Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

(02-08-2020, 10:35 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2020, 07:43 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2020, 07:10 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]As for supporting a gun grab -- I have no problem with the government separating firearms from criminals, addicts, habitual drunkards, lunatics, spouse-abusers, illegal aliens, idiots, and people on the no-fly list. None of those would have protection of any 'gun rights' in accordance with the militia clause. If the military will not trust someone with a military weapon, then perhaps one should not be the sort to have one. OK, I have left room for the elderly and the handicapped who would never be inducted into the Armed Services.  Gun-grabbing legislation could be drafted without discrimination. 

Well, some call it the militia clause, others more accurately as a justification clause.  All other rights with a justification clause are not read as the justification clause limiting the implementation clause.  There are allowed more than one possible justification, and no requirement to list them all.  I have told you this many times before.  You choose to remain willfully ignorant.   Political opinion over rides rule of law?

Let's go with justification, because there is no militia, which is the point, isn't it?  How can you justify A because of B, when B is nonexistent?  So the only listed justification is a myth, at this point, but the 'strict constructionist' wing of the SCOTUS had no trouble finding a penumbra to justify their argument … an argument they have bellowed is an illegitimate method to use on other issues, like abortion, in the past.  I guess that makes that entire group a bunch of hypocrites

--- didn't the state militias evolve in2 the National Guard?

It is a reasonable assumption that if America were invaded, what Yamamoto feared would be true: there would be a gun behind every tree. The muskets that could take down a deer as dinner could take down an intruder -- or an invader.

Such was the rationale of the Second Amendment. Wars are waged more effectively with artillery (which has killed more people than infantry fire and aerial bombs together in wars of the last century). Soviet tanks could move from the most advanced positions of the Nazis over time after Katusha rockets ravaged German positions... all the way to Vienna, Prague, and Berlin.

As crime prevention: dogs may not come up with the size, but they can come up with the behavior:



but should they come up with the size as multiple dogs, they are about as deadly. Beware, rapists and burglars: a well-behaved pet can become a fearsome attacker with little warning. An eighty-pound cat (and dogs can be very cat-like) is too dangerous. People do not promote cat-like behavior in dogs, but dogs can be provoked. 

People wisely behave themselves in the presence of dogs.

(02-08-2020, 12:30 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]--- didn't the state militias evolve in2 the National Guard?

Not really. The militia may be federalized to suppress insurrections, to defend against invasion, and enforce the laws. If one looks at that carefully, the militia cannot be sent abroad, which the National Guard was in Bush 43’s Iraq war.

The National Guard is paid and paid for by the federals, which makes them organized as a part of the standing army. The militia is not paid. The militia my not be sent abroad. The National Guard came into existence under Teddy Roosevelt, who wanted a reserve force who could be sent abroad. Thus, he used the standing army laws.

The militia was defined early on as all military aged males (with tweaks) and was left alone by TR and everybody else.

This is evolution in action I suppose if you do not look too closely at the constitution, but the militia has been legally defined (if not well regulated) all along and is quite separate from the National Guard.

(02-08-2020, 11:46 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-08-2020, 10:35 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Let's go with justification, because there is no militia, which is the point, isn't it?  How can you justify A because of B, when B is nonexistent?  So the only listed justification is a myth, at this point, but the 'strict constructionist' wing of the SCOTUS had no trouble finding a penumbra to justify their argument … an argument they have bellowed is an illegitimate method to use on other issues, like abortion, in the past.  I guess that makes that entire group a bunch of hypocrites. ...

I have an easier modality: license owners and register weapons.  I see nothing in the 2nd that can be stretched far enough to deny that solution.  By implication, 'bearing arms' is a public display, so a manufactured right of privacy is out in this case.  Nor can it be considered a burden, when licensure is common for a wide variety purposes already.  Are you OK with that option?

I have no problem with your calling the supposed strict constructionist hypocrites…

I could go with licensing owners and registering weapons assuming all jurisdictions do not attempt to use the process to systematically deny a right.  Some blue areas attempting a gun prohibition have officially defined licensing and registering processes, but individual bureaucrats or law enforcement people can deny systematically the license or registration on essentially a whim.  You shouldn’t be able to deny a constitutional right on whim.  You would need to follow due process, to prove a weapon illegal, an individual a felon or insane, etc… If you attempt to deny constitutional rights without due process, that would turn into a felony.

That shouldn't be that difficult. In some states, it takes a court intervention to deny a driver's license. That seems to be a reasonable model. If you are convicted of a felony, that should be enough. If you are accused of a violent crime, you should have any guns confiscated until the case is resolved. These are the details that need to be addressed once the concept has been agreed upon, but before it's implemented.

