10A

I find it interesting that what you believe to be a better version of the definition

It's a much better dictionary in general. I'm not going to cherry-pick dictionaries to back up a point I'm trying to make. I'm sure there are Christian dictionaries out there that could do that. But Wiktionary's pretty great just on general grounds.

As for the nature of freedom, it's really not contradicted by these definitions. The only way to achieve freedom from sin is to submit oneself to serve God. The aspect of that arrangement which is freedom from sin is represented well by the definitions.

An increase in the people's control over the government is a good thing. You seem to be implying it is not.

First off, I was not implying that positive rights are "bad". I was trying to say that they're not legitimate rights in the traditional American sense, which had always been negative rights. I wasn't saying anything is "good" or "bad", just that they're not traditional American rights.

As for your idea that an increase in the people's control of the government is a good thing, I wholeheartedly disagree. That's the whole reason why the US was established as a republic, if we can keep it, instead of a democracy. Tyranny of the majority is a disastrous problem. Many people would gladly vote away our freedoms, and indeed you yourself are part of the effort to eliminate the Christian foundation of our culture. Our republic enforces our freedom to worship God and do His will whether we like it or not, and that's a very good thing.

I can choose when to sleep and when to blink my eyes.

I think you missed my point on this. I meant it's binary. A light-bulb is either on or off. There's no third state possible. You're like a light-bulb acknowledging it's not on, but also denying that it's off, instead insisting there's some third option. I'm telling you that as a light-bulb you must be either on or off.

I don't think there is any good argument out there to prove that we have free will, even under a theistic world view.

This is arguably the single biggest topic in the history of philosophy, so I'm not going to get into it here. There have been many well-written books on the topic penned by minds far superior to ours both. Suffice it to say that yes, there are good arguments out there, and if you really want to get into it, you can easily devote fifty years to studying the topic.

Or in other words, to brainwash children into believing falsehoods. That's an immoral thing to do and thus not a moral responsibility.

Your premise is incorrect. I do not advocate for brainwashing children into believing falsehoods. You have rejected truth, and you are convinced that Jesus, who is the way, the truth, and the life, is somehow actually not the truth. You have been seduced by the Devil, and you are continually convinced by him to deny the truth.

I haven't claimed it is a physical force.

I'm sorry. I used the word "physical", and it was a bad choice of words. I meant it's impossible to force anyone else to pray, physically or otherwise. You can force someone to shut up, bow their head, and close their eyes, but that's about the extent of it.

The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that humans are responsible for climate change. I can provide you with sources if you like.

Nearly 100% of the scientists who insist that's true are funded by the government. There have been quite a few cases of rogue scientists questioning that established dogma, only to be silenced and to lose their government funding. The governments have a vested interest in spreading the lie that humans are responsible for the climate because it gives them an excuse to expand their power and pass arbitrary powerful laws controlling people. If you were to provide me with those sources (which no, you don't need to spend time on), we'd find that nearly 100% of them involved government funding. Follow the money.

mindbogglingly huge quantity of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere

Imagine finding out that most ants believe their ancestors created the moon, and that they're all responsible for keeping it up in the sky. I'm familiar with the theory of global warming, and that is what it sounds like. There's nothing in the Bible about carbon emissions. But you know what is in the Bible? Proverbs 3:5, "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."

You cannot have control over something without also having responsibility. Therefore even within your own world view we ought to fix this problem.

We cannot "fix" a "problem" that God wants. It is hubris to pretend we could, and disrespectful to God to pretend we should.

I find it interesting that what you believe to be a better version of the definition

It's a much better dictionary in general. I'm not going to cherry-pick dictionaries to back up a point I'm trying to make. I'm sure there are Christian dictionaries out there that could do that. But Wiktionary's pretty great just on general grounds.

As for the nature of freedom, it's really not contradicted by these definitions. The only way to achieve freedom from sin is to submit oneself to serve God. The aspect of that arrangement which is freedom from sin is represented well by the definitions.

An increase in the people's control over the government is a good thing. You seem to be implying it is not.

First off, I was not implying that positive rights are "bad". I was trying to say that they're not legitimate rights in the traditional American sense, which had always been negative rights. I wasn't saying anything is "good" or "bad", just that they're not traditional American rights.

