Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Captain Risky

Trump wants to bomb hurricanes

110 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RavenHawk
On 8/27/2019 at 11:59 AM, Tatetopa said:

From that point forward, it seems all governments exist to formulate laws and set bounds on the acceptable limits in the interactions between individuals, the state and the society.

That is the function of government.  Without some law, there can be no freedom.  With that said, how much is too much?  More law (government) does not bring more freedom.  In fact, it is the opposite.  The goal is to have as minimal as possible.  When you start touting Fundamental Transformation, that is too much.  Even over time, a gradual increase isn’t good either.  There must be a hard limit to the powers of government over the people.  That was the whole point to the American Revolution.  The Revolution was to throw off tyrannical government, not establish another Socialist one.  This is what separated ours from either the French or Russian revolutions.

 

How to protect the rights of the individual without the country falling into anarchy is a central problem every generation must face.

The more tyrannical the government the less it worries about protecting the rights of the individual.  Such governments use anarchy to strengthen their position and prepares to suppress anarchy from other sources (especially domestic).  Leaves very little room open for protecting the rights of the individual.  A government becoming tyrannical is just as much a central problem, if not more.  And it doesn’t take much for a government to begin down that path.

 

It seems that socialism or capitalism are two of the philosophies that can shape society interactions within the limits of the limits of a government system  There is a spectrum of both in any government. 

Government does shape society and these are the two basic types.  Madison gave a perfect quote (Charters of Freedom) to define both.  It’s not that there is a spectrum of each in any government.  But each type occupies a portion of the spectrum line and they are mutually exclusive.  As I’ve pointed out before, if this spectrum goes from 0% government control at one end, then the other is 100% government control.  The natural tendency of any government is to traverse to the 100% end unless it collapses.  Just for argument’s sake, 0-5 would be anarchy.  5-30 would be a Constitutional Republic.  30 and above is anything else.  At 30, a government has already become too tyrannical.  And I won’t argue against that we may already be at that point.

 

Only anarchy would support total capitalism.  Only a totalitarian state could support total socialism.  Everybody else lives in a society that is a mix of those things..

Don’t confuse chaos of the market place as anarchy.  Anarchy better compliments Socialism.  Anarchy transitions an existing government into something not necessarily bound by laws, just control.  Capitalism is based on a free market.  Caput (latin) is the root, which means head.  The head (of the divine) was the source of intellect and creativity.  Capitalism encourages innovation and creativity (because of the chaos) which is something Socialism quells.  New ideas don’t work well in Socialism without the blessings of the ruling elite yet one is free to innovate as they choose under Capitalism.  American’s don’t live in a mix of those environments.  They are constantly bombarded in a battlefield in the conflict between the two for supremacy.  We’ve actually been in a second civil war since the 30s.

 

For example, people are free to start businesses,  but there are copyright laws and intellectual property laws that are enforced by our government  that keep them from infringing on other people's rights.  It is one of our main beefs with China, they do not seem to respect those rights. It was a bone of contention prior to  the Revolution.  The East India Company had a monopoly granted by the crown that kept others out and competition low.  Currently our Republican government grants similar rights to patent holders and intellectual property right holders to protect them from competition in the field they have developed.  Different in scale but not dissimilar in principle.

Our laws do not keep people from infringing, it establishes punishment and retribution for those that cross those lines.  Our laws are established to keep the government from infringing.  I would include intellectual property as an individual’s Right to free speech so the government must protect it.  It doesn’t “grant”.  Rights are a bit more than being free to act on your wishes.  A Right is a Responsibility.  You have the Responsibility to not infringe on another’s Rights.  Many don’t understand that.  You are free to do what you please as long as it doesn’t infringe on someone else.  In civil law, when a gray area occurs between two or more individuals then the courts come into play.

 

Quartering of troops was another bone of contention at that time.  Monopolies are not forbidden by the Constitution, but quartering of troops certainly is mentioned.

3A does forbid quartering troops but the Constitution also allows maintaining a standing army.  Those two things are not a contradiction.  The 3A was about a very specific abuse of power.  With the structure of our military today, it becomes a useless Amendment, but it hasn’t been repealed.  It’s not repealed because it still instills the concept of what our Republican government should be.  The 18th was easily repealed but the first 10 are fundamentally harder to do away with.  As I’ve said before, everything on this planet has a poison that kills it.  Monopolies are the poison of the free market.  Interesting that you tie standing armies with monopolies.  Adam Smith considered monopolies like standing armies and warned us.  The possible abuse is too great.  But we should still be able to regulate monopolies without overregulating the free market.  We need to heed the warnings without going overboard.  I.e. there is nothing intrinsically wrong with monopolies or standing armies if they are wielded properly.

 

Establishing the post office and post roads is definitely in the Constitution.  That is one socialist institution written right into the founding documents.  You might have personal responsibility to pay for the cost of a letter that you mail, but everybody is forced to pay for the post and the roads whether they ever travel or mail a letter.

