MY values are not mutable. End of story on that subject. I don't attempt to "impose" my will or values on another, I believe in and live as best I can by "the golden rule"...in other words, PROVE/lead by example.

Yes my world is "black and white" with very,very little gray. The gray is from having to function in someone else's "gray area", Not mine.

Change is "constant", naturally. Forced, coerced determined by "one over another" is NOT change. It is enforcement of one opinion over anothers in the ATTEMPT to change. We (humans) are "adaptable" which leads to "change" naturally.

As far as gov't, (in this context) it is a man made creation of rules, with human participants. The "rules" can be changed, the participants can adapt to the change, willingly or forced. But does that really "change" the participant? Or has it forced "submission" appearing to "be" changed?

Absolutely. I do not subscribe to intrusion in any way,shape, fashion or form as a "governance" system. The gov't (in our case) has an easily read "set of rules" for IT. The "rules" for IT were written by men in a "similar" situation as ours to help insure "intrusion" didn't happen "unwillingly".

IF citizens had been truly educated (which will NEVER happen with an "approved" education system) the above would be common knowledge and NOT a "topic of discussion" except maybe in the context of disbelief...which is the direction "I" come from. And "I" have a minimal amount of formal education.
I never got to the "physics" level...but I can discern the difference between a "dynamic and a static" and relate to "changing the equation" will not,does not change the dynamic.
The "static" by definition will not change. Formal education is not required to comprehend "basic".

And I don't presume to be intellectual. But I do presume to be able to pass on "knowledge" gained from 60 years of observation and hopefully "influence" others to "seek".


I consider I have been informed...your points of view may or may not be different, but you do "present" them with "common knowledge", some obvious amount of formal education, tenacity and an ability to express quite well.

You would be wrong. Obviously I don't express myself well enough. Sometimes my expressiveness tends to be harsh and arrogant by "design" but in this conversation/exchange of ideas I am somewhat "humbled" so I refrain from a "typical of me response". Little "r" republican, as in "minimalist".

On this I disagree in this respect. The "rules", if you will are based on a set of principles, the most basic being "all men are created equal"...to change requires to deviate from principle.
That to me is totally unacceptable, in order to exercise "my" basic "creator endowed RIGHT to Life...never mind Liberty or Happiness.

On this I will agree. Without caveat. But will assert the above for reference and add...my big picture is not quite as large as yours, but I do look at the big picture to "conclude" from my observations. I also tend to K.I.S.S as reference to keep "me" grounded.

For anyone gov't, entity or Individual to assume moral authority is IMMORAL, and not on a "religious" connotation so much as a "basic" understanding of "all men are created equal"...we are all created at conception, period end of story, it gets no more basic than that.

To "govern" is NOT to rule,rule over or dictate to in the name of "the greater good". The greater good is a natural occurence that CANNOT be mandated nor legislated, niether of which would be attempted IF citizens knew "why we are", i.e. The Declaration of Independence, which is NOT a "proclamation of COdependence."

To assert the laws of physics; a dynamic is an ever growing always changing FORM/creation that evolves "naturally"
and to attempt to change it, or stop it will result in catastrophic results. Undeniably...metaphorically speaking, History PROVES it. Can I put a "law of physics" equation to it, no..it is a "natural law", the natural order of things...(and to the doubters reading this)yes, "the strong survive". I, you (not you specifically) nor a gov't, dictator, or theologian can "change" it. It can be distorted, bent,twisted,castigated or presented any way imaginable, it CANNOT change. To presume the ability to do so through ANY means is arrogance beyond reprehensible.

A "dynamic" can be successfully REdirected with "applied TRUE knowledge" to "effect" a change in direction.
So, we're back to "square one", that of "true knowledge"...K.I.S.S. The Declaration of Independence is NOT a "proclamation of COdependence". FACT, not perception or point of view.

It is not a "theory/theology" it is FACT.

__________________






The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men.

I just accidentally deleted a lengthy response...I am NOT going to re-do as I lost my train of thought cussing my lack of typing and computer skills.

Or not. I have NO earthly idea what just occured...one minute it's there, the next it's not, the next it is.

__________________






The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men.

You guy's make my brain hurt!
You keep it up and I'm going to learn something.

"We" hope so...sowing seeds...bears fruit...

__________________






The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men.

And may I address "truth" in "context" of non-negotiable facts.

First and foremost, The Declaration of Independence clearly states "a" Truth...all men are created equal...not might be,could be, may be or will be but ARE. Truthful FACT, or factual Truth.

Secondly; IF our education system actually educated (the passing on of TRUTH in the form of knowledge, NOT passing on rumors or beliefs or feelings said to be factual,i.e. truth) these discussions would be unnecessary.

