@obi - OK, so if we were all perfect angles then we would live in a communist society. Got it. Somehow, I don't think our Founding Father's, including Madison, ever wanted that.

And if you go the Cherubim and Seraphim way for "angels", then no, we don't need government. Hell, we don't even need a world to live on.

"OK, so if we were all perfect angles then we would live in a communist society."

If I wanted someone to inject communism into a discussion where there is no need or cause for it, I'd have asked Putin...

Where did communism come from that statement? That everyone would help one another in an angelic society?

...I somehow don't think the authors of the Bible or Dante or Milton or Madison considered a society of angels to be a Marxist state...? O.o

So, yeah, that's NOT what I meant...so...try again?

" we would still just let one another do what ever we needed to do and be benevolent about it, regardless if the other party could pay for the goods and services provided...we'd all just help one another for free."

That's about as communistic as you can get.

^It would be...if it were a GOVERNMENT.

My whole point is that there wouldn't be a need for a government, communist or democratic or fascist or otherwise, with a society of perfect angels.

Government is the result of the old "State of Nature" issue...

That is, in a state of nature with no rules, it is assumed that eventually squabbles over food and limited supplies and space would break out, as would chaos, UNLESS people band together and accept a common body of power/judiciary as well as agree to abide by the same laws.

If we were perfect angels, however, the assumption in Madison's statement is that we COULD get along in a State of Nature just fine, as the problems in a State of Nature arise from mankind's imperfections and very nature and drive towards survival...

If we were perfect beings morally and physically were perfect enough that we could all ensure our survival, the squabbling disappears, as do the fights and the need for the common body of power/judiciary, and with it, the foundation of a government.

THAT is my point, that a society of perfect angels MEANS that there is no need for a common body of power or judiciary to settle disputes or enact laws and the like...

If we are perfect physically, we wouldn't need anyone's help to survive.
If we were perfect morally, we wouldn't need an independent judiciary.

Hence, the State of Nature works out OK for us.

Hence, a society of perfect angels = NO government, NOT a communist government,.

@ Octavious: "The reason he hasn't closed it is because he doesn't want to."

That may be true. It would make him a liar, of course. But it may be true.


@ Putin: "you need some place to house detainees while they await trial"

They are being detained illegally, and many of them have now been illegally detained for several years without any date set for their trial. That's unacceptable.

"stop blaming Obama for not being a god"

Actually, I'm blaming him for promising to do something and then not doing it.


@ NigeeBaby:

Please stop talking about abortion in this thread. This thread is not about abortion. Go away.


@ Draugnar and obiwanobiwan:

OBIWANOBIWAN: "we would still just let one another do what ever we needed to do and be benevolent about it, regardless if the other party could pay for the goods and services provided...we'd all just help one another for free."

DRAUGNAR "That's about as communistic as you can get."

Yes, it is. And it sounds wonderful, doesn't it? What is wrong with a set-up where everyone benevolently helps and supports everyone else?


@ obiwanobiwan: "Hence, a society of perfect angels = NO government, NOT a communist government"

I refer you to the concept of the "withering away of the state".

^SIGH...

OK, I can see how that can be construed from Marx's ideas, but honestly, that's NOT what I meant (especially as I'm a Nietzsche/Plato/Aristotle fan, I HATE Marxism and communism as political philosophies...I think the best form of government would balance Plato's drive for a meritocracy with a democratic state and separation of powers as proposed by Locke...for me, Marx is a step towards the mediocre, and is a mistake.

Putin's about to unload on me, I'm sure, about how I can DARE to be a Democrat and not like Marx, but that's the way it is...the CLOSEST I can come to swallowing something even approaching a communist idea would be Mill's situation Utilitarianism,a and even THEN I say that Utilitarian ideals work best in small, concerted, specific instances where the moral or ethic option is questionable, HERE Utilitarianism in tandem with a Platonic view of interconnected members of a society, I think, produces a feasible viewpoint, ie, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one," which I myself would amend to "The needs of the many GENERALLY outweigh the needs of the few, or the one, EXCEPT in those cases the one or few are more valuable, more productive, or otherwise of more weight than the many, ie, 10 vs. 1, you generally help the 10, but 100 vs. an Einstein, Einstein has to win out in my view.")

But I digress.

ANYWAY...

I DID NOT, and DO NOT mean a stateless society in Marx's sense.

I've tried to avoid this sort of description, but I'm failing here, it seems, to make my point clearly otherwise, and I keep inadvertently running into damn old Marx, so I'll try this way:

When I say a society of angels...

