Thread: The Intrusion of Socialism in the United States

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Actually he is correct in the sense that socialism, either utopian or 'scientific', advocates the destruction of all classes except the working class. So there isn't a 'middle class' as that denotes an upper and lower. There is just the working class.

By chance, how much learn making have you done with socialism?

Hmm. All right. But working class doesn't equal lower class (not in communism). If there is no inequality, everyone if middle class. It's a simple logic really.

Your selection of words is just to try to bring the concept down. No inequality means no poverty. Everyone will have as many privileges as the technology of the time allows.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Hmm. All right. But working class doesn't equal lower class (not in communism). If there is no inequality, everyone if middle class. It's a simple logic really.

It doesn't make sense to call a class the 'middle' if there is nothing above or below it. That is simple logic.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Your selection of words is just to try to bring the concept down. No inequality means no poverty. Everyone will have as many privileges as the technology of the time allows.

Yes and some are more equal then others. Apart from the very premise that inequality exists at conception of an individual, why the crusade to 'correct' it? It would seem strange to say something like 'inequality is bad' then say 'but people should be what they want to be'

I laughed by only reading the title.

It has become obvious to me over the time, that there on this community is an Americanized concept of socialism, you think you are talking about socialism, but you are talking about socialism the way Americans see it, which is absolutely flawed. Either you are victim of propaganda or you believe it and make it yourself.

It is quite obvious, that many Americans see socialism for something it is not, they see it in absolute terms, or compare it to communism. They do not see the pragmatic approach that has been made here in Europe, particular Northern Europe.

From what I have read over time, it is a futile cause to make reason with you, your viewpoint is so deeply engrained into your culture and political world, there is no dynamic, only crystallized belief.

There is no reason to discuss this subject here, as there is no change in opinion as result of rational discussion. There can come nothing productive out of two fortified strongholds shooting at each other, endlessly.

It is like discussing science versus creationism, but here YOU are on the other end. This is of course not realized.

Just look at the title, "The Intrusion .." Oh the horrible threat of socialism must be combated! Load up your guns! They can solve about anything can't they? They have saved you from the big bad "terrorism", haven't they *cough*

Your dear and sacred constitution.. PATRIOT ACT *cough cough*

Fear

Terrorism, terrorism, Al Qaeda, Al, Qaeda, SWINE FLU, swine flu, socialism, socialism, OSAMA BIN LADEN.

Culture is filled with fear, it feeds from it. Unhealthy.

Corporation, media, propaganda, privatize, imperialism, Holy constitution, conservatism, CONSUMERISM, pollution, EGO, FEAR, consume more, produce more, CONFORMITY, authority, materialism, CORRUPTION.

Your associations with those words will give some response, the question is, do you see the connection?

I don't expect a rational response to this post, its purpose was to expose any diversity I hope is existent in your shared space of living. And maybe to do some de-crystallization, but I know that is close to impossible.

Originally Posted by Marvo

Well, I doubt it's written anywhere directly. I'm just basing this off of everybody raging on about how the new healthcare system completely contradicts essential parts of the constitution. I just took their word for it.

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows government to provide "free" or national healthcare. So, really, it does contradict the Constitution by allowing the government to do something it, in theory, is not allowed to do.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So you theorize that a monopoly on a good or service actually leads to the lowering of its price?

I'm not necessarily advocating a system where a government has an absolute monopoly over a single good or service. What i am saying is that things like socialized healthcare are at the end of the day good for the common man.

I believe that socialized healthcare while not being for everybody, has a place.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Because the government would never do anything that contradicts the very thing that is suppose to limit its power? What a naive faith.

I never said the government would never do such a thing, i even gave an example of the government doing such a thing.

Give me a little more credit....

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows government to provide "free" or national healthcare. So, really, it does contradict the Constitution by allowing the government to do something it, in theory, is not allowed to do.

Sources?

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

[a really long spew of generalized and baseless insults against Americans]

Your post is cute. Since you are superior to Americans and are he who knows that which is thy REAL truth, tell us all what socialism REALLY is. You left that part out.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Your post is cute. Since you are superior to Americans and are he who knows that which is thy REAL truth, tell us all what socialism REALLY is. You left that part out.

He has a point, lots of Americans see socialism in absolute terms equating it with stalinism or communism in Cuba when they think of it rather than the practical aspects of socialism that are being used in Western Europe and trying to be set up in America now (e.g. Healthcare).