They are not intrinsically Socialist institutions.  There is a difference between observing a duty to the nation and being forced to pay taxes.  Washington talked about how living in a free society requires that the individual owes a portion of their property and even of their personal services.  Socialism is about control over others.  Socialism is where one is forced to pay for a stranger’s bad habits.  But everyone uses a postal road.  They need not travel on the road to be able to receive commerce from it.  If you go to the local general store, you probably purchased something that traveled along that road.  One is able to use a road as much as their ability allows them (pretty much unlimited).  Not everyone needs or has that ability with say healthcare but still charged for the privilege.  Under Socialism, healthcare becomes rationed.  You can’t really ration a road.  And if it is rationed, it can’t apply equally to everyone. 

 

The ability to tax, and limits to that ability are in the Constitution.  It does not detail how taxes are to be spent.  Airports, ports, highways, and bridges are paid for by taxes and seem purely socialist to me.  Whether you use them or not, you pay for them.

How taxes are spent are not directly spelled out but you do threaten the peace if they are spent unwisely (reference to the Declaration of Independence).  Everyone’s lives are touched by the commerce that goes through airports, ports, highways, and bridges.  If the supply trucks can’t get food or gas to the stores, it directly affects you.  It’s not like you are very affected by your neighbor’s cancer or reproductive health.

 

It seems that one of the things you dislike is sharing wealth with the undeserving; that is using taxes to support freeloaders. That is an issue of society and social beliefs, not the Constitution.  All that can be changed without changing a word of the Constitution.  It is just public opinion.

It’s not so much the undeserving but those that the government has turned into undeserving.  When government has the ability to give people everything and run their lives, it makes them dependent on that government.  That makes them freeloaders.  Society and social beliefs are in the Constitution.  It’s found in the Preamble: “…establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,” and “…promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty”, all pillars of society.  The Constitution is based in human nature.  Big government can interrupt these functions.  We are currently seeing the consequences of not responding to these needs in the streets of California and elsewhere.  Instead of enslaving the people, the government needs to encourage individualism, where the people can take care of themselves and take that responsibility out of the hands of the government.  A nation of individuals does not mean that there is anarchy.  The individual understands that some government is necessary.  Individuals are Responsible.  A cog in a Socialist machine does not bother being so woke about such things because they are dependent.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Tatetopa
19 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

That is the function of government.  Without some law, there can be no freedom.  With that said, how much is too much?  More law (government) does not bring more freedom.  In fact, it is the opposite.  The goal is to have as minimal as possible.  When you start touting Fundamental Transformation, that is too much.

Indeed, more laws do not bring more freedom.  The law does not need to involve itself in the evolution of society.  Making laws to freeze the views of a society does not benefit society in the long term.  It is sufficient that laws provide a structure for the unobstructed practice of commerce.  As far as Fundamental Transformation, whatever Obama meant by that could have just as well implied a transformation of society within existing laws.  You might argue that  the Emancipation Proclamation was a Fundamental Transformation of government, more than of society. It has taken 160 years for society to catch up to the implications.  I don't know if he was advocating anything as large as Lincoln, I seriously doubt it.

 

28 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

The more tyrannical the government the less it worries about protecting the rights of the individual.

True that.

 

28 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Government does shape society and these are the two basic types.  Madison gave a perfect quote (Charters of Freedom) to define both.

Well, I would argue that there is a spectrum of both in our own government.  You may argue that anybody can use the post roads and goods arrive to the general store via that route, but do you go out to the farmer or logger and tell him that you are improving the road and he must pay taxes for his own good?  Is that not socialism?  Can he not argue that if people hunted, grew their own crops, and made their own clothes as he does they would not need it,  Are you not asking him to pay for the bad habits of strangers?  Could he say that if the general store and the trucking companies want as road, let them build it and charge for their products to pay for it?

We are about to experience another hurricane landfall in the US.  We have FEMA, disaster recovery aid and insurance.  All of those are socialist to some extent.  Can the government honestly tell me that helping those people is for my own good? Can I not respond that they chose to live there and should take personal responsibility for their decisions?  I think you are forcing me to pay for a strangers bad habits. Now personally, I am happy to help them and I don't worry if that smacks of socialism.

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

3A does forbid quartering troops but the Constitution also allows maintaining a standing army.  Those two things are not a contradiction.  The 3A was about a very specific abuse of power.  With the structure of our military today, it becomes a useless Amendment, but it hasn’t been repealed.  It’s not repealed because it still instills the concept of what our Republican government should be. 

 Also very true, I can't argue against it.

40 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Our laws do not keep people from infringing, it establishes punishment and retribution for those that cross those lines.  Our laws are established to keep the government from infringing. 

