Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 77 of 77

Thread: What If the Government Followed Its Own Constitution?

  1. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    It works. We the people fail. We as a group of citizens stopped caring and turned over our government to politicians
    At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Franklin was queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation. In the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention, a lady asked Dr. Franklin “Well Doctor what have we got, a republic or a monarchy.” Franklin replied, “A republic . . . if you can keep it.
    Last edited by anaconda; 12-02-2016 at 11:42 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    This overlooks the fact that (a) the central government under the Articles of Confederation had other expenses besides common defense -- for example, it had to conduct foreign affairs (which costs money) and it had a boatload of foreign debt. On top of that, some States refused to pay their requisitions, so that state funding didn't work.
    Well then perhaps foreign affairs are not the function of a central government. Even so, who says that such affairs must perforce be so costly? Why are they so costly? Because we are up to our eyes in things for which we have no business. The presupposition, of course, is that we MUST be in these things, whether it be spying, or what have you. But ask yourself this: are such presuppositions valid? I have not run down that rabbit hole yet, but suspect the answer is "not necessarily".

    I daresay, and I will stand by this opinion until proven otherwise, that the vast and overwhelming majority of all our (humanity's) political machinations are the result of nothing fancier or more worthy than rank drama-queenery. There is that class of people who seem unable to go about their lives without manufacturing low-rent, yet potentially very dangerous and destructive drama for the entire planet.

    Of course, root causes notwithstanding, the dangers turn out to be very real as made manifest by nuclear weapons, for instance. This is the sad truth underlying all human relations: the lowest denominator dictates the direction reality shall take. In other words, entropy wins every time because we subject ourselves to its ravages. None of this has to be, in principle; but because someone, somewhere, stoops and nobody removes him from the book of the living, the rest of the world, or large swaths of it, get sucked into the black vortex.

    As to whether America could draw away from all this idiocy, having plunged this deeply into it, is a question the answer to which remains to be discovered. However, I do not find it likely that we will show the good sense, the integrity, and the intestinal fortitude to find out. Simply put, it is far too easy and superficially compelling to remain on our current track. This returns us to my hypothesis that the only thing that can bring the race of men out of its death spiral is the "reset event" - a sufficiently disruptive occurrence that leaves men standing before a stark, simple, and very immediate choice, with slackened jaw that whispers to us in the voice of God: change or be extinguished.

    A self-sufficient America, having dispensed with the madness of the rest of the world's nations, well armed, and united in the fundamental principles of proper human relations, which are the very definition of well-tempered freedom, would have prospered as the others either consumed themselves in the stupidities of authoritarian collectivism, or came around to the grand virtues of liberty to become happy, healthy, free and prosperous nations in their own rites.

    There is a whole other set of considerations - vistas of truth and the attendant strategies that open before us that arise with these thoughts, but those are vast and not always pleasant. At any rate, they are not for this thread, methinks.

    One thing I will say, however, is that any nation of consequence* occupying a stratum of lower denomination (greater entropy) than the rest of the world presents a clear and present threat to all. As to what to do about such a "rogue" nation... well, that is another question entirely. The fact is that entropy is more powerful than order; it is the thing against which ordered life must constantly battle without respite. Think of a floating city in the skies above the earth. The fight against gravity can have no cease, for in even the briefest refrain initiates an immediate jaunt toward the ground. So it is against chaos, to which one can never turn his back, lest he succumb to its effects and be consumed by it. Order and chaos in human affairs are fundamentally incompatible, for the former cannot destroy the latter, but rather only hold it at bay, whereas the latter is fully capable of destroying the former precisely due to the fact that it is the more natural state of existence. It may seem a strange asymmetry, but it is nonetheless as real and as serious as a heart attack.

    We, the race of men, have before us choices. Not all are particularly pleasant.


    *an admittedly loaded term.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Pray for reset.


  4. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    The Constitution really should have outlined penalties for representatives that failed to abide by the original intent. Like public hanging. Drawing and quartering. Burning at the stake.
    Try THIS.