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

It has become obvious to me over the time, that there on this community is an Americanized concept of socialism, you think you are talking about socialism, but you are talking about socialism the way Americans see it, which is absolutely flawed. Either you are victim of propaganda or you believe it and make it yourself.

It is quite obvious, that many Americans see socialism for something it is not, they see it in absolute terms, or compare it to communism.

Did you ever consider that our view on socialism is in line with the way in which it is being implemented, or attempting to be implemented within our country? In which case we are seeing for what it is as being applied to our system.

I know exactly what socialism is as you and others are suggesting, and it is not within that static definition, or the common held european definition that I or likely most of us are basing our views on socialism. It is the destructive way it is being fostered in our society that forges our view. Capatalism has its own version of socialism that works within its within the capatalistic economic framework, its called private charity. Expanding and promoting such would be a much more successful endeavor than to wreck the whole country and liberty itself by forcing socialism onto a non socialist capatalistic economy as the Democratic party seems evermore hell bent on doing.
Outsiders like to accuse us of being ignorant of socialism as it so loved by Europeans, however as UM suggests perhaps it is the outsiders that have no real understanding of American government or the American People that is playing out here.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Talk about a love affair with a piece of paper. Question if the constitution actually did survive if a portion of the country who no longer agreed to live by it had it forcibly applied to it. Then again, the constitution was established as a document whose goal was to increase centralized power and develop an overarching federal system. So if you look at it like that then yes, the constitution has done its job of establishing a base head for future federal intervention into the liberty of individuals. However, if you look in terms of social power [ liberty, voluntary exchange, liberalism ] then the constitution is clearly the negation of such a power. It is political power [ coercion, subjugation ]. We have here a great example of Albert J Nock's view of human history. A race between social power on the one hand, and political [ state ] power on the other.

Paper is paper, but the ideals behind this paper are what is to love, and these ideals of the freedom of the individual, and the right of the individual to responsibly govern himself through that one piece of paper transcend the mere paper it is printed on.
I would suggest that the social power and the political power has been merged with the Democratic party of the United States, and said combined powers have served to corrupt the government and the whole theme of government as established under the principles of the declaration of independence and the constitution of the United States.

Originally Posted by Marvo

Yes, your constitution has done a great job. What I'm saying is that it is obsolete for a modern world, like the one the rest of the western world is living in right now. That's simply my impression.

Well, this seems to be what others are thinking these days, but the jury is still out on that decision.......

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Citations concerning? I dispensed a small bit of knowledge but you still have to be specific.

the constitution was established as a document whose goal was to increase centralized power and develop an overarching federal system

This is stated as a fact, can you cite sources?

Also,

if you look in terms of social power [ liberty, voluntary exchange, liberalism ] then the constitution is clearly the negation of such a power.

Could use a bit more of an explanation, examples.

Originally Posted by Soros

I'm not necessarily advocating a system where a government has an absolute monopoly over a single good or service. What i am saying is that things like socialized healthcare are at the end of the day good for the common man.

I believe that socialized healthcare while not being for everybody, has a place.

Ok then so you theorize that moving closer to a monopoly which essentially is what socialized medicine does will then decrease prices?

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Paper is paper, but the ideals behind this paper are what is to love, and these ideals of the freedom of the individual, and the right of the individual to responsibly govern himself through that one piece of paper transcend the mere paper it is printed on.
I would suggest that the social power and the political power has been merged with the Democratic party of the United States, and said combined powers have served to corrupt the government and the whole theme of government as established under the principles of the declaration of independence and the constitution of the United States.

You do know who wrote and propounded the constitution correct? By the way, you cannot 'combine' two opposites into a single source. The Democratic party cannot both be A and non-A. And why neglect the Republican party which is founded on centralization, protective tariffs, mercantilism, fervent nationalism, militarism and overzealous morality. At least the Democratic party was once the party of individualism, something the Republicans truly have never been.

Originally Posted by ClouD

This is stated as a fact, can you cite sources?

I take it you've read the opening articles in the Constitution? Are they not establishing Federal government? Before then there was just a simple congress of individuals based on a confederation, not my ideal but none the less better then a constitution in terms of diffusion of power

Originally Posted by ClouD

Could use a bit more of an explanation, examples.

Examples of social power vs. state power?

