• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Check out this crack pot...

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:
N00blet45 wrote:
I think the idea was that there would never be a large government-controlled force of arms.  Instead the government had to rely on calling forth the militia (the people with their arms) or raising an army which could not be funded past 2 years.
Bingo.  That is why there has to be appropriations every two years  in Congress for the army, and why the rely so heavily on the backdoor approach of the National Guard and Reserve forces.

The National Guard is merely a perversion of the militia system (no offense to Guard members please, you do a heck of a job) and was instituted to ensure total Federal control over the "militia", and make the states dependent upon the feds to keep their local troops maintained to a great degree. 
You guys got it. There was a very good reason our government was not authorized to maintain a standing army indefinitely.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
As I've said many times here, the concept of government is not, in itself, the problem.  The problem is that, over time, the government becomes beholden to big business (because it controls the money) and not to the people.
Well, of course this happens. Jefferson advocated a solution much like ixtow's for this very reason.

Personally, I think it argues strongly for minarchism with a heavily invested populace.

Edit: Silly me, three posts in a row. See last post on the previous page.
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

marshaul wrote:
Also, "left" and "right" refer to the seating arrangement in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791.

So, I'm going to have to disagree with anyone whose definition doesn't fit those historical precedents.

So one can't be either right or left unless one is in a monarchical system?

I'm fine with that. I'd rather replace both crude terms with a continuum from "Statist" to "Libertarian."

That way, there's no dispute about which camp Hitler and Marx are in.
 

Alexcabbie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
2,288
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
imported post

ONCE upon a time there lived a man with a name that sounded very much like "Mousie Dung", but he was not a funny man; he was a bloody and lethal tyrant. He was very smart about politics, though, and once wrote:

[align=center]"POLITICAL POWER[/align]
[align=center]GROWS FROM THE BARREL OF A GUN"[/align]
A long time before Mr. Dung came along, though, a bunch of wise men from England who were fouding a new nation and a new political system with the People as Sovereign Powers came to this conclusion also. They framed the idea less cryptically. they said:

[align=center]"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS[/align]
[align=center]SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"[/align]


(My fave bedtime story)
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

smoking357 wrote:
marshaul wrote:
Also, "left" and "right" refer to the seating arrangement in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791.

So, I'm going to have to disagree with anyone whose definition doesn't fit those historical precedents.

So one can't be either right or left unless one is in a monarchical system?

I'm fine with that. I'd rather replace both crude terms with a continuum from "Statist" to "Libertarian."

That way, there's no dispute about which camp Hitler and Marx are in.
This is far more accurate. Left and Right, Conservative and Liberal; they are just distractions. Something to occupy your mind and keep you away from reality.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

ixtow wrote:
smoking357 wrote:
marshaul wrote:
Also, "left" and "right" refer to the seating arrangement in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791.

So, I'm going to have to disagree with anyone whose definition doesn't fit those historical precedents.

So one can't be either right or left unless one is in a monarchical system?

I'm fine with that. I'd rather replace both crude terms with a continuum from "Statist" to "Libertarian."

That way, there's no dispute about which camp Hitler and Marx are in.
This is far more accurate.  Left and Right, Conservative and Liberal; they are just distractions.  Something to occupy your mind and keep you away from reality.
Oh, come on. I've never disputed this point. In fact I've made it myself here on this forum about as many times as you have posts. It doesn't change the fact that the terms do have historical precedent which smoking357 either entirely ignored or was entirely ignorant about.

He was the one who elected to use the terms, and do so incorrectly. Of my own volition I will rarely, if ever, refer to the "right" or the "left".

If anything, my pointing out the error of his usage was intended to obliquely criticize any use thereof at all: after all, if nobody can agree on the meaning of a word, of what value is it? Something about not doing all the work for my readers, so as not to insult them. :quirky

Edit: For what it's worth, I'm agreeing with you. I just don't like the appearance of being corrected over a point in which I am complete agreement. :p
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

smoking357 wrote:
marshaul wrote:
Also, "left" and "right" refer to the seating arrangement in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791.

So, I'm going to have to disagree with anyone whose definition doesn't fit those historical precedents.

