web analytics

The Coming Civil War: the Erosion of the Foundations

In my previous two installments on this subject, I argued that I don’t believe a ‘hot’ civil war is imminent–a ‘cold’ one is in progress.  This was not necessarily cause for rejoicing, as my contention is that what is keeping us from a ‘hot’ war are some formidable ‘speed bumps.’  In the first place, the US military is likely to remain subjected to civilian authorities and stay out of political disputes.  Also, at least for another decade or so, it seems unlikely the military will be composed folks who would fire upon their fellow citizens.  In the second place, the ‘ideological divide’ fueling the current division does not fall along regional lines.  The ‘combatants’ in this conflict are interspersed among each other.  To the degree that there is a geographic division, it is between the cities and the countryside.  And the cities know they need the countryside, far more than the countryside needs the cities.

Those are two things keeping our ‘cold civil war’ from going hot.  In this installment, I want to explain why it is getting ‘warmer.’  Will we watch before our eyes as it comes to a boil?  Or it will be a flash-over?  Both are possible if the temperature goes up.  Neither are likely if the temperature is brought down.  By detailing why it is warming up, hopefully some will get a clue, and do their part to cool things down.

So, its a wonder that more people haven’t figured out that much conflict between humans occurs because one group of people wishes to impose their views on other people.  How could this not be noticed?  The obvious solution to reducing conflict, then, is to radically limit how much people impose their views on other people.

It is a further wonder that more people haven’t figured out that in America over the last 100 years or so, much of that imposition has been in the name of ‘compassion’ and ‘the common good.’   It’s not like we have people proposing the erection of concentration camps replete with ovens and putting that up to a vote!  No, everyone has the best intentions behind their proposals, and they expect to have their proposals judged based on the intentions they are put forward.

As far as the Left goes, not only should you evaluate a policy based on the supposedly good intentions behind them, but you must embrace and ratify that policy–or else, you are a bad man.

But, even within the Left, people will disagree about whether or not a policy is good or bad and even if it is proposed with as pure of intention as it is maintained.  My point is that every proposal will find people who disagree with it.  Thus, every proposal amounts to an imposition of one’s views on other people.  Thus, every proposal represents potential fuel for conflict.  Every one of them.

It is clear to me that many people do not understand just how unique the founding of America was in the history of the world.   Many of the people who came to America were people who were oppressed by Europeans of all stripes.  Finding no haven in Europe and powerless to secure their liberty there, they voted with their feet.  (It is very important to understand that today, there is no where left to go.  The moon, maybe.  Or Mars.  More on this later.)  They wanted to create a system which would counteract, as much as possible, the potential for the abuses they saw in Europe.

The United States, therefore, was the first country in the world formed with opposition to tyranny as its foremost concern.  I’m not even sure if any other country has followed suit.  At any rate, the US Constitution was designed, literally, to prevent tyrants from oppressing people.  Checks and balances were erected at every level because they believed–rightly, as history testifies–that the number one threat to a person is their own government.

One of the big reasons why the temperature is rising is because this system of checks and balances is being steadily eroded.   One group of people, namely the American ‘Left,’ has been busily trying to transform America into the very kind of country that the founders tried to prevent.

Imagine a building held up by 100 sturdy poles.  You can remove one of those poles, and the building will stand.  You can probably remove 10 of them, and the building won’t move.  Heck, theoretically, you might be able to remove a full half of them (50, for those in Rio Linda) and the building will stand.  And if the weather remains fine and fair forever, one can pretend that those poles were superfluous.  Provided one had good intentions (eg, they wanted to use the wood from the pole to make lawn chairs for the poor), and you weren’t threatening the building itself, what’s the big deal?

Ah, but in the real world, the weather does not remain fine and fair forever.  No, it is frequently the case that large storms will buffet the building, with winds and waves crashing in from unexpected sides.

That sense that a ‘civil war’ is brewing?  That is the building wobbling.  It is wobbling because a large number of the supporting poles have been removed.  In the face of this impending disaster, conservatives like myself are like, “Man, get those poles back under the building!”  Progressives be like, “You heartless ass.  Don’t you care for the poor?  Now, get out of my way.  I’m taking another three poles.”

This analogy also speaks to the problem of prediction.  While I believe there are robust defenses against a shooting civil war (today, anyway), that assumes the ‘weather’ remains within observed variations.  An unexpected turn of events might serve as a catalyst for rapid collapse.  Which way the building actually falls depends on which direction it is hit from and so on.  But I do know this:  if you remove all of the poles, you will NOT get a floating building.  This is reality.  It isn’t a utopian dream.  Eventually, a building will fall if it does not have a sturdy foundation.

The founders built a building with a lot of ‘poles’ on purpose.

The US Constitution, which I am a fan of, and theoretically, which Republicans are fans of, and American republicans are (small ‘r’–I am an enthusiastic small ‘r’ and reluctant Big ‘R.’) is based on the idea that the State is the primary authorized administrator of violence.

