tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post4779142563148447190..comments2023-12-13T16:57:33.142-06:00Comments on Blogodidact: The U.S. Constitution vs The Bigotry of The Now And The Shamanic Eye-RollVan Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-37181662128308361922010-06-04T11:53:37.918-05:002010-06-04T11:53:37.918-05:00Lance, lol, sorry, I thought your "...I am no...Lance, lol, sorry, I thought your "...I am not sure if I am inspiring you in a good way" meant you thought I was irredeemably heading towards the dark side.<br /><br />Hey, obviously our points of view don't match, but your questions always make me think things through further... can't ask for more than that.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-52188812379756255102010-06-03T00:35:22.272-05:002010-06-03T00:35:22.272-05:00I hope I am asking intelligent questions at least ...I hope I am asking intelligent questions at least and not wasting your time and also explaining myself in a way that is understandable.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04973448750714819716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-69683003108220238882010-06-02T18:41:07.333-05:002010-06-02T18:41:07.333-05:00Lance said "But, I am not sure if I am inspir...Lance said "But, I am not sure if I am inspiring you in a good way."<br /><br />Hmmm... care to elaborate?Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-37705388024827244052010-06-02T15:09:31.327-05:002010-06-02T15:09:31.327-05:00Well, I am glad I am able to inspire you at least....Well, I am glad I am able to inspire you at least. But, I am not sure if I am inspiring you in a good way.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04973448750714819716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-2654195473617404272010-06-02T10:48:32.790-05:002010-06-02T10:48:32.790-05:00Lance, as usual, you let the winds loose. My comme...Lance, as usual, you let the winds loose. My comment has grown beyond comment length, and beyond a short post length... hoping I’ll be able to post it before the weekend... we’ll see.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-62167826809793011202010-06-02T10:48:11.164-05:002010-06-02T10:48:11.164-05:00Xlbrl,
I think Jefferson’s key line in that quote ...Xlbrl,<br />I think Jefferson’s key line in that quote is “Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism.”.<br /><br />It’s not so much the evil intentions of those in power we have to worry about, it is our confidence that they are intending (and they very likely are) and able to ‘do good’ in their actions, and perhaps even worse, our confidence in ourselves that because we also think the proposed doing of good would <i>be</i> good, it’ll be ok to look the other way as govt exerts power which the constitution doesn’t permit them to.<br /><br />If ‘We the People’ don’t realize that ‘We the People’ are capable of despotic behavior, we’re in deep do(good)-do (good).<br />As Plato pointed out, if our understanding of self-governance is poor, then our participation in actual governance is going to have appalling results.<br /><br />Hence the necessity of real Education.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-57184319416305684222010-05-29T11:03:57.049-05:002010-05-29T11:03:57.049-05:00The single most important "principle" in...The single most important "principle" in the unthinking leftist political culture is the Living Constitution, a religious sentiment that requires no further explanation. In fact, it forbids further explanation. <br />Your Jefferson was great. My eyes lit up, as your friend's glazed over. I would try to answer that the Constitution is not a living organism, but a legal document which is an anti-trust act for government. Its very purpose is to withdraw many subjects from the controversy of politics, not expand them to present fashion.xlbrlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01931950075332608449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-82874706535943868092010-05-28T15:07:17.548-05:002010-05-28T15:07:17.548-05:00"It was very much behind the 17th amendment, ..."It was very much behind the 17th amendment, removing the election of Senators from the State legislature (where your state representative and state senator, who you were likely to know and have at least a measure of influence with, would have to earn each of their votes (I think the avg is around 50 members) and remain responsive to their (and your) opinion which reflected the many regional needs of the state), to statewide popular vote where you are a single vote amongst millions and one or two 'hotbutton' issues statewide."<br /><br />That is an interesting issue for me. Because I am a big fan of the individual voter getting a voice. I like Oregons initiative system warts and all. I like the messiness of it. But I can see what you are saying about it being used to limit the voice of the voter despite the way it seems. <br /><br />I would in fact welcome and love a nationwide petition process so that voters could band together and get things on the ballot that we all want and need. <br /><br />Though I also am a huge fan of states rights and would prefer that states get to decide their issues and I always have been regardless of who is in national office. Oregonians know what is best for Oregonians and the idea that some politician from some other state has a say in my life makes me sick to my stomach.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04973448750714819716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-38294358114618195832010-05-27T19:42:45.764-05:002010-05-27T19:42:45.764-05:00That's close to what I was anticipating you wo...That's close to what I was anticipating you would answer. So... essentially, the larger and more distant your govt becomes, the less you feel you have influence over your representatives, and the more inconsequential you feel your voice is?<br /><br />That is a <i>very</i> well known principle of govt, well known to the founders who structured federalism to keep the distancing of the individual at a minimum... and to those in congress who, coincidentally around the Pro(re)gressives highwater mark of power in the early 1900's, permanently limited the number of representatives to 435 in the House... which means that the more your state grows... the less voice and influence you have over them.<br /><br />It was very much behind the 17th amendment, removing the election of Senators from the State legislature (where your state representative and state senator, who you were likely to know and have at least a measure of influence with, would have to earn each of their votes (I think the avg is around 50 members) and remain responsive to their (and your) opinion which reflected the many regional needs of the state), to statewide popular vote where you are a single vote amongst millions and one or two 'hotbutton' issues statewide.<br /><br />And ask yourself who is likely to benefit most from the further 'inconsequentialization' of the individual American, by the growth of govt? The process of consolidation, of removing from the local level, upwards to the State and then Federal level, of control and policymaking, 'law'making, to more centralized control by experts - that has been THE hallmark of progressives, since the time of Rousseau.<br /><br />Ask yourself whether you feel your voice, your vote, is better served (and heard) by constitutionally defined, limited government... or by an ever expanding, ever bureaucratizing, big government increasingly controlled by regulatory agencies (btw the healthcontrol bill created over 200 new bureaucratic committees and agencies all on it's own) and Czars?<br /><br />Ask which party - despite the deep flaws it may have - is more favorable towards reducing the size of govt, rather than expanding it?<br /><br />It may be surprising, but the more you are a True Liberal... someone who is concerned with freedom and liberty - if you clear your mind of preconceptions, you might just find that you have <i>far</i> more in common with the Constitutionally oriented Tea Party Right, than with that of the Left.<br /><br />Seriously. Look into it. Madison and Hamilton were bitterly opposed on <i>how</i> to implement the Constitution, but they were nearly one with the principles of writing and arguing for the Constitution.<br /><br />You and I could be worlds apart on policy (and btw, there's nothing in the Constitution to prevent Oregon from becoming the type of State <i>you would like</i>, though I might not), and still see our interests best served by re-establishing the meaning and posiiton of the Constitution.<br /><br />I do believe that in the next months, you will begin seeing more and more instances where your personal opinion - left though it may be - will become more and more sidelined, in favor of the ruling fews opinion of what should be.<br /><br />Just a thought.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-4468391809046529042010-05-27T13:28:20.501-05:002010-05-27T13:28:20.501-05:00I do not think that I "trust" politician...I do not think that I "trust" politicians but I feel like...I am have a hard time putting into words what I am feeling. <br /><br />I guess I feel like if the Politicians and Lawmakers of this country are not willing to honor the Constitution then how am I supposed to. I have far less power then they do.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04973448750714819716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-80414788204277909752010-05-27T08:56:52.239-05:002010-05-27T08:56:52.239-05:00Lance said “At what point do you think the Governm...Lance said “At what point do you think the Government started to poke holes in the Constitution? Or, who was the first President to begin weakening it?”<br /><br />That’s a good question, which of course means you’ve loosed the long winds... I’m already over two blogger-allowed-comment lengths in my reply and still blowing... probably better to make my reply to that a post. I’m not likely to have time to finish it today, but hopefully tomorrow.<br /><br />In the meantime, let me ask you a question, what with as you said “<i>... politician after politician has weakened the document so much it makes it hard for normal people to even view it as something important</i>.”, doesn’t that mean that you assume the position of trusting politicians (those who sought after and have Power) to say (and abide by) what <i>they </i>say is important? <br /><br />That’s a hard one for me to wrap my head around – and it’s not just a notion of the left, plenty of people on the rightish side have the same reaction. When you see something like Obamao saying that ‘<i>some people make too much money</i>’, and actually setting up a Czar to cap executive pay... how is it you ( I don’t know if <i>you</i> take issue with it or not, I mean ‘you’ in the broad ‘leftish’ sense (or maybe I should say pro(re)gressive sense – there are plenty of McCain type republicans who are at least sympathetic to it)) don’t see that as, <br />“<i>The Fed Govt will now use its power to determine whether or not agreements you make will be allowed, and will cancel anything you’ve agreed to that we don’t like.</i>”<br /><br />??? That <i>is </i>the principle that they have stated here, plain as day. And really... anyone who trusts to politicians to only use a newly acquired power on those they first pick on – the easy targets – and never stray beyond them... are 'you' all really that naïve? Anyone remember who were the ‘only ones’ who’d ever be affected by the Income Tax when it was first proposed? It’d only <i>ever</i> affect the super rich. How parole would only ever be extended to the most safest and trustworthy of happenstance criminals... never 'dangerous' criminals. Ever. Honest. Or how about....<br /><br />sigh.<br /><br />Anyone <i>ever</i> heard the phrase that begins “First they came for the....”<br /><br />Ok, back to work.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-48694132075367414012010-05-26T10:32:50.908-05:002010-05-26T10:32:50.908-05:00I have a question Van. At what point do you think ...I have a question Van. At what point do you think the Government started to poke holes in the Constitution? Or, who was the first President to begin weakening it? <br /><br />To me that may be part of the problem of today. When politician after politician has weakened the document so much it makes it hard for normal people to even view it as something important. I am not excusing that I just think it is interesting.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04973448750714819716noreply@blogger.com