Government, Servant or Master?-My Take Repost from 2010
by Albert 1

# 1. 12/26/12 1:18 PM by Jay - OR
Go for it. A quick thought: Obviously there have to be limits to "freedom," and at those limits will be differences that must be decided and re-decided by the political process. Still and all, freedom of choice must be the preeminent principle supported, defended and promoted by government within those limits. I resist intellectual wanderings that support "evolution" of government contrary to that overall scenario.

Editor's Note: Once freedom is defined and includes exceptions we are then debating in the realm of relativism, the anathema of Conservatism/

As long as the Constitution can be amended the efolution, or devolution of government remains a fact in evidence.

# 2. 12/26/12 3:49 PM by Jay - OR
Amendment of the Constitution is one thing--and I approve of the principle--but attempts to contort its meanings to bring about substantial change is something else.

It won't happen, because "evolution" has come to mean changes that improve, but I fail to see all change as progress, whatever it is called. And, there is substantial evidence that the basics of human nature are unchanging, over the long haul.

Editor's Note: Our technology says otherwise Evolution of the planetary imatrix of human communication is an undeniable fact. That happened to be where I was employed for thirtyeight years.

I continue to witness a logrithmic rate of improvement communication technologyband cybernetics.

Intelligent machines able to communicate with eachother are no longer stuff of science fantasy. I cant speak with as much knowledge about other scientific fields but I find it difficult to deny what I have observed as not being evolutionary.

And yes I can forsee a day where such a matrix could threaten human freedom.and survival of the species when it becomes the beast in whose belly we will finally be absorbed.

# 3. 10/22/15 7:54 AM by little john - mount morris
thumbsup.gif The many caveats to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to appease, special interest groups, have marginalized, and patronized the sheep and lemmings into believing there is no higher power than the Supreme Court...SCOTUS for short memories...

Once a woman becomes a lawyer, she is no longer to be considered "A LADY"???

A LADY on first, is WHO, should not, be a president of the United States of America, just because they flaunt the ERA that never got "officially" ratified,

and Yet I believe there is some women who could handle some government jobs better than men, but then of course, most men don't want to be "LED ON" by a woman...

The cognitive dissonance of some possibilities makes me feel queasy at best and downright nauseous at the prospects of letting a woman hold the purse strings of an entire nation in her teeth...???...

Sorry for the ramble on and incoherence, I'll come back to it later...

Sincerely John

Editor's Note: Many of us John still recall our early childhood and the beneficent despot whose rule was both loving and absolute.

At the same time while I Am considering all the positive dynamics of female rule I can just imagine what countries in the Middle East who have all sorts of traditional rulings to lord dominance over their baby makers.

Can you imagine how these Islam worshipping cultures felt when they first encountered Hillary as America's official Secretary of State?

Just think of their terror that she may soon be President.

I think the angels are having a little schadenfreude.

include comments