politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Are you crazy enough to be implying that your own government is your enemy? Public administration is necessary to any kind of social coordination and the reason you were able to leave that comment
Yeah, takes like this are crazy. Is the government my enemy? In the sense that we're spiraling towards a fascist regime with an incoming administration that has members who have literally called for "a genocide of trans people," absolutely.
But that's an issue of the government falling apart due to the kinds of people who would be the warmongers lording over the Libertarian paradise that most of these people call for with their PMC, not because the government simply exists. And this branch in particular is one of the ones doing the most to protect the common person from those same warmonger wannabes.
Without branches like this, companies would be dumping chemical waste upriver of towns again.
Three seconds on google: https://newrepublic.com/article/178175/republican-anti-trans-laws-punish-eradicate
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cpac-speaker-transgender-people-eradicated-1234690924/
Edit: more...
https://www.mississippifreepress.org/ex-gop-gov-candidate-calls-for-firing-squad-for-trans-rights-supporters-political-foes/
https://newrepublic.com/post/171802/florida-republican-calls-trans-people-mutants-demons-house-floor
I'm not from the US, so I don't care about your founders.
History books, and biology as well mind you, actually say that the actions of a group of individuals working together have more power than those of individuals working alone, and in any coordinated effort there is a subsection of the group that takes care of the whole and marks the pace. Throughout history the civilizations that managed to thrive and leave their mark were those whose governing body was efficient and effective, and there's no denying that. You may be able to wrangle your friends and coordinate them without a specific administrative role, but try doing that with a group of people surpassing the hundreds of millions and you will have a problem.
For some reason it doesn't surprise me that you don't believe in history beyond 1776
Stopping your historical studies before things like the end of chattel slavery and the start of the industrial revolution seems like a bad idea. You might have missed one or two significant events.
You said this:
So sure, you didn't literally use the word stop. You just decided any history post-the third quarter of the eighteenth century was moot. My mistake.
See, the issue here is that you are so ignorant of history that you think 1776 is some important date for governments due to the association with the American Declaration of Independence, rather than the U.S. Constitution that wasn't written until over 20 years later.
So essentially what you are saying is that the only history of governments that is worth studying is the history of absolute monarchy, feudalism and the Althing in Iceland... but only those things up to 1776.
Cool. That doesn't change my point since you've been defending the concept not caring about governments post-feudalism.
I'm also free to stay and continue to reply if I'm enjoying myself. Which I am. If you don't want to discuss this, take your own advice.
Ooooh nice, an enlightened Libertarian, and one that thinks that Americans are special, unique little snowflakes, different from the rest and immune to the rules that have historically governed the entirety of humanity for millennia
And this thread is about governments in general, and their necessity in enforcing these social contracts you're referring to.
You understand that there's more than one person involved in an Internet comment thread right
Care to explain what the fuck that has to do with anything?
You could have just said no, would have been much less effort
Pick up a history book
Collective action (government) is the only thing preventing you from being ruled by someone else’s collective action
You were just arguing against this kind of government, but now you are all for it? Make up your mind. 'the bill of rights' means nothing without a government enforcing it.
In any case, this shows just how ignorant you are to the world around you. Documents protecting the rights of the populace aren't exclusive to the US, nor were they the first to write them, look up the magna Carta, written in medieval times; or the Hammurabi code, one of the first written legal documents that protected the weak and the vulnerable.
What's more, most countries today also have these protections written in their respective constitutions, so this whole "the US is special" talk is just propaganda you ate
Again, most countries have these protections as well. The USA is not special in this regard. Most countries have a document detailing the rights and duties of the people along with the obligations and limits to the state. And obviously, these documents are intrinsically linked to the government and would fail to prove valuable in its absence. In layman's terms, you can't have your bill of rights 'protecting people from the government' without having a government in the first place, as the mere document itself is a product of governance and part of the social contract
I appreciate your understanding, though I'm inclined to disagree. Of course I get the historical context in which they were written, but that doesn't make it exceptional. You say in the US you have emphasis on personal freedom and protections against government overreach, but many countries would pride themselves as well in their take about it. Even so, in the USA your police officers can detain you on a whim declaring possible suspicion and confiscate your belongings if they so wish. You speak of personal freedoms, yet you still have stricter laws compared to my country in some cases, like drinking, gambling and prostitution or even jaywalking. Or the existence of HOAs, that despite not being governmental agencies themselves, they are adjacent and speak of aspects of american life that are more regulated than in other countries. You also have eminent domain in the USA, where the government can legally force you to sell your land.
And we can keep on comparing examples on how life differs based on countries, but to get back on track, the american constitution and its accompanying bill of rights are not inherently more 'free' than any other countries constitution. Even more so when you take into account that many countries' constitutions were based partially on it, which itself was based on Roman law.
I understand how important they are to american speaking points, though, you said it best when you said it was an integral part of your perceived self image. But that doesn't detract from the reality that people in the USA aren't intrinsically 'more free' or have more freedom just because they are american, there are plenty of countries with comparable levels of rights and government overreach.
The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights (which, btw, is part of the Constitution, so that's redundant) are just pieces of paper. The only reason they mean anything is because of the implicit threat of violence/force by the state. It's literally the way society exists.
Right, and whoever has more raw power wins. That's what it really boils down to, that's real politik. Shitty, but that's how it is. Because if you don't participate, the other people will straight up just kill you and take your land.
And who has the most raw power here, the largest (by far) military in the world? Or...? That's the "natural order" that fascists want. "Might makes right."
And your definition of "patriot" is probably very different than theirs.
Ah, the enlightened libertarian