Quote:Original post by ManaStone
In software engineering, you can modify and update software to adapt to newer environments, but after a while the maintenance becomes too cumbersome and you’ve got to start up a new version from scratch. I think it is the same way with the constitution.

That's a pretty poor argument from the start then, because it's very rarely a good idea to rewrite software from scratch:

Quote:They did it by making the single worst strategic mistake that any software company can make:

They decided to rewrite the code from scratch.

Worth a read, even if it is tangential to bitching about politics.

Quote:Original post by ManaStone

Quote:Original post by KaptainKomunist

Quote:Original post by ManaStone

Quote:Original post by KaptainKomunist
On one hand, it would be nice to go back to a system where states have more power. Then people in California can smoke their weed in peace.

But on the other hand, civil rights in this nation would be so much worse off than they already are.

Some states are more progressive than other states, and I think that while the federal govt isn't as progressive as some would like, it's not the worse thing in the world.

The constitution is fine. It's the enforcement of it that leaves much to be desired.

The enforcement problems stem from the constitution itself.

Could you explain this? This doesn't make all that much sense to me. What specifically about the constitution makes it non-enforcible?

It isn't that it is inherently non-enforceable. It is just that it is a bit vague about enforcement and implies that Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. There isn't really any check on the Supreme Court once they are selected. I think that is a fundamental problem.

There's a long way to go before something reaches the supreme court though. They can't rule on anything that hasn't been brought before them. I'm not going to bore you with a review of the whole democratic process, but if the supreme court doesn't get the final say on the issue, who should then?

There are checks on the justices though. You can impeach them. Granted, it's a long and arduous process, but thats a good thing so justices can't just be impeached at the whim of the new administration.

Quote:Original post by mhamlin
I disagree with your analysis. Suppose the purpose of the group of thieves I alluded to earlier somehow benefited me. This does not change the fact that they still engage in thievery. I would also say that it is not possible to steal from the state as the state has no legitimate claim to tax and its supposed property in the first place.

People choosing to engage in activities when they are fully aware that there will be a price to pay, and that the payment provides benefits to a person ..... doesn't sound anything like being "robbed."



Don't want to pay income tax? Pitch a tent -- there are plenty of parks to live and catch food in.
Don't want to be subject to any taxation? The US's borders are wide open -- though (oddly) none of these "taxation is stealing" people seem to be willing/able to get some little tax free island nation established.



Otherwise ... I'd bet that everyday you choose to continue to reap benefits from things like the sidewalks, the highways, the police, the water infrastructure, the general lack of smog/acid rain/toxic lakes, the funding that led to computers (not to mention the Internet), the overall higher standard of living (especially when we look over to anarchic societies like Somalia), so .... it is those who choose to continue to take and take from this who would be the thieves if they decided that no one had the right to ask for them to pay their share.

Bottom line is that these ARE the benefits that are in-place, and no matter how much you may abhor them, anyone continually using them with no intention of paying their share is the real thief.

Quote:Original post by HostileExpanse
People choosing to engage in activities when they are fully aware that there will be a price to pay, and that the payment provides benefits to a person ..... doesn't sound anything like being "robbed."

Really, doesn't sound like robbery? Let's see, I have never agreed to our government. If I try to refuse the demands of the government, I will be imprisoned or murdered. Sounds like a violent criminal to me.

Quote:
Don't want to pay income tax? Pitch a tent -- there are plenty of parks to live and catch food in.

No, I do want to pay income tax. If I don't, I will be imprisoned or murdered depending on how vehemently I defend my property.

Quote:
Don't want to be subject to any taxation? The US's borders are wide open -- though (oddly) none of these "taxation is stealing" people seem to be willing/able to get some little tax free island nation established.

Okay. I'm arguing against the legitimacy of coercive taxation. The fact that one can possibly flee from robbery does not make it legitimate. By what authority does government lay claim to my property (including my very person) in the first place?

Original post by mhamlin

Quote:Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote:
Don't want to pay income tax? Pitch a tent -- there are plenty of parks to live and catch food in.

No, I do want to pay income tax. If I don't, I will be imprisoned or murdered depending on how vehemently I defend my property.

Probably because you can stop claiming it as "your [free-and-clear] property" . It's not.


Don't like that? You're free to leave.
I find it strange how libertarian types ramble endlessly about freedom, yet they never seem to actually take advantage of it....

Quote:Original post by mhamlin

Quote:
Don't want to be subject to any taxation? The US's borders are wide open -- though (oddly) none of these "taxation is stealing" people seem to be willing/able to get some little tax free island nation established.

Okay. I'm arguing against the legitimacy of coercive taxation. The fact that one can possibly flee from robbery does not make it legitimate....

If you don't "flee from the robbery," then you KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY choose to be subject to it. Next time someone is is getting mugged in a dark alley, let's see if they can say, "whoa hey ... how about I just leave and we forget about this thing?" Unless something like THAT works ... taxation will continue to bear precious little resemblence to "robbery."

Quote:Original post by mhamlin
By what authority does government lay claim to my property (including my very person) in the first place?

Hobbes proposes an answer.

But ... more interstingly, perhaps it would help to find out whether you believe that a society should have any legal code?

Quote:Original post by HostileExpanse
Probably because you can stop claiming it as "your [free-and-clear] property" . It's not.

Okay. Care to elaborate on this?

Quote:
If you don't "flee from the robbery," then you KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY choose to be subject to it. Next time someone is is getting mugged in a dark alley, let's see if they can say, "whoa hey ... how about I just leave and we forget about this thing?" Unless something like THAT works ... taxation will continue to bear precious little resemblence to "robbery."

Wow, really you believe that? The fact that a person KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY chooses to be subject to robbery doesn't legitimize it. Many people KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY cooperate with muggers for their own safety.

Quote:
Hobbes proposes an answer.

But ... more interstingly, perhaps it would help to find out whether you believe that a society should have any legal code?

Hobbes was wrong. I reject the idea of some implicit social contract, such a thing is immoral and frankly doesn't make sense. People are "nasty, brutish, and short," therefore let's give a concentrated group of people (remember, these people are also "nasty, brutish, and short," because that's just human nature) dominion of our lives and property. Of course, that situation is ridiculous. If people are "nasty, brutish, and short" why in the world would they be given power of anyone else?

Of course I think a society should have a legal code. If I'm arguing on a platform of property rights I could not believe otherwise. If you care to read some material on this I recommend Roderick Long.