Common Sense 320 - Steering the ship into the Ice Berg

[Xenophon]

Weren't you just saying 'Zlaxer for Chief Justice' in t'other thread after your boy said something to the effect of 'fuck the constitution, it's worthless?'

I am pretty sure we all flirt with the dangerous but comforting idea that we can somehow keep the very stupid and misguided from voting - few of us really follow through. A little venting on a message board or a podcast is forgivable.

I certainly don't believe you've abandoned constitutionalism.

C-Mag is smart enough to understand that if you're the only one clinging to the Constitution, and your enemies aren't, you're handicapping yourself. You can't have Constitutionalism unless everyone agrees to abide by the US Constitution.

Yet that handicap preserves the entire purpose of your fight. Once you abandon it, there’s nothin left to actually fight for.

It's a fatal handicap. You can't win Monopoly if someone is constantly taking money out of the bank to replenish their supply. If only one side plays by the rules, and no one is enforcing the rules, the person following the rules loses. Period.

[Xenophon]

Weren't you just saying 'Zlaxer for Chief Justice' in t'other thread after your boy said something to the effect of 'fuck the constitution, it's worthless?'

I am pretty sure we all flirt with the dangerous but comforting idea that we can somehow keep the very stupid and misguided from voting - few of us really follow through. A little venting on a message board or a podcast is forgivable.

I certainly don't believe you've abandoned constitutionalism.

C-Mag is smart enough to understand that if you're the only one clinging to the Constitution, and your enemies aren't, you're handicapping yourself. You can't have Constitutionalism unless everyone agrees to abide by the US Constitution.

I'm not smart enough to think my principles are only important or valuable if they are shared by my enemies.

Constitutionalism is required to be held by both sides in order for the system to work as designed. If one side refuses to let Constitutionalism stop their goals, that side wins if no one is enforcing the rules.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

C-Mag is smart enough to understand that if you're the only one clinging to the Constitution, and your enemies aren't, you're handicapping yourself. You can't have Constitutionalism unless everyone agrees to abide by the US Constitution.

I'm not smart enough to think my principles are only important or valuable if they are shared by my enemies.

Constitutionalism is required to be held by both sides in order for the system to work as designed. If one side refuses to let Constitutionalism stop their goals, that side wins if no one is enforcing the rules.

Fortunately for all of us, recent experiments with not enforcing the rules have been abject failures. It isn't quite the Thunderdome yet, but I am sure we can get it there pretty damn quick if we decide to abandon constitutionalism ourselves at every little hiccup or barrier with the facile justification that "they started it."

[Xenophon]

I'm not smart enough to think my principles are only important or valuable if they are shared by my enemies.

Constitutionalism is required to be held by both sides in order for the system to work as designed. If one side refuses to let Constitutionalism stop their goals, that side wins if no one is enforcing the rules.

Fortunately for all of us, recent experiments with not enforcing the rules have been abject failures. It isn't quite the Thunderdome yet, but I am sure we can get it there pretty damn quick if we decide to abandon constitutionalism ourselves at every little hiccup or barrier with the facile justification that "they started it."

The Constitution has been chipped away at since it's inception. The Left gets away with literal rioting in the streets and activist Governors and Judges run cover for them. I don't know man, I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Constitutionalism is required to be held by both sides in order for the system to work as designed. If one side refuses to let Constitutionalism stop their goals, that side wins if no one is enforcing the rules.

Fortunately for all of us, recent experiments with not enforcing the rules have been abject failures. It isn't quite the Thunderdome yet, but I am sure we can get it there pretty damn quick if we decide to abandon constitutionalism ourselves at every little hiccup or barrier with the facile justification that "they started it."

The Constitution has been chipped away at since it's inception. The Left gets away with literal rioting in the streets and activist Governors and Judges run cover for them. I don't know man, I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

The Constitution has been most thorougly gutted by GOP administrations. Bush, meet Patriot Act.

[Xenophon]

Fortunately for all of us, recent experiments with not enforcing the rules have been abject failures. It isn't quite the Thunderdome yet, but I am sure we can get it there pretty damn quick if we decide to abandon constitutionalism ourselves at every little hiccup or barrier with the facile justification that "they started it."

The Constitution has been chipped away at since it's inception. The Left gets away with literal rioting in the streets and activist Governors and Judges run cover for them. I don't know man, I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

The Constitution has been most thorougly gutted by GOP administrations. Bush, meet Patriot Act.

I am not a GOP shill. Bush Jr. was one of the worst presidents since Lincoln.

[SuburbanFarmer]

C-Mag is smart enough to understand that if you're the only one clinging to the Constitution, and your enemies aren't, you're handicapping yourself. You can't have Constitutionalism unless everyone agrees to abide by the US Constitution.

Yet that handicap preserves the entire purpose of your fight. Once you abandon it, there’s nothin left to actually fight for.

It's a fatal handicap. You can't win Monopoly if someone is constantly taking money out of the bank to replenish their supply. If only one side plays by the rules, and no one is enforcing the rules, the person following the rules loses. Period.

I can't argue with your complete and thorough analysis of the strategic situation. Surely, you've calculated every possibility, and eliminated all possibility of victory, while maintaining the Constitution.

However, if that's the case.... If the Constitution cannot prevail against simple unrest and social movements, then what's it worth?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Constitutionalism is required to be held by both sides in order for the system to work as designed. If one side refuses to let Constitutionalism stop their goals, that side wins if no one is enforcing the rules.

Fortunately for all of us, recent experiments with not enforcing the rules have been abject failures. It isn't quite the Thunderdome yet, but I am sure we can get it there pretty damn quick if we decide to abandon constitutionalism ourselves at every little hiccup or barrier with the facile justification that "they started it."

The Constitution has been chipped away at since it's inception. The Left gets away with literal rioting in the streets and activist Governors and Judges run cover for them. I don't know man, I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

I'll say this about the Left getting away with rioting: for the last 3 or 4 months, BLM and Antifa have been struggling to show how oppressed they are, but Portland's soft touch has completely deprived them of oxygen. The entire country is looking at these unhinged domestic terrorists and thinking, "what the fuck are you talking about? Oppressed my ass."

This is why American pluralism is resilient. We get to observe each other's failures and successes and adapt. When authorities cracked down on protesters in the 60s, the optics were so terrible that what followed was decades of uncritical acceptance of progressive bullshit.

So far, we seem to be avoiding that trap by allowing protesters to overplay their mostly peaceful hand.

[Xenophon]

Yet that handicap preserves the entire purpose of your fight. Once you abandon it, there’s nothin left to actually fight for.

It's a fatal handicap. You can't win Monopoly if someone is constantly taking money out of the bank to replenish their supply. If only one side plays by the rules, and no one is enforcing the rules, the person following the rules loses. Period.

I can't argue with your complete and thorough analysis of the strategic situation. Surely, you've calculated every possibility, and eliminated all possibility of victory, while maintaining the Constitution.

However, if that's the case.... If the Constitution cannot prevail against simple unrest and social movements, then what's it worth?

It's not just simple unrest and social movements. Our very government has been undermining it, as you have said before. All of it together is what destroys Constitutionalism.

[SuburbanFarmer]

It's a fatal handicap. You can't win Monopoly if someone is constantly taking money out of the bank to replenish their supply. If only one side plays by the rules, and no one is enforcing the rules, the person following the rules loses. Period.

I can't argue with your complete and thorough analysis of the strategic situation. Surely, you've calculated every possibility, and eliminated all possibility of victory, while maintaining the Constitution.

However, if that's the case.... If the Constitution cannot prevail against simple unrest and social movements, then what's it worth?

It's not just simple unrest and social movements. Our very government has been undermining it, as you have said before. All of it together is what destroys Constitutionalism.

Indeed. It wasn't entirely a rhetorical question.

Without the Constitution, what exactly is there to fight for?
What are you 'defending', when your own government has destroyed your ideals?

Defend the home. Fuck the rest.