Author Topic: Expanding our reach  (Read 32308 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Doug Loss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,360
  • Gender: Male
  • Proud Tennessean
Re: Expanding our reach
« Reply #50 on: November 18, 2016, 05:49:10 pm »
As I read Doug's ideas, it seems more like Contract BY the American Voter. The biggest problem with the Contract with America is that it was the employees of the People that wrote it. The boot should, in my opinion, be rather firmly on the other foot.

I see it more as an annotated creed, along the lines of the Nicene Creed we recite at church every Sunday.
My political philosophy:

1) I'm not bothering anybody.
2) It's none of your business.
3) Leave me alone!

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,804
  • Gender: Male
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Re: Expanding our reach
« Reply #51 on: November 18, 2016, 05:50:45 pm »
I see it more as an annotated creed, along the lines of the Nicene Creed we recite at church every Sunday.

Works.  :beer:

Though my description is an easier sell to the pissed off.  :laugh:
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline LateForLunch

  • GOTWALMA Get Out of the Way and Leave Me Alone! (Nods to Teebone)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,349
Re: Expanding our reach
« Reply #52 on: November 18, 2016, 05:51:34 pm »
Not everything deals with the minutiae of politics.  This is more philosophical, aspirational.  Once we have people agreeing on principles, we can work on the implementation of those principles in daily life.

Again, not to be a wet blanket, but the overwhelming numbers of people don't much care about principles (an abstract concept). If asked if they agree with this or that principle, they will shrug apathetically and say, "I dunno!" or something that they hope will get the questioner to go away.

Discussions of principle appeal to intellect. Discussions of things like "being able to not have to work as hard  to support your basic biological needs," or less-hypothetically, "having a lot more cool stuff" get and hold people's attention because they appeal to their immediate interests.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2016, 05:54:18 pm by LateForLunch »
GOTWALMA Get out of the way and leave me alone! (Nods to General Teebone)

Offline Doug Loss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,360
  • Gender: Male
  • Proud Tennessean
Re: Expanding our reach
« Reply #53 on: November 18, 2016, 05:55:41 pm »
Again, not to be a wet blanket, but the overwhelming numbers of people don't much care about principles (an abstract concept). If asked if they agree with this or that principle, they will shrug apathetically and say, "I dunno!" or something that they hope will get the questioner to go away.

Discussions of principle appeal to intellect. Discussions of things like "being able to not have to work as hard  to support your basic biological needs," or less-hypothetically, "having a lot more cool stuff" get and hold people's attention.

But we (at least I) do care about those principles.  If we can start from our first principles and derive our positions on various issues from those principles, we'll be and stay consistent.  And there will always be some who will become curious about why we take the positions we do and will look deeper.  It never hurts to have a foundational document.
My political philosophy:

1) I'm not bothering anybody.
2) It's none of your business.
3) Leave me alone!

Offline LateForLunch

  • GOTWALMA Get Out of the Way and Leave Me Alone! (Nods to Teebone)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,349
Re: Expanding our reach
« Reply #54 on: November 18, 2016, 06:08:12 pm »
But we (at least I) do care about those principles.  If we can start from our first principles and derive our positions on various issues from those principles, we'll be and stay consistent.  And there will always be some who will become curious about why we take the positions we do and will look deeper.  It never hurts to have a foundational document.

Agree totally. Sorry if I sounded like a nay-sayer.

As you doubtless already know, the Founders were big readers of history - Roman, Greek, etc. No doubt more than a few of them had also read Machiavelli and were able to consolidate and distill some very, very sophisticated lessons of the history of governance into the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers.

Lack of understanding (much less appreciation for) the genius of the Founders is one of the most disgusting things to me personally about most anti-Conservatives and 'Crats. Often their arrogance is exceeded only by their ignorance in matters of how we have been governed and why the Founders chose to write the Constitution the way they did.