The founders understood that the State is composed of people, and people tend to be rascals, whether they are in or outside of the State; but if they are inside the State, they have an advantage which is ripe for abuse that is different than the abuse those outside the State can inflict: they have increased access to coercive powers, namely, physical force.

They erected a system of checks and balances (poles!) to combat this reality but knew it wouldn’t be enough, given just how power-hungry and ruthless people were. They saw that an ultimate check and balance was necessary: the second amendment.  It followed an explicit warrant (in the Declaration of Independence) for the populace abolishing the present government and starting over, if the populace deemed it necessary.

But there are other ‘checks and balances’ built into this system beyond the second amendment and the balancing of the three branches.

The founders also understood what I began with: every proposal represents an imposition and every imposition introduces conflict.  To prevent the temperature from getting too ‘hot,’ it was deliberately set up so that the entity with the most access to legitimate force–the Federal government–would also be the most limited in its scope as far as what kinds of things it can impose on the various states and its citizens.

This, too, was a ‘pole.’

If the Federal government is highly restricted in what kinds of things it can involve itself in, the odds are better that even if one group imposes their views on another group, it will be in a very narrow way in a sphere most appropriate for such an imposition.  That is to say, if the Federal government concerns itself with the things Federal, impositions are not likely to be too intrusive.

This, too, was a ‘pole.’

As part of this same rationale, it was designed so that in the spheres in which things are most likely to be intrusive, the various states, counties, and municipalities, the people had maximum access to the levers of power so that they could easily reverse measures which offended them.

The founders didn’t delude themselves into thinking that people would not try to impose their views on other people.  Instead, they tried to make it so that the most intimate matters were left to the most intimate spheres of governance, and the broadest matters given over to the broadest spheres of governance.

It is in this context that the ‘general welfare’ clause appears.   Today, within Leftist circles in particular, ‘general welfare’ refers to every nook and cranny of human existence.  But, when the Constitution was written, it was understood that the ‘general welfare’ was basically constrained to the enumerated powers laid out in the Constitution.  Remember, under the US Constitution, the Federal government was able to ONLY do that which the Constitution enumerated.  I say ‘was able’ because obviously this standard has been abandoned… that is to say, this ‘pole’ has been removed.

It is also in this context that it was determined that members of the House of Representatives would serve only 2 year terms and that the House would control the power of the purse.  Nothing happens until money is spent, and only those who are most within reach and removal by their constituents can spend that money.  Provided that the Federal government limits itself to administrating its enumerated powers, the damage a Congress can do is quite limited.  The sphere it can act is already narrow and it can be rapidly changed, at any rate.  At least, that was the plan.

In this context, the 10th amendment explicitly states that the powers not enumerated belong to the states and to the people.   In other words, the Federal government can ONLY involve itself in those enumerated matters (theoretically), which means that if the states and the people decide to impose things on themselves, they are also better positioned to un-impose themselves, and vice versa.

Let’s take marijuana just for example’s sake.  I do not for a minute believe that the Federal government should be involved, constitutionally speaking, on the legality of marijuana domestically.  (Internationally, would be different.)  Marijuana should not be illegal federally.  But that does not mean I necessarily support the legalization of marijuana.  According to the framer’s vision, an individual state can choose to make it legal or illegal.  If they foul up their state by their decision, it is far more easier to change the law in your state than it is at the Federal level.

To reverse a decision made at the Federal level requires convincing a majority of 330,000,000 people (or, at least, their representatives) to change the law.  This is, pragmatically speaking, a nightmare.  To reverse a decision at the state level is much more within the reach of average citizens.

The nationalization and politicization of almost every aspect of human existence is the removal of a ‘pole.’  The more things you place out of the reach of individual citizens to change, the more outrage it breeds.  That’s all people are left with: outrage.  Moreover, when intrusions are limited to the states, then if you don’t like what your state is doing, and you reach a point where you are ‘fed up,’ you need not mount a revolution.  You need not resort to violence.  You can move to a new state.

But, if an issue has been nationalized, there is no state you can move to in order to escape the intrusion.

The nationalization of every issue is the removal of a ‘pole.’

The people who fled the tyrants in Europe to come to America had a place to go.  Within America, the original design was that if you found yourself under a tyranny within a state, you had a place to go–another state.  But, now there is no place to go.  If the two options available to us are ‘fight or flight’ and ‘flight’ has been taken off the table as an option, the temperature will go up.

In the Left’s quest to ‘perfect’ society, they have frequently found that they cannot achieve their aims at the state level.  They kick their efforts up to the Federal level, which has the added benefit of imposing their views on the entire nation, rather than just one or two states.  Whether by legislation or by judicial fiat, they often succeed.  Each time this happens, it constitutes the removal of another ‘pole,’ with a difference:  the ‘pole’ is used to bean people on the head with.

Most people prefer to avoid violence if they can.  If they find themselves in a setting which they cannot in good conscience remain, they will ‘vote with their feet.’  They will choose ‘flight.’  The ‘Left’ is constantly adding issues which offend the conscience of their fellow citizens while making it impossible for their fellow citizens to physically move out of their reach.  The general outlook of the ‘Left’ is that you can do this indefinitely, because, well, the house hasn’t blown over yet, now, has it?

