BF2S Forums Bill of Rights

I would be interested to hear why though. It sounds pretty harmless to me, and while not really necessary right now, I guess it would mean that there were some rights that could never be modified or cancelled by an extreme government.

No thanks. They are very quickly outdated and too hard to change once outdated.

Cybargs wrote:

BN wrote:

No thanks. They are very quickly outdated and too hard to change once outdated.

They are called amendments.

Bill of Rights is one of the most important cornerstones of a democracy... I'm saddened by the fact that Australia does not have one. Even fucking Taiwan has a Bill of Rights. It just leads up to abuse by our Government imo...

It's damn near impossible to get constitutional change here, the requirements are astronomically high.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Maybe because we more or less outside the US have a trustworthy government?

naive

How so?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

naive

How so?

Believing the U.S. has a significantly more corrupt government than any other Western nation, that they are not stuffed with white collar criminals is naive.

Believing that a large group of people you have never met people are trustworthy is naive.

We don't have a congress like yours where making laws are left to the highest bidder ... I know your system well enough to say mine is way more trustworthy ...

We have corruption also but not in the same league or magnitude ...

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Believing the U.S. has a significantly more corrupt government than any other Western nation, that they are not stuffed with white collar criminals is naive.

Believing that a large group of people you have never met people are trustworthy is naive.

We don't have a congress like yours where making laws are left to the highest bidder ... I know your system well enough to say mine is way more trustworthy ...

We have corruption also but not in the same league or magnitude ...

damn, I changed the order of my statements and I shouldn't have.

The second statement (which you failed to respond to) demands the first. I can't say I know how your government is set up...but if you don't have a legislative branch of any sort that just leads me to believe you put more power in the hands of fewer people. That is a good, ethically impervious idea.

Indirectly I did answer it, but I can elaborate if you like (I presume you like) ... our small government and house of representatives is very transparent and we have an independent control committee that monitors their actions ...

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

damn, I changed the order of my statements and I shouldn't have.

The second statement (which you failed to respond to) demands the first. I can't say I know how your government is set up...but if you don't have a legislative branch of any sort that just leads me to believe you put more power in the hands of fewer people. That is a good, ethically impervious idea.

Indirectly I did answer it, but I can elaborate if you like (I presume you like) ... our small government and house of representatives is very transparent and we have an independent control committee that monitors their actions ...

Who watches the watchmen?

You are naive to trust your representatives, your control committee, your media, anyone and everyone you have not even met. Hell, it's not like a Bill of Rights actually guarantees any sort of freedom; it just makes it a helluva lot easier to identify and rectify rights violations.

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edumund Burke

A good point FM ... hence why I used the term "more or less trustworthy" and I say that on a basis that I know your system pretty much and I know my own very well ...

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Who watches the watchmen?

You are naive to trust your representatives, your control committee, your media, anyone and everyone you have not even met. Hell, it's not like a Bill of Rights actually guarantees any sort of freedom; it just makes it a helluva lot easier to identify and rectify rights violations.

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edumund Burke

A good point FM ... hence why I used the term "more or less trustworthy" and I say that on a basis that I know your system pretty much and I know my own very well ...

It's all the exact same. As far as corruption the differences are amusingly irrelevant. Nearly everyone in power is going to abuse it, that's all there is to it.

Even though you have given up on the system doesn't mean others have done the same, power corrupts yes but not all people take advantage of it or not to the same degree ...

So it's not the exact same, not at all ...

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Who watches the watchmen?

You are naive to trust your representatives, your control committee, your media, anyone and everyone you have not even met. Hell, it's not like a Bill of Rights actually guarantees any sort of freedom; it just makes it a helluva lot easier to identify and rectify rights violations.

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edumund Burke

A good point FM ... hence why I used the term "more or less trustworthy" and I say that on a basis that I know your system pretty much and I know my own very well ...

It's all the exact same. As far as corruption the differences are amusingly irrelevant. Nearly everyone in power is going to abuse it, that's all there is to it.

I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.-Thomas Jefferson

Power is not alluring to pure minds.-Thomas Jefferson

Most bad government has grown out of too much government.-Thomas Jefferson

I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.-Thomas Jefferson

A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.-Thomas Jefferson

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.-Thomas Jefferson

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Patrick Henry, from J. Elliot's, "Debates in the Several State Conventions", 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Occupants of public offices love power and are prone to abuse it.- George Washington

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts.-Edmund Burke

The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.- Edmund Burke

There is but one law for all, namely that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of humanity, justice, equity - the law of nature and of nations.-Edmund Burke

Last edited by nickb64 (2009-08-27 08:56:58)

Raimius is absolutely right.  Had the government been restrained by the Constitution in the way Hamilton envisioned (the only powers delegated to the federal government by the people are those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution), we would have no need for a Bill of Rights.  He argued against such a body of law in Federalist 84, quite convincingly.

However, with the government we have now, and the twisted and perverted "interpretations" of such things as the Interstate Commerce Clause, there's no possible way we could get by without one.  And even the one we have now is failing.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

BUT, I was driving up by Canberra when there was a road check stop. I was just a little surprised when the cop shoved a breathalyser in the window and made me blow. HE didn't ask for ID, drivers license, insurance, nothing but "here blow." Every car was being stopped and everyone had to submit to a breathalyser. It was a good thing I didn't bring any road beers with me on that trip. Anyway, I doubt that something like that would ever be permitted under the US BoR.

You wouldn't? How do you stop drunk drivers then?

Anyway it was an RBT (random breath test) and they're everywhere, especially Friday and Saturday night. He wouldn't ask for rego cause it would have been displayed on a sticker in the window, he wouldn't ask for insurance cause its unimportant and you need 3rd party to get registered. He probably should have asked for your licence but they were specifically there to get drunk drivers off the road, so unless you were drunk your identity is mostly pointless.

Last edited by DrunkFace (2009-08-27 14:48:08)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

This fits too well for me not to post it, regardless of those who are going to hassle me for it. Ironic I got the link today too.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer? … man_rights

The Bill of Rights was not directed against private citizens, but against the government—as an explicit declaration that individual rights supersede any public or social power.

Ayn Rand was the Captain Obvious of her day?