Godspeed and bless you for your activism, sieur!
« Last Edit: November 18, 2016, 07:02:21 pm by LateForLunch »
GOTWALMA Get out of the way and leave me alone! (Nods to General Teebone)

Offline Doug Loss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,360
  • Gender: Male
  • Proud Tennessean
Re: Expanding our reach
« Reply #55 on: November 18, 2016, 06:10:04 pm »
Works.  :beer:

Though my description is an easier sell to the pissed off.  :laugh:

Have you ever been to a presentation by a motivational speaker?  It doesn't really matter what topic; they all use almost exactly the same techniques as a revival preacher.  I remember being sent to one with a co-worker back years ago when I worked at a university.  About half-way through I leaned over to my co-worker and said, "when this ends, he'll stand by the exit and shake everybody's hand, and give us some literature, just watch."  And that's exactly what happened.  That's how we need to approach this, I think.  We're not trying to win votes, or persuade someone to support our position on some ballot initiative.  We're trying to enlist them in a great crusade, where the rights of all will be of premiere importance and where we dedicate ourselves to securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our countrymen.  And that's how we have to present it.
My political philosophy:

1) I'm not bothering anybody.
2) It's none of your business.
3) Leave me alone!

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,746
Re: Expanding our reach
« Reply #56 on: November 18, 2016, 07:01:56 pm »
As you doubtless already know, the Founder were big readers of history - Roman, Greek, etc. No doubt more than a few of them had also read Machiavelli and were able to consolidate and distill some very, very sophisticated lessons of the history of governance into the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers.

Lack of understanding (much less appreciation for) the genius of the Founders is one of the most disgusting things to me personally about most anti-Conservatives and 'Crats. Often their arrogance is exceeded only by their ignorance in matters of how we have been governed and why the Founders chose to write the Constitution the way they did.


Yeah, I had a heated discussion with a guy on another thread who claimed that the Founders were 'liberal' like he was.

He gave no backup to that claim, so I chalk it up as someone who failed civics class.
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,648
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: Expanding our reach
« Reply #57 on: November 18, 2016, 08:28:37 pm »
As I read Doug's ideas, it seems more like Contract BY the American Voter. The biggest problem with the Contract with America is that it was the employees of the People that wrote it. The boot should, in my opinion, be rather firmly on the other foot.
We have a Contract. It begins "We, the People..."

It has been sorely ignored, except where the name can be dusted off and waved as a battle flag by those who want their 'rights' at the expense of others'.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline LateForLunch

  • GOTWALMA Get Out of the Way and Leave Me Alone! (Nods to Teebone)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,349
Re: Expanding our reach
« Reply #58 on: November 18, 2016, 09:05:41 pm »
Yeah, I had a heated discussion with a guy on another thread who claimed that the Founders were 'liberal' like he was.

He gave no backup to that claim, so I chalk it up as someone who failed civics class.

Most self-described "liberals" are anything but. Their ideology and philosophy of governance generally does not resemble Classical Liberalism in the slightest but is far more closely aligned with Marxism. The fact that virtually no self-described liberal I have ever debated on an open forum could actually define Classical Liberalism nor the essential difference between a democracy and a republic. Of the few self-described liberals who actually do know a little about government, virtually every one I have encountered were fanatical Statists  who had absolutely no interest in (nor capability for) engaging in substantive dialogue on the topic of governance. Their beliefs were universally based on strong emotions/intuition, not on anything even remotely resembling strong rational, thinking-centered reasoning. Therefore I would no sooner engage in debate with them than I would a dog.
GOTWALMA Get out of the way and leave me alone! (Nods to General Teebone)

Offline MajorClay

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Gender: Male
Re: Expanding our reach
« Reply #59 on: November 19, 2016, 02:49:15 pm »
What We Believe

We believe that all people have certain rights, which are theirs from birth and which cannot be taken from them. Many people believe these rights to be imbued by God the Creator; others see them as inherent to consciousness and self-awareness. But all agree that these rights are fundamental to all people. These include the right to live, the right to speak freely and without retribution, the right to own property and do with it anything they desire, the right to live their lives in the way they desire, the right to associate with others or to refrain from associating with others, the right to defend themselves against any attacks by others, and the right to defend others exercising the same rights when those others are attacked. These rights are absolute; they can only be restrained when exercising them would interfere with the rights of others to exercise the same rights.

This is not an exhaustive list of the rights people are born with. There are certainly other rights that are inherent with existence, but which we haven’t specified here. There are some rights that might be thought of as growing from the rights listed, but which others might consider individual rights.

You will notice that these rights are not predicated on any particular personal characteristic or on membership in any particular group. These are rights inherent to all people. They inhere to the individual, not to any group.

From these rights grow the concepts of freedom and liberty. “Freedom” is the condition of being free of restraints, especially the ability to act without control or interference by another or by circumstance. It also includes the capacity to act by choice rather than by determination. “Liberty” is a similar concept, the condition of being free from oppressive restriction or control by a government or other power. The rights listed above show that we believe all people are born free. To achieve liberty they must accept only those restrictions upon their freedom that they agree to, acting in consort with other individuals. An example would be agreeing to work together to provide for the defense of the group all belong to rather than each individual trying to defend only himself and those he’s responsible for.