But you cannot do it indefinitely.  Eventually, you reach a point where people have had enough.  And if you reach that point, and ‘flight’ is not an option, what does that leave?

Fight.

I’m sure if you think just a little bit, you will be able to think of hundreds, if not thousands of examples of what I’m describing.  Do I really need to start listing some?

There seems to be no chance that this trend will be reversed.  There seems to be no hint that people even recognize the problem in order to reverse it.  It is largely a problem made by the ‘left’, but since the ‘right’ has largely accepted the premise, and generally operates within the same paradigm, the problem will compound from all directions.

A very small number of people (eg, like myself) understand that what is really at stake here is the integrity of the building itself.  If you do not put the ‘poles’ back, it is going to collapse.  Period, end of story.  You cannot support a massively intrusive Leviathan on just a handful of ‘poles.’  You can’t do it.  You just can’t.

Before I leave off, I want to make a couple of points.

First, if I’m right, its only a matter of time before the whole thing collapses.  People are just too dumb to put two and two together.  They will remove ‘poles’ willy-nilly and never understand that the reason why the building is wobbling is because THEY REMOVED THE POLES.  Plan accordingly.

Secondly, on the very slim chance that we will collectively recognize that we need to radically scale back the scope and reach of the Federal government, we need to wrestle with the reality that even the state governments have too much power.  Remember, the 10th amendment reserved the balance of the powers not just to the states, but to the people.  This was the framers’ way of ensuring that the states themselves did not get crazy, but clearly, the states themselves are getting crazy.

I don’t just mean in regards to their policies, although that is certainly a part of it.  I mean also that many of the states themselves have become so large that pragmatically speaking, even measures enacted at the state level are effectively out of the reach of self-government.  We see this especially in California and to a lesser extent, Illinois.  Both, not coincidentally, are states where there is frequent talk about splitting up the states into smaller states.

Probably, it would indeed be best if this happened.  However, the consequences of not doing so can be forestalled as long as people are able to ‘vote with their feet.’  In other words, if it is possible for people in Illinois to get fed up with the political elite in Chicago imposing their views on the entirety of the state and find another place in the country where they can go, things aren’t likely to come to a head.  But if the policies of the political elite in Chicago were to now be enacted at the Federal level, as well, there is now no place for them to go.

With ‘flight’ off the table as an option, the momentum builds for the only option left for free people:  Fight.

(At first glance, there is a third option: subservient acquiescence to being dominated.  But my point is that if you push the subjugation of people long enough and hard enough, you eventually back them into the corner, leaving them just with the options of ‘fight or flight.’)

If we were to revamp things to put back some much needed ‘poles,’ I don’t think the creation of more states is the only possible answer.  Instead, the states themselves could resign themselves to the idea that the state level should also limit itself to enumerated powers.  The 10th amendment could be amended to say (assuming anyone cares to restrict themselves to what is actually written):

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; the powers not delegated to the States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the counties within the States, are reserved to the counties respectively, or to the people.

Some states are way too big to be manageable, accentuated by how invasive and intrusive the states themselves have become.  Radically limited the scope of their reach and giving those powers to the counties would go a long way towards turning the ‘temperature’ down.

Thirdly, I began by talking about groups of people imposing their views on other people.  The knee-jerk reaction to this is totally predictable.  It will be said that limiting the power of the government is itself an ‘imposition.’  No.

There is a categorical difference between telling someone that they have to do X versus not telling someone something at all.

If I do not make you buy health insurance, that is not an imposition.  By definition.  Duh.  If you do make me buy health insurance, that is an imposition.  If I leave you entirely alone, I’m obviously not imposing anything–if the word ‘impose’ means anything at all.   If you try to impose something on me and I try to stop you, I am not counter-imposing.  lol  If you say, “You shall not drink 64oz drinks” that is an imposition.  If I say, “BUTT OUT.  I can drink 64oz drinks if I want!” that is is NOT an imposition.  That is me refusing to be imposed upon.

It is clear that there is a fundamental inability to recognize the categorical difference between these ideas.  It is largely a feature of the left, though of course not exclusively.  It isn’t like the distinction is not known.  It’s the whole difference between ‘negative liberties’ and ‘positive liberties’ which I have talked about elsewhere on this blog.

Not telling people what to do does not turn the temperature up.  Telling people what to do, does.  I am not contributing to ‘hostilities’ by refusing to tell people what to do and refusing to be told what to do.  You ARE contributing to ‘hostilities’ by insisting people do what you want them to do and not allowing them to do otherwise, in more and more and more and more and more and more aspects of our every day life.

If you want to see the ‘cold civil war’ turn ‘hot,’ by all means, keep telling people what to do, and keep making it harder for them to escape your clutches.   If that’s your goal, ya’ll are on the right track.

Share

31 comments

Skip to comment form

    • Timaahy on April 10, 2019 at 11:56 pm

    “The obvious solution to reducing conflict, then, is to radically limit how much people impose their views on other people.”