No laws of any country including North Korea can keep people from infringing, they all establish punishment and retribution for crossing the lines.  When that punishment and retribution becomes too onerous, or widespread, or  whimsical, then the governed begin to resist.  I would disagree that our laws are to prevent the government from infringing, they are established at the behest of citizens to protect themselves from other citizens infringing on their rights.  If the government needs to take a patent for national security or to fight a war, they do it.  If the government needs to take private property for some cause, they can do it. 

Now here is a question about the limits of government and eminent domain.  Can we take land from individuals in Texas without due process to build a wall because we are in a hurry? Do they have legal recourse?  If not then that is a face of totalitarianism. 

Can an individual's rights be disregarded for the benefit of society?   Is that socialist or totalitarianism?  Or are they the same by your definition?

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

It’s not so much the undeserving but those that the government has turned into undeserving.  When government has the ability to give people everything and run their lives, it makes them dependent on that government.  That makes them freeloaders.  Society and social beliefs are in the Constitution.

Consider that for a minute.  If you use  the housing projects and slums that are common in many of our cities for example, you have to ask how they got there. Once they were factory workers in the times when massive factories employed thousands to make America great.  When factories moved or downsized, a lot of people were left without jobs and had to find others.  Where did they live?  Many rented company housing or owned small houses.  What happened to them?  Displaced  to build more profitable buildings, cities exercising eminent domain.  Some still had jobs and were working.  Housing projects were built to concentrate people on less land in less profitable areas, maybe within distance of work, maybe not.  Limited or no public transportation, declining number of jobs left many people chronically under employed.  It was capitalism that caused that not socialism or a plot by the government to control people.  It was progress for society at the expense of some. Capitalism does not naturally take into account the waste stream they leave behind them, whether  it is unemployed humans or pollution or toxic waste, they leave it for society to clean up.

I would not argue that the government did a good job of taking care of the situation.  Education and training and dispersal to new centers of employment might have been a better solution, but government employees are no smarter and have no better insight or morals than the citizens that make up a society.

If you did none of the social engineering but had one law that said everybody has to be responsible for themselves and clean up after themselves, we might be a lot better off.  Would it cut into business profits to pay for their waste?  You bet it would, they would have to include it in their costs.  Yet, it might result in less taxes and a cleaner environment and a more prosperous society overall.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

Man I almost wish I werent American so I could enjoy this show:

Trump showed a falsified weather map with a cartoonish drawing that covered up his humiliating mistake

Quote

On Sunday, President Donald Trump tweeted that Alabama was in the path of Hurricane Dorian — which had been battering the Caribbean — along with Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas. But the National Weather Service corrected Trump, stressing that Alabama was not in danger — and that Dorian wouldn’t be going that far to the west. Regardless, Trump bafflingly doubled down on his false claim this week by apparently circling, with a sharpie, part of southeastern Alabama in a National Hurricane Center map.

 

 

  • Haha 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
7 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

sub-buzz-306-1567622825-1.png?downsize=1

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
13 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

sub-buzz-306-1567622825-1.png?downsize=1

Ahhh.. sparpiegate. now he's denying all knowledge that the map was altered. What a goose. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
13 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

sub-buzz-306-1567622825-1.png?downsize=1

Such an embarrassment...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor Witness

This is one time when I have a hard time believing that Trump was really serious about something.

Hurricanes are natural mechanism for transferring heat from the equatorial regions to the northern latitudes, without which we would all likely suffer.

Some forms of insanity are expected from this president, others, I think are just wishful thinking. 

If the news cycle isn’t focused on Trump, he will make certain that it is, it’s probably that simple.

If the commander in chief really believes the earth is at war with our species, then it would be best to just raise the white flag, because I can tell you right now who will win. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
30 minutes ago, Raptor Witness said:

This is one time when I have a hard time believing that Trump was really serious about something.

Hurricanes are natural mechanism for transferring heat from the equatorial regions to the northern latitudes, without which we would all likely suffer.

Some forms of insanity are expected from this president, others, I think are just wishful thinking. 

If the news cycle isn’t focused on Trump, he will make certain that it is, it’s probably that simple.

If the commander in chief really believes the earth is at war with our species, then it would be best to just raise the white flag, because I can tell you right now who will win. 

Ive read several weather people say they receive that question quite often from people so I'm inclined to believe it was an honest suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor Witness
12 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Ive read several weather people say they receive that question quite often from people so I'm inclined to believe it was an honest suggestion.

The Earth is preparing to kill off most of the mammalian life on this planet, and no advanced weapon can stop this. There is no defense against a planetary instruction like that.

All this time, you thought the Earth was your friend, by clever design?

When the brand new 911 Memorial Museum sunk beneath hurricane Sandy’s waves, you thought that was by pure chance?

Ever hear of a Tower that stammered in a hurricane forecast? ..... Or maybe it was the entire horizon that stammered.

Edited by Raptor Witness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.