Posted on 11/28/2005 5:39:36 AM PST by beaureguard
[Low population density = less gov. As we import more immigrants and as our population has grown -we will need more Gov services- Some feel countries that have high population]
I think this belief is common but flawed. For example, public education should not be a federal issue. I think it is a good idea but should be govenered by the states. Just because there are more citizens does not mean we should have the federal government manage more programs to be invented. You can put welfare in the same category. Education and welfare issues are very different from state to state. How is it the government so efficiently manages the public school system in Mt. Pleasant, MI and in Los Angeles(sarc)? They are governed by the same body and system. The government should grow with the population, but I dissagree that it must also expand.
As for state government intervention, I believe states are more closely governed by the people. I also believe this country can afford "safety nets." Why is it constitutional for the government to tell business owners that have to dissallow patrons from smoking? Laws are passed at state levels. I can not figure out why it is illegal to drive without a seatbelt. Not that it is a bad thing, but this initiative should be driven by insurance companies and private organizations.
Our government, both state and federal, is now in the business of governing our personal behavior, thereby exempting us of any responsibility of our own actions, thus making us reliant on a socialist government. Look at the example of outrage at the government for not doing more to protect humans from a hurricane. The constitution and laws outlined therein were meant to protect citizens rights. Today, activist groups find ways to connect unfavorable behavior to infringement of rights to get judges to rule and set precedents.
Example: Activists don't like guns. They repeatedly have sued gun manufactures and lobbied for laws by connecting victims of crime with a peice of machinery. In many places in the country, as you know, the law is, you cannot own a gun (D.C.). Is this to prevent folks from injuring or killing themselves and their children on accident? Or is it suppose to make criminals not have guns? It is a law to police behavior and is not protecting anyone's rights as framed in the Constitution.
In this way, our freedoms are being eroded. We are less responsible for our own well being and we keep sending the government more money to pass laws to protect us from ourselves. If you want to see where we are going, visit the Statue of Liberty and glean east across the atlantic. Europe is our future.
Add to that a complete decline in morals.
Enough hype - you have the show summarized in one short sentence - and with the highest degree of probability gauged by the daily entry of illegals into our country. It's a massive takeover by sheer numbers.
Snip: The Tucson sector Border Patrol union local 2544 on the number of illegal aliens in our nation: "There are currently 15 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country by many estimates, but the real numbers could be much higher and the numbers increase every day because our borders are not secure (no matter what the politicians tell you - don't believe them for a second)". (Visit the local's website).
In agreement with Senator McCain, our counters are calibrated to reflect an increase of 10,000 total additional illegal aliens added to the United States population each day.
This is simply the next phase in the propaganda machine of the powers that be. First came the de-moralizing sitcoms where traditional American values of thrift, honor, duty, and decency were mocked and erased from our culture. Next came the so-called "reality" shows where not only were those traditional values mocked, but the antithesis of those ideas were portrayed as the only way to survive. The third stage was one of dehumanization ("Fear Factor" comes to mind).
Now we get to this dangerous stage. Make no mistake: this isn't going to be some John Milius miniseries. The purpose of this programming will be to condition the American people for the coming collapse. Scapegoats for the collapse will be identified, as will the "reason" for the collapse. (Of course, the real reasons will not be addressed by the show). Ideals such as those in the Declaration of Independence will be villified. Finally, a "solution" (probably in the form of a strongman or global government) will be proposed.
The difference between then (the 80s) and now is that back then TV wasn't one massive psy-op against the American people.
There was that stinker. "AMERIKA" with Kris Kristofferson in the early eighties.
That was actually a pretty good miniseries. Yeah, parts of it were boring and it didn't have a lot of fancy special effects, but it was probably pretty accurate in what would really happen if we were taken down and occupied by a foreign power.
(BTW, that movie was very loosely based on the book "Defiance" by Oliver Lange)
"free to go on vacation" Yeah as long as they have their internal passports [i.e., driver's license, auto's registered to the STATE, socialist insecurity numbers (try getting a plane ticket w/o one),]
"chose where to live" Now with that law that says the government can seize ones land and give it to another because they pay more in taxes, that's no longer true. The choice will now be determined by taxes.
"who to marry." Yeah as long as one begs for a license (AKA marriage license, permission) to do so.
Americans today enjoy their gilded cages and they'll fight to keep them.
Well, actually Rome fell for a variety of reasons and it didn't quite completely fall since the Byzantines kept going for another several centuries after the Visigoths set up shop.
