtually every founder claimed that the influence of their religion was essential to the structure of their beliefs in govt. the ban on official religion was prompted by the official churches in europe.
and the usa is not and has never been a democracy. it is a republic. in a democracy the people may vote on any issue and carry the day with a majority. in a republic a majority vote to deprive a minority of their god given rights is phrohibited. oregonians cannot outlaw republicans. idaho cannot institue black slavery etc.
the philosophical basis of the rights of man in the usa is christian. they believe that man’s rights are not granted by govt, but by god. is this theocracy? hardly. nor has there ever been a serious theocratic movement in this country. as an athiest i understand it perfectly. it means i was born with the rights of liberty and they may not be voted away for any reason. our rights come as standard equipment….equiped by our creator. just read the words in the declaration and constitution without your weirdo rose colored glasses. it means what it says.
this is why the socialist left wishes to change the basis of govt to secualrism. if rights are not granted by god but by man, they are not inherent to humanity and may be adjusted to suit their whim. as such you have the bloggers on this blog consistantly advocating the demise of individual rights for the supposed good of others. the rights you have to property, liberty and your labor are subject to the vote of the people and not inherent to your being, or as the founders said …. granted by god. it is the reason secualrism should be opposed, and why marx was for it. and it is why socialism and the left are fundamentally totalitarian and evil. they want your rights, your money, your labor, they want to be god’s substitute.
By ken grandlund on Sep 17, 2006 | Reply
hey gc- as i’m getting ready to go golfing with my daughter, i don’t have much time to converse, but i will say that as an athiest, you sure seem to put a lot of stock in god…you claim to be an athiest yet seem to demure your own rights as being granted by a creator. you claim to be an athiest yet insist that a secular government is something to be opposed.
you are one seriously conflicted individual man.
By adam on Sep 17, 2006 | Reply
totalitarian and evil? you might want to check the list of of most successful countries because they’re all socialist. sweden, finland, norway, etc. the u.s. is 13th or so. it’s not the way we do things in america because we like to be the vanguard, but to end with “totalitarian and evil” ruined what would’ve been a good post. it’s generally communist ones that fit what you’re describing.
i can’t defend my first post as i don’t follow domestic politics and am too young to remember ‘94. also, i’d agree this blog is sub-par but didn’t read the article so i can’t prove it.
i appreciate the constitution’s success but christian rights are just normal, human rights. forgive secularists for simply trying to reflect reality instead of referencing a make-believe superstition.
as successful as america is, we do need to think hard about the 10 or 12 countries ahead of us on the lists.
here’s just one example:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3547&page=5
you can’t just say “you’re wrong, the other side is completely right” - the world is much more complicated than that. many grey areas
By gcblues costa rica on Sep 17, 2006 | Reply
no conflict ken, its real simple, whether you believe your creator was jesus, mohamed, the easter bunny, or like me dna …. as american we are endowed by that creator with inalienable rights which are not, or should not be subject to votes of man. no conflict man. you stay away from my shit, i do not take your. easy.
adam,
seen the list, but i do not agree. it is a farce with socialist setting the “happy” criteria. note none of the “happiness” criteria has a thing to do with personal liberty, low taxes, standard of living or the right to private property. i suggest you travel to western europe to view the socialist paradises personally. after all sweeden also has the highest suicide rate in the world.
but even if socialists were somehow better off, which they never are, the point was that socialism depends on surrender of personal liberty to the state. it is inherently coercive, totalitarian and evil.
capitalism is 100% voluntary. no one can legally take your money, make you buy a service, or force you to educate your children in a certain manner. that you pretend your authoritarianism is for the people’s own good makes it no less evil or totalitarian.
but thank you for allowing me to clarify. maybe instead of learning about capitalism from socialists you might consider a little libertarian reading.
By gcblues costa rica on Sep 17, 2006 | Reply
oh and ken,
please note, you do not say, but imply that if govt is not secular it is theocratic. not the case. the founders were clear that theocracy was not acceptable,although varying jeffersonians dissagree somewhat, neither was a secular man is the ruler of man view of govt. men had rights that came as standard equipment, not subject to secular man. so please try not to twist my views, alter definitions etc. debate is only productive when issues are in direct clash.
these views are older than federalist vs jeffersonian democrat. the power of the state vs the rights of man, how and where the lines are to be drawn. for pure democracy i suggest you read jefferson’s own words in regards to the french revolution and see if you as he did embrace those ideals.
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Sep 17, 2006 | Reply
gc,
Just curious but don’t you think he should do a little socialist reading to find out about socialism? After all, you want to teach capitalism from it’s most favoured viewpoint, but also to teach about the opposing views as well? Capitalism isn’t all good, after all.
