Bloomberg: Constitution ‘must change’ to give government more power

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Indeed. However relevant some quotations may be, like anything used too much, it starts to sound unoriginal, and in fact, starts to lose it's meaning.

Well, I disagree that we are a minority in our thoughts. I would submit that the current political division within the United states into "red" and "blue" states as evidence to the contrary. While i realize i'm generalizing, it is my thought residents of Blue states are more apt to trade liberty for security while those residing in red states are not.

It goes both ways and I think that politics don't really come into it as much as the sense of power that governing parties feel. After all, the Patriot act was put in through a red government and supported by red parties, so it's more of an individual thing than it is a political thing, after all I am sure that there were blues in favour of Patriot and reds against it.

As for facebook, or twitter, your right. I would never use such sites in any capacity. It has been my view since before the days of "geocities" and everyone was into making their personal web page or weblog, that putting too much personal information on the internet is a very bad idea. The reasons for that start on identity theft and branch outward from there. Suffice to say, "Homey don't play that".

I will confess that I am on both of the sites and indeed I did once have a geocities page (actually it was home-something to begin with before it went to geocities IIRC) but I am careful about what information I post. I once heard about a girl who posted everything she was doing on twitter, including when she was leaving for her holiday and then she was confused when someone broke into her house while she was on holiday.
Google Earth and Google Street view are another two examples of personal intrusions that weren't around ten or twenty years ago (although Earth probably was but only to military intelligence) and one has to wonder what the next stage will be, real time streaming Google Earth? I'd certainly enjoy looking at it, even if by doing so I am encouraging the loss of privacy of those I watched.

Maybe, maybe not. Thought I do find myself drawing a metaphor to the intention behind things like The Colosseum in ancient Rome. It's whole purpose was to keep the Plebians happy and their minds off their troubles, less they would get upset and do things the rulling class wouldn't like. I'm not saying that technology, internet, toys, games etc are designed with that in mind, but the net effect (pardon the pun), is the same.

Completely true, the bread and circuses effect is very prevalent in todays society, if you were to ask the average American or Brit something about politics, they'd either go on a rampage based upon what the biased media has told them or they'll claim ignorance and ask if you have watched 'America/Britain's got Talent'.
On the other hand, technology has radicalised some political beliefs, and increased the spread of them, organisations like the Tea Party or the UKIP would have struggled to have gained the base that they have had without the ease of access to communications. Of course, consequently the focus on these radical groups by either side of the political media has only served to further discourage the average public member from getting involved in a political spectrum that seems to be dominated by 'nutcases'

I have often wondered, were it not for computers, games, etc, diverting me, and any motivation and dedication i posses, what would I have accomplished? I have often thought back to wondering what it would be like in the before the advent of computers. (I grew up with computers, or is that, computers grew up with me? My first PC was an 8086 IBM clone). I think past generations accomplished much more with their lives without the diversions we have now. On a side note, have you seen It disgusted me the first moment I saw it. It's like peoples whole lives centered on, and revolving around, stupid little electronic boxes.

Also true, the amount of reading and drawing that I used to do back before 24/7 broadband and Steam is vastly higher than I do now.
But yes, the age of electronics is throughly here, and if a 'Revolution' style event occurred and all the power went out, well...I know I would certainly struggle at first, but I would hope that I would make it through, but it would be tough. A book worth reading is 'One Second After' which is realistic to the point of being quite depressing how society would cope if the power went out tomorrow...and that was written in 2009, we've gone even further down the road of electronic dependency now.

You have a point about convenience. My wife is a self admitted "whore to convenience". Although, I think along the way though, there will always be people raising concerns about legal, ethical, or moral boundries.

This is true, but at the end of the day it will be a King Cnut style affair.

Well, at the end of the day, we are all just dust and bones. When it comes to changes in our constitution, bill of rights, liberty, freedom, and everything that is important that makes up home to me, I will always resist. Not just for myself, but for my family. At the end of the day, I would rather go out fighting for what I believe in; at least then I can leave this world knowing I tried and did my best. To blatantly borrow Paton, "If a man does his best, what else is there?"