    Agreed.

    Time to get rid of religion, then? 🙂

    • Anthony on April 11, 2019 at 8:02 am
      Author

    Thanks for the comment, Tim.

    You can’t get rid of religion. Every person is ‘religious.’ Every person worships. The only difference is the object of that worship and how that religion is expressed.

    That said, ‘getting rid of religion’ would be imposing one’s views on other people, wouldn’t it?

    • Timaahy on April 11, 2019 at 6:01 pm

    Haha, I’m not suggesting we get rid of religion. I’m pointing out the inherent inconsistency in your quoted statement. On the one hand, you want to radically limit how much people impose their views on other people. But on the other hand, that’s basically what one religion or another has done for practically all recorded history.

    And it doesn’t look like letting up any time soon.

    • Timaahy on April 11, 2019 at 6:01 pm

    Also, I don’t worship anything. 🙂

    • Anthony on April 11, 2019 at 6:21 pm
      Author

    Ok, so I thought your remark was just an attempt at comedy. I didn’t think you were putting forward something you thought should be taken seriously.

    It is not intrinsic to ‘religion’ that it is about imposing views on other people. Whatever you might think of Islam or Catholicism, there are plenty of ‘religions’ which not only do not ‘impose’ but are not even what we would consider ‘proselytizing’ religions. Certain ‘religions’ impose. Others do not. Your presumption that ‘religion’ is by its nature ‘imposing’ is completely wrong.

    Setting aside that, your comment does not at all comport with the context of the post, which is plainly about governing. Even if you decided to include ‘religion’ in that, even allowing your bad assumption to stand, its like you didn’t even read what I wrote. For example, I said:

    “The founders didn’t delude themselves into thinking that people would not try to impose their views on other people. Instead, they tried to make it so that the most intimate matters were left to the most intimate spheres of governance, and the broadest matters given over to the broadest spheres of governance.”

    From “radically limit” you somehow got to “get rid of.”

    There was nothing inconsistent in my presentation of the matter.

    Please remember, you are the one that quoted the “radically limit” thing, so I know you saw THAT. Radically limit does not equal get rid of. And then there is me saying, “The founders didn’t delude themselves into thinking that people would not try to impose their views on other people.”

    • Anthony on April 11, 2019 at 6:25 pm
      Author

    “I do not worship anything.”

    • End Bringer on April 11, 2019 at 7:10 pm

    Now SJ, let’s not traumatize Timmy and other potentially sensitive readers by using such a trigger like President Trump’s image. Especially not over such complicated matters like specific words having specific meanings.

    English as a first language is incredibly difficult for Liberals after all, as they inherently know ‘what you really mean’ regardless of anything you say in any language, and Timmy already showed trouble grasping the concept of “radically limit.” Obviously the very notion of what “worship” means is far too complex for him to grasp at this time.

    We must be understanding in how Liberals need baby steps in conversations.

    • Anthony on April 11, 2019 at 8:09 pm
      Author

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sONfxPCTU0

    • Timaahy on April 11, 2019 at 11:05 pm

    Hahahaaa… Ahhh classic EB…

    1
    Tell me… What do I worship, Tony?

    2
    It was an attempt at comedy. But that doesn’t mean I wasn’t also making a serious point.

    3
    “It is not intrinsic to ‘religion’ that it is about imposing views on other people. ”

    I agree – it’t not intrinsic. But it’s certainly very common. *cough* Crusades *cough*

    4
    You comment about governing and the Founding Fathers doesn’t really help your position. They were so worried about the imposition of religious beliefs that they mandated a constitutional separation, and yet here we are, over 200 years later, having Christians impose their anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-sex beliefs on the rest of us.

    Hmm.

    • Anthony on April 11, 2019 at 11:25 pm
      Author

    1. I’ll pass.

    Someday, you might on your own learn more about what religious people actually believe, and you will be able to see for yourself that religious people, on their own understanding of what constitutes ‘religion,’ means that everyone is religious. Until then, there is nothing I can possibly say that can help you.

    3. Lame.

    4. It is not the case that they were “worried about the imposition of religious beliefs” nor did they mandate a “constitutional separation.” Yet, here we are, over 200 years later, with atheists imposing their pro-gay, pro-euthanasia, promiscuous sex, and other religious beliefs on the rest of us. (See answer #1 in this comment.)

    I really hope you are reading what I’m actually saying. A lot of times, like this one, it seems like you’re just making up stuff.

    Here is something I said in this very post which repudiates your apparent understanding of the US Constitution as developed and implemented by the Founding Fathers.

    In this context, the 10th amendment explicitly states that the powers not enumerated belong to the states and to the people. In other words, the Federal government can ONLY involve itself in those enumerated matters (theoretically), which means that if the states and the people decide to impose things on themselves, they are also better positioned to un-impose themselves, and vice versa.

    On the design of the Founding Fathers, the first amendment ‘separation’ you refer to applied ONLY to the Federal government.

    Let that sink in.

    Let me help.