I LITERALLY mean a "society of angels" in the classic, Paradise Lost-esque sense.

As in, we're beings of perfect goodness.
As in, we're beings of an immortal kind.
As in, we're beings of a higher plane than humanity today.
As in, we are DIVINE beings, and infallible, literally perfect.

And if that sounds an outrageous and absurd standard...IT WAS MEANT TO BE, THAT'S MY POINT.

:)

That we'd need THAT high a standard to do away with government and its imperfections...that if we were so highly evolved, it'd be absurd to have a government at all, or even, to be honest, think about governing or such matters of human existence in the same way as a human at all, as we'd really be something much different and more evolved, it'd be like a human being trying to live by the standards of an amoeba, an angel living in a state of government--the former is so far more evolved than the latter, they simply aren't compatible any more.

But we are NOT so highly evolved, nor are we likely to ever be that way in our history as we shall know it for the far foreseeable future on, indeed, perhaps ever--

THEREFORE, we need a government, no matter how flawed, and Madison's point stands:

If we were Divine Angel-Super Being Evolved, we'd have no need for it...
We're not...
So we do...
With NO intended reference to Marx and his embracing of mediocrity whatsoever.

(Fire away, Putin...)

Jamiet said: "I know the majority of Americans on here tend to be of the right-wing persuasion"

Just want to point out that this is not true. the hard-core conservatives simply have nothing better to do while us liberals are working hard. Not to mention the hard-right folks simply enjoy throwing around epithets and getting down and dirty in insult and flame wars while liberals have a liberal 'live and let live' attitude.

Yeah that plus of course for us Europeans Pres. Obama is already a bit of a right-wing warmongering supercapitalist. The entire spectrum is shifted.

(And I love how my threads now procreate and give birth to little spin off threads)

+1 Babak... :)

"@Nigee - Nobody said she had to keep and rear it. Only Putin would rather see a woman abort a child than carry it to term and give it up for adoption. But then he likes killing babies as late in the process as he can get away with. He gets his jollies off murder."

Fuck you.

"(Fire away, Putin...)"

I have no interest in responding to you, Philosopher-King, so stop trying to bait me.

" I'm blaming him for promising to do something and then not doing it."

He still wants to close it, he can't do it unilaterally. Again, people think the Presidency has more power than it actually does.

1. Still ragging on the Philosopher-King thing?

Weak...especially as I said that those were the ideal but ultimately implausible...

2. Really?

You criticize my points time after time, EVERYONE'S points time after time, and when I FINALLY call you out and ask for a one-on-one debate...

Suddenly, you're bored, you don't want to respond?

You call me a dogmatist and a bad Democrat and mock my philosophical views and whatever else...

I finally say "fine, fire away, let's has this out once and for all, we'll have a real debate and settle this rivalry," and suddenly, suddenly you don't want to play anymore?

It's OK to hold your views as the one, true views, and criticize the views of others, to hold your views as sacrosanct and yourself as some sort of self-righteous figure...

But when I have the AUDACITY to say "Fine, back it up, let's settle this," you essentially punt and want no part of an open debate where you might be called into question?



The Right has Tettleton's Chew...the Left has Putin, I suppose...

"you essentially punt and want no part of an open debate where you might be called into question?"

Right, because we haven't had "open debates" 5 million times before. You just want to troll me which is rich considering your incessant whining about people diverting threads with trollish, antagonistic posts.

"It's OK to hold your views as the one, true views, and criticize the views of others, to hold your views as sacrosanct and yourself as some sort of self-righteous figure.."

And as usual, you're Obiwan Meek and Mild, who never criticizes or belittles others, and never has strong opinions. Go away.

Well, I'm trying to challenge you now...but you're not having any of it, it seems...

And AM I diverting or trolling this thread?

I'm sorry, YOU were the one who's started this entire thing previously, calling me a false Democrat...

So you'll forgive me for not taking kindly to a drive-by blasting and wanting to settle the matter you started.

(Meek and Mild...I think others here would have some four-letter descriptors for me, but probably not meek OR mild...and as belittle has a NEGATIVE connotation...yeah, I'm happy not to belittle people, in general...I ALSO like how I don't have strong opinions...nope, none at all...after all, as we al know, you have to be a 100% party mymidon unthinking dogmatist and vote Blue or Red no matter WHAT in order to have a STRONG opinion, weighing the evidence of both sides regardless of political affiliation and THEN making the determination for oneself, no, THAT is the sign of a weak opinion, you! are! right!!!)

