Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Unfortunately, in seeking to make everyone happy, you make no one happy. It is entirely possible that your view of how conservatives and liberals view compromise is correct. Reality dictates that for someone to negotiate what they want they must be able to walk away with less than 100% of what they desire. It is impossible for diametrically opposed parties to both obtain 100% of what they want. "Win-win situation" is a phrase created to take advantage of the gullible.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Unfortunately, in seeking to make everyone happy, you make no one happy. << Hogwash. The Constitution came out pretty well.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Ha ha Tom, and actually the Constitution was a compromise document that as originally written left out some very important items. There was some major negotiation that took place between all the parties and some proponents were forced to compromise for less then what they wanted. And as originally written, it would have made our lives horrible without any guaruntee of basic rights. That's why Thomas Jefferson pushed through the bill of rights which had to be written into the Constitution as AMENDMENTS. Looking back at it through the prism of history, we view the Constitution as a near perfect document, but the individuals that created the document certainately did not. They saw it as a compromise.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Looking back at it through the prism of history, we view the Constitution as a near perfect document, but the individuals that created the document certainately did not. They saw it as a compromise." Which is exactly why it should be viewed as a living breathing document and not some rigid piece of cement that does not provide for the issues of today. It's a guide, not the Ten Commandments.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Sometimes we should be focused on what's best for the community instead of what will make us individually happy. We aren't in this alone, and it's not all about winning all of our fights.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 You know, as I posted before Tom, that thought process (the good of the unit before the good of the individual) is a main tennet of Communism. It is usually a phrase bandied about to prepare people for the act of having an individual right taken away. Who exactly determines what is best for the community Tom? The smartest people? The richest? The proleteriat? The best system of government is now and will always be the one that protects the greatest number of individual rights by keeping the government as minimal as possible. As for the Constitution being a living document (vs. dead I imagine ), I would have to disagree vehemently with that. If we changed a government system with every passing philosophy and fad, we would have confusion, disorder and dystrophy. Especially when those changes would take away the individual rights which the nation was built on, or would create a government which be an ungainly and ravenous beast of a bureaucracy.
Originally Posted By patrickegan Dman you beat me to the punch! Anytime I hear it’s for my protection or focus on what’s best for the community I smell a big fat commie rat!
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "As for the Constitution being a living document (vs. dead I imagine ), I would have to disagree vehemently with that. If we changed a government system with every passing philosophy and fad, we would have confusion, disorder and dystrophy. Especially when those changes would take away the individual rights which the nation was built on, or would create a government which be an ungainly and ravenous beast of a bureaucracy." No one is suggesting it bend with every fad. This is the slippery slope argument rigid conservatives love to ply. What it obviously means is the framers could not have possibly anticipated all the issue raised in a society over 220 years older than we they wrote it. Expecting something that old and a product of those times to govern life today is nothing more than sheer folly. And by way of example, is there a bigger individual right than a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder If I'm not the King of Typos, no one is. here's the corrected copy: What it obviously means is the framers could not have possibly anticipated all the issues raised in a society over 220 years older than when they wrote it. Expecting something that old and a product of those times to govern life today is nothing more than sheer folly.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And by way of example, is there a bigger individual right than a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body?> Of course not. That's why it's the first right mentioned in the Bill of Rights. What's that? It's not in the First Amendment? What about the Second? No? Third? Fourth? Anywhere in the Bill of Rights? Huh. Must be because the founders were sexist. After all, they put the right of a man to do whatever he wants to his body in there, right? No? Uh, nevermind.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>You know, as I posted before Tom, that thought process (the good of the unit before the good of the individual) is a main tennet of Communism.<< It's also a main tenet of my faith, Christianity. >>Who exactly determines what is best for the community Tom? The smartest people? The richest? The proleteriat?