    According to the Founding Fathers, could the FEDERAL government do ANYTHING related to religion, speech, homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, or sex?

    Here is the language of the 10th amendment:

    “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.”

    Simple logic, here, Tim. The items you listed and more besides are not part of the enumerated powers of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Yea, it isn’t supposed to do that–or welfare, or health care, or social security… but can the States, or the people?

    Simple logic, simple question. Can the States or the people do those things?

    • Timaahy on April 12, 2019 at 12:35 am

    1
    Of course you’ll pass.

    Tony: “Every person worships.”
    Me: “I don’t worship anything.”
    Tony: “Yes you do.”
    Me: “Oh, what do I worship?”
    Tony: “Not telling.”

    Great conversation!

    I don’t particular care what religious people count as religious. No one gets to tell me that I’m religious, except me. And I’m not religious. So there.

    3
    How on earth is it lame? Religion has attempted to impose itself on everyone since day dot. The facts speak for themselves. It may be that its imposition is not one of its stated aims, but that doesn’t stop it from trying to assert itself over anyone it can at every opportunity.

    And I’m the one who denies reality? Pfft.

    4
    “Can the States or the people do those things?”

    The question isn’t whether they can. They question is whether they should. And, as per my original comment, you seem to think that they shouldn’t. Unless it aligns with your Christian beliefs, of course.

    • End Bringer on April 12, 2019 at 6:47 am

    1. Your Liberalism if I had to guess. Only those in complete ignorance and denial can’t help but see the fervor in which most liberals hold to their own ideology especially in regards to issues of climate, abortion, and anti-Christianity (interestingly most other religions atheists are either mum on or demand everyone be tolerant towards). We see that especially in the latest Democrat nomination race, which can mostly be described as a race to out-zeal the others.

    So despite the grade school argument, yes, even the most vehement anti-religious people are religious, as the only thing that separates atheism from any other religion is that it’s a religion of denial even of itself.

    3. Still struggling to comprehend “severely limit.” Till you do, you’ll never move forward in this conversation.

    4. And you just gave a text-book demonstration of the Liberal religious tenant of imposing your views on everyone else on as large a scale as possible. Which is exactly one of the things SJ is warning about that will lead to actual violence. Which is why “can” is indeed the question, while “should” is a secondary concern at best, A lot of pro-lifers think abortion “should” be illegal everywhere, but you’d find a lot less people trying to impose that view on everyone if the actual laws as actually written in the Constitution were followed and places like Texas were free to be pro-life instead of trying to make it another California or NY.

    But Texas is NOT California or NY, and if people are not free to live in the places they don’t want to live (hence why they don’t live in such states to begin with) then I suggest you pay less attention to thin ‘gotcha’ arguments that don’t convince anyone but yourself, and more to SJ’s comments on what happens when the ‘flight or fight’ response has the ‘flight’ part removed as an option.

    • Anthony on April 12, 2019 at 8:26 am
      Author

    Well said, EB.

    Tim:

    4.

    So we went from Tim saying the Framers “mandated a constitutional separation” to “The question isn’t whether they can.”

    This is like five logical fallacies crammed into one short exchange. To begin with, whether or not THEY CAN was very much the question, hence the Framer’s MANDATING. MANDATING = WHETHER CAN or CAN’T. Then I lay out a clear chain of reasoning showing the Framers did no such thing, and now it doesn’t matter if the Framers mandated, and now we’re talking about ‘should.’ Is it a violation of the law of non-contradiction? Or is it moving the goal posts? Is it a red herring? Even I can’t tell! Gosh, Tim. If you didn’t have nonsense, you’d have no sense at all. 😉

    Since you won’t give a simple answer, I’ll answer it for you.

    The Framers had a precise thing in mind when they said Congress could not (not SHOULD NOT lol) establish religion. Congress is a FEDERAL entity. The states could do whatever they wanted (that wasn’t enumerated to the Feds), which the 10th amendment made explicit.

    So, you are wrong. The Framers did NOT mandate a constitutional separation. The separation was strictly applicable to CONGRESS.

    Just wrong. WRONG. WROOOOOOOOOONG. (In Trump voice).

    Since then, basic literacy has been combined with social advocacy by SCOTUS, and via ‘incorporation’ and the 14th amendment, the bill of rights has been applied to the states. This has created much confusion, like taking a round peg and trying to stuff it in a square hole. What is the state equivalent to ‘Congress’ in the first amendment? The state’s legislative body? Then why have school districts been targeted, etc? The most notorious on this score being the Lemon v. Kurtz decision (Lemon Test) which seemed great at the time but has been so subjective that SCOTUS is poised to possibly overturn it (American Legion v. American Humanist Ass; the release of the verdict could come at any time).

    Via application of the ‘Lemon Test’ your contention that there is a constitutional separation MIGHT have some weight. But we have been explicitly talking about the FRAMERS.

    • Anthony on April 12, 2019 at 8:42 am
      Author

    “Unless it aligns with your Christian beliefs, of course.”

    Silliness on top of silliness (ie, your lame #3). You aren’t listening, and by not listening you are fueling the very civil war that I am warning about, as EB has reminded you.