    A Missing Link In Normative Government




    For many, the term "normative" may be foreign, yet they almost certainly know that to which it refers. When we speak normatively, we speak of what we believe ought to be, usually in terms of some ideal we employ as a standard of judgment. "People ought not murder each other" is a normative statement. In contrast, a positive statement is one of pure observation of what is. "People sometimes murder each other" is one example of such a statement.

    When we speak normatively about "government", we are asserting our opinions about how it ought to be in terms of its structure, granted powers, and the behavior of those holding governmental positions, particularly where elected officials are concerned. There has been much written about this over the centuries, some of which has been very insightful. Despite the volume of work that has been produced on theories of government, governmental designs, and the large body of commentary on official behavior handed down to us through the ages, humanity has done an appallingly poor job of learning from the mistakes it has made in specifying those designs and responding to the endless litanies of documented governmental failure and abuse that almost universally characterizes the behavior of government officials in the modern nation-state. A significant error of these architects and chroniclers has largely lain in their substantial failure to establish complete and correct normative models and standards by which governments should be designed and implemented, and the behaviors of their operating officials judged and punished where appropriate.

    For the past several centuries the various forms and instances of human government of the type we currently refer to as "the state" have proven themselves failures without notable exception. Here, the term "state" is effectively synonymous with "empire" in the sense that, as was the case in the days of antiquity, governance is based upon the threat and application of force to compel behavior. The main difference between then and more modern times (say, the past 500 years) is that the concepts of individual human rights had not yet been well developed and widely accepted. Therefore, there was no standard by which rulers could have been widely judged as having acted beyond morally justifiable limits. In some sense it could be argued that this lack of knowledge excuses the rulers of old, for they often knew nothing else but the standard of absolute authority and in most cases, tyranny, that the presumption of divine authority conferred, fostered, and served to reinforce.

    The advent of the penning of documents such as the Magna Carta, as well as the advent of the European Renaissance with the attendant rise of "science" and the manifold revolutions in human thought brought an end to the era of excusable ignorance by rulers, at least on that continent and later in the New World. Despite this, the everyday reality of the governed man changed with deplorable paucity. The single and relatively shining exception to this general condition lay in the establishment of the United States of America, where the form of governance that was established signified a quantum departure from all previous forms, wherein the fundamental assumptions laid in diametric opposition to those of the governments of virtually every other nation-state on the planet at the time. But even that significant alteration in the design of human governance has proven inadequate to the task to which it had been set based on the understandings held by the Founders regarding the individual and his place in the scheme of human affairs. The Constitution of the United States, a work of significant creative genius, suffers from a litany of readily discernible flaws, some of which fall into the category of those discussed here.

    Two complementary characteristics which governments of "state" commonly share are the grossly inadequate specification of proper sanctions to be imposed upon those officials who wantonly or negligently violate the rights of others in the discharge of their official duties, and their enforcement. This discussion shall deal with the former only, the latter being left perhaps for another day. By the close of the eighteenth century, human history had provided oceans of examples of the endlessly recurring problems relating to the behavior of persons who had assumed mantles of power over the people of nations throughout the ages. As bright and presumably forthright as the Founders were, and as great a feat of creative genius as was their new Constitution, replete with its revolutionary view of governance and the primacy of the individual over "the state", they nevertheless failed to sufficiently take heed of the lessons of history when considering the normative basis for designing their new confederation. Some may balk at this assertion or even take offense at it, but the outcome of their efforts as embodied in the manifold troubles the nation now faces establishes it as a truth that is in part attributable to their architectural shortcomings and missteps.