Oh, and totalitarian? Representative Democracy is totalitarian when it votes for people you don’t like? Who knew?
By gcblues costa rica on Sep 17, 2006 | Reply
vote for anyone you wish, just as long as your vote does not take away other’s rights. i got no beef with votes.
of course one should learn about socialists from socialists. do read hegal and marx. of course the post modern crap is pretty twisted, just like many post industrial capitalist writings. usually the clearest writing is the original. i remember eons ago at the university reading aristotle was a hell of a lot clearer than reading the people that wrote about aristotle
of course today there are very view universities teaching economic captalism so a lot of kids miss out. george mason as a good exception.
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Sep 17, 2006 | Reply
Unless they’re votes for the government to provide a service or increase your taxes. Then they’re totalitarian and evil. So as long as everyone agrees with you, it’s fine.
By gcblues costa rica on Sep 17, 2006 | Reply
i am sorry paul but u r twisting things. it has nothing to do with agreeing with me or not. when one group uses any guise to forcefully take someone elses property it is by denfinition totalitarian. i consider a system based on such force evil. tell me a system based on force is not evil if u wish, but please, no need to twist my thoughts they are pretty clear.
so,
are you trying to tell me that if a group votes to take away your property that it is not force if you do not wish to? not all force is bad u know ….try to have sex with a neighbor kid and people will force u into prison. the difference is;
1. that this republic is supposed preserve the inherent rights of individuals.
2. that not doing so is what the socialist ideal is based on and that it is evil in my view to have a system based on totalitarianism or force vs a system that preserves the rights of individuals.
kabish?
By adam on Sep 17, 2006 | Reply
ah, a libertarian, should have guessed. they’re always the most over-confident because none of their theories are tested. no one can legally take your money? no one can force you to educate …? what country are you describing, exactly?
the suicide stat is something but the u.s. has one of the highest murder rates so…so what? we have tens of millions of people living beneath the poverty line. one stat doesn’t mean anything.
the u.s. has eminent domain, “forced” education, outlawed gay marriage…is that MORE free? what’s your opinion on the war on drugs? i think i could guess… i am not a socialist, i’m just honest and i don’t swallow john stossel or TC Station and then say “whelp, that’s good enough for me!” i read libertarian magazines constantly because they’re so over-represented on the web: AEI, Hoover, reason, TCS, etc.
we also have a massive nanny state, welfare, social security, ya know, $1.7 trillion worth of wealth redistribution per year so…i’m not sure what we’re arguing abut here.
essentially, the main difference is slightly more business regulation, more taxes in some countries and slightly more wealth distribution in europe. if they’re evil then so’s the u.s. govn’t.
i’d be REAL carefull about being hardline libertarian because they’re policies almost never get passed by congress because no one wants them to.
i’m sorry but i honestly cannot believe the smugness and conceit of libertarians when they contribute virtually nothing to anything. you guys sound like string theorists.
here’s more:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=193&year=2005
there’s tons of those kinds of lists and i’ve NEVER seen the u.s above number 10 on any ratings list. (freedoms, foreign aid, etc,) just like israel never is becasue they can’t afford to be.
that one’s in alphabetical but many other countries are right there with us.i would be very careful in examining you own opinion. are you trying to describe reality or push an ideal?
the wto doesn’t even give the orthodox washington advice for developing countries any more which was “free markets, etc” it’s now free markets with wealth redistribution programs. wolfowitz agrees
do you honestly think the you guys have figured it all out but no one is listening to you? if you told congress to listen to tech central station and john stossel and their problams would be solved they’d laugh at you. i’m gonna skip europe and suggest that you become more intellectually well rounded. THERE’s some condescention for ya!
deamonizing europe is a ridiculous waste of time in a world with so many enemies. they’re really not that bad.
please don’t respond with markets, markets, markets….
By adam on Sep 17, 2006 | Reply
meant to say “aren’t tested” in first paragraph
By kat25 on Sep 17, 2006 | Reply
I know one thing that democracy is good but it is prone to abuse. People tend to abuse the rights given to them to speak up. Democracy promotes the freedom to speak but it doesn’t mean to rally and create chaos.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 17, 2006 | Reply
Ken,
It is interesting that the founders left slavery in place and refused to enfranchise one entire gender apparently without the slightest fear that this posed any danger of immediate negation of the promise of freedom or destruction of democracy, yet, I think you are right that, due to early emigrants’ experiences with religious persecution in European nation states with state Churches, which sometimes changed from Protestant to Catholic with every change of monarch, raised fears that a state Church in America might result in similar discrimination.