<< That's the problem, isn't it? What's "best"? Is it best to allow unfettered development in wetlands and wilderness areas? Is it best to force companies to pay for expensive insurance plans for their employees? Is it best to have public schools, or it is best for schools to compete in an open market? I think the people that should be making these decisions are representatives elected by the citizens in a republican form of government, bound by a constitution that places limits on the government's power. >>The best system of government is now and will always be the one that protects the greatest number of individual rights by keeping the government as minimal as possible. << I agree, but there are so many assaults on individual rights from various groups and from businesses that the government has to be strong to protect the rights of the individual. >>Especially when those changes would take away the individual rights which the nation was built on, or would create a government which be an ungainly and ravenous beast of a bureaucracy.<< Hence my opposition to the Bush administration.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer <And by way of example, is there a bigger individual right than a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body?> Sure. Just prove to me that a fetus is in any way the woman's body. They should really exercise that right before taking the chance of creating a new one. (Note that doesn't cover rape)
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Christianity is actually a very individualistic religion. "Seek out YOUR OWN salvation with fear and trembling" (emphasis mine). We are all accountable to God on an individual basis. I will not have to give an account for you and you will not have to give an account for me. We are the "body of Christ" and thus a community, but if my memory serves me correctly there is not any place in the bible which suggests that there is a need to give up individual responsibility for corporate responsibility. The bible does mention the surrendering of oneself for the good of others, but this is dealing with a spiritual issue and certainately not a political issue. Karl Marx saw religion as one of the great foes of his "ideal state" because he realized that to be truly effective communism must be its own god, selfish and self-centered. But I digress. As long as you acknowledge that we should follow the limits set by the Constitution, I am willing to see some things done in the name of public necessity. Otherwise, take a long walk off the short pier.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Christianity is actually a very individualistic religion.<< Individual actions are what saves us, but I think the idea of corporate worship is central to the idea of Christianity. But that's another thread.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<You know, as I posted before Tom, that thought process (the good of the unit before the good of the individual) is a main tennet of Communism.>> Acts 2:44 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. << In expression of their Spirit-inspired togetherness, the believers pooled their resources. Individuals voluntarily sold property and goods, contributed the proceeds to a fund from which any Christian (and possibly non-Christians as well) could receive help, as he or she might have need. What a standard for today's church! Indeed, "what we do or do not do with our material possessions is an indicator of the Spirit's presence or absence">> Source: <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/?action=getCommentaryText&cid=5&source=1&seq=i.51.2.4" target="_blank">http://www.biblegateway.com/re sources/commentaries/?action=getCommentaryText&cid=5&source=1&seq=i.51.2.4</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip << Individual actions are what saves us, but I think the idea of corporate worship is central to the idea of Christianity. But that's another thread.>> <<The community lived out its commitment to the apostles' teaching by gathering each day in the temple courts to hear instruction. They probably met in Solomon's colonnade, at the eastern end of the court of the Gentiles (5:12; compare 5:20-21, 42, and Jesus' practice--Lk 20:1; 21:37). In the temple they also fulfilled their commitment to prayer as they engaged in corporate worship.>> Same source as I listed before.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I just don't see the leap from "do what's best for the community" to communism. I don't think communism is a workable solution, nor do I think it allows the individual to reach their greatest potential.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 << Individual actions are what saves us, but I think the idea of corporate worship is central to the idea of Christianity. But that's another thread.>> <<The community lived out its commitment to the apostles' teaching by gathering each day in the temple courts to hear instruction. They probably met in Solomon's colonnade, at the eastern end of the court of the Gentiles (5:12; compare 5:20-21, 42, and Jesus' practice--Lk 20:1; 21:37). In the temple they also fulfilled their commitment to prayer as they engaged in corporate worship.>> That is why we have church services. I agree with both points. But that is seperate from political consideration. The communal style of living practiced by the Church in Jerusalem is a model of Christianity but impractical in our society. Very few people would be attracted to that kind of life and indeed would even be wary of such because of the shades of Jimmy Jones that it would bring up. On the other hand, I do agree with you Tom, that just an emphasis on community does not Communism make, but as I said regarding Socialism, there is not some tripwire that makes something Socialist or Communist. Imagine if you would a sliding scale, with pure Capitalism being 0 and pure Communism being 100. I, as well as you, have no desire to live at either extreme, but we must be careful to know and examine where we are on the scale. Any move to either extreme, no matter how incremental, must be examined with due process to ensure that society as a whole does not embrace something detrimental to them.
Originally Posted By cmpaley The problem is, Dman55, is that the Republican party is run by people who want to move the US closer and closer to 0 on your scale and have been successful in doing so for that past 5 years...to the detriment of the majority of Americans.
