The greatest superstition of the 20th Century - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-09-2013, 11:48 AM   #1
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default The greatest superstition of the 20th Century

The majority of people in the 19th century believed in all kinds of mysticism.

In the 20th Century, the greatest superstition is the blind belief in gov't - i.e., that gov't is truly a force for good, and is there to help the common man.

The Most Dangerous Superstition

Amazon.com: Dabooda's review of The Most Dangerous Superstition

Quote:
Little children learn morality from their parents: things are good or bad because Mommy and Daddy SAID so. A little later, they may be taught that things are good or bad because God SAID so, in some Holy Book. And still later, when they are taught "civics" in government schools, they will be taught that things are good or bad because "It's the law." (And it's GOOD to obey the law, BAD to break it.") But "the law" is just whatever politicians SAY it is.

A person becomes an adult when he outgrows the need to be given moral commandments from people he thinks of as "authorities," and learns to judge for himself what is right or wrong. This is a book to read to discover just how adult YOU really are. The book as a whole is a litmus test that will show whether the reader is an adult with independent judgment, or still a child, believing every fantasy and superstition that the "authorities" in his life have told him to believe.

You may or may not agree with Rose's conclusions, but you should be prepared to have many of your own cherished beliefs challenged and examined. This is a book to stretch your mind, and that may be uncomfortable, if your mind is out-of-shape. But like any good workout, the results are very rewarding.

The "most dangerous superstition" referred to in the title is the idea of "authority," which includes all belief in "government." No, I'm not providing "spoilers;" this is something Rose lays out on Page 2 of the book. He doesn't deny that all the legislators, police, bureaucrats and soldiers exist -- they clearly do. But the thing that makes "government" something more than a gang of thugs is the respect -- even reverence -- in which it is held by the people it rules. "Government" is commonly believed to have a RIGHT to rule us, and we commonly believe ourselves to have a DUTY to obey their commands (which are called "laws.") Rose unleashes a ferocious array of arguments proving that neither that RIGHT nor that DUTY can logically -- or morally -- exist. If that sounds silly to you, YOU need to read the book.

...
The most dangerous superstition IS dangerous because it enslaves our minds, which leads to the enslavement of our whole lives. This is a book to set us free.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 12:06 PM   #2
Elite Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Erat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Detroit
Posts: 4,201
Total Cats: 260
Default

Erat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 12:19 PM   #3
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,900
Total Cats: 1,793
Default



"Cant expect a kid to change if all you do is tell him."

"If you would just get up and teach us instead of handing 'em a packet yo, there's kids in here that don't learn like that... they need to learn face-to-face."
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 03:07 PM   #4
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 178
Default

I'd like to see poll results if you ask a large number of Americans, "Do you believe that government is truly a force for good, and is there to help the common man?"


I am skeptical that it is a view held by a majority of people.
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 03:44 PM   #5
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,900
Total Cats: 1,793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
I am skeptical that it is a view held by a majority of people.
at least:

Attached Thumbnails
The greatest superstition of the 20th Century-terrorism-freedom-tradeoff.jpg  
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 05:16 PM   #6
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Delicious and Moist.
Posts: 26,328
Total Cats: 1,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niccolò Machiavelli
But the thing that makes "government" something more than a gang of thugs is the respect -- even reverence -- in which it is held by the people it rules. "Government" is commonly believed to have a RIGHT to rule us
In an ideal republic, the government should either consist of the people or be representative of, and subservient to, the people.

It is a mistake to assume that the only thing which separates any government from a gang of thugs is a sense of respect or reverence. That would be true of an oligarchy or an "ideal" fascist government.

In other words, a "gang of thugs" typically don't bother to draft a constitution or allow themselves to be voted in and out of power by a system of organized and regular elections.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Erat View Post
(the story of your enslavement)
The preview pic which shows up, for me at least, is a frame of the headmaster forcing the students into the meat-grinder from the "Another Brick" scene in Pink Floyd's "The Wall" (the full-length movie.)[/i]

One of my all-time favorites, I actually have that one on Laserdisc.
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 03:47 AM   #7
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
I'd like to see poll results if you ask a large number of Americans, "Do you believe that government is truly a force for good, and is there to help the common man?"

