13

America is an Idea

Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 3 months ago to Philosophy
48 comments | Share | Flag

The US is not just a country - there have been countries for millennia.. Part of the idea is freedom of free people to travel freely
SOURCE URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg3Xzh2cXD8


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 9 years, 3 months ago
    The essence of the idea of America was stated best by George Mason in his Virginia Declaration of Rights
    "A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government .

    Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety..."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgini...

    Without property rights, which should be absolute in my view, the others are rendered meaningless.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 3 months ago
    There is no such freedom, however. No country exists without borders and enforcement of them. It's a complete myth to believe otherwise.

    Over whom does the Constitution preside? The People of the United States of America. Yes, it absolutely espouses principles at its core and it is those principles to which we claim allegiance rather than a 200+ year-old piece of parchment. The problem is that those of other nations have sworn their allegiance to their own governments - not ours. The Constitution to them is a curiosity or scholarly paper rather than a foundational document of freedom. They hold no allegiance to those principles, however, except indirectly where those principles coincide with those of their own country.

    Let us also remember that freedom is not inherent. It comes with responsibilities of action to act in defense of that freedom. It is not an unlimited entitlement, but an honorarium paid for by that oath of allegiance and continued action on the part of the individual: to vote, to pay taxes, to serve on a jury, etc. We are not afforded the protections of the Constitution until the time that we swear by it and act to uphold it. That we may be treated as guests is true, but we should be under no false assumptions about our status.

    The Gulch was no different. Dagny was permitted to stay as a guest for a time, but she was also informed that all who wanted to stay in the Gulch were required to take the oath. There is no difference between that and a nation.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
      True. That's why they are so easy to manipulate.Why should only the left have the right to play them like a cheap suit?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
        to answer the next question I have nothing but contempt for most citizens. No pity but find them pathetic. That may sound hard and cold but it's truth. The question remains what to do? Cast them aside? The answer lies in the Constitution itself. A better break than they would get any where else.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      You clearly do not understand Natural Rights, the very basis of the US. Galtsgulch was not a country.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 3 months ago
        Then enlighten me. Where do you find any place in the Constitution that says that its jurisdiction applies to non-citizens? It begins very clearly with "We the People of the United States of America". Even the author of the Fourteenth Amendment specifically excluded aliens and families of ambassadors from the effects of that writing.

        I would also ask how one would propose to eliminate income taxes and revert back to import tariffs as the prime source of government revenue if borders are non-existent? In fact, how are you going to collect income taxes when there is no recognition and differentiation between those who are subject to such taxation vs those who are not?

        The argument against borders has too many flaws to count.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by lnpuco 9 years, 3 months ago
    An idea is when one thinks it to him or herself, and keeps it there. But when that same idea is spread out to the masses, that is when the arguments start flying. It is truly a shame that as a people we can NEVER agree on anything forever.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
    Allow me this one small change. America - referring to the USA - was an idea.

    to quote a European. "No matter how much we would disagree we still felt the USA was the bright shining beacon of hope. What happened to your country it's such a fascist police state anymore?" The sad part is I couldn't disagree.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
    Travel freely is kind of vague. Do you mean travel at will or at whim or simply to go where you want?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      Freely means without papers, without permission, without harassment.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
        Then you can have no private property. As long as there is private property man is not free to roam like a nomad or an animal.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
          AJ that is context dropping. Of course not. Your right to travel is based on the fact that you own yourself, just as are property rights. But the idea that the government can stop people at the border is a collectivist idea.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
            Context dropping? I'm not evading the issue in the least. What I said is practical in the world we live in. We have countries, countries have boundaries, those countries boundaries have governments who regulate entry into their land. Access into that privatized land is regulated by knowing who is coming in, how long they are staying, and what they generally intend to do. Those who don't or won't meet that requirement are kept out or caught and thrown out (theoretically). How is that, reality, evading the issue you presented?

            If I put up a fence around my property (I actually have a 6' block wall) can you or anyone cross simply because you choose to? Or is land ownership something that goes by the wayside too for the individual right of free mobility?