Bob Wrote:The Founding Father’s did provide for a solution.  The US Congress could regulate the militia.  The militia was defined as all males of military age (with tweaks),  The definition is changeable with standard legislation, without an amendment.  The states appointed militia officers.  Thus, congress could redefine the militia to include everybody, and define standard practices to secure militia weapons, to include registration and licenses, to show minimum competency to handle what you owned, but it would be up to the states to implement the federal doctrine.

FWIW, we have on in Virginia. It consists of the faculty, staff and student body of Virginia Military Institute. I doubt that expanding that to the general populous is possible, but maybe. Let's admit it, the militia concept is outmoded in a modern world with modern weaponry. It takes a lot of warm bodies to defend with muzzle loaders. It only takes two to operate and support a belt-fed machine gun.

Bob Wrote:But using Rule of Law was against the interests of special interests back before the right was defined as individual.  No one wanted to admit that the militia existed, thus the right applied to all, or that the state could give orders to most everybody given that an emergency had been declared, or that the federal government had an enumerated power to regulate gun owners.

Trying to work around Rule of Law as written in the constitution and federal code is problematic.  I am sometime amused by the thought of trying to use the original intent of the founders.  The militia is supposed to be well regulated.  Owning weapons is supposed to be a duty as well as a privilege.  Going back to something like the original intent seems quite possible.

Guns are simply archaic in most places in the US with a population density above a certain level. In the country, guns tend to be OK, but an irresponsible gunowner living in a 6-floor walkup is a danger to the entire building and all its residents. Since the concept of "rights" requires universality, and the right to keep and bear arms is a clear and present danger in urban areas, some alternative modality is needed. I'm fine with people having guns where it makes sense if it can restricted elsewhere, but that seems to go against the NRA and its minions. That may change. I think it already is.

(02-08-2020, 12:30 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]--- didn't the state militias evolve in2 the National Guard?

That's arguable, but not fully accepted. I wish it was.

I forgot to mention this before, but let's be honest enough to agree that there is a reasonable upper limit to gun ownership. I know an individual who owns somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 guns. That's an arsenal. Owning more than, say, 10 should trigger a mandate to purchase and maintain insurance at a catastrophic coverage level, similar to high level umbrella policy. I might be equally sensible to mandate an inventory on a regular basis, so none of the many just disappear and no one knows.

(02-08-2020, 02:57 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2020, 06:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I understand your side could very well stage such a rebellion to protect your "right to bear arms" (and to keep your taxes low, immigrants out, etc.). I have laid out exactly when it might happen in my book. Such a rebellion would depend on if and when the liberals gain enough power to hike your taxes, enact gun control, allow immigrant rights, protect abortion rights, enact Medicare For All, force fossil fuel enterprises (including yours, I think) out of business or into new businesses, etc.

You are sure making it easy for me to use lunatic and make it stick as well.

You could stick a picture of yourself in the mirror. I guess it would apply then.

We liberals will continue to advocate for this agenda, and we think it will make much progress in this next decade now starting.

(02-08-2020, 03:37 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]I forgot to mention this before, but let's be honest enough to agree that there is a reasonable upper limit to gun ownership.  I know an individual who owns somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 guns.  That's an arsenal.  Owning more than, say, 10 should trigger a mandate to purchase and maintain insurance at a catastrophic coverage level, similar to high level umbrella policy.  I might be equally sensible to mandate an inventory on a regular basis, so none of the many just disappear and no one knows.

Why does that matter? What business is that of yours? Is the person you know an avid gun collector or an end of times/ apocalypse believer or someone who has an obsessive compulsive disorder? My older brother owns a lot of neat guns. He likes neat guns and he collects neat guns. You don't have to worry about him, his guns are all locked up in an expensive safes like most customers of mine. What's wrong with that? Who made you his boss? Who made you my boss? Who made you the boss or the king of the world so to speak? Do understand the nature of your fellow country men/neighbors? I assume you do because I doubt you would speak or take an authoritarian position like that with them? Back in the day, we went at it enough, whichever way you wanted for however much time it took for you to figure out who was the more superior and once that was established, I left it at that and moved on. Now, I don't think it's nice to basically set up a generation for failure but I'm not on the liberal/Democratic side so that's really none of my business. I'm on the libertarian/conservative/Republican side, doing what it takes for the next generation of ours to be more successful than us. That's the American way. 


