New Hamspshire is rolling up

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Hacking our defense and civilian critical systems doesn't require going over an ocean as far as I know

Plus a 100 years ago it would take weeks to transverse the seas to attack us, not it can be done a helluva lot quicker.

Hacking is a problem that isn't localized to invaders. Our own citizens do it as do people from friendly and unfriendly nations, and there are a multitude of people out there like me who put a stop to it.

And ocean traversal may be a lot quicker than it used to be, but if a country is coming with an invading force, we'll be well aware long before they get here.

None of this is reason to think that we can no longer be free like we were long ago.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

The oceans still separate us from other countries. How do you think invaders would get over here? Teleportation?

Back then the voyage across the atlantic took quite some time and required alot more resources. Today the same trip can be made via aircraft in a matter of hours. We can project power all around the globe via intercontinential missles, missles launched from boats and submarines... No offense but that was a silly question.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Hacking is a problem that isn't localized to invaders. Our own citizens do it as do people from friendly and unfriendly nations, and there are a multitude of people out there like me who put a stop to it.

And ocean traversal may be a lot quicker than it used to be, but if a country is coming with an invading force, we'll be well aware long before they get here.

None of this is reason to think that we can no longer be free like we were long ago.

Would we be aware? How? Satelite surveilance would not have been developed. A mature space and technology program would not have come about without the government. Even if we were aware, perhaps alerted by fishing vessels or something, what would we do about it? If a country like China decided to attack us, without a strong well funded military program we would fall to thier invasion very quickly.
Back in the "wild west" there simply was no real danger of invasion. Part of the reason that there is no threat today is because our military is so powerful. What would have happened during the cold war without our massive military and government agencies like the CIA gathering intelligence?

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Would we be aware? How? Satelite surveilance would not have been developed. A mature space and technology program would not have come about without the government. Even if we were aware, perhaps alerted by fishing vessels or something, what would we do about it? If a country like China decided to attack us, without a strong well funded military program we would fall to thier invasion very quickly.
Back in the "wild west" there simply was no real danger of invasion. Part of the reason that there is no threat today is because our military is so powerful. What would have happened during the cold war without our massive military and government agencies like the CIA gathering intelligence?

Mexican American war, much?

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by thewise1

Mexican American war, much?

good thing that there was still a strong central government back east to help keep things going. Without that mexcio would still own texas , parts of NM and southern California.

[thewise1]

Look I'm not 100% against all federal government, man. I just think that overcentralizing it is a bad idea.

I'm not after anarchy.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by thewise1

Look I'm not 100% against all federal government, man. I just think that overcentralizing it is a bad idea.

I'm not after anarchy.

I think most people share that opinion, it's where the lines bleed and fade into one another is where we find our differences. I think Lou agrees that national government must have limits on power - so do I - but the scope of those limits and who gets that power the government relinquishes is where all these ideologies collide.

Capitalism is awesome and can lift the human condition but IMO being an economic system, it has no conceptions of justice or even social responsibility and because of this it needs some regulation (read accountability) by government to limit it where it could harm us. Indeed government itself needs the same checking, but it's not the job of the market to do it - we have seen what kind of influence the most powerful people in the market have on government - but of the people as citizens (and the courts) to ensure the concepts of justice and responsibility is fair and consistent.

The best way to me to achieve this is to fragment power (ie justice) so that no one group can attain too much, not government, not the market , not the courts, not even the people. Any group that has too much power over justice will fall to corruption. That's why I like Federalism but what we have now is far from that.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by thewise1

Look I'm not 100% against all federal government, man. I just think that overcentralizing it is a bad idea.

I'm not after anarchy.

Wanting a government that knows it limitations, that knows what it must do and can do well is not being anti-government. That is a very desperate false argument by status quo defenders.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Wanting a government that knows it limitations, that knows what it must do and can do well is not being anti-government. That is a very desperate false argument by status quo defenders.

All I really want is a government that follows the constitution in its entirety.

If they want to amend it and can do so then I might complain about the specific amendment, but the government wouldn't be at fault.