Gary Fisher

And who enforces the moral law? When it comes down to it, I wouldn't depend on another country's respect for the moral law to defend me, and neither would you. By obligating the US to adhere to a saintly standard of international diplomacy, you're effectively saying that the government should not do everything within its power to protect its citizens and the people within its borders. Why should we sacrifice our own safety and freedom for people in other countries? If those people want the US government to respect their rights, then all they have to do is cede their territories to the control of the US government. It's very simple. If they don't want to do that, fine. But then they have to accept the responsibilities and the burdens that come with being an independent nation-state, and one of those burdens is that the US is no longer obligated to respect their "rights". Do people serve the law or does the law serve the people? If the law contradicts the interests of the people in a serious way, then it should be ignored. Otherwise, you're saying that the segregationist sun-down laws (and some other ridiculous laws) that are still in the books across many cities in the US should still be enforced. The law is merely a tool, not a sacred cow. Sorry that was a brainfart. I was typing really fast and got a little ahead of myself. The problem is that since the Cherokee were within the borders of the US, they had no right to call themselves an independent nation. If they are a dependent nation, then they don't have the right to make treaties with the US in the first place. Similarly for any Indians inside as yet unorganized US territories west of the Mississippi river or in unclaimed territories west of that.

@Francisco Ferrer The only way what you're saying could possibly make any sense whatsoever is if you believe that either the US government is obligated to respect the rights of individuals which are not its citizens or not within its borders, or you think that nation-states should have the same rights and responsibilities and individuals. I think both are equally absurd, but which one would you go with? As for the Cherokee, there's a lot more to the situation than if they could or couldn't attack the US. The major threat is that, if they were allowed to develop and build up their own military, they could organize into a wolrd power west of the Mississippi. Then they could pose a very serious threat. Mexico has no such opportunities. The other thing is that the US military was a tiny fraction of the size it is today, so an Indian war could very well pose a huge risk to at least the western part of the then United States. The final concern is that the Cherokees could be conquered by Britain, France, Spain, or Mexico, and I don't think I have to explain why that would be problematic.

I think that the attempt to reduce everything to property rights is a perversion. Regardless, property rights are the very cornerstone of liberty. In the Middle Ages (a period everyone who wants to truly understand the modern world should study) the lords owned a great deal of property and they had the right to own property, What they lacked was the right to possession. A lord could not use his land for just about any purpose he might wish like land-owner could today. The right of possession (that is, the right to decide how that property could be used) was still held jointly among the lords (often times a lord's estate would be spread over the domain of other lords, forming a complicated network of vassalage), the clergy, and the peasants. Basically, if you wanted to build a windmill on your land say, you could be overruled by the peasants. Eventually, the lords and their king were able to cooperate with each other to exclude the clergy and the peasants from having any right of possession over their property. Certain rights of possession, such as the right to levy a tax, were given to the king, hence his bureacracy, hence the fledgeling nation-state. Most others were retained by the lords. And this is the origin of our modern notions of private property. You can have the right to own and use property as you see fit (within certain legal limits), but you don't have the right not to be taxed. This is why taxation is not incompatible with property rights. Modern accounts of the absolute sanctity of property rights are ahistorical enlightenment fictions.

@Wolf Devoon This is some kind of petty power game with you, isn't it?

This is just word games Mr. Ferrer. You can't define a word by something that it is not. If you were paying attention to my argument, you would have noticed that I defined "defense" as: Defense is when you take the necessary steps and precautions to prevent or repel an attack. Whether you use force or not in the course of defending yourself makes no difference. Since the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare is constitutional, then you agree with that too, right? Your analogy doesn't work because there isn't even a small possibility of war between the US and Mexico.

The Russians won't use nukes.

@Ba'al Chatzaf Even if the whole world were to rise up against us today, we would win.

@Darrel So you see no difference between Obama, and say... Lenin?

That's ridiculous. Self-defense is defense, not using force. When you use force, it's called "war". Defense is when you take the necessary steps and precautions to prevent or repel an attack. The seizure of Indian lands was necessary for the defense of the nation. The Indian's refusal to comply with the demands of the US government and their subsequent interference in the attempts of the US to defend itself is necessarily a form of aggression. So there won't ever be any threat? I don't think you understand how itnernational relations work. Just because a country is not at war with you now, doesn't mean they won't ever be. I'm sure you would agree that the costs of any war are extremely high. It follows then that even a relatively small probability of war would be intolerable. It's always better to nip a major future threat in the bud now then it is to have to fight it at its full-strength later. Your analogy is in-apt. In a state of anarchy, like one we have in an international system, you most definitely would have the right to drive your neighbors off their land because there's a chance they might poison your well. The only reason you don't is because you don't have to, since the government will be able to punish your neighbors for poisoning your well at relatively no cost to you.

I think you guys seriously underestimate how far to the left (economically) the rest of the world is in comparison to the US. Obama would be considered pro-business in just about any country you can think of.

This is from their site: Anybody have links to other tests?

@Selene It would be a good idea to get into the habit of checking other's claims yourself instead of relying on other people to do it for you. Just saying.

@Selene It's clear that there's been a simple misunderstanding that you're blowing WAY out of proportion.

Lol! It's not ethnic cleansing it's self-defense. What were we supposed to do, let a foreign power emerge right under our nose? It would have been ten times better for all parties concerned if the Indians had voluntarily ceded their territory to the US government like it was offered. Instead, they chose violent resistance over peace and prosperity.

I'm having a real hard time understanding this approach to consistency. This is the second time. Is consistency in writing not a value to you? I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm curious. Michael @Michael That's simply how the test reports your scores. If you take the test, it says (in big bold letters): Your Political Compass Economic Left/Right: So and so blah blah blah Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: So and so blah blah blah And then it shows a chart showing where you are on the political compass.

@moralist That's actually really close to my scores. Are you a business owner?

In a Mexican restaurant?

Well... I drink quite a bit of alcohol...

Developing the land is now considered plunder?

@Selene I'm actually surprised people here have never heard of it. Here's the link: http://www.politicalcompass.org/index I don't think that's fair. I have principles, and though they might be different from yours, I'd say there's quite a bit of overlap nonetheless.

Supplements shmupplements. Whatever happened to good ol' fashioned eating right and exercise?

@Michael Those are my political compass scores. I don't see how someone with a score of Economic Left/Right: 6.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.36 can be considered a "progressive" unless you also consider Milton Friedman a progressive.

How is derailing peace talks with No. Vietnam in any wise making ware upon the United States or giving aid and comfort to its enemies? Nvm. I recently found out that this was either a hoax or disinformation. Apparently, some guy got confirmation of a Nixon's long-suspected involvement in delaying peace talks between the US and Vietnam. The article said this was treason under the 1797 Logan act, which forbade unauthorized citizens from interfering with negotiations between the US and foreign governments. The problem? There is no 1797 Logan act. There is only a 1799 Logan Act, which makes the aforementioned offense a mere felony punishable by up to 3 years in prison.

@Michael Your political compassEconomic Left/Right: 6.12Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.36 No, I consider myself a centrist.

@Selene The economic shockwaves that would result from the US losing even just 5% are scary enough as it is...