            I'm not being difficult, I'm genuinely curious.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 9 years, 3 months ago
              Private property is just that. If you don 't want me to walk on it say so. Otherwise I 'm minding my business.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
                And thats what a national border is no, a sign/wall saying "keep out." That, to me, impedes the right-to-travel anywhere you desire by placing restrictions on where you are able to go
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 9 years, 3 months ago
                Do nations exist? If they do, then presumably they have the ownership of the "public" property within their boarders and can place the same restrictions over access that any private property owner can.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by khalling 9 years, 3 months ago
                  they have a type of stewerdship. The framers never intended to distinguish between native born and immigrants. We wanted industrious people to come freely. and they have. The government has not been a worthy steward. They passed laws and Acts and Wars on this and that which draw moochers and looters across our border. but by all means let's have a big fence built that you won't be able to climb to gt out whenever you want
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
              AJ what you did was intellectually dishonest. You know that I was not advocating anarchy. You are evading the issue that your position is in violation of the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment and then you want to pretend you are for freedom and the constitution. -1
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
                Okay, I thought you were talking about reality. I must remember that sometimes in here we're talking solely in Rand defined ideological terms. If this isn't the case I honestly have no clue what you're talking about. Its intellectually dishonest to point out that you can't freely roam at will, wherever you choose, when there is private property? Somehow that violates constitutional amendments.

                I never said you were advocating anarchy, I was pointing out the Achilles heel in the argument by using example.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
                  I thought you were for freedom. You have been given a perfectly valid pro-freedom solution to immigration. Instead you push the collectivist, anti-freedom ideas of the USSR, and Nazi Germany where we need papers to travel around. And you consider that reality.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
                    In the future please let me know, some kind of code word, when I should only say amen and listen.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by khalling 9 years, 3 months ago
                      can we not say that logic and reason have a place here? Government is always trying to remove your freedoms. They tell you it is for your protection. They make sweeping laws that remove my freedom, but I'm not to get mad when people support them?
                      1. Patriot Act
                      2. TSA and Homeland Security. How many Conservatives backed the President as he swept away so many freedoms. btw-it is under the Patriot Act that federal law pertaining to asset forfeiture stepped up.
                      3. because of immigration reform and the war on terror, I have to have a star on my license to fly between states (starting Jan 1 2016)
                      4. support a big fence. They will tell you it's for your own protection. Then one day, you won't be able to leave.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
                        We're talking private property and, as a consequence national sovereignty. In the context of this topic its all private property.

                        I did not say anything negative about anyone or any idea. I simply pointed out that the type of freedom of travel may never has existed and has no practical place in reality today, or any time since the dawn of civilization. For that I'm called evasive, dishonest and anti-freedom..fine, lets not keep it rational.

                        I'm not for the Patriot Act. As a permanent component of an immoral and unscrupulous government its the tools to deconstruct and tear down freedom.
                        TSA should never have been and should immediately be disbanded with a new president.
                        Illegal immigration is a serious issue (not going to list everything I've seen/experienced again) that needs to be addressed. I support the fence and using the National Guard on our southern border with border patrol more inland.

                        I didn't know about the star. I'm not sure how will help anything. I would be pissed too, stinks on hitler and his marking of the jews.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by khalling 9 years, 3 months ago
                          It was in reaction to everyone throwing a fit about passport changes a couple of years ago. Asking info like list everywhere you've lived for the past 15 years, what are all of your bank account numbers. They quietly withdrew many of the invasive questions, but instead you must now have a passport in order to fly across state lines. Why?

                          I am still back at the philosophical arguments for why closed borders would be moral. No, you did not say anything personal, but you argue against my freedoms. I know where it will lead-all I have to do is look at History. Here's how it will go. Terror attack on US soil-a lockdown of all international borders in the name of safety. Another war. China or Russia. All US citizens are restricted from travel to international countries deemed "unfriendly." It's not going to be good. but don't help them :)
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
                            A closed border is nothing more than the exercise of private property rights by a sovereign nation. I agree the questions you say they are asking are ridiculously unnecessary. I would think confirming who you are, that you have no criminal record or known affiliations with criminal groups, where your from, a basic idea of where your going, and when you intend to leave would be sufficient.

                            But then, this Ominstation is having doctors ask school children if daddy has guns at home. Not much surprises me these days.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • -1
                              Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
                              collectivist thinking
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
                                Any country is collectivist thinking. The Gulch in reality, a geographical place, would be collectivist thinking. Closing my front door or front gate would be collectivist thinking in that I and my family want to keep people out.