    Modern state governments, regardless of their particular form, all share certain characteristics to a greater or lesser degree. Before going any further, we should become clear on what "government" is, that we may continue on with clarity and precision, which are the necessary elements required for a sufficient and proper understanding of the concept. "Government" is nothing more than a set of conceptual conventions that are either agreed upon by a group of individuals, are forced by one group upon another, or a combination of the two. There is no material reality to "government" just as in the case with "the state". There are only those individuals who work alone or in concert with others to operate according to the dictates of "government" as they exist on paper (usually expressed as "law"), and often to the degree and manner to which they can get away with interpreting or otherwise ignoring those dictates to suit their personal and group objectives even when the actions taken pursuant to those interpretations violate the spirit of the law and, more importantly, the rights of the individual. This is a fundamental aspect of government that must be paid its due respect and be fully grasped by anyone interested in the truth about "states", their attendant "governments", and the consequences of these modes of official individual behavior.

    One of the universally present characteristics of modern government is the establishment of at least two classes of citizen: civilians and governors, which in practice readily translates directly into "slaves and masters" of various types and degrees, all idealistic language of rights and righteousness to the contrary notwithstanding. This stratification establishes those who are in charge and those who are to toe their lines. While the lines in question are often seemingly reasonable in theory, in practice they are usually expressions of pure barbarism and tyranny. Respect for the rights of the individual exists mainly on paper and in practice only where it is either convenient to the masters or where the slaves wield sufficient power to force the issue in their rightful favor.

    There is, however, a circumstance relating to the structure of such governments that stands out most prominently, yet receives next to no sensible attention by those who would implement a new government or by those over whom such governments ostensibly preside, the greater truth being that in reality that they rule. This circumstance centers upon the most notable absence of meaningful designs, implementations, and enforcement of a body of well-structured and complete specifications of standards of behavior of government officials and the suitable forms and degrees of punishment for those who fail to uphold those standards, either through intent or through negligence.

    Part of the reason for this appears to stem from the basic set of perceptions that most people seem to hold with respect to "government". One of the false presumptions is that government actually exists in and of itself, a belief that is demonstrably and provably false in much the same way as is the case with "the state". What this presumption serves to do is create a false sense of substance in the mind of the individual holding and accepting it. Note that such an individual need not necessarily like it or agree with it, but most often regards it as an immutable fact to which one must resign himself because there is no getting around it. How ironic it is to find that in such cases the jailer need build no prisons, for each inmate has done it for him, the work being of the utmost quality.

    With such a false presumption underpinning the perceptions and belief systems of the individual, the power of those assuming authority over him is enhanced immeasurably. The set of false inferences and conclusions that follow from the acceptance of, and belief in this single, innocuous looking, yet devastatingly powerful psychological device is large, somewhat varying between individuals, and universally debilitating. For example, accepting "the state" and "the government" as actual, extant entities with material realities of their own lends a credibility to these grand lies in precisely the manner of Marshall McLuhan's "the medium is the message". The significance of this cannot be overstated, nor can the importance of dispelling these lies and bringing the light of truth to those who suffer from this particularly destructive form of psychological derangement. That we give credibility at all to "the government" as anything other than a group (or mob) of individuals acting in accord with some interpretation of a set of what are probably arbitrarily enacted dictates is tantamount to pulling the trigger of a gun pointed at our own heads. We doom ourselves by this method on the belief that there is no choice.

    If we dispense with the belief in the material reality of government and state, what remains? Groups of people telling other groups of people what to do or not do, most often based on the arbitrarily constructed mandates enacted by some other group of individuals and for which the executives reserve the right to violate the natural rights of the individual up to and including taking his life away through acts of brutal violence.

    Dispensing with these false beliefs alters one's apprehension of the truth dramatically and in so doing many new truths follow most naturally from the resulting altered state of awareness. The relevance here is that one of the truths which becomes evident is the centrally important need for a set of cleary specified, complete, and correct rules that define the standards of behavior for individual public officials in their capacities as agents of "government", and the penalties for failing to comply with them in full measure. When one realizes that all government officials are nothing more than ordinary people discharging ordinary duties in service to their fellow citizens, the tacit mystique of super-human "state" and "government" authority instantly dissipates into the aether and reveals itself as false nonsense. Being so freed, one is then able to properly regard such people and their roles - to see and understand that such people have been vested in the sacred trust of their fellows and that violation of that trust constitutes the paramount of all possible criminal acts.

