a new poll
— do vote!
In our most recent poll, 50% of those responding thought than an America that is no longer implicitly Christian would not
still be America, 42.3% thought it would, and 7.7% chose “other.” There were 52 votes in all.
Posted by Jim Kalb at November 18, 2002 06:01 PM | Send
A social order congruent with human nature. Maybe that’s pretty close to the Good Life, but I voted “other”.
Liberty. Liberty is not ‘freedom’. People never speak of “ordered freedom”, but they do speak of “ordered liberty”. The reason, I think, is that ‘freedom’ tends to imply indifference to the moral law whereas ‘liberty’ does not. (I voted “other”).
I don’t have enough thoughts on this to be able to put something down. The closest I can come are the following simplistic ideas, which of course have been discussed by many:
The Founding Fathers couldn’t think of everything, being only human. Now, after two centuries under their system, we see its glaring faults and pitfalls, which stand out like neon signs.
I’d like there to be a second Constitutional Convention which would rectify just the oversights of the Founders while keeping every other detail identical to the document they bequeathed us. The “Conservative” world should convene such a convention and draught a document. Any Leftists who wish may attend and participate fully and equally.
I’d like this second convention to introduce a new category of Constitutional law: a law or provision which cannot be changed — which is not subject to amendment, period. It’s either armed revolt and bloodbath, or the law stays.
Included in this very small unalterable category would be the requirement of a supermajority — three-fifths, for example — to levy or raise any tax, and the sufficiency of a minority — two fifths, let’s say — to abolish or lower any tax. Also included would be a ban on any income tax.
Further included among the “Constitutional provisions that cannot be changed” would be some safeguard against a nation’s being forced, without the equivalent of a plebescitary supermajority “in favor,” of (let’s say) at least three-fourths or four-fifths, to suffer ethno-cultural extinction as is now being inflicted on unwilling and never-consulted nations all over the Western World.
There should also be some linguistically sound and foolproof rule requiring judges of whatever future century to abide by the intent of the document as written.
Anyone have any other provisions they’d add to the “unchangable” list?
Infrastructure. Government is useful only as a device to accomplish what an individual or city-state cannot, such as highways, flood control, access to non-renewable resources.
Ahh, the true voice of modernity: Government is nothing more a technical instrument for satisfying our material needs.
Re a supermajority for taxation and a prohibition on income taxation: I have an idea that a more reliable way of suppressing large-scale income transfers in the guise of public services would be for one’s votes on taxation measures to be weighted in proportion to the amount of tax to which one was liable (or presumably in proportion to income, in the case of sales taxes or customs duties). A supermajority requirement alone would probably not be sufficient because it would still leave a sufficiently small wealthy minority as a “vote-poor” group in relation to the resources it had available for expropriation for other people’s benefit. Does anyone know of similar such proposals in circulation?
I vote other. I believe govts are here to provide order out of chaos…in a nutshell, to mediate fallen human nature. And as govts themselves are a product of humans, will also be less than perfect. But ideally, they should help point us toward a higher ideal - a reflection of the perfect govt that will never be here on earth.
Jesus from what i have seen from your posts you are just too caught up in foggy ideals. You need to look at things more realistically, look at what is really going on, and what it really signifies. You are caught in a very typical type of “can’t we all just get along” mindset, characterized by its ambigious moral guidelines towards “treating everyone fairly”. It is like when I heard Tony Sanchez, running for Texas Governor, proclaim that he “wanted everyone to be treated fairly”. When he says a vague statement like that and follows it up with bashing a flaw in the work of his Republican opposition, he makes it seem like the other man wants to kill children of minorities or something. I believe I speak for my fellow indignant conservative brethren when I say that we wish nothing more than for everyone to have the same opportunities to enjoy freedom to the fullest. I think it is just that you, and the many people who have been rendered incontinent by the oppression of political correctness, need to get a clearer picture of what fair is, and maybe even recognize that some people DESERVE TO BE KICKED IN THE TEETH. In the first book of the Divine Comedy, Virgil praises the pilgrim for pushing back the souls that rise out of the dead marsh and beg for his pity. He is filled with the same “righteous indignance” that I attribute to myself and other angry conservatives. I’ll give a more realistic example. I have been in college in Austin, Texas for three months. Austin has a huge homeless population. Of course I feel bad for people that have no food or shelter. Austin’s ‘homeless’ population, however, is largely comprised of a bunch of punks with 50 piercings who shamelessly approach college kids and say something that appeals to your compassion (and naivety), such as ‘hey brother, can you spare me a dollar for some food’. Yet these morons often have $100 of metal sticking out of various holes in their faces. Yes I feel bad for homeless people, but idiots like this deserve to be smacked silly. Ironically, if you say ‘no’ to their faces, their sincere, needy face disappears and they tell you to ‘F*** off’. I am just trying to preach against the paralyzing doctrines of fairness and political correctness that are the modern American religion.
Please tell me if I am making any sense. I am just developing thoughts and I need to know if I am proving a point or just babbling about a bunch of nonsense.
my dante example makes no sense whatsoever. I wanted to vote ‘a little bit of all’ so I chose other.
You made sense to me, and with permission from Mr. Auster I’d like to address a couple of points in your post. Actually we are more in agreement than perhaps you suspect. Sorry you got the wrong idea from my posts.
I suppose it would surprise some here to know that I’m am opposed to situational ethics, PC arguments, and do believe that with many issues the answers are black and white, if not requiring a moral response.
Also, with respect to the issue of charity (which is what you touched on with your description of the “homeless”), I would also agree with you…with charity there comes responsibility, and would even argue that carelessly giving away money can be a sin (i.e. the good steward), by not really helping the other - indeed sometimes giving money is done merely to make the other shutup, much as telling a child to watch TV, and not really thinking of the good of the other. Too often people forget the moral answer can be a simple, “No.”
Let me give you an example: We have occasionally taken a homeless person in to our home, to try and give them a hand and get their feet on the ground. I have the economic means, and feel that I have a moral responsibility to use part of what I am blessed with to help others (and no I’m not rich). But if it’s seen that they are taking advantage of the situation, with no real effort to change, then I will escort them to my front door. I use this philosophy in all my charitable givings and actions. I won’t give money to a beggar that I know does drugs, but I will buy him food (I admit I’m softer with street musicians - if they’re good).
And I believe we must seek to consciously know why we do things, and guard against the hardening of our hearts.
With respect to my views toward govt, I admit perhaps they too are “lofty ideals,” and perhaps a touch on the “mystical,” that’s because I really do believe that much as political parties, they are necessary evils. I’m not sold on democracy, which I believe runs the risk of “rule of the masses.” But since we don’t currently have any “divine” monarchies here on earth, it’s probably the best current form of govt.
Perhaps due to my religious faith, I believe that man is a fallen creature, and that true perfection will never be known here on life. That said, we must not give in to pessimism, but always strive to be perfect. I too believe that one of the worse things that has happened was the so called enlightenment, which was a way for man to justify his rebellious nature, and as epitomized by the Protestant movement (a political movement disguised as a religious - sovereignty of kings vs church, etc.)
Trust that clears things up a bit.