Here is Albert J Nock's work explaining the difference. Our Enemy, The State

Social power would be like giving to charity [ voluntarily ], engaging in non-coercive free exchange. Actions that are not enhanced, subsidized, regulated etc. by the state. That which does not give power to the state but power to the individuals. State power is naturally the opposite of this.

Originally Posted by Soros

Sources?

What, do you want me to paste the entire Constitution here?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

What, do you want me to paste the entire Constitution here?

He is probably going to pull the general welfare clause on you.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

He is probably going to pull the general welfare clause on you.

I'll run to get my copy of The Revolution to thwart him.

Originally Posted by Marvo

Yes, your constitution has done a great job. What I'm saying is that it is obsolete for a modern world, like the one the rest of the western world is living in right now. That's simply my impression.

Bit of advice: don't ever take someone's word when it comes to the constitution. Especially far right-wingers. They generally don't know what they're talking about. The constitution was written with flexibility in mind. The founding fathers were intelligent enough to figure that changing times inevitably require adaptation.

Due to the fact that the U.S. is the largest industrialized nation, there are bound to be some questions as to the viability of such ideas as socialized healthcare. It may work on the scale of Denmark or Sweden, but whether it would work or not for the U.S. is untested speculation. There are an immense amount of factors to consider for such a thing.

I'd also like to add that any attempt to lump all Americans together under one belief or stereotype, as some seem to be doing, is bullshit of the stinkiest kind. America is one of the most diverse nations on Earth (if not the most) with people of all conceivable ideologies. Saying we all think this or that is simply false. The incredibly close election results illustrate this point.

The US and europe has been basically going in the same direction for many years now. Only the US is moving towards socialism at a slower pace. American's defenitly sees socialism in a different light that it was orginally made out to be. It is more of a soft socialism, where people just paying extremely high taxes and then gets ton of benefits.

There is huge flaws with that system, which should become apparent to anyone with half a brain. The soft form of socialism does not work, and only drags everyone down into poverty.

Real socialism is just as bad, because it is always coupled with corrupt government. The transition into a pure socialist state always involves the increase in size of government, because government is needed to force everyone into it. Of course once the government is that big and is forcing people to do stuff, it is easy to see how it goes corrupt and becomes a living nightmare.

That is why socialism never works, and in my opinion, its stupid to even attempt to move towards socialism. Socialism has always been better in theory than in practice. If you wanted real socialism, you need to go about it the opposite way, through anarchy. Basically all government disappears and people decide to share and to help each other. It can never be forced upon people. However most socialist are more than happy to force their ways on people. Which is why we have so many problems today.

As for the consitution, it is an extremely important document. Not everything in it is perfect, which is why it can be changed. It is extremely difficult to change for a reason. Things should not change easily or often. Only when things are important should they change.

However the idea's behind it are far more important than the details. Especially in regards to the bill of rights. Which specifically tries to limit the size of the federal governemnt with the tenth amendment. The fact that our government is full of assholes who work illegally outside the law doesn't change the fact that they are not supposed to.

To say the government never does anything bad or wrong is also silly, since the courts often over rule things as unconstituional for the very fact they often push their powers beyond what is legal.

The constitution was written to form a federal government, but they went to great lengths to try and balance things. The idea was that if you had no government at all, you had chaos and people were not protected. Some government was needed. However, that government should never take away the rights of an individual. The consitution is filled with thing that limit government.

The key to understanding the consitution and what is based on, is the bill of rights. You might be able to argue over some smaller details in the constitution but you can not claim the bill of rights is outdated. That is like saying freedom is outdated. Freedom can never be outdated, nor can the philosophy of what our country was founded on ever become outdated.

The difference between the US and nearly every other country is this. An american believes they are born free with all the rights of a free person. While other countries believe that a person is born free but the rights they have at any given time are decided by their government.

In the US freedom is an absolute and it is constant. It never changes. In other countries, it can and does change, based on what the government or the population decides.

When people talk about freedom, they are speaking of one of three things. The first is just the propoganda verson of freedom. People use it a lot, to pump people up to support things that actually remove their freedoms.

The second, is the whisy washy verson. The kind a democratic country uses, you vote on things, you have a voice. Your voice is what is important and things are decided in the best intrest of the whole. Your freedoms are subject to the majority and the best interest of the country.

