Returning to Our Roots

wannabe grower said:

Basic biology dictates that living creatures eat, breath/(and/or whatever type of respiration is necessary to sustain life), and replicate their species. Human beings fall outside that realm given their intelligence and knowledge that what they do can affect every other living creature on this planet. If you maintain, that because a document written 100's or even thousands of years ago supercedes anything new we develop in these modern times, I just don't know how you can justify that. I am sure the founding fathers of the United States never dreamed of leaving the Earth or they would have included some text about colonizing other planets or space travel. You adapt to new changes in the environment,or you die off. Personally, I think I'll keep on living and adapt to changes as needed to sustain life whatever that may be.

Click to expand...

If you're interested and of a mind, may I suggest that you read Carnage and Culture, Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power, by Victor Davis Hanson? In this book he outlines the roots of "Western thought" in ancient Greece and how that type of thought process has led to the superpowers of the world that we have now, which are decidedly predominantly western, along with how those that were Eastern in (thought and) origin had to ultimately either adopt western ideals (not ideology, the ancient Greeks were not Christians by any stretch) in order to find societal success or fail utterly.

If you do read this I think you will come to a better understanding of how such documents as we've been discussing are "classics", in that their real meanings and purpose go far deeper than what something as malleable as technology can affect, or even SHOULD affect. Not to mention the fact that we are all, after all, still just as human as we were 10,000 years ago. And that a free man now is very much the same as a free man was 200 years ago, even if his particular circumstances have changed.

Technology has been the main vehicle of these philosophical changes though, particularly advances in information technology like the printing press, telegraph, radio, internet, etc. I mean, it's through the use of this technology that we all have access to these classic documents, and it's also through the use of technology that we have enough free time to even think about things like philosophy. It's also through the use of technology that our society has been productive enough to support the sorts of huge governments we have nowadays.

Doctor Pot said:

Technology has been the main vehicle of these philosophical changes though, particularly advances in information technology like the printing press, telegraph, radio, internet, etc. I mean, it's through the use of this technology that we all have access to these classic documents, and it's also through the use of technology that we have enough free time to even think about things like philosophy. It's also through the use of technology that our society has been productive enough to support the sorts of huge governments we have nowadays.

Click to expand...

We've had access to information for quite some time, I used to use the library a LOT. I don't disagree with any of your other statements, mostly chewing on it. I'd like to know what you think of the concept that there are intrinsic, and intrinsically, good ideas, "Basics for Living" that are not and can not be changed with anything, not time or technology or medicine or living situation or cultural context.

I believe deeply in the idea of "inalienable rights", that which cannot be separated from the "what" of "I am", my existence affords me such rights. (Discounting that this time the fact that rights are never absolute, one must literally wrench them from others, physically at times, but, for the sake of argument...?)

Spitzered said:

My personal pet peeve is 'drug testing' being justified.
If you need a court order to search property why is it ok to test someones body, at will. And any employer can mandate it. Something is wrong with that.

Why is abortion legal on the premise 'its my body, my choice', yet get caught with pot that argument is null and void? There is bullshit here somewhere.

Click to expand...

The difference is a matter of practicality vs. ideology. For instance, the opposition to legalized abortion is based purely on ideology. I'm not saying that's an invalid reason to oppose abortion, but it is what it is. The opposition to legalizing drugs is partly ideological, but also practical as well. Drug trafficking often generates the sort of crime that is harmful to society, and governments have a vested interest in cutting down on that.

Not to mention, employers have a vested interest in their employees not showing up to work high. Plus, employees DO have a choice whether or not to take a drug test. Even though passing that drug test might be a condition for employment, employers have the right to fire you based on plenty of other things too.

I'm not saying it's a good idea or right, just that this isn't necessarily a contradiction.

Seamaiden said:

We've had access to information for quite some time, I used to use the library a LOT. I don't disagree with any of your other statements, mostly chewing on it. I'd like to know what you think of the concept that there are intrinsic, and intrinsically, good ideas, "Basics for Living" that are not and can not be changed with anything, not time or technology or medicine or living situation or cultural context.