I see the great state of Virginia is having an issue with liberal encroachment or demographics as you say. So, what should the people of the Great State of Virginia do about the people who come in acting like their kings and queens and projecting views of themselves as equals to god these days? Funny, I don't see a king or a god when you speak to me, I see a human with many flaws who is relatively easy to pick apart and defeat. Guess what, that wouldn't change if you happen to be some minority who was educated/indoctrinated by some global minded (liberal) institution located abroad or within that is ignoring the existence of American population altogether. Well, AOC and her liberal crowd don't stand a chance against us. You should know that by now and you should be warning them about us and advising them not to ever mess with us because them being minorities with vaginas/penises or pretty boy gay mayors or socialist/communist believers, upper class elites with college degrees from elite liberal schools that represents a higher level of intelligence, oligarchs with the capital to buy off the entire Democratic party or whatever doesn't matter to us because only about half of America being fully united is that's needed to defeat them and trigger a political domino effect that severely cripples the Democratic these days.

Here you are, a cozy blue exurban living in a rural (more reddish) area with lots of gun owners, pro 2nd Amendment people and lots of neighbors that you disagree with on most issues that are relevant to them and their way of life yet you don't claim to feel the need to own a gun or seem to worry about crime or probably don't feel the need to lock your doors or worry about being lynched or terrorized by KKK members and so forth. A cozy blue hypocrite telling me that where he lives is more dangerous than large portions of north or south Minneapolis and large portions of St Paul that I'm very familiar with and have ventured through many times. I assume that you are aware of those areas being an exurban and all. I'm sure that you avoided those nasty areas as much as possible. Is this really about disarming all of them by disarming all of us? Well, that ain't going to happen because we aren't dumb/foolish enough to do that for the sake of a bunch petty liberals these days.

(02-08-2020, 04:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-08-2020, 02:57 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2020, 06:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I understand your side could very well stage such a rebellion to protect your "right to bear arms" (and to keep your taxes low, immigrants out, etc.). I have laid out exactly when it might happen in my book. Such a rebellion would depend on if and when the liberals gain enough power to hike your taxes, enact gun control, allow immigrant rights, protect abortion rights, enact Medicare For All, force fossil fuel enterprises (including yours, I think) out of business or into new businesses, etc.

You are sure making it easy for me to use lunatic and make it stick as well.

You could stick a picture of yourself in the mirror. I guess it would apply then.

We liberals will continue to advocate for this agenda, and we think it will make much progress in this next decade now starting.

How are you going to accomplish that without American support? How are you going to fund liberal schools without American students and American tax dollars? How are you going to feed illegals and American born who prefer the system that their parents had their native countries and loves the legal system that clearly favors them over the American folks that it was clearly intended to help advance. You think that might cause some serious racial/ethnic issues for you to deal with in the next decade. Like I said, a racist is the only person who would call a white a racist to their face. Guess what, if the Neo Nazi's slit her throat, I'm not going to care. If a Blood or Crypt, gun them down, I'm not going to care. If a group of nasty Hispanics beat you death on some street or some hall way or in your home, I'm not going to care. Like I said, half the country hates your guts and a quarter could give two shits less about you and the liberals these days. That's where you're at right now and its not going to get any better or easier for the liberals from here on.

(02-08-2020, 04:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-08-2020, 02:57 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2020, 06:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I understand your side could very well stage such a rebellion to protect your "right to bear arms" (and to keep your taxes low, immigrants out, etc.). I have laid out exactly when it might happen in my book. Such a rebellion would depend on if and when the liberals gain enough power to hike your taxes, enact gun control, allow immigrant rights, protect abortion rights, enact Medicare For All, force fossil fuel enterprises (including yours, I think) out of business or into new businesses, etc.

You are sure making it easy for me to use lunatic and make it stick as well.

You could stick a picture of yourself in the mirror. I guess it would apply then.

We liberals will continue to advocate for this agenda, and we think it will make much progress in this next decade now starting.

I don't have a problem with the image of the person that I see in the mirror or the image that see of me here. You're the one always trying to hide from images and duct away from images or trying to change your image here. Keep this mind.

(02-08-2020, 02:57 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2020, 06:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I understand your side could very well stage such a rebellion to protect your "right to bear arms" (and to keep your taxes low, immigrants out, etc.). I have laid out exactly when it might happen in my book. Such a rebellion would depend on if and when the liberals gain enough power to hike your taxes, enact gun control, allow immigrant rights, protect abortion rights, enact Medicare For All, force fossil fuel enterprises (including yours, I think) out of business or into new businesses, etc.

You are sure making it easy for me to use lunatic and make it stick as well.

People are not evil, crazy, stupid, delusional, or ignorant for holding different values. Believing in something demonstrably wrong is evil, crazy, stupid, delusional, or ignorant.  

