Thread: The Balance between Conservatives and Progressives - Why Consensus is the Next Stage

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Ok but doesn't that on some level assume that politicians are always going to make the right choice? What happens if the people change their mind? Can they refuse to follow federal law if they decide to change their stance?

If they don't think they're politician is going to make the right choice the constituency votes him out. They don't have terms, they're always vulnerable to lack of confidence. And yes contracts can be changed if representatives change their minds. What may be a good idea may be bad practice.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Ok but doesn't that on some level assume that politicians are always going to make the right choice? What happens if the people change their mind? Can they refuse to follow federal law if they decide to change their stance?

Jury Nullification. A judge can tell you that it's illegal, but it is NEVER. EVER. Ever illegal. I really wish more people knew about it, because we wouldn't have some of our silly federal laws like "no possession of illicit substances" and whatnot.

That's what happens if you change your mind, unfortunately ALL effective governing bodies derived from a citizenry require a responsible, involved citizenry.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

If they don't think they're politician is going to make the right choice the constituency votes him out. They don't have terms, they're always vulnerable to lack of confidence. And yes contracts can be changed if representatives change their minds. What may be a good idea may be bad practice.

Ok so states can refuse to listen to Federal law if they wish to retract their previous support, right?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Ok so states can refuse to listen to Federal law if they wish to retract their previous support, right?

If they can turn over their representative or convince them to switch sides, then yes. They can ask for new compromise. There's still a process to go through though, legislation must be prioritized.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

If they can turn over their representative or convince them to switch sides, then yes. They can ask for new compromise. There's still a process to go through though, legislation must be prioritized.

Ok so to put this in a modern example, say I live in California and they want to legalize weed. California nullifies Federal drug laws in that state and refuses to prosecute weed offenders and will jail any federal agent who tries to arrest a weed offender. Is this acceptable in your system?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Ok so to put this in a modern example, say I live in California and they want to legalize weed. California nullifies Federal drug laws in that state and refuses to prosecute weed offenders and will jail any federal agent who tries to arrest a weed offender. Is this acceptable in your system?

Federal agents shouldn't be dealing with a State's Rights issue in that scenario. The DEA doesn't need to exist because it's a state's rights issue..

I don't see what's so wrong with the example you brought up. Please bring up an example where my form of government would actually be harmful to society.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I don't see what's so wrong with the example you brought up. Please bring up an example where my form of government would actually be harmful to society.

Well I think the very existence of government is harmful to society but that is another issue. I just wanted to be sure I was getting your form of government correct.

You're going to have to back that one up, too. How would we be better off without a fire department?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

You're going to have to back that one up, too. How would we be better off without a fire department?

Falsely assumes fire fighting services would not exist without a territorial monopoly on force.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Falsely assumes fire fighting services would not exist without a territorial monopoly on force.

I don't want to have to pay the fire department to put out a fire. Thank you but public utilities serve a purpose.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I don't want to have to pay the fire department to put out a fire. Thank you but public utilities serve a purpose.

No such thing as free lunch. Also ignores what I said and changes the topic.

Nicely done, confusing a public utility with a charity.

Not sure about you guys... but OUR fire department runs on a tax levy... and they always have their levy renewed (because we think fire is bad.)

It's not a charity... but I don't think Blueline976 was saying that, he was referring to the fact that you have to pay money to HAVE a fire department...?

Unless you guys don't pay taxes. Then that would explain it.

I couldn't make sense of what he was saying, but it sounded like he was acting like I don't know the difference between a charity and public utility because I don't want a private fire department.

I don't get that sense at all from what he said. "No such thing as a free lunch" is just a saying (usually used in a libertarian context) that implies people are expecting something out of government without paying.

Maybe everyone here is mistaken as to what each of us has said... that's my best guess O.o

I got the impression that he was straw manning me because I never insinuating the fire department should be free, just that it should be a tax levy. Maybe I should have been more clear. But I don't care, that libertarian argument is simply ignorant. No one thinks there's such thing as free lunch. It's purely a misconception. The point is protection from fire should be the bottom line of a fire department, not profit. Same with health, education, law-enforcement, incarceration, etc. etc.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I got the impression that he was straw manning me because I never insinuating the fire department should be free, just that it should be a tax levy. point is protection from fire should be the bottom line of a fire department, not profit. Same with health, education, law-enforcement, incarceration, etc. etc.

Do you NOT have a tax levy for your fire department? Odd...

I don't think anyone here was implying of a profit-based fire department in any way, though. Hmm... (I definitely think this discussion was one huge misunderstanding)

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Do you NOT have a tax levy for your fire department? Odd...

I don't think anyone here was implying of a profit-based fire department in any way, though. Hmm... (I definitely think this discussion was one huge misunderstanding)

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well I think the very existence of government is harmful to society but that is another issue.

This is what started me saying I don't want to pay the fire department to put out a fire.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I don't want to have to pay the fire department to put out a fire.

What do you think taxes are....

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

This is what started me saying I don't want to pay the fire department to put out a fire.

Yes and its obviously a misnomer. Just because I do not want the government to provide fire fighting services does not mean I do not want fire fighting services period. Just because the government does not make shoes, does that mean that shoes should not exist?

So you want your fire department to be a private, profit making industry? -_- Didn't you learn from healthcare, how terrible an idea that is?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

So you want your fire department to be a private, profit making industry? -_- Didn't you learn from healthcare, how terrible an idea that is?

Why are you assuming that the healthcare industry is a freed market? It is entangled with bureaucratic nonsense and corporations often lobby the government for regulation because they know they can get around it while smaller competitors who try to maximize their efficiency and gain new customers through better practices are harmed by it thus ensuring giant corporations their place in the system. Imagine if you stopped the government from giving drug patents.

Yeah, blurring the lines between private and public in that way is definitely harmful. But I even without that kind of unfair regulation, what makes you think health care companies wouldn't pull the same bullshit? Let's look at a positive example of government intervention: The lightbulb. Did you know without the federal government you'd have to buy one single kind of lightbulb to fit the type of socket you have in your house? Thanks to the federal government, all lightbulb sockets are universal.