Interestingly enough, European nations, some anyway, still have national Churches without the slightest adverse effect on democracy or freedom. Of course, it was the monarchical form of government that endangered democracy and freedom, not the fact of a state Church. I doubt that Paul, the cranky Brit, would say that either Democracy or Liberty are curtailed by the mere existence of the Church of England or, either, that England had ever constituted a Theocracy.
In short, these may have been the fears that motivated the establishment clause but, if it was, those were surely false fears.
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Sep 18, 2006 | Reply
No, I wouldn’t, but that’s because it’s the Church of England. A more wishy-washy, all things to all men religion would be tough to find. And also it’s not a threat because no party in the UK has ever dared to claim that it speaks for Christians. Things like abortion are NEVER party votes. Each MP votes according to conscience not party.
So, no, it hasn’t made a difference, but that’s because the Church has kept out of politics and criticises every party when they don’t do enough. That isn’t true of America at the present time.
By Jersey McJones on Sep 18, 2006 | Reply
Exactly, Paul. And that’s also why the Brits were samrt enough to be rid of their religious zealots - and sent them here!
Hey… wait a minute… that sucks! You guys owe us for that!
JMJ
By Paul Merda on Sep 18, 2006 | Reply
JMcJ,
Indeed! They sent us all their morons, a better deal for England was never had…
By tos on Sep 18, 2006 | Reply
Adam refers to how well Socialism as worked for other countries but not neccessarily what the majority of it’s citizens want as you can see by the link below about Sweden as he professes. Maybe they have had enough of their tax dollars going to causes not of their choice:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/17/sweden.election.result.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest
By Paul Merda on Sep 18, 2006 | Reply
Look, the plain and simple fact is that when Religion rules science takes a back seat and many die in the process. All one needs to do is look at history to see these events unfold everytime people are ruled by superstition. Name one benevolent Theocracy that progressed instead of regressed, just one…
By tos on Sep 18, 2006 | Reply
Paul M-
What does religion have to do with what I posted? It is merely showing how a majority is bringing to the polls that they don’t want government taxing the heck out of the poor working slobs for the benefit of others. I think people have the right to choose tat they get to keep more of their hard earned money. That’s what a dictatorship does,keeps people down. It keeps working class citizens from benefiting and it keeps the poor down by keeping them dependent and not trying to become part of a society instead more like property.
By liberal vet on Sep 18, 2006 | Reply
I know I’ll be in the minority but this gc person makes a lot of sense. Granted he is more radical than most on this blog. He appears to have abandoned any hope for us. However, religion gc is the bane of mankind. Have you heard a scientist named Mary Schweitzer has isolated soft tissue from a T-Rx? The fundies are using her scientific data to prove evolution is wrong as previously it was believed no soft tissue could survive 68 million years! This is how religious fundies twist science to suit there needs. I have no objection to people’s beliefs hell I was an alter boy, but have been an atheist since I was 18. Religion has no place in science. What if there was a god? Perhaps he/she made it so no one could ever be sure. Enjoy life to its fullest the clock is wound only once. LV
By liberal vet on Sep 18, 2006 | Reply
Capeesh I spell it capisci. When you spelled it with a K I said this guys no Italian, only his politics are. You proved me wrong. Interestin I never would spell this with a K Itals. love C. LV
1940’s slang from It., capsci “do you understand?” {also coppish, Kabish, capeesh, etc.}
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Sep 18, 2006 | Reply
tos,
Look at the title of the damn post. ‘Democracy or Theocracy’, I think that says what religion has to do.
As to your post, they voted for a new party. Very narrowly. When the Democrats win in America will you say the American culture has changed radically? Of course not. Both sides are actually very close to each other. In fact, many Swedes, including some I know, complain that there’s no difference between the parties. If the Moderate party tries to rip up Sweden’s welfare state, they’ll be out on their ear.
By Paul Merda on Sep 18, 2006 | Reply
tos,
My last comment was not related to yours, I just wanted to slip that in about Theocracies…
By gcblues costa rica on Sep 18, 2006 | Reply
WHEN THE DEMS WIN??