Exceptions about values can include evil, especially if one holds that murder, rape, theft, child abuse, treachery, drug trafficking, dangerous driving, abandoning the helpless, making fraudulent oaths, perjury, or persecuting people for their religious beliefs is acceptable. It is possible that Adolf Hitler believed that exterminating the Jews was a great boon for Humanity, or that slaveholders before the American Civil war thought that slavery was pure beneficence toward slaves. Such views were delusional evil.  



(Lawrence Kohlberg, 1927-1987)

Stage 1 is fear of consequences, which is good enough for convincing me to not jump into a zoo enclosure with bears or big cats, break into a dog-infested house, steal copper wiring from vacant houses, or pull a gun on a cop. Imprisonment and execution, or even speeding tickets are good excuses for not breaking laws that have regulatory or penal consequences. Such people as mobsters break the laws on the assumption that they will not be detected for the crime and that those involved will not "squeal".  Under a gangster regime one might treat helpless minorities (extreme example: Jews in Nazi Germany) on the assumption that one will not face retribution for such; after all (until the Battle of Stalingrad) most Germans believed that Nazi Germany would win the war.  People grow out of this level or they face severe consequences. Examples Henry Hill, gangster. Ted Bundy, serial killer. Pablo Escobar, drug kingpin. Josef Stalin, dictator. 

Stage 2 suggests that sensation is itself justification for doing certain things such as getting intoxicated, feeling relief from frustration by attacking a person, animal, or object. Of course most of the strongest delights offer intense, if ephemeral delight; if one overindulges in these one eventually shortens one's life, drains one's assets, harms one's reputation as a person, fails to develop as a person, puts oneself in jeopardy of imprisonment, or even risks sudden and pointless death. Painting "F--- THE POPE" on a Catholic Church might satisfy someone angry at the Catholic Church, but it is a bad idea. Examples: Aleister Crowley, esoteric mystic of the extreme self. Hermann Goering, Nazi war criminal. Ted "Unabom" Kaczynski. Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison -- rock musicians who died of drug overdoses. Evel Knievel and other daredevils. 



Many people were delighted to break the windows, steal the merchandise, and wreck the shop in Nazi Germany on Kristallnacht. This was the event that first demonstrated the viciousness of Nazi racism. 

Stage 3 suggests that personal image is to be protected from the observation that one is an evil rogue or someone out of control. It is higher than stages 1 or 2, but it falls short.  Be conventional and avoid trouble. This is not a good position for the promotion of liberty. So what if the convention is itself questionable, as in a place of religious persecution?  If it is conventional to loathe homosexuality and others think that it is acceptable to beat gays, then what is wrong with following the crowd? Conventionality is not morality in itself. Ideally society operates at a level in which conventional behavior is good for Humanity as a whole. 



If you were a compliant German between 1933 and 1945, you would have seen nothing wrong with this. Examples at worst:Irma Grese, a brutal Nazi guard , a type encountered  as enforcers in concentration camps. Werner von Braun, who could do evil for an evil cause and advance science for a good cause. Many people operate this way and get away with it because society keeps them in line. You know people like that. Donald Trump demonstrates why people at this level of moral development should not lead anything.


Stage 4 recognizes statutory authority as the arbiter of right and wrong. So long as the social order is itself just, such is adequate. Law and order is the most basic of civil rights, without which enumerated rights (including property rights vital to a prosperous society) are meaningless. having been threatened with gay-bashing, I have made the argument that gay-bashing is a lawless act suitable for sanctions by law. But what if the statutory law is itself corrupt, cruel, or otherwise unjust?

  

Some laws and practices that such laws permit are themselves unjust. We all have the obligation to obey just laws, but we also have the responsibility to judge laws for their justice and injustice and advocate against discrimination, police brutality, and judicial sadism. So if I am in a protest against police brutality I would take a photo of someone smashing a storefront window to grab merchandise and make that photo available to law enforcement. By doing so I recognize the legitimacy of basic decencies that the law must enforce while judging official misconduct. Examples: Bull Connor, Francisco Franco. Wojciech Jaruzelski. 

Stage 5 is the highest reasonable level for most people -- a social contract: I do good, you do good, and things go well. At this level one's personal dealings have the expectation of good for good. Prosperity and good feelings are the norm. Cultural differences are the spice of life. People respect the feelings of others and are delighted to see that others are happy (if not at personal expense). Brutality is rare and scandalous. People accept that integrity in ordinary dealings is the norm, and corruption hardly exists. Democracy is possible; lower levels of ethical behavior are compatible with 'alternatives' such as lawlessness, rigid conformity, oppression, and despotism.   Abraham Lincoln expressed this position when he said "As I would not be a slave I would not be a master". One looks not to the surroundings to see if the cops are around so that one can speed; one sees  the speedometer at 47 in a 35 zone and cuts one's speed to 35 with no other prompting. Where the political leadership operates on this level or on level 6 (see below) people can get away with living at levels #4 and #3.  Example: I would like to be there. Sir Winston Churchill. Barack Obama. 

