Gyroscopic Investing

jafs wrote: I like a lot of that, but "forget about the bill of rights"??

The idea of fundamental rights that all American citizens have is a bedrock concept of our country.

jafs wrote: The fact that not everybody's happy about the bill of rights isn't a good enough reason to get rid of it, to me.

Libertarian666 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: This thread is fascinating.  It made me again think of the book "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" by Stephen Covey.  In that book there is the concept of "circle of influence" and "circle of concern".  I then reflected on how things have been within my "circle of influence" over most of my adult years.  Not much has changed, regardless of who the President is or which party he represented.

Able to shop where ever I want?  Check
Able to worship where ever I want?  Check
Able to have the friends I want?  Check
Able to live where ever I can afford?  Check
Able to cross state lines without a hassle?  Check
Able to rent a car for a reasonable price?  Check
Able to travel where ever I want relatively cheaply?  Check
Is food available?  Check
Able to invest money however I want?  Check
Were my children, grandchildren able to receive an education?  Check
Were my children, grandchildren able to play sports of their choice?  Check
Able to express my thoughts on a forum such as this?  Check
And the list goes on .....................

My conclusion:  No need to get my knickers all twisted up over the small shit of which bozo is going to be in so called power next.  I'll do my part and vote, but it is going to be decided by a lot of people way outside my circle of influence.  I'm going to stay inside my circle of influence, remain calm, and just buy more ammo.  It's all good. 

... M

Let's go over a few of those again:

Able to have the friends I want?  Check, unless they are "terrorists", in which case Ted Cruz would like to remove your US citizenship
Able to cross state lines without a hassle?  Check, unless you might be carrying contraband like a plant
Able to travel where ever I want relatively cheaply?  Check, unless they take away your passport for "owing money to the IRS"
Able to invest money however I want?  Check, unless it is overseas in which case you are subjected to onerous filing requirements with horrendous penalties attached
Able to express my thoughts on a forum such as this?  Check, although everything we do online is being watched for "suspicious activities"

Mountaineer wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: This thread is fascinating.  It made me again think of the book "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" by Stephen Covey.  In that book there is the concept of "circle of influence" and "circle of concern".  I then reflected on how things have been within my "circle of influence" over most of my adult years.  Not much has changed, regardless of who the President is or which party he represented.

Able to shop where ever I want?  Check
Able to worship where ever I want?  Check
Able to have the friends I want?  Check
Able to live where ever I can afford?  Check
Able to cross state lines without a hassle?  Check
Able to rent a car for a reasonable price?  Check
Able to travel where ever I want relatively cheaply?  Check
Is food available?  Check
Able to invest money however I want?  Check
Were my children, grandchildren able to receive an education?  Check
Were my children, grandchildren able to play sports of their choice?  Check
Able to express my thoughts on a forum such as this?  Check
And the list goes on .....................

My conclusion:  No need to get my knickers all twisted up over the small shit of which bozo is going to be in so called power next.  I'll do my part and vote, but it is going to be decided by a lot of people way outside my circle of influence.  I'm going to stay inside my circle of influence, remain calm, and just buy more ammo.  It's all good. 

... M

Let's go over a few of those again:

Able to have the friends I want?  Check, unless they are "terrorists", in which case Ted Cruz would like to remove your US citizenship
Able to cross state lines without a hassle?  Check, unless you might be carrying contraband like a plant
Able to travel where ever I want relatively cheaply?  Check, unless they take away your passport for "owing money to the IRS"
Able to invest money however I want?  Check, unless it is overseas in which case you are subjected to onerous filing requirements with horrendous penalties attached
Able to express my thoughts on a forum such as this?  Check, although everything we do online is being watched for "suspicious activities"

All you have to do is obey the laws of the land ... which so far have not intruded to any significant extent on my life.  I'm operating on what IS, not what MIGHT BE - for 50+ years of adult life, so, Check and mate for me and my mate!    .........  YMMV.

... M

Pointedstick wrote: Correct, in this society, the bill of rights is an anachronism. Liberals are right--large parts of it simply don't make sense in a modern world with a society so vastly different from the one that created it 225 years ago. Values have changed, dramatically so in some subcultures. For example Blue America wishes the second amendment didn't exist, so they could ban or strictly regulate guns. Well with no bill of rights, they get that instantly. And all the survivalists in Nevada and Texas can have their conceal-carried silenced machine guns without federal gun laws. Everyone wins.

Libertarian666 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: Let's go over a few of those again:

Able to have the friends I want?  Check, unless they are "terrorists", in which case Ted Cruz would like to remove your US citizenship
Able to cross state lines without a hassle?  Check, unless you might be carrying contraband like a plant
Able to travel where ever I want relatively cheaply?  Check, unless they take away your passport for "owing money to the IRS"
Able to invest money however I want?  Check, unless it is overseas in which case you are subjected to onerous filing requirements with horrendous penalties attached
Able to express my thoughts on a forum such as this?  Check, although everything we do online is being watched for "suspicious activities"

All you have to do is obey the laws of the land ... which so far have not intruded to any significant extent on my life.  I'm operating on what IS, not what MIGHT BE - for 50+ years of adult life, so, Check and mate for me and my mate!    .........  YMMV.

... M

Yes, and it is so easy to obey the laws of the land, because they are clear, simple, and few in number!

BTW, what color is the sky in your world?

Mountaineer wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: All you have to do is obey the laws of the land ... which so far have not intruded to any significant extent on my life.  I'm operating on what IS, not what MIGHT BE - for 50+ years of adult life, so, Check and mate for me and my mate!    .........  YMMV.

... M

Yes, and it is so easy to obey the laws of the land, because they are clear, simple, and few in number!

BTW, what color is the sky in your world?

Sometimes blue with a big bright spotlight thingy and puffy little white things, sometimes grey, and sometimes black with funny looking little sparkly lights at night.  Yours? 

But to the substance of your question, I've so far in my life managed to never be arrested, never jailed, and have never been hassled by a cop (but have had two unjust traffic tickets IMO).  That following the law thing seems to work quite well.  The law is good ... it is only bad when one thinks they know better than the one who wrote the law.  Kind of like the religious thing I talk about on another thread. 

... M

Pointedstick wrote:

jafs wrote: The fact that not everybody's happy about the bill of rights isn't a good enough reason to get rid of it, to me.

Well the alternative is to fully respect it. This means some form of gun carry--concealed or open--must be permitted in NYC, among other things. NYC residents don't really seem to want this. Following the bill of rights in this matter means overriding local priorities and opinions and creating a certain amount of social friction as a result.

So that's the alternative. Is that what you prefer?

Libertarian666 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: Yes, and it is so easy to obey the laws of the land, because they are clear, simple, and few in number!

BTW, what color is the sky in your world?

Sometimes blue with a big bright spotlight thingy and puffy little white things, sometimes grey, and sometimes black with funny looking little sparkly lights at night.  Yours? 

But to the substance of your question, I've so far in my life managed to never be arrested, never jailed, and have never been hassled by a cop (but have had two unjust traffic tickets IMO).  That following the law thing seems to work quite well.  The law is good ... it is only bad when one thinks they know better than the one who wrote the law.  Kind of like the religious thing I talk about on another thread. 

... M

You are very fortunate never to have been on the business end of government. It is highly likely that you have violated innumerable laws without knowing it, as it is essentially impossible to go about one's daily life in the USSA today without doing so. The fact that you have not been arrested and jailed for those violations means only that no one in government has made it their business to do so.

Furthermore, it is not even necessary to violate any laws in order to be punished by the government. Many people have had their tax returns audited and been subjected to the modern version of the Inquisition without violating any laws. It is also entirely possible to have your property seized without ever being convicted of or even charged with a crime.

For your sake, I hope that you never find out how right I am about this.

In the meantime, see this book for more details: http://www.amazon.com/Go-Directly-Jail- ... 930865635/

moda0306 wrote: The way I see the importance of the Bill of Rights, as well as the structure of government around it, isn't so much JUST about protecting each and every one of those individual rights for individualism's sake.  That's only part of the reason.  The other part is that government is a fickle institution, and if you give the agents of it certain abilities to become less like a "trustee" and more like an unaccountable dictator, all the good things that government can do start to go to shit, and you're just left with a bunch of people trying to cover up their crimes and silence their political opponents.

Take the 4th amendment.  Yes, as an individual, not being able to be randomly stopped on the street and have my bag searched, or not having a monthly search of my home by local police, contributes to my individual liberty and happiness.  But it's so much more than that.  It actually significantly reduces the government (or agents of government, to be more specific) from being able to do other awful things that allow them to avoid being held accountable in their agency role in government.  AKA, if I'm a thorn in the side of the local police department because I have an ongoing lawsuit against them, they can't plant illegal drugs in my bedroom if they never had the right to search it in the first place.

Basically, we want to be able to know more about what our government (or agents thereof) are doing than THEY know about what WE are doing.  This results in them acting more like trustees of the public interest (think Leslie Knope of Parks & Rec) and less like shady criminals trying to avoid accountability and line their pockets (think House of Cards).  It's not just about my own individualist priorities, but it actually serves a macro-utilitarian function.

I still think the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendment are abundantly important in keeping a healthy relationship between agents of the state and the public.  The 2nd... in 2016... not so much.  That doesn't mean "scrap it" or "it's not important."  But if we got rid of it tomorrow, I don't think it would create a self-reinforcing tyrannical state the same way getting rid of the 1st, 4th or 5th amendment would. 

This is why I find "fascistic tendencies" when it comes to respecting those amendments to be so G-D scary. For all the flaws of "socialism" one could argue, most of it is pretty open to public scrutiny.  The perma-war, surveillance and police states we find ourselves in have far, far more potential for secretive manipulation than, say, the administration of the SS trust fund.  And once an area of government is powerful and outside public scrutiny, it can be really, really hard to bring it back into light.

This is why I find Trump "dangerous" and distasteful.  For every ounce of "getting money out of politics"or "technocratic brilliance" he might be able to bring to our federal government for 4 to 8 years, he could induce a near-permanent dismantling of certain checks and balances that still do exist.  He has no qualms about surveilling, torturing, "bombing-the-shit-out-of" and whistle-blower executing his way to a "safe" country. He thinks ISIS poses some massively unique threat because their cutting folks' heads of, which shows he has almost nil historical perspective.

Oh and to top it all off, he thinks global warming is a hoax... the ONE area we could use a "shoot me in the chest and I'll still deliver my fucking speech," "my way or the highway," "congress won't act so I'll ram this motherfucker through executive actions," populist, chest-thumping, America-loving, every-man supporting, deal-maker in an area of obvious market-failure, and he thinks the problem is a hoax.

jafs wrote:Our country wasn't founded on the idea of 50 separate countries, it was founded on the idea of 50 states joined together in a union, and governed as a nation by the constitution, with a certain amount of freedom/independence on the part of states as well.

jafs wrote: What's your point exactly?

We are the United States - that's a collection of states that are united, as I said.  And, that union of states has a federal government, by design, and a constitution that applies to all American citizens/states.

States aren't "sovereign", if by that you mean they get to decide everything about how they operate.  They're subject to the constitution, and federal law trumps state law if there's a conflict, due to the Supremacy Clause.

Before the Constitution, there were the Articles of Confederation, which are described as our first Constitution, but then relatively soon afterwards, they were replaced with the Constitution, which creates a stronger federal government, as it was found that the weakness of the federal government with the A of C was a big problem.

All of this took place within about the first 10 years of our existence as a nation, and has been settled ever since.

jafs wrote: Well, it's hard to have a discussion with somebody who doesn't have a point.

The exact balance of power between the federal government and the states hasn't been settled since then, of course.  But since then, we've been a nation of states that are united and subject to the constitution, which was my main point.

The Civil War was essentially an attempt by the South to secede from that union.

Pointedstick wrote: The multiculturalism boat has sailed. We decided to be a multicultural society before there even was a United States of America, when the first African slaves were brought to this continent. American multiculturalism continued when the federal government failed to commit complete and total genocide of native americans in the west (they only got only most of the way there) and neither kicked out nor killed the Spanish-descended residents of today's Mexican border states. The legal admission of large numbers of Jews (my heritage) and Asians during the mid 20th century furthered the trend, and the recent explosion of hispanic immigration--legal and illegal--is just another chapter in this extremely American book. There was never going to be a 95%+ northern European white America. It was just never going to happen. If that's the kind of society you want to live in, go somewhere in northern Europe where the leaders haven'd gone completely insane yet. Denmark comes to mind. Maybe Finland, Ireland, or the Netherlands, too.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... trump.html

To understand Trump’s seemingly effortless seizure of the public spotlight, forget about programs, and instead zero in on the one complaint that seems to unite all of the disparate angry factions gravitating to him: political correctness. This, more than anything, is how the left created Trump.
[...]
Today, however, we have a new, more virulent political correctness that terrorizes both liberals and conservatives, old-line Democrats and Republicans, alike. This form of political correctness is distinctly illiberal; indeed, it is not liberalism at all but Maoism circa the Cultural Revolution.

The extremist adherents of this new political correctness have essentially taken a flamethrower to the public space and annihilated its center. Topics in American life that once were the legitimate subjects of debate between liberals and conservative are now off-limits and lead to immediate attack by the cultural establishment if raised at all. Any incorrect position, any expression of the constitutional right to a different opinion, or even just a slip of the tongue can lead to public ostracism and the loss of a job. (Just ask Brendan Eich.) There is a huge vacuum left by this leftist attack on speech, and Trump is filling it.
[...]
These brutish leftist tactics radicalized otherwise more centrist people toward Trump not because they care so much about gay marriage or guns or refugees any other issue, but because they’re terrified that they’re losing the basic right to express themselves. Many of these people are not nearly as conservative or extreme as the white supremacists, nativists, and other assorted fringe nuts who are riding along on Trump’s ego trip. But they are cheering on Trump because they feel they have nowhere else to go. And for that, liberals—especially those who have politely looked away as such methods were employed in the public square—must directly shoulder the blame.

The great mistake made by both liberals and their most extreme wing on the American left is to assume that ordinary people, once corrected forcefully enough, will comply with their new orders. This is, of course, ridiculous: Americans do not magically become complacent and accepting multiculturalists just because they’ve been bullied out of the public debate. They will find a new vessel for their views, and will become more extreme with each attempt to shut them down as the issue moves from particular social positions to the far more encompassing problem of who has the right to tell whom to shut up, and to make it stick. Nixon’s “Silent Majority” increasingly feels itself to be a silenced majority, and Trump is their solution.

MWKXJ wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: The multiculturalism boat has sailed. We decided to be a multicultural society before there even was a United States of America, when the first African slaves were brought to this continent. American multiculturalism continued when the federal government failed to commit complete and total genocide of native americans in the west (they only got only most of the way there) and neither kicked out nor killed the Spanish-descended residents of today's Mexican border states. The legal admission of large numbers of Jews (my heritage) and Asians during the mid 20th century furthered the trend, and the recent explosion of hispanic immigration--legal and illegal--is just another chapter in this extremely American book. There was never going to be a 95%+ northern European white America. It was just never going to happen. If that's the kind of society you want to live in, go somewhere in northern Europe where the leaders haven'd gone completely insane yet. Denmark comes to mind. Maybe Finland, Ireland, or the Netherlands, too.

America was approximately 90% White as recent as the 1960 Federal Census.  I could be mistaken, but I would guess at least a plurality of the posters on this board were alive when this census was taken.  Americans, as an extended family with a shared history, were and are a nationality, with a shared culture and heritage, and saw themselves as such not very long ago.

Regarding the inevitability of America's demographic fracture: Israel serves as a counter-example.  The Zionist movement, while something of a miracle, was actually implemented logically and pragmatically.  Wise policy enabled Jews---who sought to ethnically-dominate a specific region of the world---to displace an existing population, establish, enforce, and even increase national boundaries, and employ their laws and government in the defense of their language and customs.  This happened very recently, and indeed, some of Israel's most impressive gains in territories and prestige coincided with the same aforesaid 1960 Federal Census which marked the high-tide of America's founding stock.  As the success of Israel was not inevitable--quite the opposite actually, it was a magnificent display of willpower and practical idealism--so the dilution and disappearance of America's founding stock is likewise anything but written in stone.  Israel proves that even demographic challenges can be overcome, whether it be by eugenics, genetics, or steel in the ground.

In regards to a neighborhood-by-neighborhood Apartheid solution to diversity:  A more "progressive" solution seems to have been overlooked.  The 20th Century's transportation revolution allowed one to travel across extreme distances very swiftly.  If one wishes to visit Chinatown today, why not jump on a plane and experience Beijing itself?  Likewise, if one desires Haitian cuisine, why not fly to Port-Au-Prince rather than establish Voodoo-enriched microcosm in one's own nation ( while praying the occupants adhere to any semblance of one's civilization ).  Personally, I'd suggest one fry the plantains and make the sandwiches themselves; it's not as if they were that great when I was there.

Xan wrote:

jafs wrote: Well, it's hard to have a discussion with somebody who doesn't have a point.

The exact balance of power between the federal government and the states hasn't been settled since then, of course.  But since then, we've been a nation of states that are united and subject to the constitution, which was my main point.

The Civil War was essentially an attempt by the South to secede from that union.

Well, I would argue that the states have only been "subject" to the Constitution (meaning the whims of whoever held federal power) since the war.  Before that, the states had ultimate authority to either accept or reject the compact.  Now, you're probably right, and the states are simply vassals.