As for your idea that an increase in the people's control of the government is a good thing, I wholeheartedly disagree. That's the whole reason why the US was established as a republic, if we can keep it, instead of a democracy. Tyranny of the majority is a disastrous problem. Many people would gladly vote away our freedoms, and indeed you yourself are part of the effort to eliminate the Christian foundation of our culture. Our republic enforces our freedom to worship God and do His will whether we like it or not, and that's a very good thing.

I can choose when to sleep and when to blink my eyes.

I think you missed my point on this. I meant it's binary. A light-bulb is either on or off. There's no third state possible. You're like a light-bulb acknowledging it's not on, but also denying that it's off, instead insisting there's some third option. I'm telling you that as a light-bulb you must be either on or off.

I don't think there is any good argument out there to prove that we have free will, even under a theistic world view.

This is arguably the single biggest topic in the history of philosophy, so I'm not going to get into it here. There have been many well-written books on the topic penned by minds far superior to ours both. Suffice it to say that yes, there are good arguments out there, and if you really want to get into it, you can easily devote fifty years to studying the topic.

Or in other words, to brainwash children into believing falsehoods. That's an immoral thing to do and thus not a moral responsibility.

Your premise is incorrect. I do not advocate for brainwashing children into believing falsehoods. You have rejected truth, and you are convinced that Jesus, who is the way, the truth, and the life, is somehow actually not the truth. You have been seduced by the Devil, and you are continually convinced by him to deny the truth.

I haven't claimed it is a physical force.

I'm sorry. I used the word "physical", and it was a bad choice of words. I meant it's impossible to force anyone else to pray, physically or otherwise. You can force someone to shut up, bow their head, and close their eyes, but that's about the extent of it.

The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that humans are responsible for climate change. I can provide you with sources if you like.

Nearly 100% of the scientists who insist that's true are funded by the government. There have been quite a few cases of rogue scientists questioning that established dogma, only to be silenced and to lose their government funding. The governments have a vested interest in spreading the lie that humans are responsible for the climate because it gives them an excuse to expand their power and pass arbitrary powerful laws controlling people. If you were to provide me with those sources (which no, you don't need to spend time on), we'd find that nearly 100% of them involved government funding. Follow the money.

mindbogglingly huge quantity of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere

Imagine finding out that most ants believe their ancestors created the moon, and that they're all responsible for keeping it up in the sky. I'm familiar with the theory of global warming, and that is what it sounds like. There's nothing in the Bible about carbon emissions. But you know what is in the Bible? Proverbs 3:5, "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."

You cannot have control over something without also having responsibility. Therefore even within your own world view we ought to fix this problem.

We cannot "fix" a "problem" that God wants. It is hubris to pretend we could, and disrespectful to God to pretend we should.

Being a servant is antithetical to freedom, at least the common definition:

Wiktionary's definition of "freedom" is better than M-W's, which is typical. M-W's not a very good dictionary. No offense to Mr. Webster. Their primary definition substantiates your point that it's antithetical to servitude. In a facile sense, this is true. The fact that freedom from sin is granted by voluntary servitude to God is a little complex, and seemingly contradictory on the surface, yet perfectly true.

There are two main types of freedom, positive freedom and negative freedom. Positive freedom is the ability to choose between a number of options, negative freedom is the freedom from the demands/influence/laws/rules of someone/something.

That's correct, and I'm glad you're familiar with the distinction. American rights, as used by the founders and in the Bill of Rights, are all negative rights. In later years, people began to forget that, and we see the encroachment of positive rights such as the "right" to vote, etc.

Don't be misled by the terms "negative" and "positive". They don't indicate sentiment. Negative rights are legitimate natural rights, whereas positive rights are social privileges illegitimately called "rights". They're only called "negative" and "positive" on technical grounds.

Freedom from sin is a negative right; a natural right, granted by slavery to God.

For example, imagine you are stranded on some planet 100 light years away. Nobody is around, it is just you on a barren but oxygen rich desert planet.

Paradise! At least it would be until I got hungry.

can you at least see how being forced to worship either god or satan is antithetical to freedom in my view?

