Posted on 02/25/2010 6:50:35 AM PST by Walter Scott Hudson
What. Ever.
That is a nonsense argument. Two-thirds (34) of the States are required to seat and send delegates to a constitutional convention, and three-quarters (38) of the States are required to approve any of the changes it puts forth in its draft. Federal officials and officers are prohibited from being delegates to the convention.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, has the power to get 38 States to approve a radical agenda. If they did, they could have easily passed any number of constitutional amendments through congress, a far easier task.
No, a constitutional convention is going to be the most conservative, in the classical sense, not right wing, meeting that has ever taken place. It is not even worth assembling until the various States know that particular resolutions already have close to 3/4ths approval.
Four top university constitutional scholars have already submitted what they are believe are necessary changes to the constitution, and *not a one* of those suggested changes is radical at all. In the public forums, while suggesting even more changes to the constitution, they are even more conservative.
A constitutional convention is *not* going to be a revolution, but a restoration. The old idea that it is “unthinkable”, is dead. This is not to say that it will be voluntary. Circumstances are likely to force every part of it, such as an economic collapse.
This is an account of a recent event, the most basic definition of news. Wouldn't you rather be informed of the various efforts to hijack the movement?
BS! Altruism is good, it is what makes us a society. The difference between capitalism and socialism is that under capitalism, altruism and charity is voluntary and not state mandated. To donate your own money to a cause or needy people is a noble thing. To take other peoples money and "donate" to whatever is theft.
Curiously, Biddle's larger argument actually seemed to allow for that, even though he didn't seem to realize it. He talked about how it is not necessarily sacrificial to help people. If you see the value in helping someone, if it is worth it to you to do so, your are making a fair trade, he argued. The specific example he used was feeding children. If you give of your excess to help another, by Biddle's standard, it is not a sacrifice, just a trade. If you help someone else fed their child at the expense of your own, that is a sacrifice, and doesn't make sense. So he would say charity isn't really altruistic. It's an interesting argument. Not sure I buy it. But it is interesting.
I couldn't agree more with that sentiment. One way or another, my son will get a more comprehensive education than public school can provide. We need a return to classical education utilizing the Socratic method to teach people how to think instead of what to think.
Let him and his cohorts get their own damn group. Why are they trying to co-opt the Tea Party?
Is Objectivist just a fancy term for no-nothing egghead?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.