    That being the case, reason then demands that such people be held to a higher standard of behavior in the discharge of those duties and that when one violates the trust, the penalties must therefore be harsh and without mercy or pity such that all other agents of the "public good" are given the most stern warning against trespassing upon the rights of their fellows either through intent or negligence. More than any other citizen, the feet of the government official must be held to the fire fueled by the standards of behavior in order that they should quake with fear at the prospect of willfully or negligently causing harm to those to whom they take an oath to serve and whose rights they swear to protect.

    Where are these standards to be found? In the United States Code? If they are there, they are not made in any way apparent to the "ordinary" citizen, either in the letter and spirit of the law, or in its application against those who trespass upon their fellows. Yet when the "civilian" so trespasses, he is most often called rapidly to account for his actions and, barring sufficient defense, made to pay the price in prison. How is it that we allow the likes of the police to brutalize us with impunity? We are assaulted in the media with an endless barrage of tales of government officials committing the most heinous crimes against us while rarely being called upon to account for their actions, and even more rarely being made to atone with prison time and economic restitution. If this situation does not merit close attention and a demand for substantive correction, then which one does?

    The normative specification of governmental structure and function needs to be perfected by adding the full set of strict rules defining proper action as well as that for rightly punishing those who violate the rights of peaceable citizens who act within the boundaries of their rights. If the role of governance is to serve "the people", then why is it that they most often trespass upon them? Why are they not placed and kept on severely foreshortened leashes such that anyone acting in the capacity of a government official will not be even remotely amenable to paying the price of violating their fellows? This is the normative mode of thinking that must be established in the minds of men such that tolerance of what has proven to be the typically hubris-laden and contempt-logged behavior of government officials falls to zero. All violations of one's rights by others must be viewed and dealt with in such a manner and degree that people, regardless of their stations in life, will be utterly dissuaded from considering such acts as even the most remote possibility. And when this comes to pass, non-governmental people will also come to respect their public servants more fully. On the balance, the results will produce a condition far closer to freedom and greater prosperity for all.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Pray for reset.


  5. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    I agree that this is it's biggest weakness. I say that the Constitution should have proscribed[sic] some kind of harsh penalty for the violation of the oath of office. The oath swears or affirms to uphold and defend the Constitution. I would that a mechanism were provided for the people to prosecute an official for a violation of their oath.
    This is sound.

    Say a really high bar like 25% of a district signatures sets a public referendum of "should this person be tried?" A majority "Yes" opens up a trial by grand jury. Twelve juries of 12 persons, each 12 person jury sequestered unto itself apart from the other 12 person juries. Individual 12-person juries must be unanimous to render a guilty verdict, but only a majority of the 12 juries finding guilty are necessary to render a guilty verdict. In the event of a 6 jury to 6 jury tie, then the question of guilt yes or no goes again to public referendum. If a finding of guilt is returned, then a series of types of crimes against the Constitution is defined, and a spectrum of punishment is laid out for each. They can range from high treason to middlin graft to incidental misuse of office. Array the fines and severity of imprisonment on a spectrum and let the people vote on the punishment. Center the average and the mean and then impose that punishment on the faithless elected.

    If a Congressman could potentially get 25 to life, or even the death penalty for failing to obey the Constitution, then it might change his perspective a little bit.
    I like this tack. The only thing I would change is the number of juries to 13, making deadlock impossible. I see no need to complicate the process with returns to referendum, especially to determine guilt. I don't see that as being particularly wise. The rest is very good, however.

    A majority of unanimous juries in a body of 156 individuals would be statistically valid in terms of even distributions of attributes that would better assure a fair judgment.