Then there is the US verson of freedom. The hardcore, selfish, greedy, individualistic verson. It is all about the individuals freedom, no room for compromise. The US is probably the only country that promotes the citizens raising up and murdering their leaders if they get out of control. We do not mess around. No person in the world, has the right to take your freedoms. And if they try, you are legally able to defend yourself.

To paraphrase Lysander Spooner, the Constitution is clearly a document that has either:

Allowed the growth of government to come about or it has been powerless to stop it.

Either way it shows that it is a useless document if the current state of affairs is distasteful. How pointless it is to leave the interpretation of a document whose purpose is to check despotism in the hands of the very institution it seeks to check. The 'founding fathers', oh how I hate those words, were clearly wrong in thinking that government is somehow a neutral institution that can be used to better mankind if only put into the right hands.

Alric above states what is on my mind much bettter than my poor atttempts here have done.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Either way it shows that it is a useless document if the current state of affairs is distasteful. How pointless it is to leave the interpretation of a document whose purpose is to check despotism in the hands of the very institution it seeks to check. The 'founding fathers', oh how I hate those words, were clearly wrong in thinking that government is somehow a neutral institution that can be used to better mankind if only put into the right hands.

You seem well versed in political theory and definition, but the meaning of government as implemented in the United States seems to elude you. What you say here is exactly how the federal government is set up and supposed to work. You must remember that the government on paper is dependant on the integrity of the collection of individual citizens elected to it.
Our method of government is flexible enough to accomodate a certain amount of corrupt individuals within its ranks without upsetting the balance and jeopradizing the institution itself. People are people, none are perfect and all contain flaws and strengths to one degree or another.
It is in the hands of the citizens to exercise the responsibility to elect persons of integrity who will execute their elected offices with the express interests of the whole of the nation in heart and mind. Individuals who will first and foremeost work together to maintain the balance of government.
What has happened over a number of decades is that our citizenry has become lazy and irresponsible in their duty as citizens. Elections here, and representation in government at the state, and predomionately federal levels, has degenrated into a mindless game to see how many tax dollars can be sent back to the representatives home districts or home states. The mentality has shifted from one of upholding and maintaining individual rights as gaurenteed through the constitution, to simply one of "what can I get out of the government". If anything will destroy this government and the nation here is the irresponsible mentaility of the people themselves.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

you cannot 'combine' two opposites into a single source. The Democratic party cannot both be A and non-A.

Oh but yes it can. The very nature of our government makes this quite possible. That this is the case is why it is almost impossible to curtail the direction that this now rogue party is carrying this nation.
Another point must be made, is that many individuals in the democratic party are simply supporting it, not because they believe in its direction, but rather because they are too proud to vote against a party they have been part of for so long.
This is where the Republican Party is falling way short. The Republican party is not reaching out to the long time democrats whos party mentality has essentially left them without a party. The Republicans are not shifting to the necesary median ground where they can represent a broader citizenry and work to be that nuetral median needed for our federal governemnt to actually work for the interests all without threatening the framework of our governemnt and our economy by the adoption of socialistic programs that redistribute wealth.
While I commend the Republican party for holding the line against the intrusion of socialist programs, I heavily criticize them for not doing anything real to re-work and/or remove these programs when they do have the power to do so.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

You seem well versed in political theory and definition, but the meaning of government as implemented in the United States seems to elude you. What you say here is exactly how the federal government is set up and supposed to work. You must remember that the government on paper is dependant on the integrity of the collection of individual citizens elected to it.

I do know that but if an individual has no right to invade my privacy, suppress my rights then it follows that a majority cannot do such a thing.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Our method of government is flexible enough to accomodate a certain amount of corrupt individuals within its ranks without upsetting the balance and jeopradizing the institution itself. People are people, none are perfect and all contain flaws and strengths to one degree or another.

So you admit that the most powerful institution in human history has corruption but that is ok so long as it doesn't erode itself?

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

It is in the hands of the citizens to exercise the responsibility to elect persons of integrity who will execute their elected offices with the express interests of the whole of the nation in heart and mind. Individuals who will first and foremeost work together to maintain the balance of government. What has happened over a number of decades is that our citizenry has become lazy and irresponsible in their duty as citizens. Elections here, and representation in government at the state, and predomionately federal levels, has degenrated into a mindless game to see how many tax dollars can be sent back to the representatives home districts or home states. The mentality has shifted from one of upholding and maintaining individual rights as gaurenteed through the constitution, to simply one of "what can I get out of the government". If anything will destroy this government and the nation here is the irresponsible mentaility of the people themselves.

