WickedFire Congress: Bomb Syria or Not?
- Thread starter Dwight Schrute
- Start date
You've got the choice of renouncing your citizenship and going elsewhere. If you stay, you are acquiescing. Most people who lose elections acquiesce on basis that their opponents arn't "Hitler" - but if they are, why stay passive?
There's no way to completely avoid responsibility while remaining a citizen. Either get out or stay and fight to lobby representatives or overturn what you hate. All of life is one great big fight anyway.
- YouTube[/ame]
There is a lot to unpack here
2. The representatives can only act on my behalf, in the domain in which I exist. In other words, I can't authorize them to act in Somalia. Or in Syria. I can't authorize them to act in outer space. I certainly can't authorize them to act on any other human being, in this country or outside this country.
Go into a court to dispute a contract or any legal agreement and tell the court that the other party gave implicit consent to all sorts of things that weren't in the contract.
I get that you're a true believer in the system. Where were you when Iraq was being invaded? When Afghanistan was being invaded? Are the blood of those hundreds of thousands of innocent people on your hands, because you did (or as you rationalize, did not) vote?
There are no such thing as a citizen. It is a nonsense concept.
1. I haven't explicitly authorized anyone, to do anything, on my behalf.
2. The representatives can only act on my behalf, in the domain in which I exist. In other words, I can't authorize them to act in Somalia. Or in Syria. I can't authorize them to act in outer space. I certainly can't authorize them to act on any other human being, in this country or outside this country.
This I can agree with, ostensibly for different reasons.
No. I never said that. I never implied that.
Go into a court to dispute a contract or any legal agreement and tell the court that the other party gave implicit consent to all sorts of things that weren't in the contract.
Do you not see how fundamentally unfair it is to expect people with ethics and conscience to have to exile themselves from society?
It is for many of us, an enormous waste of time.
Friend, if you haven't realized other people make most of your decisions for you, then I am afraid you've been asleep at the wheel.
It's not a matter of responsibility. It is a matter of ethics. There is no moral or ethical justification for invading anyone, anytime. There is no moral or ethical justification for stealing people's wealth in the form of taxes.
I get that you're a true believer in the system. Where were you when Iraq was being invaded? When Afghanistan was being invaded? Are the blood of those hundreds of thousands of innocent people on your hands, because you did (or as you rationalize, did not) vote?
I lobbied my MP against Iraq - successfully, because he voted No in the Iraq debate. Unfortunately not enough other people did the same thing because their MPs voted Yes and the motion was carried.
Still, I haven't given up - lobbied again this time. My MP voted No, but yay, loads of other MPs got lobbied too and the Syria motion got the thumbs down.
The bombing of Syria was supposed to happen this weekend just ended. It hasn't, and mainstream media are carrying stories like this:
Can the U.S. Attack Syria Without its British Ally? | TIME.com
and Obama decided he didn't want to go ahead alone and has asked Congress.
Now we need people on the other side of the Atlantic to stop making abstract arguments about how it's all pointless and lobby hard against the war from your end. This stuff gets stopped only with massive teamwork - if individuals sit on their hands and do nothing, the people at the top think you are acquiescing in all their misdeeds by default. It's a crap system but it's the one we have to work within for now.
Sure there is. You pay taxes and receive services and protection in return. You are a citizen. Just because you don't like the idea of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
You have at the very least implied consent, and implied consent is a very real thing in contract law. By participating in the system (not renouncing, paying taxes, utilizing federal services, driving on public roads, enjoying the defensive protections of the military, etc) you have implied consent. Again, "implied consent" is an actual thing in contract law.
Why not? Is there a legal reason you can't grant that authorization (hint: there isn't), or is it moral? If moral, where do you draw your morals from and why would your moral beliefs trump the law to which you have consented to your entire life? The fact that you have consented against your morals indicates you place a higher importance on the law than on your morals, so why should any court (or anyone for that matter) not do the same?
It happens hundreds of times every day in courts across the US, Canada, and many other countries. Implied consent carries very real standing in most jurisdictions, and can take on many forms.
That does suck, we can agree there. But you can't utilize the services of your community (through services provided by taxation) and not expect to contribute anything in return, can you? Wouldn't that mean you're essentially stealing from your community?
You may believe that your moral standing is superior but that doesn't mean it is, or that everyone is bound to follow your moral or ethical beliefs.
I happen to agree for the most part, and I see the State for what it is, but I think your approach is flawed.
This is true.
However, the enforceability of that implied consent - at least in the context of contract law - can only be argued in the absence of duress.
It's not an abstract argument. You get a vote to go your way, and you confuse that with causality from the fact you're politically active.
I'm not going to tell you how to spend your time, or for that matter, I was probably wrong to confront your delusions, but at the end of the day, your government will happily put a black bag over your head and disappear you if that's what convenient for their purposes.
I presumed this is obvious but apparently it was not. Thanks for pointing it out Jake.This is true.
However, the enforceability of that implied consent - at least in the context of contract law - can only be argued in the absence of duress.
In UG's defense, U.S. law is so frighteningly arbitrary that even notions like duress can find itself on the chopping block. It's sobering to think that, up until the 70s, guys used to be able to successfully argue implied consent in marriage after raping their wives.
Needless to say, when the Supremes start ruling based on a mythical "social contract" that negates the foundation of contract law (explicit consent), things get scary very quickly. Suddenly, folks are forced to pay taxes, buy certain products and services (health care), and pay for wars. All for the greater good, of course.
At that point, everything is up for grabs.
It probably makes it ok with you.
That's because you don't know what's it's like controlling puppet presidents.
Thanks.
People either get it or they don't. The ones who get it, usually get it quickly (Jake, cziffra, many others here). The ones who don't probably won't.
You gotta pick the fights you can win, and it's important to me to be happy, not mired in endless political activism, glued to the TV and internet news sites, obsessing over every little thing every government everywhere does.
There is (in my opinion) one fundamental truth to all of this. Government is a reflection of the people. If you want to improve government, improve the people.
Now we see the scale of the task ahead of people who wish to change the world. You've got to improve the human race.
Maybe we need to start with improving ourselves first.
Enjoy your McNuggets.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKQbcJyVKR0]The Supremes: You Keep Me Hangin On w/ Lyrics - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFDND9SRJbs]Genius: "The Public Sucks." Look in the mirror voters. - YouTube[/ame]
post #27, ladies & gentlemen, is a perfect example of why guerilla has UG (and several other WF sharps) on ignore. if you can't beat 'em, ignore 'em.