Stage 6 is the level of jurisprudence -- deciding what the principles are, the study of high principles beyond the law. People at this level know why the laws are what they are. Among these are the great jurists, statesmen, theologians, and outright saints. Martin Luther King. Vaclav Havel. Nelson Mandela. Abraham Lincoln. Sophie Scholl. Oliver Wendell Holmes. Francis of Assisi. (Ask Protestants who their favorite Catholic saint is, and it will often be Francis of Assisi).   

Moral choice is not a matter of being able to get away with personal goodness because one has all the advantages. There are very good people in ghettos and barrios -- far better than the infamous "snakes in suits", let alone such a creep such as Jeffrey Epstein. There can be saints and criminals in the same family.

People failing to reach their ideals? That is commonplace hypocrisy. Welcome to the club unless you are a super-rare saint or an all-too-common type proud of one's own wickedness.

So far I have discussed morality, but not sanity, intelligence, rationality, or consciousness. Morality is good enough for one post.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_K...evelopment

(02-08-2020, 03:31 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]FWIW, we have on in Virginia.  It consists of the faculty, staff and student body of Virginia Military Institute.  I doubt that expanding that to the general populous is possible, but maybe.  Let's admit it, the militia concept is outmoded in a modern world with modern weaponry.  It takes a lot of warm bodies to defend with muzzle loaders.  It only takes two to operate and support a belt-fed machine gun...

Guns are simply archaic in most places in the US with a population density above a certain level.  In the country, guns tend to be OK, but an irresponsible gunowner living in a 6-floor walkup is a danger to the entire building and all its residents.  Since the concept of "rights" requires universality, and the right to keep and bear arms is a clear and present danger in urban areas, some alternative modality is needed.  I'm fine with people having guns where it makes sense if it can restricted elsewhere, but that seems to go against the NRA and its minions.  That may change.  I think it already is.

Nitpick.  There have always been males of military age in the US.   Thus, the militia has always existed.  VMI may be one very few units which could be judged well regulated and called up usefully by the Virginia governor or US President on declaration of an emergency, but they do not represent all males of military age.

Second, the militia was the way the congress regulated people who used guns.  The nature of the threats that are expected to meet may have changed, but the militia was and is expected to enforce the law and follow the ‘well regulated’ regulations defined.

Given the red states, you are not going to get an amendment passed.  It is conceivable, though, that someday blue forces could gain control of both houses of congress.  A new Militia Act that follows the structure that the founders set out in the constitution could be passed to meet modern threats.  If TR redefined how the militia would be treated in his time, it could be done again.  You just have to redefine who is in the militia, and regulate how they are required to handle their weapons.

Mind you, it would be up to the states to assign militia officers to enforce these regulations.  You will have much trouble trying cultural imperialism.  After all, the states were given the power to assign militia officers to prevent federal power grabs while the US congress defined the regulations so that a uniform code could be defined, that all states received the same training.  It was assumed that the officers assigned would be appointed by the state, and thus be loyal to the state.

But if you do not use the current structure for a well regulated militia, you will have to wait until you can pass an amendment or hold a constitutional convention.  Neither is likely.  If you consider modern guns and urban environments a problem, you are stuck with using the existing constitution and laws.

(02-08-2020, 08:10 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-08-2020, 02:57 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2020, 06:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I understand your side could very well stage such a rebellion to protect your "right to bear arms" (and to keep your taxes low, immigrants out, etc.). I have laid out exactly when it might happen in my book. Such a rebellion would depend on if and when the liberals gain enough power to hike your taxes, enact gun control, allow immigrant rights, protect abortion rights, enact Medicare For All, force fossil fuel enterprises (including yours, I think) out of business or into new businesses, etc.

You are sure making it easy for me to use lunatic and make it stick as well.

People are not evil, crazy, stupid, delusional, or ignorant for holding different values. Believing in something demonstrably wrong is evil, crazy, stupid, delusional, or ignorant.  

Exceptions about values can include evil, especially if one holds that murder, rape, theft, child abuse, treachery, drug trafficking, dangerous driving, abandoning the helpless, making fraudulent oaths, perjury, or persecuting people for their religious beliefs is acceptable. It is possible that Adolf Hitler believed that exterminating the Jews was a great boon for Humanity, or that slaveholders before the American Civil war thought that slavery was pure beneficence toward slaves. Such views were delusional evil.  