Firstly, if this is true then government should be abolished due to the changing of sentiment. It is ridiculous to keep it in power if such statements are true. Secondly, you yet again claim that the constitution guarantees individual rights yet have not acknowledged that the very institution which we are suppose to be protect against gets to interpret it. Third, I don't think voting has ever been about what is best for the country, just what is best for whatever party you belonged in. It goes back to the Federalist and Anti-Federalists.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Oh but yes it can. The very nature of our government makes this quite possible. That this is the case is why it is almost impossible to curtail the direction that this now rogue party is carrying this nation.
Another point must be made, is that many individuals in the democratic party are simply supporting it, not because they believe in its direction, but rather because they are too proud to vote against a party they have been part of for so long.

Um no it can't. Observe the laws of logic. You can't be a liberty-orientated party and a non-liberty-orientated party.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

This is where the Republican Party is falling way short. The Republican party is not reaching out to the long time democrats whos party mentality has essentially left them without a party. The Republicans are not shifting to the necesary median ground where they can represent a broader citizenry and work to be that nuetral median needed for our federal governemnt to actually work for the interests all without threatening the framework of our governemnt and our economy by the adoption of socialistic programs that redistribute wealth.

What doublethink, you want programs and outlooks that are aimed at the greatest amount of citizenry yet are not socialistic.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

While I commend the Republican party for holding the line against the intrusion of socialist programs, I heavily criticize them for not doing anything real to re-work and/or remove these programs when they do have the power to do so.

Well we have seen Republicans in power before yet they have not reduced the size and scope of government. They had the power, it never happened...on multiple occasions. Therefore given what has been experienced one can only assume that they are not really interested in reducing such institution.

The government doesn't get to interrupt the laws. The constitution is pretty clear cut on what is allowed and what isn't. The corruption is due directly from people neglecting their duties, not because the constitution is written poorly.

All three branches of the government, as well as the citizens of the country, all have neglected their responsiblity as free people. The blame goes to everyone. If you do not vote, try to avoid jury duty, or keep your mouth shut about something that you know is wrong, then you are adding to the problem.

The biggest power individuals hold, is in the courts. Everyone has heard the jokes about people trying to avoid jury duty, yet jury duty is vastly more important and more direct than anything. One individual can save one other individual.

People often point out how the US has the highest percent of the population of people in jail. You can blame the laws, but really who is putting people in jail? It is the jury who over looks the case. It is the individuals of the jury who keep sending people to jail.

The other big power people have is voting. People just don't put any thoughts into their votes, and they knowingly vote for bad people. I swear that the vast majority of people I know or have ever spoken to, out right admit that the person they are voting for is not the best person for the job. They know the person is a bad choice, but they do it anyway. Why? Because he is better than the other guy. What kind of bullshit is that? People have neglected their voting duties when they vote purposefully for a bad choice, just to avoid someone who is worse. There are other options! Take them.

Lastly as an individual you absolutely have the right to do certian things no matter what the law says. If you are right, then by all means do what you want. One can morally break the law, if the law is unjust, and people should break the law if it is.

Just because the government is intimindating people into accepting its actions that goes against the constitution, doesn't mean the constitution is wrong. It just means the government is intimidating people into accepting it.

Originally Posted by Alric

The government doesn't get to interrupt the laws. The constitution is pretty clear cut on what is allowed and what isn't. The corruption is due directly from people neglecting their duties, not because the constitution is written poorly.

Are you postulating that the Supreme court, the institution which interprets the Constitution, is not government?

Originally Posted by Alric

All three branches of the government, as well as the citizens of the country, all have neglected their responsiblity as free people. The blame goes to everyone. If you do not vote, try to avoid jury duty, or keep your mouth shut about something that you know is wrong, then you are adding to the problem.

Really? You think that actively involving yourself in the voting system means that you are not enabling the growth and scope of government. Let us test this theory hypothetically. Suppose no one voted on a government. Everyone turned suddenly apathetic. According to your statements freedom, liberty and pursuit of happiness would suddenly decline. How absurd. You are clearly engaging in doublethink by implying that if we are not all trying to control those around us through the voting system then not of us are free.

Originally Posted by Alric

The biggest power individuals hold, is in the courts. Everyone has heard the jokes about people trying to avoid jury duty, yet jury duty is vastly more important and more direct than anything. One individual can save one other individual.