Obiwan, do you understand what sarcasm is? Jesus christ.

The point, Obiwan, since sarcasm doesn't seem to work with you, is that you hypocritically accuse me of being more opinionated than you are, or somehow less cordial in tone or more dismissive of others points of views than you, when you frequently simply dismiss people's views out of hand without even addressing them ( when you aren't mangling their points beyond all recognition). You aren't meek, you aren't mild, you are frequently abrasive, and ironically you call me self-righteous when it's you who goes around pretending like you play by different rules than me. You aren't the only one who plays this game. Draugnar, who is one of more abrasive people on here, frequently whines when others engage in ad hominem attacks and always complains about other people's tone. I'm sick of this little game you guys always play, that I'm somehow acting like a know-it-all while you're the exemplar of humility. Give me a break.

"I'm sorry, YOU were the one who's started this entire thing previously, calling me a false Democrat..."

Which was in a completely different threat.

"And AM I diverting or trolling this thread?"

It's the very definition of diverting & trolling. You, the guy who always *always* complains whenever your thread is diverted, have no problem doing it yourself. Fantastic.

"So you'll forgive me for not taking kindly to a drive-by blasting and wanting to settle the matter you started."

What on earth do you want me to discuss, exactly? You want to rehash the party discipline question we already discussed? I mean what the hell do you want?

http://memegenerator.net/instance/13682460

Jesus fucking Christ... Perhaps it's the lack of sleep and extreme stress of today, but I can't believe I finally get a chance to get on and see this shit. Obi and Putin at it again. I think I'll just go home and sleep now and say fuck it for a day or so.

@ Putin:

ME: " I'm blaming him for promising to do something and then not doing it."

YOU: "He still wants to close it, he can't do it unilaterally. Again, people think the Presidency has more power than it actually does."

Then he shouldn't have promised to close it. He made a specific promise that if elected he would ensure the closure of the illegal prison camp within one year of taking office. If that was a promise he had no chance of making good on, it was stupid to make the promise.

1. Mr. Obama's commander-in-chief powers extend to the military prison system. Thus, he could unilaterally close Gitmo. All that said, I don't think someone who just signed into law a bill authorizing the President the power to disappear American citizens in the most Argentinean sense of the phrase can really be expected to get rid of a politically convenient legal black hole. Mr. Obama has proven a grave disappointment.

Agreed, Bob.

"Thus, he could unilaterally close Gitmo. "

No, he cannot. He has no place to house these prisoners except military facilities. If states refuse to house them in civilian prisons, there is nothing he can do about it. Besides Congress has explicitly forbade providing any money to the transferring of prisoners from Gitmo. Nonetheless, Obama has tried bribing foreign governments to house them in civilian facilities.

well in my opinion Gitmo is a stunning example of prostituting your principles for the sake of "pragmatism"& sacrificing the rights of an individual for the "common good"

I am also (cynically ) amused by the propoganda from the American conservatives
that peddles the wonderfully innacurate claim(s) that America's huge debt problems
are all a result of President Obama & his policies.

As a resident of an almost wholly American owned subsidiary nation ( Australia )
I was relieved when President Obama was elected, he is a moderate and has far
more superior intellectual capacities than the previous incumbent who could barely
read out loud his lines from the autocue device

because as a politician he spends 10 months telling you what you want to hear, then the next 4 years making big business a shitload of money, eroding our freedoms, and bombing more countries than even I can keep track of. (for example US just bombed the philippines a few days ago)

@Putin

Well, he could always be like Pharaoh, and just let those people go. Or at least threaten to, unless the Congress ponies up the funding to transfer them to civilian custody. Granted, this would be extraordinarily politically problematic, and give the Republicans a giant fucking club with which to bash him, but it is one potential solution. Or, another solution would be to use discretionary funds to make the prisoners' lives in Gitmo such a lavish mockery of the idea of imprisonment that Congress gives him the funds in disgust. Again, it's probably not politically expedient, but it would be another means to try and accomplish the right thing, the transparent and ethical thing, ending the transparently bullshit legal status of enemy combatatant, and ending the legal black hole at Gitmo, Bagram, and anywhere else we torture luckless goatherds and possibly the occasionally anti-American radical.

But, this president just signed into law a bill which expressly expands the power of the executive branch to disappear people, so I don't really expect him to stand up for what's right and for what he campaigned.