I am skeptical that it is a view held by a majority of people.
The majority may not say yes when asked this directly, but then they will Doublethink, e.g. "Gov't stay out of my Medicare" and "Fedex is more reliable than USPS, but I believe we need Obamacare" and "I am pro choice but gov't should stop you from choosing incandescent light bulbs or non-low-flush toilets".
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 03:56 AM   #8
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
In other words, a "gang of thugs" typically don't bother to draft a constitution or allow themselves to be voted in and out of power by a system of organized and regular elections.
Today's gang of thugs metastasized from the original design of the Constitution. The Supreme Court which but another tentacle of the Federal monster, has so bastardized its interpretation that the monster barely resembles the original intent. Despite that the thugs hate the remaining restraints the Constitution still imposes.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 09:41 AM   #9
Elite Member
iTrader: (12)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 6,868
Total Cats: 66
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erat View Post
The Story of Your Enslavement - YouTube
...goes quite well with...


Doppelgänger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 09:51 AM   #10
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 178
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
The majority may not say yes when asked this directly, but then they will Doublethink, e.g. "Gov't stay out of my Medicare" and "Fedex is more reliable than USPS, but I believe we need Obamacare" and "I am pro choice but gov't should stop you from choosing incandescent light bulbs or non-low-flush toilets".
Do you code in the Matrix or something? Because I swear you are only able to think in binary terms.

Someone can believe that government can serve beneficial functions while also rejecting the notion that "gov't is truly a force for good, and is there to help the common man." That's a silly oversimplification that I believe most people would reject.
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 12:01 PM   #11
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

One thing I'm 100% certain of. Gov't is waaaay bigger than what's best for society. The largest it should be is along the lines of what the founders of this country envisioned.

Perhaps most people would reject the simplified statement, and yet would readily accept the "gov't must do something" statement in reaction to the next tragedy, no matter how miniscule, such as the 7 ladies who tragically burned to death in a limo. DOUBLETHINK.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 01:32 PM   #12
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Delicious and Moist.
Posts: 26,328
Total Cats: 1,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
Today's gang of thugs metastasized from the original design of the Constitution. The Supreme Court which but another tentacle of the Federal monster, has so bastardized its interpretation that the monster barely resembles the original intent.
Interesting that the authors of the constitution specifically granted the Supreme Court the authority to interpret the constitution, and the Congress the power to modify it, right within the body of the constitution itself. (Article III section 2, and Article V, respectively.)

It's as though the authors of the constitution had some weird delusion that they were not perfect and all-knowing, and that as time progressed, it might be necessary for laws, and the interpretation of laws, to change in order to accommodate situations which they could not foresee.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
Do you code in the Matrix or something? Because I swear you are only able to think in binary terms.
I think you've expressed that better than I ever could have.
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 07:17 PM   #13
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

The Founders considered the States to be the final arbiter of what's constitutional and what's not. That's what the 10th Amendment is for.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 08:07 PM   #14
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Delicious and Moist.
Posts: 26,328
Total Cats: 1,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
The Founders considered the States to be the final arbiter of what's constitutional and what's not. That's what the 10th Amendment is for.
No, they didn't. And no, it's not.

The tenth amendment states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



However, the Constitution DOES specifically delegate to the US Supreme Court the power to interpret matters arising under the Constitution. Thus, that power is NOT reserved for the States:

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.







Note that section 2 also grants the US Supreme Court (and the "inferior" Federal courts) authority over many legal disputes concerning the States themselves. Specifically "to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."



What aspect of constitutional law would you like to learn about next?
Attached Thumbnails
The greatest superstition of the 20th Century-snap.jpg  

Last edited by Joe Perez; 05-10-2013 at 09:39 PM. Reason: Added Thomas Jefferson saying "Oh, Snap!"
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 04:20 PM   #15
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

State Nullification: What Is It? | Liberty Classroom

-----quote ----------


State Nullification: What Is It?


What is it?

State nullification is the idea that the states can and must refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.

Says Who?

