This conundrum you speak of, people building a government that supports ONLY their belief system, has been around as a theory for some time. This theory is called "TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY"; do a search on the subject, you will be amazed.
This tyranny of the majority is the primary focus of my reply, I don't want to get into a discussion of "drugs" and which ones to use. If you want my stance on the topic do a search on "jury duty"; I don't remember which forum.
Why is government built around a substancial belief system that can be directly traced to a Judeo-christian religious belief system? Why are some drugs outlawed, and some, like tobacco and alcohol, simply regulated?(for the record; nicotine is MORE ADICTIVE THAN HEROIN) Why are there only 2 people to vote for for president ( I realize that there are more, but you never see them on television debates)? Why must ADULTS be FORCED to capitulate to the masses of procreaters? I don't give a DAMN about your child, just keep his ass out of my "HERB" garden and I won't run him over with my monster truck.
The matter of government power is, historicaly, a matter of whence the power of government comes from. In this country it is assumed, or once was assumed, to come from the "will of the people". Not that the "will of the people" allowed the government to brush aside, either by legislation or by FORCE, the rights held by the "people". The will of the people was inherent in the democratic process of electing our government officials, by the use of their vote, citizens can remove government officials that fail to due their duty to the constituents that voted for them. This has led to a narrowing of the government body to ONLY those individuals that will legislate or use FORCE to violate the rights of "others", most notabley, those "others" that don't wish to live by the standards of the majority. Now, these standards, purported by the majority, may be as simple as not shopping on a certain day. Where I live this is still a law, you can't buy alcohol on SUNDAY. Now, someone tell me, what the hell is the reason for a law of this nature? I think the best time to buy alcohol would be on sunday morning at 11 am, right before church lets out (less traffic) and a good hour before the BRONCOS kick the shit out of KANSAS CITY. Is there a reasonable explanation for this law? Or is this, and MANY, MANY other laws simply an example of TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY.
James Madison; federalists papers no. 10
"Madison said, "Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." And he's right."
To ensure that I live MY life according to the MAJORITY'S belief system, the MAJORITY has elected officials that use VERY BIG GUNS, to ensure that I live a MORAL life as DEFINED BY THE MAJORITY.
In th United States, the constitution is clear on this subject; in articles 1, 9 and 10 of the BILL OF RIGHTS.
1.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
9.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It is to the detriment of our country that laws have been enacted NOT for the purpose of protecting the public, but for protecting me from myself. The nature of these laws suppports an establishment of a religion, legislated by the congressional body of the United States. These laws are a direct prostitution of the democratic process. And we wonder why we can use the words "Politician and Prostitute" interchangabley, although, in my opinion, it disparages the institution of professional prostitution.
The only reason to encroach on another citizens rights is to provide protection from misdeeds by another or to defend the populace. In this manner, a civilized society can protect itself from the actions, by another, that may injure the society as a whole. The right to defend ones self is restricted to the defense of life and property, we cannot DEFEND ourselves from the "barbaric" ideas of another using our votes to give to government the power that "we the people" don't have; namely, to force another citizen to live by the MAJORITY'S RELIGIOUS standards.
John Stuart Mills Essay "On Liberty"
"that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. "
Take into consideration this scenario: I have a farm, I produce edible produce, I am VERY good at it, my neighbors are not good at farming. In fact, my neighbors couldn't grow mold on bread. One, very dry year, all of my neighbor's crops die. My crops don't die, not because I have a rain machine but because I took the time, over the years, to build several water depositorys; similar to the wells built by the romans. In consideration for my neighbors, and because some of them have skills other than their pathetic farming skills, I propose to put aside my excess crops for the use of the community on a contract type basis; said contract being assured that NONE of my neighbors will go hungry this winter. This action, by me, seems to be a good idea, but my neighbors don't see it that way. My neighbors insist that my water should be given to them so that they can use it to irrigate their, VERY poorly, fertilized fields. Their assertion is that WATER is a valuable source of life that is given by GOD. Since I am most assuredly NOT GOD then they should be able to have the water that I have worked so hard to preserve. They are certainly in the MAJORITY in their belief, in fact their is only ONE person that doesn't think this is a good thing; that person being me. Well, as it turns out, I have much bigger guns than my neighbors, their attempts to take my water from me fail. However, the next election provides the neccesary power for my neighbors to strip what is rightfuly mine; the federal government has tanks, I don't.
Sorry for the long analogy, but this is what happens, over and over and over. What my neighbor may NOT rightly take from me AT THE END OF A GUN, the federal government does take AT THE END OF A GUN. Why is this? Why is it that a group of citizens may not violate my property rights, nor my rights to life, liberty and happiness, but get these same people together and they can vote for a GOVERNMENT official to violate these PROTECTED RIGHTS?
By what mechanism is the erosion of, constitutionaly protected rights, perpetuated?
By the legislation of RELIGIOUS laws. By the supreme court's justification of these laws. By the
TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY.
"He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty, he establishes
a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Buddha 
Innvertigo 
Edit 
Reply 
Asclepius
1 2 all )
DailyPot
Anonymous
Rono
PotSmokinHippie
PGF