Who runs those courts? The government.

Originally Posted by Alric

People often point out how the US has the highest percent of the population of people in jail. You can blame the laws, but really who is putting people in jail? It is the jury who over looks the case. It is the individuals of the jury who keep sending people to jail.

What does this have to do with anything that I previously brought up?

Originally Posted by Alric

The other big power people have is voting. People just don't put any thoughts into their votes, and they knowingly vote for bad people. I swear that the vast majority of people I know or have ever spoken to, out right admit that the person they are voting for is not the best person for the job. They know the person is a bad choice, but they do it anyway. Why? Because he is better than the other guy. What kind of bullshit is that? People have neglected their voting duties when they vote purposefully for a bad choice, just to avoid someone who is worse. There are other options! Take them.

Firstly, I'm amazed that you know the voting habits and reasons for voting for the masses called 'Americans.' It is truly an amazing feet. Second, I am going to float an idea towards you and you may think it crazy, perhaps it is, here is the idea: Don't vote. Encourage voter apathy. Do not engage in activity that enables such a system.

Originally Posted by Alric

Lastly as an individual you absolutely have the right to do certian things no matter what the law says. If you are right, then all means do what you want. One can morally break the law, if the law is unjust, and people should break the law if it is.

Finally something we agree on.

Originally Posted by Alric

Just because the government is intimindating people into accepting its actions that goes against the constitution, doesn't mean the constitution is wrong. It just means the government is intimidating people into accepting it.

It shows the uselessness of the constitution. The constitution won't grow fangs and attack government employees and politicians who violate it.

I never said the supreme court isn't government. I am saying the supreme court shouldn't be interupting the constitution, but enforcing what is already spelled out clearly within the constitution.

I never said, a person had to vote. I said if a person didn't vote, ignored jury duty, and didn't speak out when they saw something bad happen, then they are apart of the problem.

There is a big difference. If you don't do any of them, then it shows you rejecting your responsiblity. If you refuse to vote, because you think it is corrupt, then that perfectly acceptable. If you are refusing to vote for that reason however, you should be speaking out about it.

Again if you sit quietly in the corner and just do nothing, then you are apart of the problem. If you are out there, speaking out against it, and you refuse the vote, then you are helping improve things. The key difference is that you are being active in the situation.

The courts are ran by the government yes, but the jury who are only there for the short term and only temporary are generally not considered government. While techincally they are government, they are as close to the common people as you can get.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

It shows the uselessness of the constitution. The constitution won't grow fangs and attack government employees and politicians who violate it.

The fangs of the constitution, is the second amendment. Obviously a piece of paper can not attack people, however the indviduals who make up the country are more then capable of attacking people.

Originally Posted by Alric

I never said the supreme court isn't government. I am saying the supreme court shouldn't be interupting the constitution, but enforcing what is already spelled out clearly within the constitution.

Enforcing means interpreting. You have to have an interpretation of the constitution in order to execute its tenets.

Originally Posted by Alric

I never said, a person had to vote. I said if a person didn't vote, ignored jury duty, and didn't speak out when they saw something bad happen, then they are apart of the problem.

I can think of several things that are more important/productive then voting and jury duty. One of them involves scratching a male body part.

Originally Posted by Alric

There is a big difference. If you don't do any of them, then it shows you rejecting your responsiblity. If you refuse to vote, because you think it is corrupt, then that perfectly acceptable. If you are refusing to vote for that reason however, you should be speaking out about it.

I should be speak out about it? Do you mean I shouldn't be?

Originally Posted by Alric

Again if you sit quietly in the corner and just do nothing, then you are apart of the problem. If you are out there, speaking out against it, and you refuse the vote, then you are helping improve things. The key difference is that you are being active in the situation.

In a situation in which you are trying to lessen despotism, apathy could actually be a good thing.

Originally Posted by Alric

The courts are ran by the government yes, but the jury who are only there for the short term and only temporary are generally not considered government. While techincally they are government, they are as close to the common people as you can get.

And their short term occupation means what compared to the cumulative effect of 200 years of an institution consecrating its power.

Originally Posted by Alric

The fangs of the constitution, is the second amendment. Obviously a piece of paper can not attack people, however the indviduals who make up the country are more then capable of attacking people.

But clearly the people are not the constitution and let us be frank, if people were going to rise up due to violations of the constitution..they would of done it by now.