Says Thomas Jefferson, among other distinguished Americans. His draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 first introduced the word “nullification” into American political life, and follow-up resolutions in 1799 employed Jefferson’s formulation that “nullification…is the rightful remedy” when the federal government reaches beyond its constitutional powers.

What’s the Argument for It?

Here’s an extremely basic summary:

1) The states preceded the Union.
...
2) In the American system no government is sovereign. The peoples of the states are the sovereigns.
...

3) Since the peoples of the states are the sovereigns, then when the federal government exercises a power of dubious constitutionality on a matter of great importance, it is they themselves who are the proper disputants, as they review whether their agent was intended to hold such a power. No other arrangement makes sense. No one asks his agent whether the agent has or should have such-and-such power. ...

Why Do We Need It?

As Jefferson warned, if the federal government is allowed to hold a monopoly on determining the extent of its own powers, we have no right to be surprised when it keeps discovering new ones. If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power. In his Report of 1800, Madison reminded Virginians and Americans at large that the judicial branch was not infallible, and that some remedy must be found for those cases in which all three branches of the federal government exceed their constitutional limits.

Isn’t This Ancient History?

Two dozen American states nullified the REAL ID Act of 2005. More than a dozen states have successfully defied the federal government over medical marijuana. Nullification initiatives of all kinds, involving the recent health care legislation, cap and trade, and the Second Amendment are popping up everywhere.

What’s more, we’ve tried everything else. Nothing seems able to stop Leviathan’s relentless march. We need to have recourse to every mechanism of defense Thomas Jefferson bequeathed to us, not just the ones that won’t offend Katie Couric or MSNBC.

Won’t This Make the New York Times Unhappy?
More proof it’s a good idea.


Doesn’t Nullification Violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause?

Thomas Jefferson knew about the Supremacy Clause, it’s safe to assume. The Supremacy Clause applies to constitutional laws, not unconstitutional ones. For a full reply to this objection, see Professor Brion McClanahan.

Isn’t This Just a Smokescreen for Slavery?

Nullification was never used on behalf of slavery.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 04:53 PM   #16
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Jason, dude. You know better than to make such an over-reaching statement about...wait, nevermind.

Nullification was used by both sides with respect to slavery - both on behalf of, and against.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 06:01 PM   #17
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

blaen, dude, how about an example of nullification used to support slavery?
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 07:33 PM   #18
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Delicious and Moist.
Posts: 26,328
Total Cats: 1,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
(blah, blah, blah)
If the concept of state nullification had ever been anything more than a random concept (which it wasn't) then it would simply have been an avenue for the States to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law through the US Supreme Court.

Which, by odd coincidence, is exactly how things work here in the real world even today.

Federal laws get struck down all the time on constitutional grounds. Heck, Marbury v. Madison happened in 1803, just 14 years after the Constitution itself went into effect. (The Supreme Court ruled that Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional.)
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 08:18 PM   #19
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Jason, dude, it's not my job to educate you on basic history. But here's a start.

Nullification Crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Basically, the states in the south wanted to maintain their right to slavery by emphasizing the right of each state to govern itself and by promoting the idea of nullification which gave them the right to nullify any law the federal government tried to impose if they felt it went too far. In other words, the state has the right (state's rights) to nullify a federal law. (nullification)

When South Carolina nullified the tariffs put on it by the government, they were saying that not only did they have the right to nullify tariffs, but potentially they had the right to nullify any laws that would try to prohibit slavery in their states.
======================================…

When the Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison secretly wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which provide a classic statement in support of states' rights. According to this theory, the Federal Union is a voluntary association of states and if the central government goes too far, each state has the right to nullify that law.
States' rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

--------------------------------------…
One major and continuous strain on the union, from roughly 1820 through the Civil War, was the issue of trade and tariffs. Heavily dependent upon trade, the almost entirely agricultural and export-oriented South imported most of its manufactured needs from Europe or obtained them from the North. The North, by contrast, had a growing domestic industrial economy that viewed foreign trade as competition. Trade barriers, especially protective tariffs, were viewed as harmful to the Southern economy, which depended on exports.