Yes, sure. But that view is overly simplistic. You're forced to the same way you're forced to either be awake or asleep; the same way you're forced to have your eyes open or closed. It's somewhat disingenuous to use the word "forced". It's just a product of living in reality.

I think you are confusing trust and faith. At least how I define it.

Hmm, maybe. But you can choose to trust just as you can choose to have faith. Free will is a powerful thing.

And [peer pressure to pray] is coercion, antithetical to freedom.

We have a moral responsibility to persuade children as best we can to foster a relationship with God. Their freedom not to do that is a matter of fact. Nobody can physically force someone else to pray. It's impossible. God gave us that freedom expressly so that we come to Him as a choice rooted in faith. The fact that we have that freedom is not an excuse to deny God, though. To the contrary, it's a reason to praise Him and love Him. And persuading children to pray cannot be antithetical to freedom, because freedom is a gift from God for the purpose of giving us that opportunity.

[To trust that God's in control] is naive in both of our worldviews. In my worldview it is naive because we are responsible for the problem, and only we are capable of fixing it. Nobody will come save us from destroying ourselves other than us. And to push that responsibility onto a fictional, nonexistent being is akin to an easily preventable species wide suicide.

And even within your own it is naive because god assigned us as stewards of the land and we are royally fucking up that job. It's our job to fix the problem no matter which way you cut it.

To suppose we're responsible for "the problem" is shockingly arrogant, considering your appreciation for the great outdoors. We're tiny and insignificant. To suppose we're capable of "fixing" it is equally arrogant. We're barely capable of anything at all, let alone changing the entire planet.

We can know God's will by observing the state of the universe. We know the books of the Bible are canonical because they're in the Bible. We can know our own true sex by looking in the mirror. We can know that Western civilization is essentially good because it's the basis of our way of life. And we can know that Earth's current climate is God's will because it's Earth's current climate. Everything that happens is aligned with God's will.

As for your assertion that this view is naive according to my worldview, there's somewhat of a dispute among Christians between dominion (see Genesis 1:26-28) and stewardship (not scriptural). The principle of Dominion is that we are given this Earth as a temporary home, to do with as we see fit. The principle of stewardship is basically the environmentalist religion disguised as Christianity, that we are somehow all-knowing and all-powerful, as if we ourselves are gods, and that we must therefore pretend we have the collectivist duty to treat this temporary home as if it was a permanent home, and pretend that we can somehow save it. Needless to say, I side with dominion.

This varies wildly by industry. Some are zero-sum, some are positive sum. And the age of an industry is usually the defining factor for this, which means most industries turn into zero-sum. Take for instance nuclear fuel pellets. A company who takes part in such an industry is in a zero-sum one because of how limited the demand is for it. And the demand for nuclear fuel pellets doesn't change much at all because of how long it takes to build new reactors, how much political force it takes to build one, etc. A company in such an industry can't expand the total demand much at all, so there is no new value they can add.

I'm not formally trained in economics or game theory, but this doesn't seem right to me. Anyone employed in the manufacture of nuclear fuel pellets adds value to the economy simply by virtue of showing up for work, and doing whatever it is they do.

An MIT graduate with past business experience and their foot in the door a decade and a half ago isn't really evidence that just anyone can start a new business today to compete with google.

Again, entrepreneurs usually need to fail, and build upon those failures, before finding success. It's normal.

The fact that he's an MIT grad doesn't mean much. Anyone can start a Google competitor, but the kind of people who do are the same kind of people likely to want to attend MIT.

Not everybody can afford to have a failed company on their hands.

Almost everyone can, though not everyone wants to. It's stressful and time-consuming, though also rewarding in a variety of ways. Even if it fails.

I think that is a fun idea and I would fully support it. I think you'd be surprised at the amount of "socialist" policies that are widely popular. It would be a difficult thing to pull off though given that most people don't really know how to write in leagalise, and how many policies need to be rather complicated or need a high level of understanding to make sense.

Thanks! I wouldn't be at all surprised by the popularity of socialist policies. Kids are naive. There'd be a ton of things like "Free ice cream for everyone!" As a serious policy proposal it would be objectionable, but as a playful idea it's fun to imagine. As for legalese and complications, you could make suggestions to improve someone else's idea.