Truth "I" subscribe to and endorse is; The Declaring of Independence is NOT proclaiming COdependence. That is a fact. It is a "truth" regardless of locale, time in history or the latest demographic study.

The above is not arrogance. Truth, based on fact.
Truth, "the sowing of seeds results in some being planted, some bearing fruit". Truth based on fact.

MY choice of "seeds" (metaphorically speaking) are OUR Heritage and Tradition...Heritage being, The Declaration of Independence, the Tradition we have evolved into (as in natural occurence BECAUSE of our Heritage) is "the VALUE of The Individual" set forth in The Declaration of Independence. Truth based on fact.

To be educated in the above (passing on of knowledge in the form of truth) would render these discussion UNnecessary. Truth. Fact.

Why/how can I be so presumtuous? Education begins at home. Home being a "metaphor" for "me". Understanding, comprehending the english language is NOT rocket science. It does not need to be made so by elitists claiming to be knowledgable who deny "truth", (see above) by inflicting the will of one over another and calling it "the will of the people" which is in direct opposition to "the value of the Individual" and disrespectful of "Independence". Truth. Fact. Time, locale nor demographic studies or polls can "change" it.

Then referencing "governance". To govern is NOT to dictate to. The arrogance displayed by "gov't SERVANTS" is contradictory according to "truth". That "Individuals" will not, do not see, recognize or otherwise acknowledge "truth" ALLOWS gov't SERVANTS to be deferred to as "leaders" and act like rulers...again "contradictory" to "Truth",i.e. ALL men are "created equal" and "protecting,defending and preserving" ENDOWED (not granted by a benevolent entity or another Individual) is THE NO.1 JOB of elected REpresentatives. Truth. Fact.

Sow some seeds...reap the reward of the harvest...with Individual effort, NOT collective "mentality", the will of the people or legislated/mandated attempts to determine "outcome" based on theory or opinion which is contradictory to "truth"...see above....

__________________






The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men.

You know what they say about a little knowledge in the wrong hands.

I was a bit hard with JahB, I get a whiff of liberalism and my radar go's off. Eavesdropping on your conversations is informative.

Thank you both.

No, it is he and I who owe the Thank you...to TR and all who read our back and forth...TRUTH.

__________________






The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men.

Very true.
His argument as I understand it is utopia.
That mortal men with power over others will ignore self interest and "do whats best for everyone".

A lofty goal in theory I agree with, but is it realistic?

That men in power would ever ignore their ideology's/pregidous in pursuit of whats best for all is unrealistic. Power corrupts.

we are human, (pride and pregidous) and even the best of intentions has unintended consequences. (Social Security)

"I have done for you" I would say "you have done too me". Unintended consequence!=A generation incapable of planing and saving for their own retirement, leading to the inevitable bankruptcy and collapse of the system.

Better that I were raised understanding that I would be responsible for MY future and left to pursue MY destiny.

His thoughts on morality I agree with and believe myself in the majority of conservatives on this. Despite what mainstream media would have us believe I have no interest in imposing my morality on California save for those things we all agree to be in keeping a civil society. I do have an interest in imposing my morality on/in Idaho.

The push back you get from conservatives is when liberals come from out of state (include the Fed in this group) and impose their liberal morality.

Liberals who are residence are not silenced, pursued or hairiest. On the contrary, I find them very loud and annoying at times.

First off, thanks to both of you for slogging through my often wordy responses, taking time to get my drift. In particular, thanks for offering your own valuable insights, and points of view. None of us can do better than benefit from the free and open exchange of ideas and thoughts. I appreciate the use of the soapbox, and gladly yield it to any who would want to share their point of view.

I don't know that it's utopia I'm after, just a carefully proscribed set of functions and missions of government, both Federal and State. Clearly, given power, men/women will use it to their advantage. That's why the ability to use the government to one's personal ends (in MY world) would have to be strictly curtailed. No, mortal men holding power will not always "do what's best for everyone", BUT the government can be so designed as to make sure that it at least limits harm and causes the people being the government to do ONLY what they are empowered by the PEOPLE to do. That means some VERY clear direction from their employers, US.
As goin2fast correctly points out, the seeds, if not the fruit of the utopia you mention ARE actually in our founding documents. If we could peel back at least some of the subsequent interpretation, bastardizations, misuses and as correctly noted... corruptions to the intention of those documents, we'd be one HELL of a lot closer to that than we are.

I think Social Security was a good idea at the time, but poorly executed and husbanded since. Having been raided of its value over the years has made it a greater albatross NOW and to us and to future generations than it should have been.

