- ok, communications changed things. as has transportation.is it defeating the cause? or making sound natural law principles obsolete?I don't think so, because I don't believe technology advancing changes sound natural law principles.is it making the original governmental design obsolete?I still don't think so, for the same reason.I would think the question comes down to; How do we finally begin using the new technology to support our cause, sound natural law principles, and return effectiveness to the orignal governmental design?As I see it, it has been primarily the bad forces utilizing the advanced technology for it's purposes - and our side's utilization has been minimal. It's not the technology, but the fact that only 1 side has put it to effective use.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hey TJE, I was afraid my post might be taken as a suggestion this ‘cause’ might be “defeating”. I assure you I don’t view it as defeating. I see it at most if applicable at all as a consideration in the plan to win. No quitter in me brother I think you know that. My Dad always told me if you’re going to fight, fight to win or don’t fight at all. I expect to be alongside everyone here while we continuously, relentlessly and with extreme prejudice pursue that goal.I was wondering which one of you patriots was going to do exactly what you did. Possible obstacle identified, assess the problem, propose solution and overcome!Man I wish one day the whole bunch of us will get a chance to look each other in eye. From my heart, I love all you guys.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Those were some of my thoughts too TJE.In short, the "technology" is available to all factions, therefore the speed factor is moot in regard to human nature and natural law. If it moves fast in one direction, it can and will be countered, whether it be a newspaper or an Intrnet.Iam convinced that humans do not fundamentally change, it is the tools that change. That is why I find American exeptionalism so exceptional; a rare fundamental shift in human thinking.Liberals/Progressives are trying to duplicate the occurance.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Most news was transferred via voice from one group to more groups and soon to the entire populations. Just like a email going viral.
- Permalink Reply by on
- IMO,The people of the time could read for the most part and there was not much news so it spread a lot faster than you would imagine. The citizens were engaged and one community would then share with another so in days not weeks the entire country would be informed. Look at France it was country wide when they rebelled. The FF knew what was coming to us and said things like the following -A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
Thomas Jefferson
In other words, Americans will be required to take their nation back at some future time from the factions that grouped together and elected a majority that usurped.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Global real time communication trumps the plan at its foundation.
I don't follow how you come to that conclusion, Jon. I don't see how the ability to communicate faster in any way affects the basic dynamics of human behavior.
The sentence that follows your last quote of #10: "Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary."Perhaps the pertinent portion of this quote to our discussion being 'where there is a consciousness of..'
Madison continues:
"Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, - is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and to schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments."
With all due respect to Madison, IMHO he goes out on a limb here and asserts an opinion as fact.He continues:
"Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage."
How would the speed of communication affect Mr.Madison's premise?
"The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular country or district, than an entire State."
Now, one may argue the correctness of Mr. Madison's views but to my feeble thinking he suggests that the larger the Republic the greater the security from factions having undue control.
Now, both Jefferson and Madison decried the ills of large urban centers and recommended a geographically dispersed citizenry as the remedy to many ills, including factions, but the meaning of a 'larger Republic' cannot but mean population more-so than geographic size. I fail to see how a more rapid ability to spread info would negate the system put in place by the framers [and I fully acknowledge there is much I fail to see ;) ]. It would seem to me that it is a matter of representation, according to Madison.
Consider the formation of the Tea Party or so called flash mobs or the revolution in Libya. Could these happen on the scale they do today without our ability to communicate our plans and ‘organize’?
No, probably not. But someone in 1775, or 1863, could have posited the same question and the answer would be the same.
I remain firmly convinced that a return to the Senate to represent the States and the House to represent the People to be the best check on factions.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hey Nathan, I’m going on a family vacation (fishing) tomorrow so I should have known not to post that now. First let me say I’ve been sitting on this notion for several years and this is the first time I’ve tried to articulate it. It does appear to be contentious but is not intended to be.I decided to put it up here because the audience is I believe a very good one to address something like this. While it does seem daunting as I wrote to TJE I see it at most if applicable at all as a note worthy consideration in planning future actions.I’m typing fast and watching the clock but rest assured I’ve already printed the responses. I will be reading them all carefully (when my wife isn’t watching) and with appreciation. I do hope everybody takes this one to task. It has troubled me for years that I’ve never had anyone to share it with who could understand it, examine, accept or refute it. In short I offered it for consideration not as a conclusion.Oh and regardless of my notion on “comm” by any means possible we should repeal the 17th. Maybe just maybe late tonight I will be allowed some keyboard time see you then.
- Permalink Reply by on
- It is happening as we speak - Johnathon Turley Law Professor has accepted the case from the members of Congress suing Obama for violating the Article I section 8 clause 10 - only Congress can declare war. 26 or 34 States are weaving cases of nullification through the courts and one will get to the SCOTUS this year? The usurpers have been found out and now they are being challenged.In Wisconsin they will review the findings that the lower court Judge was found guilty of usurping the Legislatures powers. The Judge exceeded the power of the court and usurped. These Progressives have gone to far and now more and more citizens are questioning the Constitutional powers being usurped by all three branches of the Government. WE can now call this a Constitutional crisis.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Troy as the ancient Chinese curse says - may you live in interesting times - and we are in interesting times old friend.You have had your problems with the courts as have I - they cost me several seven digits and I have no way to recover. However Texas is changing the legal system by adopting the rest of the English Common Law - you sue you lose you pay all the attorney fees and the court costs of the winner. We have had a drought and you can see the dust from the Attorneys leaving our State.Yes. I love to see the courts and attorneys brought back into the Constitutional realities. It will be a celebration if it all gets done - hurray?
- Permalink Reply by on
- At least we know that Fox will hold many specials when these issues get to court, IMO many of the others will still be confused about these Constitutional issues? Oh yes, it will be wonderful to see 40 years of effort come to the front and center of the American people. The citizens will understand soon that the political class and the Judges have been usurping and just taking their wealth without authority.The 5th protect us from them re-distributing our wealth - nor bedeprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.How much we win is less important than the "PEOPLE" will become informed of their rights and powers.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Rene Descartes
- Permalink Reply by on
- I think that it will be more difficult for the government to hide its activities now then it has been in the past. The fractured viewpoints that the government was counting on to prevent general dissatisfaction in the government by a majority is here and now. The vast middle of American opinion needs to come together and rally around a central point the Constitution and a loud cry for a return to its principles must come from the majority to be heard by congress.
No comments:
Post a Comment