Food + Housing + Basic utilities + Transportation + Healthcare (if not already universalized) + Maybe a 5-10% on top for discretionary spending.

What kind of food? Caviar? What kind of housing? McMansions? What kind of basic utilities? All 800,000 TV channels? What kind of transportation? A Bugatti? What kind of healthcare? Cosmetic surgeries for pets? It's very hard to draw the line anywhere above $0, which is the technically correct number.

If everybody owned land, it would be much closer to $0. But you still need to buy/get/pay for fertilizer, water, heating, taxes etc. Those things aren't free. I would love to own my own self-sufficient homestead and have been rather obsessed with videos about it. I wish everybody had the money/land for it, but that's not how things are.

You can make your own fertilizer with compost. You can haul your own water up from the stream. You can chop your own wood for heating. Property taxes are a racket. Yes, this presumes everyone owns property of suitable acreage, and with a stream, and that's unrealistic for everyone. But it's entirely possible for some.

I love those videos too. I try not to spend much time on YouTube, but on occasion I can easily lose an hour or two to My Self Reliance.

But to your point about a "living wage", it's going to vary from $0 for some people on up to — I shudder to think what the upper bound of that range is.

And additionally, everybody having their own homestead isn't generally a good thing for efficiency, because economies of scale probably also applies to food production, and therefore it is more efficient to have industrial farming as the main food source.

True, but as I mentioned I think economic efficiency is overrated.

We aren't all Jesus and are therefore subject to the negative effects of poverty.

We can all strive to be more like Jesus. I know it's not easy, but there's so much value in trying.

Most of our ongoing disagreements are predicated an underlying problem that's eloquently explained in Tucker Carlson's interview of Vivek Ramaswamy starting at 33:53 and going through the end of the video, so ~11 minutes long. I'm curious to hear your perspective on that.

A christian is generally more qualified and familiar with the definition of "christian", and the same applies to secularists.

I see why you say that, but Christians are entitled to a word describing the phenomenon of declining Christianity, and the word "secularism" has been used for decades if not centuries to describe that. If you're aware of a more appropriate word, I'm all ears.

That part was a choice, but that is not the totality of the process of coming to believe something. Everything after that was to my understanding not a choice.

Again, I make the choice to be a Christian on an ongoing basis. Every time I look to Christ for guidance, every time I follow Christ, every time I repent, etc., is a choice. I choose to be a Christian repeatedly every single day. The Devil continually tempts me to stray, and every time I choose God. It's a choice, through and through.

I think you are exaggerating what I said. If the foundation of your house is infested with termites, the correct thing to do is to fix the problem. There are a million different ways to do so, but you have jumped to "burn the house down" as the solution where I have not suggested it. In my opinion the solution it so determine if the foundation is salvageable, if it is, then it is time to bring in an exterminator to deal with the pressing issue, and then to replace any beams that have gone too far. If instead the problem is not salvageable it is instead time to build a new, better house, and then move into it once it is ready. At no point should the house be burned down with people inside of it like you seem to think I am suggesting. I think civilization should still exist, and would very much prefer that.

The foundation of Western civilization is not, and cannot, be infested with termites, because the foundation of Western civilization is the Lord our God. There's nothing you can say to legitimately criticize God. God is not a problem to be fixed. So I'm sorry if I twisted your "try to salvage the house, or replace it if necessary" with "burn the house down", but no house could possibly be better (in any way) than the house of the Lord our God. Your entire line of thinking is rooted in your denial of God, which is the sin of sins.

Because humans are intensely uncomfortable not having the answers to things, so they try to explain the unknown through any means possible, including through incorrect answers. Nowadays we have an explanation for lightning, so nobody blames Zeus anymore.

I don't know if anyone ever actually believed in Zeus, but the concept is 100% incomparable to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who is real and present today as He ever was. God doesn't exist to provide answers to mysteries. We exist because He exists. If we don't know how something works, of course we can ascribe the answer to God, and that answer is always correct. What's crucial to understand is that it remains correct once science discovers the method by which God works. Lightning is a great example. It's created by God to work in a certain way, and we've deduced the mechanism by which it happens.