Rome's morals were always questionable. In fact, Rome was at its greatest glory during a time when prostitution was just fine as was sexual relations with a man and when men died for the amusement of others in the thousands.
I don't blame Christianity for Rome's decline, but it wasn't declining 'morals' in the sense you mean that spelled doom.
The softening of their society and the influx of the barbarians brought about Rome's collapse. Near the end, some of the barbarian Romans were better Romans than the Romans were, sadly.
Interestingly, the increased taxification and regulation of the Roman Empire's economy through onerous price controls (to the point where people sold themselves into slavery to avoid tax debts) played a role in its decline.
Rome is probably the single most fascinating civilization for Westerners (as it should be.) That said, they were very different from us in many ways and we should not seek to draw TOO MANY parallels.
Also, unlike the Founders, I do not see Cato or Brutus or the dying Republic as something to emulate. What Caesar and his adopted heir established was more equitable, for its day, at least.
we still have guns guys
Mikey...the US is a Republic with the rule of "law".
Some of those laws require some form of ID, a driver's license, etc., but that doesn't impede the public good it serves it.
Without laws any "free society" devolves into anarchy...are you an anarchist?
Starting in 1913 taxing only the top 1% (to fund a war.)
And still going STRONG!
Not sure what you mean by that.
It is very scary that a huge percentage of the earth's population has apparently bought into the idea of communism.
This is the arena of ideas where are fighting our most important battles. We absolutely must confront and defeat that evil wherever we find it. We have everything to lose if we fail.
But other than that, have a nice day. :-)
Oh, o.k., thanks.
ABC alone has at least two would-be shows set in post-apocalyptic America ("Resistance" and "Red & Blue") while Gavin Polone and Bruce Wagner are teaming for the comfy-sounding plague drama "Four Horsemen" at CBS (which also is developing "Jericho," about life in a small town after America is destroyed).
Rehashes of "The Postman" and "The Stand". How creative..
Without laws any "free society" devolves into anarchy...are you an anarchist?"
Article 4, sec 4 Constitution for the United States;
Anarchhist? Not at all, but I do know the difference between a Constituitional representative government and a democracy (i.e.,tyranny).
The laws governing a republic and a democracy are totally different.
In a Constutitional representative republic one has the right to do whatever one wants to do as long as one doesn't infringe upon the life, liberty or property of another.
However in a democracy one hasn't ANY rights, only privleges that are granted to one via the majority, and those privleges can be revoked at any time.
THE SOLDIER'S TRAINING MANUAL
Issued by the War Department, November 30, 1928, set forth the exact and truthful definitions of a democracy and of a republic - this manual was ordered destroyed by the infamous F. D. Roosevelt, so that he could institute a democracy utilizing social security as a means to make everyone a slave to the Federal Government.
A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of;
"Take away any one of these four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy."
Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.
Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican for of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and empathically that they had founded a republic.
See article 4, sec 4, clause 1 of the Constitution for the United States.
Democracy
A republic is a political system founded on the principle of individual rights, with government established strictly to protect those rights. Government in a republic is limited to its specific, limited duties as chartered via its constitution; typically, these powers are those of police, courts, military, and international treaty-making. As a result, the defining feature of republics is government-protected liberty.
A republic is not a democracy, even though some of its activities are handled democratically. A democracy is different than a republic in one enormous respect: a democracy is founded on the contradiction of 'collective rights'. For further discussion, see the entry for 'democracy'.
Republics commit suicide by losing sight of their founding principle -- individual rights -- and then, when confronted with difficult questions that require principles to answer, resorting to the seemingly attractive idea of collective rights ("the common good") instead.
This first occurred in America during the Civil War, and thereafter recurred with increasing frequency.
Today America is a democracy teetering on the edge of socialism.
That's the difference: individual rights versus 'collective rights'. The former is a redundancy, the latter a contradiction: one cannot acquire more rights than others merely by joining a group.
A republic acknowledges that each man owns his own life, and therefore has the right to be selfish.
A democracy does not recognize this right; it asserts that man's life (property, resources, etc.) belongs to the state , (and if you don’t believe it, try adding an extension on ‘your’ home without a permit from the city or town or State, etc!) and is to be apportioned by majority vote for "the common good". The next time someone tells you it's wrong to be selfish, and that selflessness and Altruism and The Public Good are noble, you'll know which side he's on.
A Democracy:
A Republic:
A Constitutional Republic:
Federal Government:
Democrats and Republicans:
Excellent. I think I'm in love.
ahhhhhhh.............I'm lost....
ROTFL! Thanks for lightening up this doom and gloom!
You should come to Vermont and see just how scary it is.
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.