(Lawrence Kohlberg, 1927-1987)

Stage 1 is fear of consequences, which is good enough for convincing me to not jump into a zoo enclosure with bears or big cats, break into a dog-infested house, steal copper wiring from vacant houses, or pull a gun on a cop. Imprisonment and execution, or even speeding tickets are good excuses for not breaking laws that have regulatory or penal consequences. Such people as mobsters break the laws on the assumption that they will not be detected for the crime and that those involved will not "squeal".  Under a gangster regime one might treat helpless minorities (extreme example: Jews in Nazi Germany) on the assumption that one will not face retribution for such; after all (until the Battle of Stalingrad) most Germans believed that Nazi Germany would win the war.  People grow out of this level or they face severe consequences. Examples Henry Hill, gangster. Ted Bundy, serial killer. Pablo Escobar, drug kingpin. Josef Stalin, dictator. 

Stage 2 suggests that sensation is itself justification for doing certain things such as getting intoxicated, feeling relief from frustration by attacking a person, animal, or object. Of course most of the strongest delights offer intense, if ephemeral delight; if one overindulges in these one eventually shortens one's life, drains one's assets, harms one's reputation as a person, fails to develop as a person, puts oneself in jeopardy of imprisonment, or even risks sudden and pointless death. Painting "F--- THE POPE" on a Catholic Church might satisfy someone angry at the Catholic Church, but it is a bad idea. Examples: Aleister Crowley, esoteric mystic of the extreme self. Hermann Goering, Nazi war criminal. Ted "Unabom" Kaczynski. Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison -- rock musicians who died of drug overdoses. Evel Knievel and other daredevils. 



Many people were delighted to break the windows, steal the merchandise, and wreck the shop in Nazi Germany on Kristallnacht. This was the event that first demonstrated the viciousness of Nazi racism. 

Stage 3 suggests that personal image is to be protected from the observation that one is an evil rogue or someone out of control. It is higher than stages 1 or 2, but it falls short.  Be conventional and avoid trouble. This is not a good position for the promotion of liberty. So what if the convention is itself questionable, as in a place of religious persecution?  If it is conventional to loathe homosexuality and others think that it is acceptable to beat gays, then what is wrong with following the crowd? Conventionality is not morality in itself. Ideally society operates at a level in which conventional behavior is good for Humanity as a whole. 



If you were a compliant German between 1933 and 1945, you would have seen nothing wrong with this. Examples at worst:Irma Grese, a brutal Nazi guard , a type encountered  as enforcers in concentration camps. Werner von Braun, who could do evil for an evil cause and advance science for a good cause. Many people operate this way and get away with it because society keeps them in line. You know people like that. Donald Trump demonstrates why people at this level of moral development should not lead anything.


Stage 4 recognizes statutory authority as the arbiter of right and wrong. So long as the social order is itself just, such is adequate. Law and order is the most basic of civil rights, without which enumerated rights (including property rights vital to a prosperous society) are meaningless. having been threatened with gay-bashing, I have made the argument that gay-bashing is a lawless act suitable for sanctions by law. But what if the statutory law is itself corrupt, cruel, or otherwise unjust?

  

Some laws and practices that such laws permit are themselves unjust. We all have the obligation to obey just laws, but we also have the responsibility to judge laws for their justice and injustice and advocate against discrimination, police brutality, and judicial sadism. So if I am in a protest against police brutality I would take a photo of someone smashing a storefront window to grab merchandise and make that photo available to law enforcement. By doing so I recognize the legitimacy of basic decencies that the law must enforce while judging official misconduct. Examples: Bull Connor, Francisco Franco. Wojciech Jaruzelski. 

Stage 5 is the highest reasonable level for most people -- a social contract: I do good, you do good, and things go well. At this level one's personal dealings have the expectation of good for good. Prosperity and good feelings are the norm. Cultural differences are the spice of life. People respect the feelings of others and are delighted to see that others are happy (if not at personal expense). Brutality is rare and scandalous. People accept that integrity in ordinary dealings is the norm, and corruption hardly exists. Democracy is possible; lower levels of ethical behavior are compatible with 'alternatives' such as lawlessness, rigid conformity, oppression, and despotism.   Abraham Lincoln expressed this position when he said "As I would not be a slave I would not be a master". One looks not to the surroundings to see if the cops are around so that one can speed; one sees  the speedometer at 47 in a 35 zone and cuts one's speed to 35 with no other prompting. Where the political leadership operates on this level or on level 6 (see below) people can get away with living at levels #4 and #3.  Example: I would like to be there. Sir Winston Churchill. Barack Obama. 

Stage 6 is the level of jurisprudence -- deciding what the principles are, the study of high principles beyond the law. People at this level know why the laws are what they are. Among these are the great jurists, statesmen, theologians, and outright saints. Martin Luther King. Vaclav Havel. Nelson Mandela. Abraham Lincoln. Sophie Scholl. Oliver Wendell Holmes. Francis of Assisi. (Ask Protestants who their favorite Catholic saint is, and it will often be Francis of Assisi).   