The space of unknown things in which god resides shrinks more and more the longer we study the universe. And that's a big part of why more and more people are less and less religious.

If you're right that some people only see God as a useful crutch to blame things on, then that's reasonable. But it misses the vast all-encompassing nature of God's glory, so it doesn't seem like a very compelling answer.

Given that you believe the only source of truth is the christian god, how do you contend with science, a process that never turns to the bible or invokes the name of god?

The most intelligent scientists all believe in God. Einstein is the most notable example. Science is the practice of using our God-given abilities to observe and describe the mechanisms of God's creation. Science is in every way predicated upon God.

I have two friends whom I regularly play with, usually daily-timed games, and then another two of complete randoms. I usually have an ELO of about 1100, but have been sitting around 1050 for a bit just because I haven't had much ability to concentrate this last year or so. Our of curiosity, what's your ELO if you have one?

I don't. Back when I played regularly, I didn't care about such formalities. I would now if I picked it back up.

How do you not see freedom as being incompatible with obeying? Not to be glib, but if somebody told you "freedom enables and empowers people to obey their slave masters" or "work will make you free", I'm sure you would recognize the contradiction there. How do you not see the contradiction in what you've said yourself?

I understand how that seems like cognitive dissonance or self-contradiction to a non-believer. Consider Romans 6:22:

But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

We must be servants of someone, but we have freedom to choose who it is that deserves our loyalty and obedience. True freedom is freedom from sin, as the alternative is to be servants of Satan.

Beliefs as far as I am concerned are not choices. You are either convinced or you are not, the only extend to which we have a choice (if we have free will at all), is over the extent to which we expose ourselves to other ideas.

That's ignoring the whole notion of faith. You can absolutely choose to have faith in anyone or anything.

As nice as that would be on paper, in reality you can't really have one without the other due to societal pressures. If everybody in the room is praying except for you, there is immense social pressure to conform. Allowing prayer of any kind in school will result in what is effectively forced prayer/speech.

True, and I think that's a very good thing. In practice, maybe one out of ten thousand kids would refuse to pray. The few who insist have their freedom to succumb to evil, but peer pressure fosters a burgeoning relationship with God for the vast majority of the students. That's how we always were, beginning before the founding of the country.

Climate change is killing off countless species/animals.

You and I should be cautious of starting new branches of the conversation! But I did ask, and you were just answering me. Suffice it to say I trust that God's in control, and the changes we observe in nature — whatever they may be — are according to God's plan.

I couldn't ethically justify putting a kid at risk of enduring that even if my girlfriend didn't have her current health issues.

Based on your perspective, I understand your conclusion.

Thank you! We aren't official engaged yet, as we have agreed we would only get to that point when we both feel we are financially stable.

Waiting for that mythical living wage? You don't really need money to marry. Life is short.

Yes, that does make sense. If the two are really uncorrelated, then it would appear some people are lying about their faith.

core principle of capitalism is competition, but competitions inherently have winners.

This is false. A broad class of competitions do not have winners. Only zero-sum games have winners. The economy is not a zero sum game. Every participant adds value.

For instance if somebody wanted to start up a new business to compete with google, at a minimum they would need several billion dollars to have a reasonable chance of success. Google has such a huge market share and is so well established that it would take decades for any new company to put an actual dent in google's market share.

Oh yeah? May I introduce you to Gabriel Weinberg, who started a Google competitor in his basement with a $0 investment, which now earns $25 million annually.

And the most frequent cause of failure is lack of cash, which definitely ties into what I've been saying.

It's true, but most successful entrepreneurs learn from previous failures, so many of those failed companies generally result in eventual success.

Sure, it's a subjective phrase ["livable wage"], and I would personally like to see it added and defined within a new amendment to the constitution, though it probably would never happen

I've occasionally thought it would be nice to have a website where anyone could post "bills" they wish were actual laws, and other users could vote on them. It'd be fun. Not that I really think we need any more laws. I just wonder what people would come up with.

As for an actual definition, a living wage should be defined as a wage that is sufficient to raise a family on, with adequate housing and food. A living wage should be a basic but decent wage for a family.