The Right to Live

The right to live is fundamental; without life no other right has meaning. Intentionally depriving an innocent person of his life is a crime in every civilized society in existence. The only legitimate reasons for depriving another person of his life are the defense of yourself or another person who is in danger of being killed, or conviction for a capital crime after having been tried by a jury of peers. Anything else is immoral and outside the bounds of civilized behavior.

The determination of personhood is one fraught with difficulty. In times past, the personhood of people was denied because of ethnicity, religion, mental capacity, and various other criteria. We believe that none of these criteria are valid determinants of personhood. A human being is a person from birth until death, automatically and without qualification.

Many believe that personhood imbues a human being even before birth. There are varied beliefs about when an unborn human being becomes a person—some believe this occurs at conception, some when the heart starts beating, some when a response to pain is evident, some when brain activity begins, some when viability outside the womb is possible. But almost none of us believe that personhood only begins at birth. For this reason abortion, particularly late-term and partial-birth abortion, is widely considered immoral and unconscionable.

The Right to Speak Freely and Without Retribution

All people have the right to say whatever they want to say, without fear of retribution. Attempts to prevent others from speaking or to prevent them from being heard because their views disagree with those of the people making the attempts are unacceptable. Rebuttals of disagreeable speech are of course allowed, as such discussion will allow all points of view to be heard.

The right to speak without retribution makes the imposition of speech codes and the public shaming of those voicing unpopular opinions immoral and deplorable. Such activities are not acceptable in a free society. Such actions only serve to show those who do them to be unable to defend their beliefs against opposition.

The Right to Own Property and Do With It Anything You Desire

Everyone has the right to own property and to use it in any way he wants providing he doesn’t interfere with the rights of others in doing so. There is no moral right to restrict a person from using his property as he sees fit. A person can voluntarily agree to restrictions as a condition of acquiring the property, but restrictions imposed after the acquisition of the property are immoral and should not be allowed. The taking of personal property for a societal good (the concept of imminent domain) should only be allowed for a demonstrable benefit to society in general, and with adequate compensation to the owner, not because some authority believes that a different owner would provide the authority itself with some benefit.

The Right to Live Your Life in the Way You Desire

So long as you aren’t harming others or interfering with their exercise of their rights, you are free to live your life however you wish to. You have no moral requirement to get someone else’s permission to do the things you want to do. Of course, no one else is under any moral obligation to do the things you want them to do just because you say so. This right is related to the right to speak freely, the right to associate with those you want to and to not associate with those you don’t, and the right to defend yourself and others from harm. At its base, this right is what the concept of “liberty” means.

The Right to Associate With Others or to Refrain From Associating With Others

You have the moral right to associate with anyone you would like to, and the moral right to not associate with those you find undesirable. No one may force you into associations you don’t desire, or to forbid you to associate with others at your discretion. The right to privacy comes from this fundamental right, as well as the right of security of your personal information. As well, the right to refuse entry to your property to anyone including agents of the government is derived from this right. If you are a business owner or service provider, the right to decide what services or products you provide and the conditions under which you provide them are also derived from this right.

The Right to Defend Yourself Against Attacks by Others

The right to life would be meaningless without the inherent right to defend yourself against attack. You have the absolute right to do so. You also have the right to possess the means of defending yourself, both the objects necessary for that defense and the training and ability to employ those objects competently. This right is unalienable, meaning it can neither be taken from you, nor can you give it up. You always possess it.

“Attack” does not refer exclusively to physical assault. You can be attacked physically, verbally, socially, financially, and in other ways. You always have the right to defend yourself against attacks of any sort.

The Right to Defend Others When They are Attacked

We all recognize that there are some who are unable to defend themselves (the young and the infirm are two examples) against attack. You have the right to defend others who are under attack just as you may defend yourself. Defending others against attack is one of the basic principles of civilized behavior. It is sometimes difficult not to attack the attackers yourself, but doing so is not defending others. Your right to defend others only extends to protecting them from attack and stopping the attack itself.

Current Reality

We recognize that many of the fundamental rights defined above are being abrogated or denied in our society today. That doesn’t invalidate these rights, it merely acknowledges that our society is imperfect. We believe that we must work to change society in all its aspects so these rights are fully recognized and accepted, and are allowed to all people. Only when everyone has freedom and liberty, will we have freedom and liberty.