    The United States was originally designed with reality in mind. As I SAID,

    “The founders didn’t delude themselves into thinking that people would not try to impose their views on other people. Instead, they tried to make it so that the most intimate matters were left to the most intimate spheres of governance, and the broadest matters given over to the broadest spheres of governance.”

    In reality, people are going to try to impose their views on people all over the place. In almost every case, the people making the attempt believe they have good reasons for doing so, even noble. It makes no difference if the noble reasons be ‘religious’ or ‘secular’ or anything else. If they didn’t think it right, they wouldn’t make the attempt. But the framers knew that just as some people would agree that it was right, others would disagree. They did NOT arbitrate WHICH noble attempts would be permitted or not permitted, except in very narrow areas, mostly limited to the Federal level.

    The WHOLE POINT was to kick things down to the states, where it was much more practical for people to battle it out. If one group, Group A, goes too far, it is not impossibly hard for the other, Group B, to reverse it. But, from the Federal standpoint anyway, that group A was permitted to take its best shot, just as long as group B was permitted to reverse it.

    As I said in the blog post, I think even the state level was too high. We need to create more states, or the states and the Feds are treated the same and the counties become the ‘new’ states, because in most states, the population is too high for people to practically throw off impositions.

    Whether or not the proposals are ‘religious’ or not is a red herring. Whether or not people can practically engage in self-governance or not… THAT is the question.

    Clearly, you have a much more constrained viewpoint on who gets to govern themselves and how they are permitted to do so. You’re the one backing people into a corner, not me.

    • Timaahy on April 14, 2019 at 8:17 pm

    1
    “Your Liberalism if I had to guess.”

    Hahaaa… oh boy. You keep using this word “worship”. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    “So despite the grade school argument, yes, even the most vehement anti-religious people are religious, as the only thing that separates atheism from any other religion is that it’s a religion of denial even of itself.”

    I don’t even know where to start with this. I just… it’s just too EB. Even for you.

    I do, however, find it exceedingly ironic that religious people use “religious” as an insult on the non-religious. Classic.

    Once again, I don’t worship anything. And if “liberalism” is the best you could come up with, you need to either change the meaning of the word “worship”, or try a little harder. But if you can’t do either of those things, you should at least recognise the statistical absurdity of claiming that all 7.5 billion people on the planet worship something, especially when one of those 7.5 billion people is telling you he doesn’t.

    3
    Blah blah blah.

    4
    “And you just gave a text-book demonstration of the Liberal religious tenant of imposing your views on everyone else on as large a scale as possible.”

    This is the problem. Right here. You guys constantly accuse liberals of denying reality, and say that conservatives are the only ones that have the answers, because you’re the only ones living in the real world, blah blah blah. But then you trot out statements like the above and… just… wow.

    Let’s take abortion as an example. If abortion is illegal, that is a view imposed on everyone. The state is forcing people who want an abortion to have a child. If it is legal, it is a view imposed on no one. And no one is forcing an individual citizens to do anything. You are free to go ahead and not have an abortion.

    That you can’t see that negates anything you have to say on this topic.

    • Timaahy on April 14, 2019 at 8:26 pm

    “Silliness on top of silliness (ie, your lame #3). You aren’t listening, and by not listening you are fueling the very civil war that I am warning about, as EB has reminded you.”

    It’s not silly. And you’re not listening.

    Jeez that was easy, wasn’t it?

    As for the rest it, I am fully aware that your knowledge of the US constitution far exceeds my own, so I am willing to concede a lot of what you say above.

    But I still don’t worship anything. And it is still ironic that a Christian is arguing against the imposition of anything on anyone.

    • Anthony on April 14, 2019 at 8:57 pm
      Author

    “And no one is forcing an individual citizens to do anything. You are free to go ahead and not have an abortion.”

    EB, you are free to go ahead and not kill Jews. No one is forcing you to.

    See, EB, problem solved!

    • Anthony on April 14, 2019 at 8:59 pm
      Author

    It wasn’t your lack of knowledge of the US Constitution that was the problem. It was the fact that your comment had little to do with my post, and to the degree it did, the post already answered it.

    • Timaahy on April 14, 2019 at 9:22 pm

    As an addition example of the absurdity of EB’s comment about Liberals imposing their views on people, I refer you to the good people of Tasmania, who have just legislated that listing the sex of a baby on their birth certificate is now optional.

    I’ll give you one guess as to how conservatives have responded.

    • Timaahy on April 14, 2019 at 9:23 pm

    “EB, you are free to go ahead and not kill Jews. No one is forcing you to.”

    That is one of the most ridiculous things you’ve ever said.

    • End Bringer on April 14, 2019 at 10:25 pm

    “I do, however, find it exceedingly ironic that religious people use “religious” as an insult on the non-religious. Classic

    And I find it informative that you find the term “religious” to be an insult.

    “Once again, I don’t worship anything. And if “liberalism” is the best you could come up with, you need to either change the meaning of the word “worship”, or try a little harder.”

