Church - A place for quiet reflection ...

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

No? Some might have changed a bit seemingly peacefully, but if you look back there was always a gun or sword in there.

Pete

i admit man is territorial by nature

[merrylander]

I simple cannot understand why people so revere the writings on the subject of freedom by a man who was quite content to own other human beings. There are people who bear my surname up and down the east coast. I have never found any realtionship in my genealogical research nor do I wish to as some were slave owners. I cannot understand nor condone such a practice. I do have planty of cousins west of the Mississippi River.

[piece-itpete]

Noone, t's amazing, you'd think you'd get used to it, but the more I read the more horrible it gets. Faith in mankind is waaaaaay misplaced. Good things are the exception and usually temporary.

Rob, are you sure the history of Canada doesn't have a bit of blood in it somewhere?

Pete

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Faith in mankind is waaaaaay misplaced.

not by me, I have no faith, I try to keep safe and take care of my own

[piece-itpete]

Two smart guys, they both felt smart

Pete

[JonL]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Freedom for government control of everything. And there is no doubt that business has a great deal of influence in government. By both parties. So give government - more power?
...
Pete

Corporate influence and the greed of individual politicians have combined to corrupt government. No question, no argument. But without government regulation, powerful (and not so powerful) corporations would be free to cause irreparable harm to people and the environment in the short-sighted chase for profits. That should be quite obvious. Government is the people's only line of protection. The fact that government has become dysfunctional and often more an ally of business than of the people doesn't mean that less government is necessarily the answer. IMO, the answer is to restore our government to being representatives (and leaders) of the people, and not of powerful corporations. Campaign finance reform would be a good place to start.

I'm not sure how I feel about term limits... in one sense it should reduce the corrupting influence that might come along with an extended incumbency, but on the other hand it also artificially removes skilled and effective people from our government. I've spent a tiny bit of time in DC meeting with senate and house staffers, and I can see how the learning curve to becoming effective is very steep. I also think that term limits and automatic spending caps, and other mechanisms like that are the easy way out. People should be involved enough to know when things aren't going the way they like, and vote out the bastards instead of letting some automatic trigger do it for them, for better or for worse. That would of course require a better informed electorate... which should go hand in hand with campaign finance reform.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by JonL

I'm not sure how I feel about term limits... in one sense it should reduce the corrupting influence that might come along with an extended incumbency, but on the other hand it also artificially removes skilled and effective people from our government. I've spent a tiny bit of time in DC meeting with senate and house staffers, and I can see how the learning curve to becoming effective is very steep. I also think that term limits and automatic spending caps, and other mechanisms like that are the easy way out. People should be involved enough to know when things aren't going the way they like, and vote out the bastards instead of letting some automatic trigger do it for them, for better or for worse. That would of course require a better informed electorate... which should go hand in hand with campaign finance reform.

Good point here. In many instances, the staffers represent the institutional knowledge (not to mention the grunt work) behind what gets done in Washington. Case in point - Last week's 11th hour budget negotiations were not between Boehner and Reed, but between their respective Chiefs of Staff.

[JonL]

Originally Posted by merrylander

I simple cannot understand why people so revere the writings on the subject of freedom by a man who was quite content to own other human beings. There are people who bear my surname up and down the east coast. I have never found any realtionship in my genealogical research nor do I wish to as some were slave owners. I cannot understand nor condone such a practice. I do have planty of cousins west of the Mississippi River.

The founders of our nation were undoubtedly both smart and flawed. To me, the biggest indication of their wisdom was in knowing that people, the nation, and the constitution were all inherently flawed and so provided means for the constitution to evolve and change with the times. They also made it difficult for those changes to happen quickly as overreactions to short-term events.

I think the founders would find it ludicrous that people use quotes and ideas and ideals that may have been sensible before the industrial revolution to rigidly guide our politics and philosophies today. Learn from their thoughts and writings, of course. Rigidly adhere to the same ideals? Silly.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

No? Some might have changed a bit seemingly peacefully, but if you look back there was always a gun or sword in there.

Pete

Of course. There just has to be an act of violence involved or said establishment of a free and independent nation/state loses validity.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Jon, I agree with you on term limits. To me, they smack of acknowledgement of citizens' waning ability to govern themselves.

The great experiment was created by them, standing on shoulders. I believe that not using the stated means to modify the Constitution is clear proof that it failed.

My continuing journey into the past shows just how radically peoples' perceptions have changed. Insulated by money and machines, we no longer live side by side with the reality of human nature, we've convinced ourselves that it's different.

It's not. There is the very same will to power, the same will to evil as existed before.

Only the trappings of life have changed. And as the founders had a very good grip on human nature, what they have to say is still valid. They would be pleased to know some still hear them, still listen to what they had learned.

Pete