Keep it going

Offline Doug Loss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,360
  • Gender: Male
  • Proud Tennessean
Re: Expanding our reach
« Reply #60 on: November 19, 2016, 04:35:31 pm »
OK, here's the expanded version, with responsibilities added.  I'm going to attach a copy here, then copy-n-paste it into the next message, which will be a bit lengthy.

[attachment deleted by admin]
My political philosophy:

1) I'm not bothering anybody.
2) It's none of your business.
3) Leave me alone!

Offline Doug Loss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,360
  • Gender: Male
  • Proud Tennessean
Re: Expanding our reach
« Reply #61 on: November 19, 2016, 04:38:40 pm »
What We Believe


Rights

We believe that all people have certain rights, which are theirs from birth and which cannot be taken from them.  Many people believe these rights to be imbued by God the Creator; others see them as inherent to consciousness and self-awareness.  But all agree that these rights are fundamental to all people.  These include the right to live, the right to speak freely and without retribution, the right to own property and do with it anything they desire, the right to live their lives in the way they desire, the right to associate with others or to refrain from associating with others, the right to defend themselves against any attacks by others, and the right to defend others exercising the same rights when those others are attacked.  These rights are absolute; they can only be restrained when exercising them would interfere with the rights of others to exercise the same rights.

This is not an exhaustive list of the rights people are born with.  There are certainly other rights that are inherent with existence, but which we haven't specified here.  There are some rights that might be thought of as growing from the rights listed, but which others might consider individual rights.

You will notice that these rights are not predicated on any particular personal characteristic or on membership in any particular group.  These are rights inherent to all people.  They inhere to the individual, not to any group.

From these rights grow the concepts of freedom and liberty.  “Freedom” is the condition of being free of restraints, especially the ability to act without control or interference by another or by circumstance.  It also includes the capacity to act by choice rather than by determination.  “Liberty” is a similar concept, the condition of being free from oppressive restriction or control by a government or other power.  The rights listed above show that we believe all people are born free.  To achieve liberty they must accept only those restrictions upon their freedom that they agree to, acting in consort with other individuals.  An example would be agreeing to work together to provide for the defense of the group all belong to rather than each individual trying to defend only himself and those he's responsible for.


The Right to Live

The right to live is fundamental; without life no other right has meaning.  Intentionally depriving an innocent person of his life is a crime in every civilized society in existence.  The only legitimate reasons for depriving another person of his life are the defense of yourself or another person who is in danger of being killed, or conviction for a capital crime after having been tried by a jury of peers.  Anything else is immoral and outside the bounds of civilized behavior.

The determination of personhood is one fraught with difficulty.  In times past, the personhood of people was denied because of ethnicity, religion, mental capacity, and various other criteria.  We believe that none of these criteria are valid determinants of personhood.  A human being is a person from birth until death, automatically and without qualification.

Many believe that personhood imbues a human being even before birth.  There are varied beliefs about when an unborn human being becomes a person—some believe this occurs at conception, some when the heart starts beating, some when a response to pain is evident, some when brain activity begins, some when viability outside the womb is possible.  But almost none of us believe that personhood only begins at birth.  For this reason abortion, particularly late-term and partial-birth abortion, is widely considered immoral and unconscionable.


The Right to Speak Freely and Without Retribution

All people have the right to say whatever they want to say, without fear of retribution.  Attempts to prevent others from speaking or to prevent them from being heard because their views disagree with those of the people making the attempts are unacceptable.  Rebuttals of disagreeable speech are of course allowed, as such discussion will allow all points of view to be heard.

The right to speak without retribution makes the imposition of speech codes and the public shaming of those voicing unpopular opinions immoral and deplorable.  Such activities are not acceptable in a free society.  Such actions only serve to show those who do them to be unable to defend their beliefs against opposition.


The Right to Own Property and Do With It Anything You Desire

Everyone has the right to own property and to use it in any way he wants providing he doesn't interfere with the rights of others in doing so.  There is no moral right to restrict a person from using his property as he sees fit.  A person can voluntarily agree to restrictions as a condition of acquiring the property, but restrictions imposed after the acquisition of the property are immoral and should not be allowed.  The taking of personal property for a societal good (the concept of imminent domain) should only be allowed for a demonstrable benefit to society in general, and with adequate compensation to the owner, not because some authority believes that a different owner would provide the authority itself with some benefit.