    As you don’t have a clue what the vast majority of terms being used in this discussion actually mean, nor seemingly care, your denials only go to prove my earlier statement about atheism being a religion of denial – even of itself.

    “You guys constantly accuse liberals of denying reality, and say that conservatives are the only ones that have the answers, because you’re the only ones living in the real world, blah blah blah.”

    Boy, does this statement show you to have missed the entire point of this whole series (not that you seem to care what it was to start with). And this is why SJ said that when violence does eventually break out, it will be people like you who contributed in starting it.

    “Let’s take abortion as an example. If abortion is illegal, that is a view imposed on everyone. The state is forcing people who want an abortion to have a child. If it is legal, it is a view imposed on no one. And no one is forcing an individual citizens to do anything. You are free to go ahead and not have an abortion.”

    *snort* As SJ said “you’re free to NOT rape and murder… but let’s allow is as a legal option in saying it’s ok, which is not an imposition, no siree!”

    Putting aside the fact your argument is pure assertive nonsense, you seem to be missing the fact (deliberately or not, it’s rather hard to tell with you), that as long as such things are kept to the State level, people are far better able to change policies locally and thus have greater ability to govern themselves than they would a bureaucratic behomoth that is the Federal government. To say nothing of the option to vote with their feet and move to another State entirely if they feel strongly enough about it.

    Personal liberties maintained. Violence averted as people can still have ‘flight’ as an option. Sadly, it’s not one Liberals largely seem interested in allowing, and while they may not have been the only ones guilty of that behavior, they are indeed the biggest driving force.

    • Anthony on April 14, 2019 at 10:32 pm
      Author

    Tim:

    Somehow, you, a grown man who supposedly has been around in the world for awhile, has failed to comprehend that a huge number of people believe… I mean, really believe… that what dies in abortion is an actual person. It should be pretty easy to understand, if not predict, that anyone who believes this will regard arguments in favor of the mass disposal of the unborn are effectively the same as arguments in favor of the mass disposal of any other group of people deemed not a person.

    You didn’t understand this? This is the first time you’ve encountered it? Or, you didn’t think I believed this? After all I’ve written on it? I wish I could say I’m surprised.

    Anyway, lest you misunderstand, I am not making a rhetorical argument here. Your “don’t like an abortion? don’t have one” line is EXACTLY akin to “don’t want to kill a Jew? Then don’t.” To me. You can say you think it is ridiculous all you want. My position is based on science, logic, reason, facts, and evidence. I’m not going to support mass murder just because YOU call it ridiculous. And I’m sure as hell not going to sit back and be forced to subsidize it.

    But, if you were paying attention–and I doubt very much that you were–but EB spoke another common viewpoint, which I would affirm:

    “A lot of pro-lifers think abortion “should” be illegal everywhere, but you’d find a lot less people trying to impose that view on everyone if the actual laws as actually written in the Constitution were followed and places like Texas were free to be pro-life instead of trying to make it another California or NY.”

    Reversing Roe vs. Wade only puts the question of abortion on demand back to the states. Individual states would still be able to have abortion on demand if they wanted, but other states could choose not to. I address the moral tension here (in relation to slavery) http://sntjohnny.com/front/on-the-coming-civil-war-part-2-rural-vs-city/3549.html.

    Your comments here are a perfect illustration of something I said in that post:

    People can put up with a lot of crap in the world, providing they are not forced to be a party to it. You can push and push and push, and people will bend. But there comes a point where you can push no further. One of the reasons the United States is in the bind it is in is because the Left is oblivious to any of that, and just keeps pushing.

    I can’t say that you would argue against abortion being thrown back to the states, because instead of engaging the actual things I’ve said, you’ve spewed a complete non sequitur (“but, religion!”), but it sure sounds like it.

    Still, my comment here is not really for you. I never expected you to engage with the things I’ve actually said. So, this is for the lurker, more than anything. Abortion unquestionably could be a catalyst for a shooting war. There comes a point where you can push no further, and people will not bend. The mass slaying of the unborn is such a point. Forcing Americans to subsidize abortion providers like Planned Parenthood is like asking the North to return slaves to the southern slave holders or asking Christians to send checks to help Hitler’s Final Solution.

    But the left–here, we can put the name “Tim” in without changing the meaning of my paragraph, “is oblivious to any of that, and just keeps pushing.”

    Tim has shown vividly that he is both oblivious and seemingly (with my caveat above) has no intention to stop pushing.

    Stop pushing, liberals. Stop pushing, Tim. Stop.

    As much as I abhor abortion on demand (and slavery, and, etc), more bloodshed should be avoided if at all possible. Thus, while would indeed like to see it illegal nationally, I believe that it is necessary that individual states be subject to the decisions of their own citizens, and for their citizens to be able to self-govern. Abortion on demand is mass murder on a massive scale, but civil wars are no picnic, either. A reversal of Roe vs Wade, which would throw matters back to the states, would be a critical and important step to ‘turning the heat down.’ It would take the temperature down quite a bit.