Moral choice is not a matter of being able to get away with personal goodness because one has all the advantages. There are very good people in ghettos and barrios -- far better than the infamous "snakes in suits", let alone such a creep such as Jeffrey Epstein. There can be saints and criminals in the same family.

People failing to reach their ideals? That is commonplace hypocrisy. Welcome to the club unless you are a super-rare saint or an all-too-common type proud of one's own wickedness.

So far I have discussed morality, but not sanity, intelligence, rationality, or consciousness. Morality is good enough for one post.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_K...evelopment

Kiff (an old poster) used the stages of morality chart with me in the past as means to prove to me that she was above me in morality. She made a big mistake that she could not defend or argue against or refute and simply had to accept as the truth. At the time, it was obvious and very clear to everyone involved or reading our exchanges as to who represented universal principles (Stage 6) and who represented social orientation (Stage 5). Unfortunately for her, that was the beginning of her demise and eventual removal from the old forum. The group of more conservative Democrats who had assisted her and helped defend her arguments and protect her, began to question their loyalty and stopped doing it and began to side with me. The chart she used as proof at the time was much more detailed than that one. I'd say that your Stage 4.

(02-08-2020, 02:39 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-08-2020, 12:30 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]--- didn't the state militias evolve in2 the National Guard?

Not really.  The militia may be federalized to suppress insurrections, to defend against invasion, and enforce the laws.  If one looks at that carefully, the militia cannot be sent abroad, which the National Guard was in Bush 43’s Iraq war.

The National Guard is paid and paid for by the federals, which makes them organized as a part of the standing army.  The militia is not paid.  The militia my not be sent abroad.  The National Guard came into existence under Teddy Roosevelt, who wanted a reserve force who could be sent abroad.  Thus, he used the standing army laws.

The militia was defined early on as all military aged males (with tweaks) and was left alone by TR and everybody else.

This is evolution in action I suppose if you do not look too closely at the constitution, but the militia has been legally defined (if not well regulated) all along and is quite separate from the National Guard.

I view it as branch of the US Military that works part time and serves a dual role as state governed militia most of the time and active US military during times of war and national crisis. I assume the armed militia if ever needed and called upon to serve and support law enforcement would either be placed under their command or the command of county sheriff deputy or local law enforcement.

(02-08-2020, 11:42 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-08-2020, 02:39 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-08-2020, 12:30 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]--- didn't the state militias evolve in2 the National Guard?

Not really.  The militia may be federalized to suppress insurrections, to defend against invasion, and enforce the laws.  If one looks at that carefully, the militia cannot be sent abroad, which the National Guard was in Bush 43’s Iraq war.

The National Guard is paid and paid for by the federals, which makes them organized as a part of the standing army.  The militia is not paid.  The militia my not be sent abroad.  The National Guard came into existence under Teddy Roosevelt, who wanted a reserve force who could be sent abroad.  Thus, he used the standing army laws.

The militia was defined early on as all military aged males (with tweaks) and was left alone by TR and everybody else.

This is evolution in action I suppose if you do not look too closely at the constitution, but the militia has been legally defined (if not well regulated) all along and is quite separate from the National Guard.

I view it as branch of the US Military that works part time and serves a dual role as state governed militia most of the time and active US military during times of war and national crisis. I assume the armed militia if ever needed and called upon to serve and support law enforcement would either be placed under their command or the command of county sheriff deputy or local law enforcement.

About right.  The only thing I would add is that it has been so long since the true militia has been called up that other than the state defines who the officers are, there will likely be lots of variation.  In the Gettysburg histories they show lots of militias being active, but their major contribution was tying up roads that the Army of the Potomac wanted to use.  The Southern militias were a little more effective, forcing the north to spend troops guarding supply trains, but they were not decisive.  They just got the northern generals upset, resulting in cuts to spending on the militia after the war.

(02-08-2020, 08:23 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]But if you do not use the current structure for a well regulated militia, you will have to wait until you can pass an amendment or hold a constitutional convention.  Neither is likely.  If you consider modern guns and urban environments a problem, you are stuck with using the existing constitution and laws.

In a nutshell, that's a symptom of what's driving modern politics in the US. We're well past the use-by date for this Constitution. It needs a major overhaul to remain viable in the 21st century, but the minority that benefits from keeping things as they are still holds total veto power. That was and is a major fault in the original document, though one the Founders couldn't know. It will be resolved at some point, but how is anyone's guess. Let's hope that sanity reigns, and violence is avoided, or keep to a minimum at the very least.