The Right to Live Your Life in the Way You Desire

So long as you aren't harming others or interfering with their exercise of their rights, you are free to live your life however you wish to.  You have no moral requirement to get someone else's permission to do the things you want to do.  Of course, no one else is under any moral obligation to do the things you want them to do just because you say so.  This right is related to the right to speak freely, the right to associate with those you want to and to not associate with those you don't, and the right to defend yourself and others from harm.  At its base, this right is what the concept of “liberty” means.


The Right to Associate With Others or to Refrain From Associating With Others

You have the moral right to associate with anyone you would like to, and the moral right to not associate with those you find undesirable.  No one may force you into associations you don't desire, or to forbid you to associate with others at your discretion.  The right to privacy comes from this fundamental right, as well as the right of security of your personal information.  As well, the right to refuse entry to your property to anyone including agents of the government is derived from this right.  If you are a business owner or service provider, the right to decide what services or products you provide and the conditions under which you provide them are also derived from this right.


The Right to Defend Yourself Against Attacks by Others

The right to life would be meaningless without the inherent right to defend yourself against attack.  You have the absolute right to do so.  You also have the right to possess the means of defending yourself, both the objects necessary for that defense and the training and ability to employ those objects competently.  This right is unalienable, meaning it can neither be taken from you, nor can you give it up.  You always possess it.

“Attack” does not refer exclusively to physical assault.  You can be attacked physically, verbally, socially, financially, and in other ways.  You always have the right to defend yourself against attacks of any sort.


The Right to Defend Others When They are Attacked

We all recognize that there are some who are unable to defend themselves (the young and the infirm are two examples) against attack.  You have the right to defend others who are under attack just as you may defend yourself.  Defending others against attack is one of the basic principles of civilized behavior.  It is sometimes difficult not to attack the attackers yourself, but doing so is not defending others.  Your right to defend others only extends to protecting them from attack and stopping the attack itself.


Current Reality

We recognize that many of the fundamental rights defined above are being abrogated or denied in our society today.  That doesn't invalidate these rights, it merely acknowledges that our society is imperfect.  We believe that we must work to change society in all its aspects so these rights are fully recognized and accepted, and are allowed to all people.  Only when everyone has freedom and liberty, will we have freedom and liberty.


Responsibilities

All rights come with responsibilities.  The very fact that other people exist and have the same rights we do creates the responsibility to not interfere with their rights while exercising ours.  And these responsibilities are not corporate, belonging only to some nebulous group, but are personal, belonging to each of us individually.  You are yourself responsible for the proper exercise of your rights and the defense of others' exercise of their rights.


Responsibility for Your Life and the Lives of Others

This responsibility applies to several of the rights listed above: the right to live, the right to defend yourself, and the right to defend others.  You are responsible for your own life.  If anyone is threatening your life or the lives of others, it is your responsibility to do whatever you can to eliminate that threat.  If you are able to subdue the attacker or otherwise remove the threatened people from potential harm, you have a moral obligation to do so.  If you are unable to do this, you have an obligation to contact anyone else you can in order to try to accomplish this.  Depending on some authority to take these actions for you is abrogating your responsibility—you must do what you can to protect your and others' lives, personally.


Responsibility for Free Speech

Everyone has the right to speak freely.  You must not allow yourself to be silenced by those who dislike what you are saying.  By the same token, you must not try to silence or allow others to try to silence those who say things you disagree with.  Rebutting the things others say that you disagree with is certainly your right, but keeping them from saying those things is unacceptable and it is your responsibility to ensure that they can speak.

You must refuse any sort of punitive actions against yourself or others, even those you disagree with, for the things they have said.  If such punitive actions are taken by others or by those in authority, it is your moral obligation to refuse to support those who take such actions, until the actions are rescinded.  It is also your responsibility to work to get such actions rescinded, whenever they occur.

No speech is automatically criminal, or “hate speech.”  If someone's speech causes him or others to engage in criminal actions, those actions are prosecutable.  But the only speech that is prosecutable is that which calls for such criminal actions to take place.  However much you may dislike the things being said, the right to say them is absolute.


Responsibility for Your Property

You are responsible for maintaining your property and for ensuring that others you invite to make use of it are not harmed by it.  If your property is stolen or is used without your permission, any injury caused by its use is not your responsibility.  By the same token, you must not attempt to hold others responsible for the misuse of their stolen or otherwise misappropriated property.