In 1828, the Congress passed protective tariffs to benefit trade in the northern states, but were detrimental to the South. Southerners vocally expressed their tariff opposition in documents such as the South Carolina Exposition and Protest in 1828, written in response to the "Tariff of Abominations". Exposition and Protest was the work of South Carolina senator John C. Calhoun, formerly an advocate of protective tariffs and internal improvements at federal expense.

South Carolina's Nullification Ordinance declared the tariff of 1828 and 1832 null and void within the state borders of South Carolina. It began the Nullification Crisis. Passed by a state convention on November 24, 1832, it led, on December 10, to President Andrew Jackson's proclamation against South Carolina, which sent a naval flotilla and a threat of sending government ground troops to enforce the tariffs.

Over the following decades, another dispute over states' rights moved to the forefront. The issue of slavery polarized the union, with the principles espoused by Thomas Jefferson often being cited by both anti-slavery Northerners and secessionists on the debates that ultimately led to the American Civil War. SUPPORTERS OF SLAVERY OFTEN ARGUED THAT ONE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE STATES WAS THE PROTECTION OF SLAVE PROPERTY wherever it went, a position endorsed by the Supreme Court in the 1857 Dred Scott decision.

Jefferson Davis used the following argument in favor of the equal rights of states, as opposed to the declaration that all men are created equal:
"Resolved, That the union of these States rests on the equality of rights and privileges among its members, and that it is especially the duty of the Senate, which represents the States in their sovereign capacity, to resist all attempts to discriminate either in relation to person or property, so as, in the Territories -- which are the common possession of the United States -- to give advantages to the citizens of one State which are not equally secured to those of every other State"
The Preamble to the Confederate States Constitution begins: "We, the people of the Confederate States, EACH STATE ACTING IN ITS SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT CHARACTER..."
States' rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
--------------------------------------…
The famous nullification confrontation of 1832-1833, pitting President Andrew Jackson against South Carolina senator John C. Calhoun over whether a state could nullify federal law, was an important step in a long series of attempts to define the proper powers of the states.

As industry in the North expanded it looked towards southern markets, rich with cash from the lucrative agricultural business, to buy the North's manufactured goods. However, it was often cheaper for the South to purchase the goods abroad. In order to "protect" the northern industries Jackson slapped a tariff on many of the imported goods that could be manufactured in the North. When South Carolina passed the Ordinance of Nullification in November 1832, refusing to collect the tariff and threatening to withdraw from the Union, Jackson ordered federal troops to Charleston. A secession crisis was averted when Congress revised the Tariff of Abominations in February 1833.
Causes of the Civil War-a North Georgia perspective

Behind the explicit assault on the tariff lay another implicit concern--protecting slavery. The South Carolina coastal plains, largely a rice-producing region, was the most densely enslaved southern area and thus particularly sensitive to America's first antislavery stirrings. South Carolina rice planters feared nationalistic tariffs, bad enough in themselves, would furthermore lead to assaults on slavery. They thus joined their cotton-producing upland cousins in defying Jackson.
Nullification Controversy: Information from Answers.com
Other than that, ditto Joe. Wherever you get this revisionist history from is probably something you should be taking with a grain or two of salt.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 02:31 PM   #20
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

blaen dude, you're so predictable. Only a zombie liberal would think that centralization of power is a good thing. Only a zombie liberal would assume on the average States would pass bad laws and the Fed Gov good laws; The Dred Scott decision was a *bad* Supreme Court decision.

States' Rights proponents wanted to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act (a Federal law that required slaves that escaped into other States where slavery was outlawed to be returned to their owners).

With de-centralized power people (and slaves) could move States. With centralized power there is less recourse.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Miata Limo! ennjay General Miata Chat 2 09-17-2015 08:04 AM
Argentine History Lesson kotomile Current Events, News, Politics 7 04-09-2011 08:48 PM
Own the Ben Rose House! Braineack Insert BS here 2 01-20-2011 08:04 PM
The Freakin' Pope kotomile Current Events, News, Politics 18 09-20-2010 06:37 PM
Fun with Numbers Braineack Insert BS here 39 02-19-2010 09:29 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:59 AM.