Texas is already underfunding their census effort to delay redistricting that's not to the GOP's advantage. We'll see much more of this before the resolution takes hold. I'm afraid that this 4T won't be long enough to get there, so this gets passed to the future.

I'd be wary of making Constitutional changes through a Constitutional convention while the hard Right still has great power. The Hard Right would love to commit us to a Christian and Corporate state that represents economic and bureaucratic power at the expense of all else, and uses a fundamentalist interpretation of Christian ethics as a mechanism of enforcing a plutocratic order.

(02-10-2020, 11:43 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]I'd be wary of making Constitutional changes through a Constitutional convention while the hard Right still has great power. The Hard Right would love to commit us to a Christian and Corporate state that represents economic and bureaucratic power at the expense of all else, and uses a fundamentalist interpretation of Christian ethics as a mechanism of enforcing a plutocratic order.

That would merely be a replay of the Gilded Age, when the company clerics spoon-fed religiosity to the working class to benefit the owners.  It worked then and may again.

(02-10-2020, 09:11 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-08-2020, 08:23 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]But if you do not use the current structure for a well regulated militia, you will have to wait until you can pass an amendment or hold a constitutional convention.  Neither is likely.  If you consider modern guns and urban environments a problem, you are stuck with using the existing constitution and laws.

In a nutshell, that's a symptom of what's driving modern politics in the US.  We're well past the use-by date for this Constitution.  It needs a major overhaul to remain viable in the 21st century, but the minority that benefits from keeping things as they are still holds total veto power.  That was and is a major fault in the original document, though one the Founders couldn't know.  It will be resolved at some point, but how is anyone's guess.  Let's hope that sanity reigns, and violence is avoided, or keep to a minimum at the very least.

Texas is already underfunding their census effort to delay redistricting that's not to the GOP's advantage.  We'll see much more of this before the resolution takes hold.  I'm afraid that this 4T won't be long enough to get there, so this gets passed to the future.

Another perspective is that the progressives agreed to a certain constitution, which happened to become rule of law, and the progressives are attempting to overturn that agreement without the supermajority originally agreed to to change it.  The progressives are so sure their culture is superior that they are attempting to force it on the rest of the country.

Now, problems which aren’t solved will get worse.  Eventually, you might get the supermajority.  In the meantime, you might take a hard look at the original arrangement and find a way of living within it.

(02-10-2020, 03:15 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-10-2020, 09:11 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-08-2020, 08:23 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]But if you do not use the current structure for a well regulated militia, you will have to wait until you can pass an amendment or hold a constitutional convention.  Neither is likely.  If you consider modern guns and urban environments a problem, you are stuck with using the existing constitution and laws.

In a nutshell, that's a symptom of what's driving modern politics in the US.  We're well past the use-by date for this Constitution.  It needs a major overhaul to remain viable in the 21st century, but the minority that benefits from keeping things as they are still holds total veto power.  That was and is a major fault in the original document, though one the Founders couldn't know.  It will be resolved at some point, but how is anyone's guess.  Let's hope that sanity reigns, and violence is avoided, or keep to a minimum at the very least.

Texas is already underfunding their census effort to delay redistricting that's not to the GOP's advantage.  We'll see much more of this before the resolution takes hold.  I'm afraid that this 4T won't be long enough to get there, so this gets passed to the future.

Another perspective is that the progressives agreed to a certain constitution, which happened to become rule of law, and the progressives are attempting to overturn that agreement without the supermajority originally agreed to to change it.  The progressives are so sure their culture is superior that they are attempting to force it on the rest of the country.

Now, problems which aren’t solved will get worse.  Eventually, you might get the supermajority.  In the meantime, you might take a hard look at the original arrangement and find a way of living within it.

No, the real problem is representation in a representative democracy.  When 18% of the voters elect 50% of the Senators, who in turn confirm 100% of the judges, the game is rigged.  Add to that, since 2000 the electoral plurality has selected a Democrat in every Presidential contest except 2004, yet the GOP has held the White House for 12 of those 20 years.  Just to get to judicial parity, the Democrats need an 8+% majority.  To dominate, that rises to 20%.  The GOP only needs a draw.

Was that baked into the Constitution?  Yes.  It may be that the Founders were balancing the 3/5 rule for slaves by giving the then non-slaveholding states some leverage.  Virginia was far and away the most populous state at the time.  Now, there is no slavery, and the rule by farmers has also passed, so these are archaic rules set in concrete by well meaning men.  Fixing that peacefully will be incredibly hard, but fixing it is mandatory, if for no other reason than the total disregard for AGW by the dominant minority.  Sadly, survival demands it.