Responsibility for Your Life Choices

You may live your life in any way you desire.  You are responsible for the direct effect your lifestyle has on others.  For example, if you choose to play loud music at 3 AM you are responsible for ensuring that others who wish to sleep at that time are not kept from doing so by your music. 

Others may try to take advantage of this responsibility by positing some unquantifiable effect of your lifestyle choices.  In general, if your choices don't limit the choices of others you have a moral right to them.  You also have a responsibility to support others whose choices are being questioned, if those choices don't actually affect anyone else.


Responsibility for Free Association

You may associate or refuse to associate with anyone you desire, as may anyone else.  You must not try to force an unwanted association on others, or try to prevent a desired association.  When others attempt this, it is your responsibility to support those being targeted in their intentions.  This includes both individuals and businesses—businesses may not be forced to provide products or services they don't wish to provide, or prohibited from providing products or services they wish to.  You must support such businesses even if you disagree with their decisions about these products or services.

Individuals and businesses may not be forced to provide information they don't wish to provide unless required to by formal legal proceedings.  You must support these individuals and businesses if they refuse to do so.


Responsibility for Defending Yourself and Others

When you or others you are aware of are attacked, you must defend yourself and them in any way you can.  As explained above, “attack” does not mean only physical assault.  You must respond to any attacks in an appropriate fashion.  This response must be measured, and intended to stop the attack and protect those being attacked.  The original attack may not be used as an excuse for an attack of your own.  However, if such a counterattack is the only to stop the provoking attack it is not only allowed, but required.


Citizenship

In the description of responsibilities above, the phrases “you must” and “you are responsible for” are moral and not legal phrases.  These responsibilities are requirements for proper citizenship, allowing us all to protect and support each other in the free exercise of our rights, and to ensure the blessings of liberty to each and every one of us.
My political philosophy:

1) I'm not bothering anybody.
2) It's none of your business.
3) Leave me alone!

Offline Doug Loss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,360
  • Gender: Male
  • Proud Tennessean
Re: Expanding our reach
« Reply #62 on: November 21, 2016, 01:34:06 pm »
No comments?  Please folks, I want to be sure I'm on the right track.
My political philosophy:

1) I'm not bothering anybody.
2) It's none of your business.
3) Leave me alone!

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,531
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Expanding our reach
« Reply #63 on: November 21, 2016, 02:44:45 pm »
No comments?  Please folks, I want to be sure I'm on the right track.

Doug I'm sorry but with the upcoming holiday pressing, I don't have time right now to give this the attention it properly deserves.  I have read it and it looks good at first glance. I will get back to it after this week I promise!
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,804
  • Gender: Male
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Re: Expanding our reach
« Reply #64 on: November 21, 2016, 03:00:33 pm »
More or less the same as Bigun, Doug. I like what you've written, but need to print it out and sit down with the paper and pen (for some reason, that simply works better for me) to look for holes and places that need tightening up.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
Re: Expanding our reach
« Reply #65 on: November 21, 2016, 03:13:45 pm »
What We Believe
The Right to Live

The right to live is fundamental; without life no other right has meaning.  Intentionally depriving an innocent person of his life is a crime in every civilized society in existence.  The only legitimate reasons for depriving another person of his life are the defense of yourself or another person who is in danger of being killed, or conviction for a capital crime after having been tried by a jury of peers.  Anything else is immoral and outside the bounds of civilized behavior.

Does this mean agreeing to follow your government's lead into war is immoral and outside the bounds of civilized behavior?
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,804
  • Gender: Male
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Re: Expanding our reach
« Reply #66 on: November 21, 2016, 03:18:23 pm »
Does this mean agreeing to follow your government's lead into war is immoral and outside the bounds of civilized behavior?

In an ideal world the military is there for defense, not offense. Most serving members agree they are defending their country. Very few sign up for a license to kill people.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
Re: Expanding our reach
« Reply #67 on: November 21, 2016, 03:20:41 pm »
The Right to Speak Freely and Without Retribution

All people have the right to say whatever they want to say, without fear of retribution.  Attempts to prevent others from speaking or to prevent them from being heard because their views disagree with those of the people making the attempts are unacceptable.  Rebuttals of disagreeable speech are of course allowed, as such discussion will allow all points of view to be heard.

The right to speak without retribution makes the imposition of speech codes and the public shaming of those voicing unpopular opinions immoral and deplorable.  Such activities are not acceptable in a free society.  Such actions only serve to show those who do them to be unable to defend their beliefs against opposition.