    He who has ears, let him hear. Or, if nothing else, ACTUALLY READ THE DAMN POST(S) BEFORE COMMENTING ON THEM.

    • Timaahy on April 14, 2019 at 11:16 pm

    “And I find it informative that you find the term “religious” to be an insult.”

    That exactly the point I made to you, you muppet. I don’t use it as an insult. You do, and you’re the religious one. Goddam you are obtuse.

    “As you don’t have a clue what the vast majority of terms being used in this discussion actually mean”

    Are you just going to repeat my own comments back to me? Once again, it is you who apparently doesn’t know what the word “worship” means.

    I. Don’t. Worship. Anything.

    You. Do.

    Case closed.

    “And this is why SJ said that when violence does eventually break out, it will be people like you who contributed in starting it.”

    Whatever helps you sleep at night, mate.

    “as long as such things are kept to the State level, people are far better able to change policies locally and thus have greater ability to govern themselves than they would a bureaucratic behomoth that is the Federal government.”

    I actually agree with that. Quelle suprise!

    The issue with this whole argument is the level at which you stop is completely arbitrary. One monolithic entity making rules for everyone? Bad. Each individual making rules for themselves? Also bad. What is the appropriate level? State? County? Suburb? You guys are the ones with the fucked up system, so you tell me.

    The other problem with it is you’re just looking at the US. You’re idiotic flight response could also include flight to another country. Just don’t come to Australia. Thanks.

    • Timaahy on April 14, 2019 at 11:21 pm

    “Somehow, you, a grown man who supposedly has been around in the world for awhile, has failed to comprehend that a huge number of people believe… I mean, really believe… that what dies in abortion is an actual person. ”

    Yeah… but they don’t really believe that, do they? If you really believed that thousands of people were being murdered every day, you’d be doing a lot more than writing blogs. So there are only two explanations – you don’t really believe the shit you’re shovelling, or you can’t be bothered doing everything you can to stop the apparently senseless slaughter of thousands of innocents. Which is it?

    “Your “don’t like an abortion? don’t have one” line is EXACTLY akin to “don’t want to kill a Jew? Then don’t.”

    No, it’s really not.

    How many people do you see out there campaigning for the right to kill Jews?

    “I never expected you to engage with the things I’ve actually said. ”

    That is the second most ridiculous thing you’ve ever said.

    • Timaahy on April 14, 2019 at 11:22 pm

    Jeez my italicising is really on fire today.

    [italics fixed by the admin.]

    • Anthony on April 15, 2019 at 12:03 am
      Author

    This last comment is the first time you even attempted to engage with what I’ve actually said. Don’t pee on my leg and tell me its raining. You have exhibited hardly any awareness of what I wrote in this blog entry. Its like I didn’t write anything.

    Speaking of you acting as though I didn’t write anything, here we have you ‘engaging’ what I said by disputing what I say I believe. Your hubris and arrogance is breathtaking. Welcome to the cold civil war.

    As far as your line of thought about ‘if you really believed…’ that has been asked and answered. It has been addressed before on this blog, TO YOU. It was addressed in the link I just gave you (through the prism of slavery). It was addressed in the very comment you were replying to: “Abortion on demand is mass murder on a massive scale, but civil wars are no picnic, either.”

    And did addressing this before amount to a hill of beans?

    Nope. The Word of Tim is all that matters. Do we believe what we say we believe? Not according to Tim 3:16. Tim knows all. Can other people believe differently? Nope. Tim’s will be done. Tim’s will WILL be done. The only master that Tim will allow to control Leviathan is Tim. Tim, the sole arbiter of who is a person and what rights and privileges people will have.

    Our Tim, who art in heaven, hallowed be his name.

    Let us bless the Tim, peace be upon him.

    ——————

    If anyone BESIDES Tim would like me to respond to his charge, please say so in the comment section. I won’t bother responding to TIM again, as he didn’t listen the first half dozen times it was explained. (Not that Tim the Mighty need listen: HE already knows what you REALLY THINK.)

    • Anthony on April 15, 2019 at 12:06 am
      Author

    (Hint: Tim worships Tim.)

    • End Bringer on April 15, 2019 at 3:25 am

    Yeah, this “discussion” has gone as far as it can go, as Timmy has gone from (poorly) attempting to show some kind of hypocrisy, to abandoning any pretext of addressing the blog post’s topic, to immature rants and assertions of ‘nuh-uh’ and ‘because I say so.’

    Let the casual reader decide for themselves. Though frankly, I think even the liberal atheist would be embarrassed by the “arguments” being made here.

    • Timaaahy on April 15, 2019 at 4:04 am

    How funny. The person who felt himself so familiar with my beliefs that he felt entitled to tell me I worship something, is now accusing me of arrogance.

    Give yourself an uppercut.

    • Anthony on April 15, 2019 at 7:52 am
      Author

    Tim, (peace be upon him),

    Your ‘beliefs’ have nothing to do with ‘worship.’

    • Timaahy on April 15, 2019 at 6:04 pm

    You’d be a lot funnier if you said “Peace be upon Tim”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

four × two =