Click to expand...

Sort of. In a sense, there are intrinsically good things, but they have their roots in human nature, ie the common humanity of all of us. Our priorities and personalities differ from person to person, but we still have more things in common than we do differences.

Now, if we're talking about other entities that no longer share our humanity, we have less in common and thus those things that are intrinsically good or bad for people might no longer apply. For example, many species of animals routinely rape each other, but it's kind of ridiculous to say that's wrong. Even if those animal species were as intelligent as humans, it's possible to imagine situations where what people consider universally wrong wouldn't apply.

I believe deeply in the idea of "inalienable rights", that which cannot be separated from the "what" of "I am", my existence affords me such rights. (Discounting that this time the fact that rights are never absolute, one must literally wrench them from others, physically at times, but, for the sake of argument...?)

Click to expand...

"Man has only those rights he can defend." I wish these were the words of a great philosopher, but they were the words of Sam Watterson's character on Law and Order. Still, I think there's a lot of truth to it. In order to have a right, we need to be able to defend it.

I'm not sure what sorts of rights you would consider inalienable, or what that even means. After all, when the Declaration of Independence was written, half the south was enslaved. I'm not sure I completely understand the concept of an inalienable right as it is.

Doctor Pot said:

The difference is a matter of practicality vs. ideology. For instance, the opposition to legalized abortion is based purely on ideology. I'm not saying that's an invalid reason to oppose abortion, but it is what it is. The opposition to legalizing drugs is partly ideological, but also practical as well. Drug trafficking often generates the sort of crime that is harmful to society, and governments have a vested interest in cutting down on that.

Not to mention, employers have a vested interest in their employees not showing up to work high. Plus, employees DO have a choice whether or not to take a drug test. Even though passing that drug test might be a condition for employment, employers have the right to fire you based on plenty of other things too.

I'm not saying it's a good idea or right, just that this isn't necessarily a contradiction.

Click to expand...

Well, birth control is based on ideology, but abortion is based on 'when life begins', pro life believes that abortion is murder because life has begun. Pro abortion believes life begins at birth. Until the time of birth 'its their body' and therefore their choice. And murder is a point of law. It may be ideologically motivated but there is a rule of law.

I was referring directly to pot. I am not an advocate of man made drugs.
And prohibition directly contributes to the crime levels instigated due to drug trafficking. (see Al Capone).

Now pot, testing doesn't necessarily determine whether a person comes to work 'high' or not. Merely that the person smoked weed in the last 30 days. Foremen and supervisors used to have the responsibility to determine whether a person was capable of performing their job or not.

Now the issue really stemmed from Companies vs Unions. Company's would fire people citing that they were 'high' or 'drunk', but they couldn't because of no proof. They lobbied hard for drug screening and testing to get around the union block.

Years ago I knew several people, who were union, wrecked trucks, screwed up a lot, but couldn't be fired. And everybody, I mean everybody, knew they were stoners and drunks.

Justifiable perhaps, but maybe not constitutional.

Doctor Pot said:

Technology has been the main vehicle of these philosophical changes though, particularly advances in information technology like the printing press, telegraph, radio, internet, etc. I mean, it's through the use of this technology that we all have access to these classic documents, and it's also through the use of technology that we have enough free time to even think about things like philosophy. It's also through the use of technology that our society has been productive enough to support the sorts of huge governments we have nowadays.

Click to expand...

Running your mouth with out knowing the topic at hand, again, eh Doctor Pot?

Republic's are one of the most successful historical methods of governing created by man. Rome, Carthage, Athens, Sparta, the US, have all been Republics, and all of those nations rose to the pinnacle of power, before becoming Democracies and collapsing under the collective stupidity of their populace.

Doctor Pot said:

The difference is a matter of practicality vs. ideology. For instance, the opposition to legalized abortion is based purely on ideology. I'm not saying that's an invalid reason to oppose abortion, but it is what it is. The opposition to legalizing drugs is partly ideological, but also practical as well. Drug trafficking often generates the sort of crime that is harmful to society, and governments have a vested interest in cutting down on that.

Not to mention, employers have a vested interest in their employees not showing up to work high. Plus, employees DO have a choice whether or not to take a drug test. Even though passing that drug test might be a condition for employment, employers have the right to fire you based on plenty of other things too.

I'm not saying it's a good idea or right, just that this isn't necessarily a contradiction.

Click to expand...

Actually, there's a lot more to the argument against abortion than ideology, such as the fact that it is murder, and that the fetus is alive from the moment of conception.

Of course, I really wouldn't want to celebrate Conception Days... it just brings thoughts that aren't worth thinking to mind.

As far as the point about drugs. I disagree. It would be far easier to regulate it through licensing it, and by ensuring that suppliers are legitimate. Not only do you no longer have to throw users in prison, but you can also regulate quality controls.

Which is something that Marijuana sorely needs based on my personal experience.

TheBrutalTruth said:

Republic's are one of the most successful historical methods of governing created by man. Rome, Carthage, Athens, Sparta, the US, have all been Republics, and all of those nations rose to the pinnacle of power, before becoming Democracies and collapsing under the collective stupidity of their populace.

Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about forms of government, although I was talking about philosophy which is closely related. And it was technology that first enabled civilization anyway. Granted it was pretty simple by our standards, but still. AFAIK Rome was never a Democracy, and I think it's fairer to say that governments might give in to popular demand when they're weak anyway.

TheBrutalTruth said:

Actually, there's a lot more to the argument against abortion than ideology, such as the fact that it is murder, and that the fetus is alive from the moment of conception.

Click to expand...

And this matters because? We kill things all the time for various reasons, if we have a good reason to. The reason for opposing abortion is based purely on a logic exercise, not because of any harm it does to society.

As far as the point about drugs. I disagree. It would be far easier to regulate it through licensing it, and by ensuring that suppliers are legitimate. Not only do you no longer have to throw users in prison, but you can also regulate quality controls.

Which is something that Marijuana sorely needs based on my personal experience.

Click to expand...

I agree (I never thought I'd say that!), and I wasn't defending the laws as they are, only stating that there are reasons that the laws exist. I'd say that they could also levy large taxes on the stuff to pay for any social problems it might cause.

Doctor Pot said:

I wasn't talking about forms of government, although I was talking about philosophy which is closely related. And it was technology that first enabled civilization anyway. Granted it was pretty simple by our standards, but still. AFAIK Rome was never a Democracy, and I think it's fairer to say that governments might give in to popular demand when they're weak anyway.


And this matters because? We kill things all the time for various reasons, if we have a good reason to. The reason for opposing abortion is based purely on a logic exercise, not because of any harm it does to society.

I agree (I never thought I'd say that!), and I wasn't defending the laws as they are, only stating that there are reasons that the laws exist. I'd say that they could also levy large taxes on the stuff to pay for any social problems it might cause.

Click to expand...

You are wrong about Rome, it was never officially a democracy, but in the end it became a democracy, with its citizens more concerned about receiving bread and circuses than choosing a good leader for themselves.

TheBrutalTruth said:

You are wrong about Rome, it was never officially a democracy, but in the end it became a democracy, with its citizens more concerned about receiving bread and circuses than choosing a good leader for themselves.

Click to expand...

Roman emperors were never elected by Roman citizens in general. This is a fact. And there are plenty of reasons for the decline of the empire, people tend to pick whichever one suits their purpose for the point they're trying to make.

Yes, but Rome was not always ruled by emperors, either. That was a later construct.

TheBrutalTruth said:

I am not familiar with the Articles of the Confederation, but I think we would have all been a lot happier under them.

It is harder to fight two bloated monsters (Federal and State) than just to fight one bloated monster (State).

Click to expand...

The Constitution is based in part on the AoC the AoC was drafted before the constitution. The AoC also marks the formation of the United States of America. The AoC was later replaced by the constitution to for a Federation of states rather than a Confederation. This marked the formation of Federal powers and gave the government its first powers of taxation. Unfortunately most people in power today view the Constitution as a piece of paper. This is what our country was built on and most of us in our ignorance have no idea what it means to lose "the law of the land".
Constitutional Law is disregarded in so many ways by the federal government it is disgusting. So the real questions are: Where is your copy?. Will you allow for "Globalization"? How can we fight back?

NewGrowth said:

The Constitution is based in part on the AoC the AoC was drafted before the constitution. The AoC also marks the formation of the United States of America. The AoC was later replaced by the constitution to for a Federation of states rather than a Confederation. This marked the formation of Federal powers and gave the government its first powers of taxation. Unfortunately most people in power today view the Constitution as a piece of paper. This is what our country was built on and most of us in our ignorance have no idea what it means to lose "the law of the land".
Constitutional Law is disregarded in so many ways by the federal government it is disgusting. So the real questions are: Where is your copy?. Will you allow for "Globalization"? How can we fight back?

Click to expand...

Ron Paul

In all honestly, I'm trying to figure out how to do just that...

Trying to figure out what angle it would be suitable to attack the IRS from, and how to best go about it...

There's got to be some kind of legal foothold that can be used to stamp that monster into the dust.

TheBrutalTruth said:

Ron Paul

In all honestly, I'm trying to figure out how to do just that...

Trying to figure out what angle it would be suitable to attack the IRS from, and how to best go about it...

There's got to be some kind of legal foothold that can be used to stamp that monster into the dust.

Click to expand...

Five million Americans standing on the Mall in Washington D.C., ready to storm the bastile would do it.

Vi

TheBrutalTruth said:

Ron Paul

In all honestly, I'm trying to figure out how to do just that...

Trying to figure out what angle it would be suitable to attack the IRS from, and how to best go about it...

There's got to be some kind of legal foothold that can be used to stamp that monster into the dust.

Click to expand...

IRS wow! That is a tough one, I think it has to do with people getting pissed enough like Vi said. Who knows maybe Global economic collapse will work?

No, it won't. They are a self-funding entity that is able to act pretty much with impunity.

TheBrutalTruth said:

Ron Paul

In all honestly, I'm trying to figure out how to do just that...

Trying to figure out what angle it would be suitable to attack the IRS from, and how to best go about it...

There's got to be some kind of legal foothold that can be used to stamp that monster into the dust.

Click to expand...

(sigh) If only.

We have laws, but they have no teeth, who enforces laws upon the ultimate enforcers? Vi knows exactly what I'm talking about.

https://www.rollitup.org/124485-returning-our-roots-post1535724.html#post1535724

Returning to Our Roots 11-01-2008 10:49 PM You are gay, and don't know what america stands for...

Click to expand...

Wow... not only am I apparently homo now, but I also don't know what america stands for...

Now, maybe I'd be more impressed if the person that attacked me on this would show some intelligence and sign their name...

That's not a sign of intelligence, it's a sign of moxie and wherewithal. There are MANY cowards on this board.

Doctor Pot said:

Roman emperors were never elected by Roman citizens in general. This is a fact. And there are plenty of reasons for the decline of the empire, people tend to pick whichever one suits their purpose for the point they're trying to make.

Click to expand...

I never said that Roman Emperors were elected. I'm saying that the Roman Republic fell through its collapse into a Democracy where the people running for Senate and Consul promised and gave the citizens of Rome Bread and promised them Circuses and Festivals to secure their votes, and this lead directly to the collapse of the Roman Republic, and the rise of the Roman Empire under Caesar because he was able to abuse that system to get a Consul Position and become a General. Which lead directly to him crossing the Rubicon with the Tenth.