Well, America has made it thus far without becoming a police state, but I can understand the fear that it may unwittingly slide into one, a nation is only a few events short of it after all, however equally living a life paranoid of government intentions is equally self-destructive, not that I'm accusing you of such a thing, but there are people, as we both know, who are quite firmly in that camp and the rest of us can just shake our heads in disbelief in it. Still, a healthy mind that questions the decisions of government whilst not falling into the trap of paranoia is a good thing, sometimes governments do need a reality check...once upon a time they got that through voting, but I think that system has lost its effectiveness over the eras, but it's still better than the alternatives.

[Platapus]

We DO need to change the way we interpret the Constitution.

We need to get back to the interpretation of the Constitution that puts limits on the powers of the Federal Government.

We need to reinterpret the Incorporation Doctrine to determine if it truly is in our best interest, and if so, properly define and place limits on it.

Absolutely we need to change the way we interpret the Constitution.

But I fear that this is not what Bloomberg meant.

Bigger government is not the solution
More powerful government is not the solution

[Skybird]

Relevant readings for this topic.

LINK: On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolutio

As the Declaration of Independence noted, government is supposed to protect life, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet in granting government the power to tax and legislate without consent, the Constitution cannot possibly assure this goal but is instead the very instrument for invading and destroying the right to life, property, and liberty. It is absurd to believe that an agency that may tax without consent can be a property protector. Likewise, it is absurd to believe that an agency with legislative powers can preserve law and order. Rather, it must be recognized that the Constitution is itself unconstitutional, i.e., incompatible with the very doctrine of natural human rights that inspired the American Revolution.

Indeed, no one in his right mind would agree to a contract that allowed one's alleged protector to determine unilaterally, without one's consent, and irrevocably, without the possibility of exit, how much to charge for protection; and no one in his right mind would agree to an irrevocable contract which granted one's alleged protector the right to ultimate decision making regarding one's own person and property, i.e., of unilateral lawmaking.

LINK: War, Terrorism, and the World State

What we see in the U.S. today is something very familiar. Governments love crises – indeed, they frequently cause or contribute to them – in order to increase their own power. Just witness the government takeover of airport security, the establishment of an office for homeland security (isn't that the task of the Department of Defense? and if not, wouldn't it be more appropriate to call the department of defense the Department of War?), and the current plan of establishing an almost complete electronic surveillance system vis-a-vis its own citizens.

In order to combat terrorism it is necessary to engage in a non-interventionist foreign policy, to have a heavily armed civilian population – more guns, less crime – and to treat terrorism for what it is: not as a conventional attack by the armed forces of another state but as essentially private conspiracies and crimes which must be combatted accordingly by police action, hired mercenaries, privateers, assassination commandoes, and headhunters.

LINK: Reflections on State and War

LINK: Why Bad Men Rule

the selection of government rulers by means of popular elections makes it nearly impossible that a good or harmless person could ever rise to the top. Prime ministers and presidents are selected for their proven efficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues. Thus, democracy virtually assures that only bad and dangerous men will ever rise to the top of government. Indeed, as a result of free political competition and selection, those who rise will become increasingly bad and dangerous individuals, yet as temporary and interchangeable caretakers they will only rarely be assassinated.

[Cybermat47]

Don't worry, the government isn't after more power.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Platapus

We DO need to change the way we interpret the Constitution.

We need to get back to the interpretation of the Constitution that puts limits on the powers of the Federal Government.

We need to reinterpret the Incorporation Doctrine to determine if it truly is in our best interest, and if so, properly define and place limits on it.

Absolutely we need to change the way we interpret the Constitution.

But I fear that this is not what Bloomberg meant.

Bigger government is not the solution
More powerful government is not the solution

The problem lies in gaining consensus across America as to what the Constitution means, something which as we can see at the moment is just not happening. Depending on each persons agenda, they interpret it in different ways, like lawyers finding loopholes.
Makes me wonder how they managed to agree long enough to write it in the first place...