No consequence for words spoken?  Lies, slander, personal attacks okay as long they can have rebuttals?

You can state any words but don't expect everyone to accept them without any actions in response.  Boycotts, call for public figures to be fired or reprimanded, etc. 

Spoken/written words can be damaging to others and thus may have greater consequences than only rebuttal.

The language here seems to put the speaker/writer above others and their allowable recourse.
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
Re: Expanding our reach
« Reply #68 on: November 21, 2016, 03:25:00 pm »
The Right to Associate With Others or to Refrain From Associating With Others

You have the moral right to associate with anyone you would like to, and the moral right to not associate with those you find undesirable.  No one may force you into associations you don't desire, or to forbid you to associate with others at your discretion.  The right to privacy comes from this fundamental right, as well as the right of security of your personal information.  As well, the right to refuse entry to your property to anyone including agents of the government is derived from this right.  If you are a business owner or service provider, the right to decide what services or products you provide and the conditions under which you provide them are also derived from this right.

No discrimination laws?  I can exclude whites from entering my store.  I can prevent woman from entering my restaurant unless accompanied by a male family member and require them to wear a veil?
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline Doug Loss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,360
  • Gender: Male
  • Proud Tennessean
Re: Expanding our reach
« Reply #69 on: November 21, 2016, 03:29:29 pm »
No consequence for words spoken?  Lies, slander, personal attacks okay as long they can have rebuttals?

You can state any words but don't expect everyone to accept them without any actions in response.  Boycotts, call for public figures to be fired or reprimanded, etc. 

Spoken/written words can be damaging to others and thus may have greater consequences than only rebuttal.

The language here seems to put the speaker/writer above others and their allowable recourse.

You need to read the sections on the rights to defend against attack, both attacks to yourself and to others.  I tried to make it clear that "attacks" aren't limited to physical assault but also cover just what you ask about here.  And look in the responsibilities section for information about boycotts, etc.  I don't address all this in fine detail because this is more of a creed than a set of laws to decide your every action.
My political philosophy:

1) I'm not bothering anybody.
2) It's none of your business.
3) Leave me alone!

Offline Doug Loss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,360
  • Gender: Male
  • Proud Tennessean
Re: Expanding our reach
« Reply #70 on: November 21, 2016, 03:32:18 pm »
No discrimination laws?  I can exclude whites from entering my store.  I can prevent woman from entering my restaurant unless accompanied by a male family member and require them to wear a veil?

Morally? Yes.  Legally (today)? No.  You can be as bigoted as you desire to be.  In the long run it will limit you in ways you probably can't foresee.  For example, if you had such discriminatory rules for your establishment, I would not patronize you even if I met your requirements, and I would encourage others not to do so.  Is this a boycott?  Could be; but there's nothing wrong with people making their own decisions based on what they see and how if clashes with their principles.  You know, you raise a valid point.  I said you must support businesses that are being targeted because of their practices, but now I'm admitting that I would boycott some businesses because of their practices.  I'll have to make it clearer that you must support them in being allowed to do business as they see fit, but you aren't required to patronize them if that way of doing business conflicts with your principles.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2016, 04:06:17 pm by Doug Loss »
My political philosophy:

1) I'm not bothering anybody.
2) It's none of your business.
3) Leave me alone!

Offline Doug Loss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,360
  • Gender: Male
  • Proud Tennessean
Re: Expanding our reach
« Reply #71 on: November 21, 2016, 03:36:46 pm »
Does this mean agreeing to follow your government's lead into war is immoral and outside the bounds of civilized behavior?

You have missed the sentences about intentionally depriving innocent people of life, and about defending yourself and others.  But yes, sometimes following your government's lead into war is immoral and outside the bounds of civilized behavior.  Consider the Nazis, or the Japanese government from the 1930s on.  This doesn't say war is always immoral; that's too big a topic for here, now, but it's been delved into quite deeply already. (Look for documents about the concept of "just war.")
My political philosophy:

1) I'm not bothering anybody.
2) It's none of your business.
3) Leave me alone!

Offline LateForLunch

  • GOTWALMA Get Out of the Way and Leave Me Alone! (Nods to Teebone)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,349
Re: Expanding our reach
« Reply #72 on: November 21, 2016, 03:49:59 pm »
A little off topic and I'm considering opening a thread about monomachy (dueling) so I wonder what you think about that. Historically, it had both advantages and disadvantages and since the latter outweighed the former in the opinions of our nation's leaders (including friends/family of Alexander Hamilton!), it was banned.