You'd struggle to transform that into a legally reliable definition. Does it include iPads for the kids? How about the cost of pet grooming? Vacations for the whole family to the Bahamas every couple of months? Where exactly do you draw the line? Again, it was commonplace for most people to grow their own food in the not too distant past, and we lived simple lives. Isn't a living wage, then, $0?

I would also like to point out that you seem to have missed my point about the lack of freedom through vertical mobility.

I didn't miss it. I just skipped the reply. Because I see plenty of evidence that vertical mobility is alive and well. You can deny it all you'd like, but there are so many rags-to-riches stories. Maybe you don't hear about them much because they're mostly Republican.

Also you can't be happy if you can't afford food and shelter.

Jesus could.

So I hesitate to argue over definitions, because there is an "objective" answer so to speak, and from what I can tell you seem to use completely different definitions from the norm. So I don't see much point in talking about it.

If you ask a hundred people for the definition of any word, you'll get a hundred different definitions. Sure they'll be similar, but no two will likely be identical. Usually we assume similar is good enough. But when we disagree over a contentious topic, it can help to define our terms because they may be radically dissimilar.

For many such terms, the political Right and Left will both use their own flavor of definitions which are quite different from the other side's. I suspect that's what you're observing when you say my definitions are different from the norm. It's all too easy to think we disagree when in fact we mostly agree but are defining words differently.

Just as I cannot choose to become christian, you cannot choose to become muslim. We can choose what ideas we are exposed to and that can have an effect on us, but it is indirect at most.

I chose to become a Christian. Nobody found me and convinced me. I sought it out, learned about it, read the Bible, and accepted Jesus. It was totally a choice. And what's more, I'd say I repeatedly choose to be a Christian every time I struggle, every time my faith is tested, and every time I slip and sin. I turn to Christ and ask for forgiveness, again and again, and every time I choose to be Christian. Of course it's a choice, and you choose too.

Sure, good and evil exist but they are human concepts, human labels that we ascribe to actions. They aren't literal entities that exist.

Yes, they are human concepts, and yes these two concepts are distinct from the literal entities of God and Satan. But where do you think the two human concepts came from? Adam and Eve had to reflect on their expulsion, and conceive of concepts to describe the situation. So we all do, as we go through life. Just as the word "photosynthesis" describes a human concept which describes a real phenomenon, so true good and evil are predicated on our experiences contending with literal entities.

If there are problems with the foundation of western civilization then there ought to be changes to fix the problems.

I give you credit for at least admitting it. So often it seems like leftists are following a program to destroy western civilization, but I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've witnessed an admission of your willingness to do so.

Listen, our politics are different, reflecting our different personal values, experiences, and understandings of the world. As a conservative, my raison d'être is to preserve Western Civilization (AKA Christendom). In all of our messages, most (all?) of what I've written comes down to that. To my view, it's crucial and nonnegotiable. Everything we have of any value at all comes from Western Civilization. It's destruction can result in nothing more than the fulfillment of end-times prophecy.

Humans stand on the shoulders of our ancestors through our ability to transfer knowledge from one generation to the next. Couple that with our ability to analyze history and hind sight, and it's very easy to discover flaws of the past. I am not saying or pretending I am smarter than previous generations because you don't need to be to discover such flaws.

I understand your perspective. But I also know we frequently think the past is flawed just because we don't understand it. Similar to how teens believe they know so much more than their parents, only to realize years later that they were wrong about pretty much everything.

Why do you suppose ancient people were overall more religious than people today? When we look up at night, we see light pollution. Most of us have no clue what our own sky looks like. When we look out of our windows, most of us see buildings, cement, infrastructure, people, vehicles, and maybe a few landscaped trees and lawns. Most of us have no clue what our planet naturally looks like. Maybe we visit a national park and snap a few photos for Instagram just to prove we were there.

Ancient peoples saw God's handiwork everywhere they looked, and it was breathtakingly jaw-dropping and truly awesome. We live in a world where we've built all of these things to constantly blind us from that. We have absolutely no idea, on average, what our own world looks like. Plato's Allegory of the Cave is what we've built all around ourselves. Our only hope of knowing truth is to look to God, and read His wisdom and knowledge passed down to us from the ancients: the Bible.

If you see a mistake, it's probable you're evaluating an illusion.