HAHAHAHAAAAA i am sorry, dems may win and election here and there, but demographics indicate leftism in the socialist sense has no prayer. please review state elections in liberal states rejecting govt health care, homo marriage, etc …… not to mention as ssi and mediscare starts to fail and want more $$$$ and public employees start bankrupting states. hell, look at pobrecito michigan, the sweeden of the usa….. close to 8% unemployment, highest taxes, fastest depleting population, and most liberal laws and highest union memebership in the country. get it, your shit does not FLUSH, it don’t work. a frenchie has 40% of a gringos income, highest on the euro continent. americans will not stand for your moma state depleting their bank accts. it ain’t good for anyone to become canada. and frankly the producers in our society do not owe the losers a dime. the people who need help need to get off their butts!
as to religion and abortion. while it is true many religious people do not support abortion, many do. it is not religion threatening abortion. abortion is threatened because it vacums babies out of girls. abortion is threatened because it is criminal violence against women. abortion is threatened because it is gross, sick, depraved.
it will be interesting as history remembers pro abortion politicians the same way they remember pro slavery politicians. to get on the right side of this all you need to do is think about the relationship you had with your children before they were born. pregnant women are the most beautiful wonderful natural wonders of life ….to advocate the right to vacum babies out of moms is sicko
By gcblues costa rica on Sep 18, 2006 | Reply
so hey guys, gotta make a run to nicaragua. so carry on without me. btw, no adam there is no pure libertarian state, or pure commie state, or pure anything state…..your absolutely right …. it is tendency….go towaards commieville, mas pobre, mas totalitaria, …drop taxes, become more market oriented, privitize services, mas rica y libre ….really simple. don’t believe, visit the slums of toronto.
By Jersey McJones on Sep 18, 2006 | Reply
gcblues needs to watch something other than Fox.
JMJ
By gcblues costa rica on Sep 18, 2006 | Reply
kinda a drag, i never see fox in central america …in fact have never had the pleasure, i hear it is very good and more people watch it that the commie cable news combined. down here, i see only bbc, and cnn international …. and that dumb butt stuff moves me right. but, what can i expect from jmj, he gets his philosophy from barb streisand, rosie o, and michael moore
there, that should help u see how dumb ur comment was jmj
By steve on Sep 18, 2006 | Reply
I think tos nails it pretty good in comment 20 and Ken, you of all people, as an independent, should take notice. The Democrats NEVER worry about the working class like they say they do. They want to take from the fortunate and beg for the poor. Yet, the other 85% of America gets the shaft. Dems will take my argument and blame Republicans for sending jobs overseas, meanwhile forgetting that there is an emerging global economy that has plenty of jobs for Americans. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world and we do it with one of the lowest tax rates. Sure health care is costing more and more but it is not a death wish. The economy is cyclical with highs and lows, much like the stock market, our currency, gold and dare I say it, oil. Middle America does not give a fuck about what some east coast/west coast political hack has to say on some blog! If any of you think November is a cake walk for the Democrats, you are all looney. You guys suck just about as bad as the Republican Party and old people vote for incumbents. Go win that vote, if you want a chance.
I seriously get a kick out of the liberals and their fictional “Theocracy” claims about America. Iran… is a Theocracy. We are FAR FROM IT.
By adam on Sep 18, 2006 | Reply
agreed, except for that i happen to live in michigan and almost 100 percent of the job losses are related to the car manufacturing industry, directly or indirectly. yes, we do have the single business tax, which doesn’t help, but ford and gm are doing poorly. ford just laid off tens of thousands this week. maine, vermont, california, massassachusettes, etc. have far more liberal laws than we do. not sure where that one came from but…good discussion. fox news live is fairly normal with a slight emphasis on terror. fox commentators are obviously right wing so…
the economist and der speigel are better and they’re free.
the result of an abortion is truly discusting and i haven’t seen much worse besides a beheading or an execution but i don’t want it to be illegal.
By gcblues costa rica on Sep 18, 2006 | Reply
u know porking a 9 year old is disgusting, but i want it to be legal too.
get it man. its sicko.murder. baaaad. it will be illegal sooner or later. so just get rid of it
By gcblues costa rica on Sep 18, 2006 | Reply
hey adam, u thinking the unions have not destroyed the auto industry?? cuz if u think they are not the reason usa cars suck, i got a bridge for sale .
and autos and delphi are not the only prob there. no state has people leaving faster. npo state is more unionized. no state is more old world marxist
By adam on Sep 18, 2006 | Reply
yeah, the unions are partially to blame but keep in mind the managers were the ones paying them (the equivalent of) $60 an hour back in the 70s. the workers aren’t the only ones to blame for running their industry into the ground. those high paychecks did a lot of good for families, too.
bashing the unions is what the detroit news does because they’re conservative commentators. it’s similar to the owner of the NHL balming the players union for some of the teams not being able to make a profit due to the high salaries of some players. that kind of crticism is only “fair” if you’re an owner or a conservative.