So one can't be either right or left unless one is in a monarchical system?
You got it. Or maybe I should say, "something like that".

smoking357 wrote:
I'm fine with that. I'd rather replace both crude terms with a continuum from "Statist" to "Libertarian."

That way, there's no dispute about which camp Hitler and Marx are in.
Internally, the only metric I use at all can be described using such a continuum: from "statist" to "libertarian". Even in discussion I prefer this model, unless others apply a partisan model first.

Nice avatar by the way, smoking357. That's the same portrait I have on my wall here in my bedroom. :)
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

marshaul wrote:
ixtow wrote:
smoking357 wrote:
marshaul wrote:
Also, "left" and "right" refer to the seating arrangement in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791.

So, I'm going to have to disagree with anyone whose definition doesn't fit those historical precedents.

So one can't be either right or left unless one is in a monarchical system?

I'm fine with that. I'd rather replace both crude terms with a continuum from "Statist" to "Libertarian."

That way, there's no dispute about which camp Hitler and Marx are in.
This is far more accurate. Left and Right, Conservative and Liberal; they are just distractions. Something to occupy your mind and keep you away from reality.
Oh, come on. I've never disputed this point. In fact I've made it myself here on this forum about as many times as you have posts. It doesn't change the fact that the terms do have historical precedent which smoking357 either entirely ignored or was entirely ignorant about.

He was the one who elected to use the terms, and do so incorrectly. Of my own volition I will rarely, if ever, refer to the "right" or the "left".

If anything, my pointing out the error of his usage was intended to obliquely criticize any use thereof at all: after all, if nobody can agree on the meaning of a word, of what value is it? Something about not doing all the work for my readers, so as not to insult them. :quirky

Edit: For what it's worth, I'm agreeing with you. I just don't like the appearance of being corrected over a point in which I am complete agreement. :p
If nobody can agree on the meaning of a word, how can you say I employed it incorrectly?

You note that there are many employments of the term, yet bemoan that I ignored a certain historical precedent, while tacitly admitting that I might be using an employment that you're ignoring.

Your post contains a few contradictions. Thanks for the props on the avvy.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

marshaul wrote:
ixtow wrote:
smoking357 wrote:
marshaul wrote:
Also, "left" and "right" refer to the seating arrangement in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791.

So, I'm going to have to disagree with anyone whose definition doesn't fit those historical precedents.

So one can't be either right or left unless one is in a monarchical system?

I'm fine with that. I'd rather replace both crude terms with a continuum from "Statist" to "Libertarian."

That way, there's no dispute about which camp Hitler and Marx are in.
This is far more accurate. Left and Right, Conservative and Liberal; they are just distractions. Something to occupy your mind and keep you away from reality.
Oh, come on. I've never disputed this point. In fact I've made it myself here on this forum about as many times as you have posts. It doesn't change the fact that the terms do have historical precedent which smoking357 either entirely ignored or was entirely ignorant about.

He was the one who elected to use the terms, and do so incorrectly. Of my own volition I will rarely, if ever, refer to the "right" or the "left".

If anything, my pointing out the error of his usage was intended to obliquely criticize any use thereof at all: after all, if nobody can agree on the meaning of a word, of what value is it? Something about not doing all the work for my readers, so as not to insult them. :quirky

Edit: For what it's worth, I'm agreeing with you. I just don't like the appearance of being corrected over a point in which I am complete agreement. :p
I didn't think I was making a correction, just elaborating, rephrasing... A form of agreement that might create another perspective to a reader and get the point across to a 3rd party.

I refer to "Right," "Left," "Conservative," "Liberal," "Republican," Democrat" all the time; in a subtle and sarcastic way. Any who subscribe to those labels, are wasting themselves on subversive agendas instead of essential liberty.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

ixtow wrote:
I didn't think I was making a correction, just elaborating, rephrasing...  A form of agreement that might create another perspective to a reader and get the point across to a 3rd party.

I refer to "Right," "Left," "Conservative," "Liberal," "Republican," Democrat" all the time; in a subtle and sarcastic way.  Any who subscribe to those labels, are wasting themselves on subversive agendas instead of essential liberty.
You're right, I'm sorry. Upon rereading your post I do not feel corrected. I guess since our previous discussion I've figured I'd have to be on the defensive in discussion with you. But I was mistaken.
 
Top