I play chess a lot and have a friend who is significantly smarter than me at it.

You're fortunate to have a chess partner. I haven't had one in ages. I miss playing it.

Reply to "built a system", part 1 of 2:

They quite literally built a system in place to add amendments to the constitution and to take them away if needed. Why would they have done so if the intention was to keep the law static until the end of time?

They also made it remarkably difficult to amend. They wouldn't have done that if they thought it should frequently change.

The economy fell apart, the states were constantly squabbling over petty things, we had Shay's rebellion, the nation's debts weren't being payed. The currency of the time had no value. Britain was screwing the country over with it's blockade (which couldn't be solved due to the lack of any federal power). The articles of confederation was such a disaster that it had such a short lived life that the founders themselves got rid of it.

I understand the frustrations, though those points are a biased history. I don't think the founders would have abandoned the Articles if they could have foreseen the behemoth they created in its place. But indeed they did, and honestly I'd be okay with it if we'd just stick to their original design.

Politicians have power by definition, and corporations have a direct incentive to get as much power as they can.

The singular goal of the American republic is to limit the power of politicians. That's basically what the Constitution's all about.

Corporations do not seek power. They seek sales. And they gain sales by offering goods and services that people want more than their own money. It's not having power over someone to sell them something they love.

So states should regulate commerce, but not the federal government, is that what you mean to say?

Affirmative.

If so, then how would that work out for situations where the regulation/unregualtion in surrounding states impacts a different state? For example, if california legalized weed and had the effect of making weed more available to the surrounding states, how would those surrounding states deal with it?

States make agreements with their neighbors, much like reciprocity for CCW licenses. Indeed the whole Union is meant to pretty much be a coalition, so if South America were to invade Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, for instance, the rest of the states are supposed to send their militias south to help defend the border. If Oregon legalized marijuana and Idaho didn't (to use a real-life example of bordering states), then LEOs in Idaho can look a bit more suspiciously at people with Oregon plates, and possibly pull them over and see what they smell. A more extreme solution would be to erect border checkpoints to conduct "random" searches.

If everything was small business and there was greater power in the hands of laborers, and if the internet didn't exist then maybe this would be true. But the modern reality is not like that.

But reality is like that. Have a look here. I want to copy and paste the whole page.

Reply to "built a system", part 2 of 2:

Corporations set the wage, you apply, and if you tell them you need more money to work there they tell you to get lost*. Job postings receive hundreds, sometimes thousands of applications. Why would they lower their profitability by giving you the wage you set if the next person in the very long line will work just as hard for cheaper?

Like any market, supply and demand does determine price. If you want to be a forest ranger, you'll be competing against a whole lot of people who like the idea of getting paid to hang out in the forest all day. You'll get much better pay as a garbage man, since fewer people like the thought of taking that job. But as individuals, we can choose whatever kind of job we want to work, balancing our skills and aptitudes with our personal tastes and how much we value monetary remuneration compared to other measures of job satisfaction. And if you're clever, you can figure out how to spend all day in the forest and make well over $100k (start a logging company).

Corporations tell their workers what to do and therefore control their workers. Same goes for hours. If I told my boss that I will only work Sundays-Thursdays from now on, I would be fired. That is a form of control.

Depends on the type of work. Personally I don't care when people work, as long as they show up for meetings and get their jobs done well. But sure, if you're a gas station attendant then you'd better show up before the start of your shift.

place of employement - Corporations quite literally have been forcing people to return to offices or face dismissal. There are other kinds of this action, but that's just one example.

If you like remote work, and your manager doesn't understand that you're productive working from home, then the job's a bad match for you and you should find a better match. That's not anyone having control over the other party; it's just conflicting values.

type of employement - Corporations are the one who decide if you're exempt, non-exempt, a contractor, what the job responsibilities are, etc.

I've known people to negotiate their status when getting hired. Everything's on the table in a negotiation. You just need to recognize it as a negotiation, and learn to negotiate well.

hours - If you refuse to work the hours you are told you are fired.

Again, this is very much dependent on the kind of job. Many jobs just require you to get a certain amount of work done.

how money is distributed - At no point does your average worker control this. The higher ups decide this and almost universally decide that the majority should go to them. If businesses were truly democratic, then you'd never see a single company giving a CEO the money for a brand new yacht every year.

