Isn't the US Constitution tyranny?

[jj]

Much more amusing than your current tack of pretending you know nothing about posting that whiny threat, and then jumping on the race baiting band wagon, by stalking me from thread to thread with nothing to offer but more whining.

You know, you're so nutty I can't even figure out what imagined insult you're jabbering about here.

Let's see, is the "whiny threat" a demand for retraction when you lie about me? I don't know, really, because you're good at lying about me but not very good with specifics, as demonstrated with your failure (pre-ordained since I never did any such thing) to produce evidence of me playing some race card or other.

I have not a bit of a clue what the 'race-baiting bandwagon' is all about, that's purely in your internal paranoia.

 

[CBL4]

originally posted by CFLarsenThe issue is not about what governments that are the most tyrannical. The issue is: Writing and ratifying the US Constitution was an act of tyranny.

Here are some alternative questions:
1) Was it an act that immediately lessened tyranny? Clearly, yes.
2) Was in an act that would continue to reduce tyranny? Clearly it was this also.
3) Would it provide a model for reducing tyranny elsewhere? Clearly it was.
4) Did it increase tyranny in a way? I cannot think of any.

So if you dislike tyranny, it was a great success by any reasonable standard.

However, if you like to knock one of the greatest documents for freedom ever created, feel free to so. Of course, it is only because of this "tyrannical" document that you are allowed to do so without any threat of legal reprecussions.

CBL

 

[Moliere]

The US constitution was forced on a majority by a minority. That makes it tyranny. By your definition of the word.

How? If it was forced upon the majority then why did they bother with the Federalist Papers? There was no standing army forcing people at gunpoint to vote for it's ratification. If anything, it was forced upon the minority since the states voted on it.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Here are some alternative questions:
1) Was it an act that immediately lessened tyranny? Clearly, yes.
2) Was in an act that would continue to reduce tyranny? Clearly it was this also.
3) Would it provide a model for reducing tyranny elsewhere? Clearly it was.
4) Did it increase tyranny in a way? I cannot think of any.

So if you dislike tyranny, it was a great success by any reasonable standard.

However, if you like to knock one of the greatest documents for freedom ever created, feel free to so. Of course, it is only because of this "tyrannical" document that you are allowed to do so without any threat of legal reprecussions.

CBL

Claus is not knocking the Constitution so much as he is turning shanek's own words against him. The act of ratifying the Constitution, as it was done by a realtively small group in the name of a larger (and not necessarily adequately represented) group represents what shanek described as the "rule of the minority," which he equated with tyranny.

Furthermore, simply because an act has the effect of decreasing X does not mean that it itself cannot be an instance of X. Shooting the guy in the head who is shooting into a crowd is a violent act, but it serves to reduce violence.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Claus is not knocking the Constitution so much as he is turning shanek's own words against him.

On the surface, this is a foolish thread. If the reason was to poke fun at ShaneK, I missed it because I generally quit reading him when he expounds at nauseum. I guess I was wasting my time taking it seriously. Perhaps I should re-read the thread with this information but I probably won't. It has too many foolish derails.

Furthermore, simply because an act has the effect of decreasing X does not mean that it itself cannot be an instance of X. Shooting the guy in the head who is shooting into a crowd is a violent act, but it serves to reduce violence.

You are correct, of course, but the analogy falls short when viewed in a historical context.

CBL

 

[Earthborn]

WTF?

Click here and with that knowledge in your head, read my post again.

 

[shanek]

I'm not saying that the content of the Constitution exemplifies tyranny; the adopting of the Constitution itself could be viewed as tyrannical (under your "rule of the minority" clause) as it was assuredly a governmental document drafted and ratified by a relatively small minority of the people who would fall under its sway.

Well, even if I were to concede that the people who put the Constitution into place did so tyrannically, you would also have to concede that, in doing so, they removed from themselves the power to act as tyrants (with the few exceptions I mentioned above), would you not? And that they also left the people with the power to change the Constitution no matter what any of them had to say about it?

 

[shanek]

Claus is not knocking the Constitution so much as he is turning shanek's own words against him. The act of ratifying the Constitution, as it was done by a realtively small group in the name of a larger (and not necessarily adequately represented) group represents what shanek described as the "rule of the minority," which he equated with tyranny.

Help me out here...when did I define tyranny as "rule of the minority"?

 

[shanek]

You are correct, of course, but the analogy falls short when viewed in a historical context.

Here's my thinking: Let's say under King George they lived under 70% tyranny. By overthrowing the crown and establishing their own Constitutional government, they committed an act that was 60% tyranny, but the result of that act was 40% tyranny.

What, exactly, is the bad thing here? Aside from the fact that those numbers aren't even lower, of course, but as I pointed out, the Constitution only claimed to be "more perfect."

 

[jj]

Click here and with that knowledge in your head, read my post again.

Oh, now I understand. Nope, neither am I Dennis Moore, riding through the fens.

 

[shanek]

Oh, now I understand. Nope, neither am I Dennis Moore, riding through the fens.

Then why did you make me give up all my lupins?

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, even if I were to concede that the people who put the Constitution into place did so tyrannically, you would also have to concede that, in doing so, they removed from themselves the power to act as tyrants (with the few exceptions I mentioned above), would you not? And that they also left the people with the power to change the Constitution no matter what any of them had to say about it?

You are contradicting yourself here, sonnyboy:

Tyranny is tyranny, regardless of whether you have one tyrant or a million. If you give the power to enough people do be able to decide anything, they can push around those who disagree with them as long as they're greater in numbers. Democracy is majority rules; it is also minority lose.
Source

Oops.

 

[CFLarsen]

Help me out here...when did I define tyranny as "rule of the minority"?

Here:

Tyranny is tyranny, regardless of whether you have one tyrant or a million. If you give the power to enough people do be able to decide anything, they can push around those who disagree with them as long as they're greater in numbers. Democracy is majority rules; it is also minority lose.
Source

Look here:

Majority rule is minority ruled. It's a form of tyranny, one our founders tried their best to avoid.
Source

But they did it by tyranny. And tyranny is bad, bad, BAD!

Right?

 

[CFLarsen]

Here's my thinking: Let's say under King George they lived under 70% tyranny. By overthrowing the crown and establishing their own Constitutional government, they committed an act that was 60% tyranny, but the result of that act was 40% tyranny.

What, exactly, is the bad thing here? Aside from the fact that those numbers aren't even lower, of course, but as I pointed out, the Constitution only claimed to be "more perfect."

The "bad" thing here is that it was tyranny, period. You have made it clear in the past that any kind of tyranny, be it large-scale or small-scale, is bad, bad, BAD!

But when it turns out that the thing which you base all your argumentation on (the US Constitution) itself was an act of tyranny, then it's not so bad after all?

Oops.

 

[Grammatron]

Next time you start these threads can you prefix them with "Troll Thread for Shanek" so the rest of won't bother to post? Thanks.

 

[CFLarsen]

Next time you start these threads can you prefix them with "Troll Thread for Shanek" so the rest of won't bother to post? Thanks.

If you don't think it is relevant to post in a thread, then you shouldn't post at all.

 

[Grammatron]

If you don't think it is relevant to post in a thread, then you shouldn't post at all.

I think starting threads where one has no intentions of finding answers to one's questions is why, perhaps, one should not post at all. Or at the least warn people of their true intentions.

 

[CFLarsen]

I think starting threads where one has no intentions of finding answers to one's questions is why, perhaps, one should not post at all. Or at the least warn people of their true intentions.

The question was answered.

 

[Grammatron]

The question was answered.

Evidence? Thanks.