                                You cannot have a right to travel if you have private property. Private property, land ownership, by definition inhibits people from
                                freely traveling to a location.

                                All your talk about private property is moot when you trump it with other people's right to travel.

                                Yeah, yeah, context dropping. It kind of like saying racist to prevent a discussion.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by XenokRoy 9 years, 3 months ago
    Great Video thanks for the post. Also very true.

    The truth is throughout human history man has lived for death. A slow rotting death while living. America was the first place to say that men had that right to live for their lives, for life. We seem to have abandoned that idea.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
    Now having acted as a foil of sorts let me add this. America was an idea is still a correct statement. Add to that from a comment below we are far more like the Greeks when it comes to political thought than we might care we to admit. Two parties were not enough we couldn't handle three or more and ended up with one which is a form of bankruptcy. Move the capital to San Juan?

    However American meaning the former USA is still an idea it's just radically different than those of 1776. Some might say polar opposite. The idea of free travel doesn't apply any more. Welcome to fascist America.

    Could America rise up in greatness again?

    Possibly. Anything is possible

    Probable?

    Not in what's left of my life time.

    Using ballots not bullets?

    Surely you jest. That's like shooting blanks.

    Enjoy the argument we're back to a period of crummy wifi here in FNA. I hope it lasts through all the debates and speeches.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
      Initially the country was a huge mass of land, large portions of unclaimed wilderness and the population was infinitesimally small in comparison to the size of the land. The first time someone put up a house, created a livestock pen, or claimed a piece of land to farm freedom to travel was restricted. Was the Louisiana Purchase and the Homestead acts that followed, where people staked claim to privatize parcels of land, acts of fascism?

      Within the borders of this nation people roam freely without chaperon or papers (unless you consider a drivers license fascist documentation). It's only when you are outside the border's of this massive nation, its 48 contiguous and two satellite states, that authentication is needed to enter. Restricting entry to the country is not fascism, its an act of national sovereignty (private property). Unless you are for open borders and one world governance - or no governance - I cannot see how you equate private property to fascism.

      Aside from the early days of mankind, well before there was a significant population or the inkling to make a home or to farm the land, there was NEVER the type of freedom to travel that this argument projects. The moment society began to form, land was set aside for a group of people, freedom to travel, as the OP projects. all but died.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 9 years, 3 months ago
        I'm not sure that there were large portions of unclaimed wilderness. Some nation claimed pretty much everything. When people claimed land, they did so subsidiary to the government's claim on it.

        The idea of owning property, at least in recorded history, involves a chain of possession. Some authority which enforces the ownership.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
          Good point, its likely that all that land was claimed by someone, native or european. Even so, a great deal of it was wilderness and barely populated.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 9 years, 3 months ago
            I think its relevant to the ongoing debate. The idea that the 'public' land is open for anyone on the planet to use denies the right of a government to control the access to that land.

            Some don't want to acknowledge governments but one of the primary purposes of governments is to provide and enforce title to property. You cannot have private property without a government of some sort.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimslag 9 years, 3 months ago
    I have always believed that America was an idea and not a geographic location. Even though I spent 21 years defending this once great place in the US Navy, I am ready to take my ideal somewhere else and live my dream, as I can no longer say that I can find it here in the good ol' USA. My biggest problem is that as a military retiree I cannot give up US citizenship or I lose my retirement pension, which is a major portion of my retirement funds. So, I am unfortunately tied to the US Dollar $$$ and the monetary death spiral that the US Government and the Federal Reserve have us in.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
      I thought the same thing. Yes you have to keep ties and yes you have to live a dual personae. But yes it can be done. One thing about it. the more you use outside and less expensive support systems the less you pressure is put on the doomed to failure system of the left. Are they stupid enough to bite the hand that feeds them.
      Of course they are. Not...your...problem...It's the problem.of those who lived to screw over you so when they squeal 'foul foul unfair just do the Biden, Pelosi, or better yet ConnecttheDotts disappearing act and say Huh? All left wing fascists understand code for hands off he or she is one of us, They really are that dumb.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo