tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post7883940738202555205..comments2024-03-28T09:52:15.415-04:00Comments on Common Denominator: Force is the Exception 4Ken Schenckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-64373253857737100292012-05-22T10:26:14.656-04:002012-05-22T10:26:14.656-04:00I want to add that our Constitution had roots that...I want to add that our Constitution had roots that were to defend and protect what the West valued, the individual. Equality before the law was a non-negotiable in our Founders eyes, especially for leaders actions that would affect those they led. Therefore, leaders were not to be "gods", as the Caesars had been, but were to represent those that elected them! and the country they served.<br /><br />Resistance or rebellion should be a right to protest, when our leaders don't respect those duties that bind them, as representatives. Any segment of our society should be represented, therefore, laws define and limit, whereas, liberty grants rights. Our society is flexible enough to amend the Constitution, but we shouldn't "do away" with it, as to its principles.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-84564459616242563252012-05-22T10:17:19.020-04:002012-05-22T10:17:19.020-04:00Madam Van De Merwe our culture is distinctly from ...Madam Van De Merwe our culture is distinctly from Protestant and free-thinking origins as well; from the traditions of the Magna Carta, and Anglicanism--and the British Expansion. To more logically concluded liberty -- Americanism.Mr. Mcgranorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12851136550476241757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-51458502576743228092012-05-21T15:59:37.660-04:002012-05-21T15:59:37.660-04:00Though I am more of a pacifist, I do appreciate yo...Though I am more of a pacifist, I do appreciate your valuing of at least limiting force and violence. Great insights.Russell Purvishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02787840872893249935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-22920115242840796732012-05-21T14:05:48.239-04:002012-05-21T14:05:48.239-04:00Our society is the only society that believes that...Our society is the only society that believes that the individual is Supreme. Our government was formed with the understanding that individuals had inalienable rights. These rights were not granted by government, but by "god". Therefore, America was founded on revolutionary principles, not static social structures. Though this is true (revolution as the foundation and the right to resist, or petition government), one should not use revolution, unless the system has become staticized such that liberty is threatened. And liberty is threatened every time that government grows, regulates, and makes demands upon us. <br /><br />True, that our society functions best when leaders look toward the 'general welfare", but when leaders use "the general welfare" to obtain power that isn't theirs to have, then, tyranny has "not just knocked on our door", but entered!Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-54730798135897899172012-05-20T22:47:13.576-04:002012-05-20T22:47:13.576-04:00Christ let them ask you lord, as if it was not cle...Christ let them ask you lord, as if it was not clear in scripture: society or the individual?Mr. Mcgranorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12851136550476241757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-89943994140661921412012-05-20T22:31:30.840-04:002012-05-20T22:31:30.840-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Mr. Mcgranorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12851136550476241757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-25608774991037596452012-05-20T21:17:26.800-04:002012-05-20T21:17:26.800-04:00True, Mr. Mcgranor that a will of licentiousness l...True, Mr. Mcgranor that a will of licentiousness leads to tyranny, as apart from law, there is chaos and the "strong, empowered, political class" wins. This was why our Founders did not believe anyone above the law. The law was to be the protection of individual and societal justice and order. The question is just where do we want to draw the lines and where do we begin our justification; society or the individual?Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-8478516091693046932012-05-20T16:30:37.280-04:002012-05-20T16:30:37.280-04:00My comments were showing as annonymous and then di...My comments were showing as annonymous and then disapeared, for some reason. Liberty is of Protestantism. Orthodox and especially Catholics can only mock it. God doesn't force the will, some say. Men that realise the futility of free-will, may be Calvinist. Still a will of licentiousness leads to tyranny.Mr. Mcgranorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12851136550476241757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-65275765202898375392012-05-20T12:33:13.234-04:002012-05-20T12:33:13.234-04:00I read this after responding to your post..."...I read this after responding to your post..."..."...Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the People have exchanged one master for another.”http://dev.republicoftheunitedstates.org/what-is-the-republic/history/Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-8549622675920783032012-05-20T12:03:01.427-04:002012-05-20T12:03:01.427-04:00All men seek to survive and prosper. This can only...All men seek to survive and prosper. This can only be done by material means, unless we want to "give man groundless hope". And material means is about means to the end of prosperity, trade, contracts, business negotiations. Should the President be seeking the prosperity of Africa, when Americans are having a hard time? Are we all to be equal in our material resources, otherwise, it is "not fair"? Or do we understand that each of us works for our own benefit and those we are responsible for (our immediate families). Is there to be liberty of choice, as to values, or are these to be determined to protect "peace"? And who will determing these values for us all?<br /><br />Many today, in our own country, do not provide for their own families, therefore, the taxpayer (other people) have to bail these people out.<br /><br />Others seek to derive benefit for themselves on other people's money by investing and taking risks, but don't want to take the consequences if those risks do not pay off.<br /><br />It seems that our whole system is based on "others being a safety net", when we should be self-sustaining and self-supporting and self-responsible. Responsibility extends, as one's power extends. No one should be above the law, meaning above the agreed to terms of the cultural values. But, at the same time, no one should be forbidden the opportunity to challenge those pre-concieved notions about the terms!! That is liberty and is our primary "cultural value"!Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-28543618205519446292012-05-20T12:02:31.147-04:002012-05-20T12:02:31.147-04:00Isn't moderation Aristole's view of virtue...Isn't moderation Aristole's view of virtue and Buddha's view of the noble life? Many religions seek to control their passions by moderating them. <br /><br />Philosophers have called for an examined life, as a life worth living...Many of the religious aren't prone to examine, because they are taught to "believe and to trust", apart from examination, discrimination, or making distinction.<br /><br />It seems today's political climate is toward undermining our nation state's power, to re-distribute that power/wealth to other countries. The U.N. has been attempting to do this for awhile. I think, also, of the recent talk given by the President about Africa. <br /><br />Yet, how can he defend his oath to our country and value all nations alike? Treason was the term used for behavior that would undermine a country's interests. But, today's interests is global because we are a "global economy"...<br /><br />Your proposal to honor a spiritual realm above the material falls in line with the "global vision" or a "global village", which doesn't call for making distinctions. That sounds idealistic, as in the real world all cultures are not the same, and the question is how to do "business" in and with cultures that do not hold to the value of "contracts" and where corruption is the rule, rather than the exception. <br /><br />Then, there is the problem of the differentation of monetary value, and the percieved value of the good itself. Are we to let the market determine the value, or is there to be a "controlling governance" over what people choose, so that people can't "discriminate" against a good they don't "culturally" value. What has happened to the EU? And has it furthered the "greater good" or compounded the pain?<br /><br />What about the "good" of "god" and the value of the nation state? Are we to think and presuppose that "god" is to be a value that cannot be discriminated against? Is there to be a loyalty to such "ideas", as "god", just as disloyalty to the nation-state? Otherwise, one is is "heresy" and suffers the consequences by his religous community, just as a citizen is guilty of treason and suffers the consequences by his nation?<br /><br />And what of the nation state? Can we dissolve these boundaries and distinctions, when there are threats to the world by Iran? or when China devalues our dollar because of their "cultural values"? What IS to be the "controlling factor" for "world peace"?Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-66272803962725944672012-05-19T23:34:06.006-04:002012-05-19T23:34:06.006-04:00You mean, being moderate in all things?You mean, being moderate in all things?Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-89885120253011690382012-05-19T13:13:04.602-04:002012-05-19T13:13:04.602-04:00Three comments have come and gone. I suspect I wil...Three comments have come and gone. I suspect I will get it from both sides. One side will think I have watered down Jesus. The other will think any nod to non-violence is naive. Since I think the truth tends toward the middle, I seem to be right where I belong ;-)Ken Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.com