i’m sorry i’ve gotta laugh at the “marxist” rhetoric. please keep in mind i’m IN michigan typing this right now and that comment is just a little off the mark:)
i don’t even take offense to “old world marxist” at all because it’d be like me calling costa rica a banana republic. in fact, it may be a closer analogy for all i know. we’re doing poorly…compared to other americans. that means a lot of us are doing quite well - my parents are millionaires and so are theirs - but they earn a “middle class” income of $65,000 per year after taxes for a family of four. and that income is coming from a lib/”marxist” AAUP union professor:) we’re not exactly driving around in buggies here…
really, i implore you, these libertarian writers don’t care if you’re well enough informed to beat me in an argument. they only care about their supply of money to fund conservative “think tanks.”
i’m being sincere, here, and i know it’s condescending but it needs to be because i was exactly like you. i used to watch bill oreilly every night and spout whatever he said but it’s really just not the whole story. you gotta read TCS, cross check it with WaPo and the NYT and then cross check that with the Economist or the like.
By adam on Sep 18, 2006 | Reply
i’m gonna have to reneg on the “100 percent related to the auto industry” line. a lot is the auto industry being subjected to globalization but we also do need to change our tax policies to cope with it better than we have been.
By gcblues costa rica on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
gotta go to bed, but i hear you.
oreily is no righty, i think he would be traditionaly known as a populist. kinda a red meater. he has been fairly critical of bush which is reasonable, so am i.
i understand your feeling that conservatives care about only their money, and think tanks etc. when u r looking over one side of the fence the other side is sometimes not to clear. but it is honestly not true. there are many many poor and middle class conservatives or they would not have the votes they do and fox would not lead cable news.
as i have stated, i have many friends that are communists. in nicaragua somacistas were horrible, so they embraced the sandinistas, with the civil war, contras and sadinos, they were pawns, usa on one side, ussr cuba on the other …. but cuba sent drs and teachers as well as guns…. it effected how people feel. not what is right. as when jobs are displaced. something that always has happened throughout history but people want to blame something… we lost jobs globalization is bad…but actually we gained more jobs than we lost… and the jobs we lost were lost due to inefficientcy …so losing them has meant better products for less money etc. but when u r the one with stick up yer butt yer gonna see at as all bad … it is only fair. but hear this. none of how you or i feel changes the way thigs work. it is why i try to keep argumenbts to deduction/but often fail/ i.e. the basis, the paradigm of what is right and wrong vs examples of this or that. that is inductive. since you may not be a debater or logician, let me just say the test for inductive logic is complete enumeration of examples. which is why it rarely is conclusive/ how can you show every example, or enough to be conclusive/ and why politicians use it as bait for the troubled and needy people … deductive logic or syllogisms are a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion. all men are mortal, adam is a man, ergo adam is mortal… the test for that is the major premise. so what happened in france or michegan is less helpful than how money works, what unionism really means and its basis. what are and are not the rights of man. can men really have rights based on taking other peoples money and have it work long term, from major premises we then can deduct. and it is much more productive to argue premises than shotgun examples. freedom is good, or it is bad, or it is good for this and not for that. you look fir the line to draw. instead of viewing the millions of bytes of data to support how you feel. anyway, being like this is a libertarian curse. when the left complains about facist govt listening in to international calls to terrorists, i say hey, why wasn’t it facist when you phrobitied guns, take my money, tell me how much of my money is mine, how to run my biz, raise my family etc etc …in other words, my knee jerk knocks my ass out….. nighty night, on the road tomorrow.
btw, i say old world marxist as in rising out of the communist influence beginning here around the turn of the 20th cen. …. i.e. the labor movements embracing of unions /a marxist construct/ and the class war view of the world.
By Jersey McJones on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Hey GC, did you work for United Fruit?
JMJ
By adam on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
i see where your coming from a lot better now. i’d be much more wary of anything that “smacks” of communism if i’d been through all that (iran contra?). good discussion.
By gcblues today in nicaragua on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
gosh jersey, thats really incisive. particularly illuminating for me as i sit here in a cyber cafe in rivas nicaragua. do pop off a lot guy, cuz clealrly you advance your cause ….. or as the radio ads here say over and over fsln, nicaragua advancia con daniel! shows more of how smart you are por favor.
adam, iran contra is another can of worms. but at least lets say there are no innocent political parties. i do wish tho leftys stateside could get a gander eye ball to eye ball the things they speak so arrogantly about. we are all arrogant, but when i am out of my pond, i try not speak less forcefully. having friends and family in places like here and chiappas, and oaxaca and carolina my profeser friend in caracas whose brother was murdered in a public park by chavista police right in front of everyone in the election carter certified as clean, and musician friends in and from cuba …. well it kinda colors my world. it seems people with little experience in murder, and facism scream about the loudest.
ahhhhh darling mi amiga muy bonita es lista, tiempo para vamos a cenna. ciao