You lost me here. First off, we wouldn't want a business to be democratic any more than we'd want our country to be. A democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for supper. It's a tragically terrible idea, under almost all circumstances. So no, of course businesses aren't democratic.

If you've ever tried to hire a CEO (and it's obvious you haven't), you'd know it's extremely hard to find someone qualified to do the job well. Again, their compensation is a function of supply and demand. There's almost zero supply. And if you want to be cheap and hire an inexperienced or second-rate CEO, you're taking a big risk with the life-blood of the company.

With both of those points established, I'm lost as to your overall point about how money is distributed. You get a paycheck or direct deposit. Some businesses pay cash. A few will pay in bitcoin or other cryptocurrency. You don't seem to be discussing any of these things, but they're how money is distributed.

the media (narrative) - Virtually all media companies are owned by the rich, and they do not allow news articles and the like to be against them. For example, the Washington Post is owned by Bezos, and you'll never see an article from them criticizing Bezos or Amazon.

Yes, well that's true if we're only discussing the mass media. Most of the conservative media outlets are tiny operations.

But that's not evidence that companies seek power over people. It's just evidence that the personality type of journalists tends to be leftist, and while that's not true of all journalists, they've banded together with like-minded people.

Even in the worst case examples, big tech silencing conservatives, which is a very real problem with examples far too numerous to count (Why do my mailings from Team DeSantis keep going to spam, no matter how many times I click "not spam"?), that's not corporations trying to control people. It's just employees with personal political preferences who work alongside like-minded people, and who believe they're making the world a better place.

Reply to "Why should I think that?" part 1 of 2:

Why should I think that? ["If you find yourself attracted to a man, acknowledge that attraction as an evil temptation to sin."]

Because it's true. If you find a quarter in your pocket, you should acknowledge that quarter as monetary unit equivalent to one fourth of a dollar. Why? Because that's what it is.

Yes, that was what I meant [pornography]. And I have no reason to think of them as sins.

1 Corinthians 6:18

Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

Note "fornication" there is translated from "πορνεία", which is a generic term for sexual sin of any kind, and is better translated as "sexual immorality".

Now you have a reason. And there are more where that one came from!

And I have no reason to believe eternity is on the line, or that it would be based on sexual attraction. If a god exists, I would think the least of it's worries would be humans, let alone who humans choose to mate with.

This reflects your decision not to become a father yourself. But you can imagine for a moment what it feels like to have a child. You very much do care who that child associates with, even as a friend, but certainly as a mate. There's a good reason why when you want to marry a girl, you ought to first ask her father for permission. God created us in His own image for a particular reason. If you've ever created anything at all, you know that you care about whatever it was you made.

I don't believe in god, so why would I consider the feelings of something I do not believe exists?

Because He still believes in you.

I'll address each of the things you listed, but I want to go on something a little more objective than us tossing things back and forth about how the country is left/right. The closest to useful/objective info I came across was this:

https://objectivelists.com/2022/06/26/countries-with-the-most-conservative-laws/

Thank you. I think the "far-" prefix is contentious on both sides of the aisle. Are you familiar with allsides.com? They rate news sources as one of: { far-left, left, center, right, far-right }. I sometimes disagree with their exact assessments, but I recognize that it's difficult to rate the bias of news sources. Especially because when I consider where I'd personally categorize them, I realize that there're not close to enough options. It's radically oversimplified.

When I say "left" (or "center-left"), I approximately mean pro-trade-union, Robin Hood taxation, pro-birth-control, and sexual intercourse out of wedlock. You get the idea. Anything to the left of that I consider far-left. These days, the Left is off-the-chart far-far-far-left in my opinion.

Also it's impossible to compare the US to other countries for a wide variety of reasons, one of them particular to this case being that classical liberal principles played a major role in our founding, which are now considered conservative principles by most measures. That's how we wind up with (for example) liberal gun law being widely supported by the Right.

Because if you were to compare the U.S. to many European countries, they go far more to the left on such issues.

True, but that means nothing. They're dragging us leftward, due to so many leftists who hate America and think we should abandon our traditional values and instead imitate other countries.