I have mused from time-to-time that if it were still legal, it would tend to ameliorate the tendency of vicious cowards to spew hateful slander which succeeds in staying in "legal" territory but which egregiously encroaches into immorality.

I doubt we would have to suffer half of the idiotic, hateful nonsense spewed by cacogens over the mass media or Net if the principles believed that they might well be held accountable through challenge in mortal combat (or forfeiture of their material possessions if they declined) in defense of those views. 

If an armed society is a polite society (and I believe it tends to be) then perhaps a society which allows people to be held directly accountable for their public statements with the most direct means possible would be exquisitely polite.

As an adjunct topic, I also wonder if execution by torture should be permitted, since currently in our culture, the only people who suffer death by torture are innocent victims of murder, not those who inflict it upon others.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2016, 03:58:53 pm by LateForLunch »
GOTWALMA Get out of the way and leave me alone! (Nods to General Teebone)

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
Re: Expanding our reach
« Reply #73 on: November 21, 2016, 04:43:42 pm »
In an ideal world the military is there for defense, not offense. Most serving members agree they are defending their country. Very few sign up for a license to kill people.

In the real world, offense is often part of defense.  I believe many of our military actions would be stretched to call defensive.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-grenada/

Quote
On October 25 {1983}, U.S. Marines invaded Grenada, where they encountered unexpectedly heavy antiaircraft fire and ground resistance by the Cuban soldiers and laborers building the controversial airstrip. In two days they subdued the air and ground forces.

Reagan's credibility was bolstered by what the 5,000-strong American invading force found on the island: a cache of weapons that could arm 10,000 men -- automatic rifles, machine guns, rocket launchers, antiaircraft guns, howitzers, cannon, armored vehicles and coastal patrol boats. In all, out of 800 Cubans, 59 were killed, 25 were wounded, and the rest were returned to Havana upon surrender. Forty-five Grenadians died, and 337 were wounded. America also suffered casualties: 19 dead and 119 wounded. The medical students came home unharmed.
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,648
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: Expanding our reach
« Reply #74 on: November 21, 2016, 04:50:36 pm »
A little off topic and I'm considering opening a thread about monomachy (dueling) so I wonder what you think about that. Historically, it had both advantages and disadvantages and since the latter outweighed the former in the opinions of our nation's leaders (including friends/family of Alexander Hamilton!), it was banned.

I have mused from time-to-time that if it were still legal, it would tend to ameliorate the tendency of vicious cowards to spew hateful slander which succeeds in staying in "legal" territory but which egregiously encroaches into immorality.

I doubt we would have to suffer half of the idiotic, hateful nonsense spewed by cacogens over the mass media or Net if the principles believed that they might well be held accountable through challenge in mortal combat (or forfeiture of their material possessions if they declined) in defense of those views. 

If an armed society is a polite society (and I believe it tends to be) then perhaps a society which allows people to be held directly accountable for their public statements with the most direct means possible would be exquisitely polite.

As an adjunct topic, I also wonder if execution by torture should be permitted, since currently in our culture, the only people who suffer death by torture are innocent victims of murder, not those who inflict it upon others.
I think it would not take long before someone who was good at handling weapons could say anything they pleased. That isn't a desirable outcome, especially in a culture where rights of the weak are to be protected against the depredations of the strong. The 'might makes right' attitude is not what we need, more one of right makes might, in that those who speak truth should be reinforced in that effort with the force of government, if need be.
Proficiency at dueling would only establish an ability to kill one's opponent, regardless of the truthfulness of a statement which perhaps should go challenged and would otherwise.
All this would mean is that we would have nasty pundits and news deliverers who would be good with weapons as a prerequisite.

Laws against libel and slander which allow for criminal and/or civil redress remain the preferable option.

Death by torture? While I will agree that in some instances capital punishment is warranted by the nature of a crime, I question the use of death by torture.

Some crimes, by nature of their punishment were considered unthinkable by most.

What crimes would you propose met with what we have defined as "cruel and unusual punishment"? Creative things, like boiling in oil, dismemberment, oubliettes, drawing and quartering, even (in most states) hanging have been pretty much considered to be out of bounds. So what would you do to which criminals?

« Last Edit: November 21, 2016, 04:56:18 pm by Smokin Joe »
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis