Subject:
|
Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Dec 2001 02:18:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
441 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> I disagree. Two hundred years ago, as now, the rights of the individual
> *were* paramount, but the definition of individual was very different and was
> suited to the demands of the time. Would slave-dependent states have signed
> the Constitution if it meant giving up slavery? Probably not, so the term
> "individual" conveniently excluded slaves
Some people were already agitating for the freeing of slaves. The southern
states would not accept such a change to their economy. I am pretty sure
slaves were understood to be individuals with rights, denied them or not,
what was asserted about them is that they had the extant status of slaves
and that was not going to change -- not at that time. The Constitution
recognizes some 22 different statuses of individual, including soldiers and
prisoners, so this was just one more into the mix.
> To assert a laudable but unattainable goal isn't really realistic or
> reasonable.
I would say the same of the view that bombing a foreign country somehow
magically makes us or our victims better neighbors. I see years of nasty
repercussions instead. Our current course of action is deplorable in my view.
BTW, I am not sure why doing nothing abroad and increasing homeland security
is an unobtainable goal. Perfect security is impossible, but we could do a
1000 times more than we did before 9-11 and still leave civil rights alone
and still have good results.
> Okay, but that's only really sound if we posit that pre-existing conditions
> in the US are equivalent to those in China, South America, and the USSR, and
> that C in those cases is similar and equally likely to result from A and B as
> it would be in the US. It is still selective speculation based on incomplete
> analogy.
Reality. If you require higher standards for everything -- you go find the
proof. Usually the best we have is the simililarity of one situation with
another.
BTW, I find your argument here annoying inasmuch as you seem unwilling to
accept arguments by analogy unless I dreg up sufficient historical support
for the argument (but then we'd just shift to an argument of the accuracy of
historical *are they fiction?* accounts, right?). Everything breaks down if
you investigate it to a certain point -- but isn't that to argue ad
absurdam? To shred every argument using such techniques proves nothing -- it
merely shows that under a certain scrutiny almost nothing can be proven.
> Obviously it's economic/political. <snip>What's your point?
Okay, so if a huge number of persons are in prison for this political reason
then they are political prisoners. What distinguishes our prison system
from the Russian gulag except slightly better conditions? Both are
essentially forced labor camps in their essentials. Both are rife with all
kinds of criminal activity. Both have their internal prison culture that
often leads to increased incidents of drug addiction and forced
homosexuality (and AIDS). Etc.
> Without knowledge of the resolution of these admittedly terrible incidents, >there's obviously no way I can answer you.
Some ended well enough, other not. Fighting these kinds of abuses takes
years, usually destroys your reputation, and consumes all your resources
(money, marriage, friends, and some sanity). Facing down even one abuse of
power is like entering into legal hell. The phrase "intestinal fortitude"
comes to mind, but doesn't even begin to address all that truly happens
under such circumstances.
> Oh, Richard! That's simple argument from fear, and it's no more persuasive
> here than it has been in other debates in which I've been warned that I'll >feel the fires of hell unless I repent.
I am sorry for that Dave! Really, it's the only thing one can say here. My
exs mother had precisely your attitude until her life was turned very nearly
upside-down by the IRS (that for no apparent reason began to harass her over
the course of some 6 years -- these *fun* annual audits of her, and her
CPA's, interpretations of the federal tax code cost thousands of dollars
and a lot of heartache -- not in discovered tax evasion, but in mere defense
of such scrutiny. And in the end they got nothing on her). Probably one
negative experience will change your views on the effects and use of even
seemingly fairly applied powers, much less the kind we may be looking at
under Ashcroft et al.
Conversationally, I could apprise you of dozens of examples like the one I
mention above, but having to write it here makes that a lot more difficult.
Plus, this is a very public forum, so I will decline for that reason also.
The power of agencies like the NSA, DEA, and IRS is truly awesome. If you
don't know that, then you don't. And I am sorry to tell you that you will
not want to find out either. Comparing these/my assertions to the fires of
hell stuff is just silly. I am not talking about something unseen. I have
seen the stitches, the scarring, the bruises, the emotional anguish of
people who have been trashed by our govt. at work. Simple as that. No
boogeymen are needed when you have our pretense of a justice system.
One last thing, if you think hiring an attorney to defend you will prove as
easy as hiring someone to fix your furnace -- you again, JUST don't know. I
know people with legal problems that most attorneys will not take on just
because of the hassle, regardless of what one might pay them for their
services. The government likes to win at almost any cost is all I can say
here. You obviously just don't know the joy of calling around and being
turned down for decent legal assistance to finally be left with none. Most
attys. simply do NOT take cases against the govt.
Enjoy your freedoms while you may.
-- Hop-Frog (working on a variety of MOCs)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
27 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