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

It goes both ways and I think that politics don't really come into it as much as the sense of power that governing parties feel. After all, the Patriot act was put in through a red government and supported by red parties, so it's more of an individual thing than it is a political thing, after all I am sure that there were blues in favour of Patriot and reds against it.

FWIW it was a bit more lopsided than that. 98 vs 1 in the Senate and 357 to 66 in the House.

[August]

Bloomberg scares me. It's not because he's a control freak but that he's a control freak with 25 billion bucks and a media empire.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Oberon

The Makes me wonder how they managed to agree long enough to write it in the first place...

They didn't. They fought over it for months, and finally only agreed on the system we have now because it was pointed out the them that they had to compromise on the points of contention or admit they couldn't do it.

[soopaman2]

As a close follower of Bloomy.

Not a believer, just someone who watcheds his bullcrap, a local observer.

I moved to NJ because of him, first off.

Second. This jerk, as a member of city council, somehow circumventedf the peoples will, by being a leading oppositional voice to Rudolph Guilianis third term, pst 9-11.

We the people wanted it, city council said no, lead by mayoral candidate Michael Bloomberg.

He then won the election, then banned smoking in bars, won another a few years later.

When it came his turn for 3rd term, it went through city council no problem, after he won the election it was finally put to vote by the people of NYC, and they struck down the more than 2 terms crap.

Amazing!!

No one tells this story, a modern day Tammany Hall. Google that one, Tammany hall was a doozy, but at least boss Tweed didn't try to ban soda.

I am a local, this scumbucket and his crap decisions hurt my everyday life.

[August]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

No one tells this story, a modern day Tammany Hall. Google that one, Tammany hall was a doozy, but at least boss Tweed didn't try to ban soda.

Boss Tweed also didn't have $25 billion clams and own a media empire. That's what makes this Tweed reincarnation so dangerous imo.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by August

Boss Tweed also didn't have $25 billion clams and own a media empire. That's what makes this Tweed reincarnation so dangerous imo.

Very true, Bloomy is a billionaire, as well as the owner of Bloomberg News.

Explains all his control fantasies...

I almost forgot to add that to his resume. Thanks

[August]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

Very true, Bloomy is a billionaire, as well as the owner of Bloomberg News.

Explains all his control fantasies...

I almost forgot to add that to his resume. Thanks

We just got the Blue State Blues Brother!

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by August

Bloomberg scares me. It's not because he's a control freak but that he's a control freak with 25 billion bucks and a media empire.

This guy scares me for the same reason. In our political system today, money IS power. Votes are nearly irrelevant because whatever a person, or group of persons with lots of money wants, they just buy. The real power in government? Follow the money.

Originally Posted by soopaman2

As a close follower of Bloomy.

Not a believer, just someone who watcheds his bullcrap, a local observer.

I moved to NJ because of him, first off.

Second. This jerk, as a member of city council, somehow circumventedf the peoples will, by being a leading oppositional voice to Rudolph Guilianis third term, pst 9-11.

We the people wanted it, city council said no, lead by mayoral candidate Michael Bloomberg.

He then won the election, then banned smoking in bars, won another a few years later.

When it came his turn for 3rd term, it went through city council no problem, after he won the election it was finally put to vote by the people of NYC, and they struck down the more than 2 terms crap.

Amazing!!

No one tells this story, a modern day Tammany Hall. Google that one, Tammany hall was a doozy, but at least boss Tweed didn't try to ban soda.

I am a local, this scumbucket and his crap decisions hurt my everyday life.

Thanks for sharing. Things sound about as bad, if not worse, then what I was thinking.

From bad to worse, is this guy is stepping from the local stage, to the national one. It is my belief that Bloomberg, or someone like him, could very well be what the face of tyranny in America would look like.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

then banned smoking in bars

If only that was a national law. We have it in Houston and it's awesome. Unfortunately I'm soon moving outside of the city limits.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

If only that was a national law. We have it in Houston and it's awesome. Unfortunately I'm soon moving outside of the city limits.

Stop spending so much time in bars...