    One other thing I would add: whereas in the criminal trial of a civilian the defendant should be afforded every evidentiary, procedural, and presumptive advantage, in that of a government official, such advantages should be removed. In my world there would be no suppression of evidence due to technical irregularities, for example in how it was attained. Evidence would be included or excluded strictly on its merit as such. Furthermore, there would be not a single trial judge, but a bank of not less than 13; this to keep judicial hanky panky including protection of the guilty, as well as activism to an absolute minimum.

    I wholly agree with you that the prospect of draconian punishment, and it SHOULD be draconian, would drive a very different bargain for the vast and overwhelming majority of public servants.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Pray for reset.


  6. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    It is for this reason that while I 100% vehemently oppose a Convention of the States in the current climate, if there unfortunately is one, then I want to go and present my "make violating the Oath a felony" Amendment.
    If it is so, then you need to go with your ducks in a line.

    This is a project perfect for RPFs. We have the brain power needed. Do we have the will? I'd be happy to help. While not quite a daunting task, it is by no means trivial. If this were to be done correctly, great care in the structure and wording of the work would be in order. It would have to be clear, complete, and correct; not as easy as it may seem at first blush.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Pray for reset.


  7. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Yeah. You and me both. I just figure if the idiots are going to give us an unmitigated disaster, there ought to be at least someone pointing out the correct path if only for the historic record.
    You'd not be alone. I, too, would go - if for no other reason than the kicks of being a grand and barbed thorn in the sides of the crooks.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Pray for reset.


  8. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    No retroactive prosecution of course however
    Killjoy.

    we aren't savages.
    Feh... speak for yourself.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Pray for reset.


  9. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    I can appreciate how some people like to trace back and look at the US Constitution and figure out where it went wrong.

    Unfortunately, that approach will never work.

    I have had to revise programs in excess of 10,000 lines of code before. This is well in excess of the length of the constitution. In a few cases, I had to perform some pretty deep surgery to a) get to the root of the problem, b) fix the problem, and c) make sure it still runs correctly. I would end up reading through and understanding the whole thing prior to trying to make a change. So I have a bit of experience in taking a huge, complex document that does something, and changing it, sometimes fundamentally. Here are some things to consider.
    Any program in excess of 10K "lines" of code is a cluster-copulation and the product of inept implementation. When I would come across such things, guess what? They got re-written from the ground up. It may seem costly, but in truth it is the far more cost-effective solution in the longer term.

    Now think about all the other things that we take for granted in the constitution, which one little change can modify.
    Certainly plausible, which is why you either leave it as it is, or you start from scratch. My inner idealist say scrap it all and get on with anarchy. My inner realist clubs my inner idealist into coma, and recommends the more adult solution of writing a new document.

    2) More importantly, the first step in solving any problem is..... to accurately define the problem.
    Not just accurately, but completely and clearly. Specifications need to be clear, complete, and correct - what I call the "3-Cs"

    Anyone who has been in IT for any length of time should have warning sensors that go off the minute someone goes out of scope.
    Yeah well, what should be and what is ain't the same in this case. A vast population of IT people are seriously ill-trained.

    Once again, no matter how well written, a constitution is only as good as the people living by its specifications. It is naught but a script. If people do not learn their lines and roles, the script holds no meaning.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Pray for reset.


  10. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    So after a 200+ year test run, does it work, or does it fail?
    "It" doesn't do anything.

    WE succeed or fail. A sheet of paper simply sits, idle.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Pray for reset.


  11. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Well then perhaps foreign affairs are not the function of a central government.
    But they were under the AoC. That was the point.

    Even so, who says that such affairs must perforce be so costly?
    Maintaining embassies isn't cheap.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  12. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    But they were under the AoC. That was the point.
    Perhaps the AoC were wrong, too.


    Maintaining embassies isn't cheap.
    Well then I would propose not having them. Rent a building on the cheap with the understanding of the host nation that if anything were to befall our diplomats, retribution would be apocalyptic for them. We brook none of this brand of nonsense. Want to bring war? We will bring it back to you 1000x. Be friendly, or at the very least polite, or risk genocide. The choice is yours, and please have a nice day.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Pray for reset.