SSI its a safety net, and I think it WAS a good and necessary thing, saving a LOT of people from an abject future. It wasn't, I don't think, intended to fully supplant savings, personal financial planning, and pensions. But it DID. Now, pensions have in large part evaporated, let's look at why and how? Wall Street's 401K proved a real good plan, don't you think? Good for who? Wall Street.

What DID happen, as you point out, was that far too many people lost the sense of responsibility for their own financial well being in early and middle life, as well as in retirement. The same is true of each of the other safety net type programs; medicaid, welfare, medicare, school lunch, kindergarten, student loans, GI Bill mortgages, FHA loans, now CHIPS, soon "universal healthcare", the current corporate bailouts, bank bailouts, the "freebies" provided for by who? US. Are they all bad things? No. I think some are good, and have had the desired effect. So do you, I'd venture. Some are pure horse apples, and some have had unintended consequences... or perhaps intended consequences... only NOT the ones WE had in mind. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac got a lot of people a lot of money, didn't they? Student Loans are a profit center, and now tuition is HOW MUCH? Many of these are candidates for, and probably have their own threads here, so no point in digging through it all here. The core question is....what IS our government supposed to do for us?

The provision by government of these "solutions" has allowed people and institutions and companies to indulge their natural laziness and lack of industry, greed, as always, and lately, the unhealthy attraction to risk, since the consequences of that greed and failure to innovate and lead were almost guaranteed to be resolved by being "bailed out". All the gain, none of the pain. Not in line with American values, it seems to me. Yet, at this point, too big to fail really means; allowing these people to "have and eat the cake they've made" and allowing them to fail hurts everyone too much to allow it to happen.

Here's where my idea of the strict proscription of government comes in. In MY "utopia", much of that risk, (and reward) falls back on the individual, on the corporation, on the financial institution, or at least, when they DO fail, reparations are to be made...that HURT them, not everyone ELSE. Those allowed to make the kind of stupid decisions, to languish and fail, without intelligence, progress, and innovation..... should be allowed to enjoy the requisite and accompanying pain. Is it government (US) that should take that pain? No, but here we are... eating THEIR lousy cake.

War, too, is an unintended consequence, and yet, at times it is an obligation. How we come to that, and the means by which some of our leaders have circumvented the processes detailed in the founding documents is where the problem lies. The government has been allowed, by the fact of it's sheer complexity to act as an independent and profligate agent in it's OWN interest, not ours. Here my friends, is where the problem lies. In the overbearing complexity and arcane nature of the system itself. Transparency hell. How about absolute conscription to the very specific acts and functions "we the people" define as appropriate by our votes and ACTUAL representation?

Take it another step, granted to do this requires an EDUCATED" populace....but beyond a very limited maintenance budget for each of the agreed functions of government, each individual assigns his/her tax dollars to the precise area of interest and function THEY determine to be "in our national interest". It is then left to the so called "leaders" to convince an adequate number of people to fund the particular action, function, or PORK they espouse as necessary. THAT.... is leadership. You don't convince me, I don't pay. Dangerous? Sure. I don't mind. I want my government BACK.

"Signing Statements? Indeed. How about absolute abrogations of the trust of the people in their own government. Our rights and our government are NOT to be made subject to the values and ideologies imposed on them by people who apparently think they are above them!!

I'm just gonna say.....morality is a social issue. (EDIT: Add to this that the design of government MUST be defined from a point of view that is exceptionally MORAL, in the classical sense of the word.) In it.. government has NO PLACE, except to apprehend perpetrators, execute justice, and ensure security. It is OUR decision, locally, within a state, and nationally to determine what those laws are, and make it KNOWN to all. Were I to draw a line in the sand, it would be here: If no one is injured, or in some way disadvantaged, by another's actions or inactions, it is NOT the place of government to intervene or interfere.

Or, on behalf of the other side of the argument, I would add; When conservatives come from out of state, and impose their conservative morality. No one need be silenced, no one need be constrained by law in EITHER case. Win the battle of ideas ON THE GROUND. Don't ask government to settle the argument. If you can't convince others to your point of view, so be it. The government has no place making LAWS out of OPINIONS. People should be allowed to do what they will do, absent harm, and be left alone to do it. INDEPENDENCE... not CODEPENDENCE... on EITHER SIDE OF ANY ARGUMENT!

climbing down from soapbox.....

Goin2fast, We are embarrassingly close to being in full agreement and may even share an agenda.....having read your full post and finding nothing to argue with...maybe to clarify.. but I am typed out at the moment.

LOL! Imagine what I feel like...hunt and peck...

__________________






The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men.