  13. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Well then I would propose not having them. Rent a building on the cheap with the understanding of the host nation that if anything were to befall our diplomats, retribution would be apocalyptic for them. We brook none of this brand of nonsense. Want to bring war? We will bring it back to you 1000x. Be friendly, or at the very least polite, or risk genocide. The choice is yours, and please have a nice day.
    That isn't the way diplomacy works. Suppose the government wants to lease or buy land in a foreign country to establish a military base. Should it simply threaten to nuke the foreign country back into the stone age unless they cave in to our demands, or should it use more persuasive methods that might include throwing parties at the embassy for foreign diplomats or sponsoring pro-American cultural programs?

    Of course, one might say we shouldn't have bases in foreign countries to begin with, but this would only display a total lack of strategic thought.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  14. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    That isn't the way diplomacy works. Suppose the government wants to lease or buy land in a foreign country to establish a military base. Should it simply threaten to nuke the foreign country back into the stone age unless they cave in to our demands, or should it use more persuasive methods that might include throwing parties at the embassy for foreign diplomats or sponsoring pro-American cultural programs?
    This seems a bit non sequitur.

    Of course, one might say we shouldn't have bases in foreign countries to begin with, but this would only display a total lack of strategic thought.
    Not necessarily. It may suggest a different vein of strategic thought. Whether inferior, equal, or superior is a whole other question.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Pray for reset.


  15. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    This seems a bit non sequitur.
    It was simply meant to illustrate that there's a lot more expense involved in having effective foreign relations than renting a building "on the cheap."
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  16. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    It was simply meant to illustrate that there's a lot more expense involved in having effective foreign relations than renting a building "on the cheap."
    Then let the world come to us and open embassies here. Let them incur the costs. Can we not have discourse with them this way? I know it's not quite as good as face-to-face with certain officials, but who cares? If an issue is THAT important, we send an ambassador or other official on site. Let them stay in a hotel, for Pete's sake.

    I do not buy that our diplomacy must cost untold billions. I find this belief indicative of a severe failure of imaginative creativity. "We" appear to be so hopelessly tied to certain assumptions that better solutions have wandered beyond our reach.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Pray for reset.


  17. #76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Then let the world come to us and open embassies here. Let them incur the costs. Can we not have discourse with them this way? I know it's not quite as good as face-to-face with certain officials, but who cares? If an issue is THAT important, we send an ambassador or other official on site. Let them stay in a hotel, for Pete's sake.
    There's more to it than that. For instance, how would you feel if you were visiting a foreign country and lost or were robbed of your passport or were wrongly arrested by a foreign government and there's no one around to help you?
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  18. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    There's more to it than that. For instance, how would you feel if you were visiting a foreign country and lost or were robbed of your passport or were wrongly arrested by a foreign government and there's no one around to help you?
    And so the rest of the nation needs to pay countless billions for that sort of thing?

    If we are a land of free men, we accept the risks of being free. If you don't want to be arrested by a corrupt criminal government, stay home. It is really quite as simple as that. Otherwise, you take responsibility for yourself. That means doing your research on travel to given foreign destinations and you weigh the risks v. benefits. Then you make your decision and you live with it.

    I do NOT see the role of "government" as including the protection of the rights of its people when those people leave their home shores.

    Freedom can be a REAL bitch at times, which is why so few people are interested in it. They want all the benefits of freedom while resolutely rejecting the risks and other costs. FAIL.

    None of this is complicated when one apprehends and accepts the truth about freedom. It is only when people begin expecting that which is unreasonable that things begin to get complicated and barely manageable.

    If you want to see the world that badly, or take that high paying position in Pakistan, then you accept the fact that you may end up in a foreign prison, killed in a mugging, etc. and take responsibility for your priorities and don't whine and cry about your choices after the worst has come to pass.

    It's all about being an adult, which few of us are.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Pray for reset.


Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123





Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •