r/PoliticalDebate • u/GShermit Libertarian • 2d ago
Discussion We Rule Ourselves By Using Our Rights
This is a simple but very important principle. If we don't understand it, we can't understand democracy.
To rule is to exercise authority or control. The only way we have authority or control, over our lives is to use our rights. Without our rights we have no agency and legally have to obey the government. Legally using our rights, allows the people to rule themselves and tell government to "kick rocks".
If we don't understand that, authoritarians can limit or minimize the rights we can use. They'll tell us juries can't nullify bad law or we can't demand grand jury investigations or make citizens arrests of ICE agents or participate in Article V conventions... or however you want to legally use your rights to influence the due process of the country. They'll say that's not democracy.
This allows authority (in this case the 1% and politicians) to limit US to just voting rights. They've conditioned US into thinking just voting is democracy AND they've figured ways to manipulate our voting rights.
Exercising and growing our rights is critical to strong democracy
5
u/mormagils Centrist 2d ago
This is nonsense. None of these words in this combination, say anything coherent. If you brought this concept to a poli sci professor, they would look at you blankly and then tell you to get the hell out of their office. It's hard to argue with this because it's using real words not with any accepted definition or understanding.
4
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist 2d ago
New here? This user does this all the time.
3
u/mormagils Centrist 2d ago
GShermit and I go way back. He was banned from the political subs I mostly go to. Now I've run into him again. Still spouting nonsense years later it seems.
1
u/GShermit Libertarian 1d ago
Yes we have been doing this for a while...
https://www.reddit.com/r/centrist/comments/zrrubr/i_want_justice_for_january_6_what_do_you_want/
I wanted an immediate grand jury investigation into Trump's actions concerning J/6 and the elections. You gave all kinds of bogus (and I proved them bogus) why we couldn't do that. Years later we know the DOJ delayed the grand jury investigation for 15 months, allowing Trump to be re-elected. Seems demanding an immediate grand jury investigation was exactly what we needed to prove "public interest".
2
u/mormagils Centrist 1d ago edited 1d ago
Lol I'm so glad you linked the post where you fixated on nonsense and everyone told you it was nonsense and then you just kept repeating yourself over and over saying you "proved" you were right despite everyone else telling you that you had absolutely no idea what you were talking about.
Are you really that clueless that even 4 years later you still think you were the one that was right in that conversation?
Maybe my favorite comment on that thread (which I didn't write):
"Everyone here is saying you're wrong. They're giving reasons why you're wrong. And yet you keep spewing nonsense about grand juries. At this point you are either doing an Andy Kaufman-esque troll where you pretend to be an annoying character or you are dumber than a sack of hammers. Kudos if it's the former I guess"
1
u/GShermit Libertarian 1d ago
All your opinion means nothing. Especially now that time has proved, the DOJ needed more "public interest" to motivate them.
That's the great thing about time, sooner or later, the truth does catch the lie...
1
u/mormagils Centrist 1d ago
I certainly hope so because you just seem to double down on nonsense no matter how many people explain to you that you are wrong.
1
u/GShermit Libertarian 1d ago
Again explanations are not proof...gotta go.
1
u/mormagils Centrist 1d ago
If you refuse to read the books that prove you wrong then won't listen to the explanations about the proof you won't read then I guess yeah you'll never find any proof you're wrong. And if you want to call that a win then honestly it's no less coherent than anything else you've saying.
1
u/GShermit Libertarian 1d ago
If someone can't prove me wrong using facts and/or logic, why should I think they're correct?
You've admitted you've only used opinion and ridicule, that's a good reason not to accept your explanations.
→ More replies (0)1
u/GShermit Libertarian 1d ago
How many posts a month constitute "all the time"?
Perhaps you're just extra annoyed at my posts?
0
u/GShermit Libertarian 2d ago
What words did I use that didn't have an accepted definition? I've used the definitions from basic reference books.
Democracy is for the people to decide based on their participation. OUR democracy is not for political sci professors to decide.
2
u/NoamLigotti Agnostic but Libertarian-Left leaning 1d ago
I'm don't know about accepted definitions, but it is incoherent. No matter what the technical law is or should be doesn't matter if the state doesn't allow it. Otherwise please go make a citizen's arrest of our fascist president. But don't because it wouldn't turn out well for you.
2
u/GShermit Libertarian 1d ago
"Otherwise please go make a citizen's arrest of our fascist president."
I don't think that'd work BUT one could have arrested the ICE agents who killed Alex Pretti. People saw them, in person, commit a felony. To be fair it wouldn't be simple and we we'd need to develop a system...but we can't even do that, if people are disenfranchised and told it's not part of our democracy.
0
u/NoamLigotti Agnostic but Libertarian-Left leaning 1d ago
And then they'd face the same outcome.
This isn't an argument to do nothing, but just talking about imaginary rights isn't going to do anything practical, precisely because they're imaginary.
2
u/GShermit Libertarian 1d ago
So you're saying citizens of Minnesota don't have a right to use citizens arrest?
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/629.37
People here will accuse me nonsense but I can back up my BS. Let's see if anyone else here uses facts...or just resort to opinion and ridicule.
Do people just assume rights are imaginary when they're afraid of them?
0
u/NoamLigotti Agnostic but Libertarian-Left leaning 1d ago
If the law allows it, then it's not imaginary. If it doesn't, then it is. That's all there is to it.
Imaginary wishful rights aren't legal rights. We should absolutely use our legal rights, and we should absolutely work to try to make legal rights we don't have but should have to be in place.
But I think nearly everyone would agree with that and doesn't need to be convinced anyway. It seems like you're saying more than this though and appealing to some imaginary metaphysical "rights" beyond legal rights.1
u/GShermit Libertarian 1d ago
I said legally using rights in my post. I've never advocated for anything illegal.
I have talked about "pushing the envelope" of our rights, that establishes limits.
I proved the right of citizens arrest (at least in Minnesota)...it's not imaginary but if we don't use it it becomes mythical.
•
u/NoamLigotti Agnostic but Libertarian-Left leaning 7h ago
Ok but isn't that a bit of a trivial truism then?
We should use our rights? Sure. I'm not sure anyone disagrees.
0
u/mormagils Centrist 2d ago
> Democracy is for the people to decide based on their participation. OUR democracy is not for political sci professors to decide.
This is a good example of nonsense. That's not an accepted definition of democracy. Turning this into a conflict between voters and political scientists is weird and obviously not what I meant. The way you use "rule ourselves" makes no sense.
And of course as we've discussed previously years ago, the way you use "affect due process" is utter nonsense.
3
u/GShermit Libertarian 1d ago
You've had years to prove my ranting "utter nonsense" but all you've used is opinion and ridicule... I'm too old to fear that. That's usually a sign someone can't prove their point.
I'll admit my terms and language are simple. Doesn't voting affect the due process of the country. You can't comprehend people, using other rights to affect due process?
1
u/mormagils Centrist 1d ago
You calling the prevailing academic consensus "opinion" is absurd. I've used ridicule because you don't listen to the academic consensus and you ask for sources then don't read them. This is how we left off last time until you were banned and disappeared.
3
u/GShermit Libertarian 1d ago
I don't listen to your opinion of of "academic consensus", because you don't back it up.
I don't think you've ever linked anything...you did tell me to read the Federalist paper but would be precise on where to look...
Let's not tell the people how administrators were banned for bad behavior at that sub...
2
u/mormagils Centrist 1d ago
Dude, last time I sent you a whole bunch of sources that you ignored or dismissed. I just didn't specifically give you a hyperlink to everything. I told you to start at the beginning with the Federalist Papers and even highlighted a few specific ones that are standouts.
If you want to take shortcuts and read the absolute minimum possible then no wonder you have no idea what you're talking about.
2
u/GShermit Libertarian 1d ago
"... I sent you a whole bunch of sources that you ignored or dismissed. I just didn't specifically give you a hyperlink to everything."
It been my experience, that if one won't be specific and just says "read all this"... they're full of of it.
I can't know everything but I can understand the basics of many things and study the specifics for the knowledge I need. That requires thinking not just rote knowledge...
1
u/mormagils Centrist 1d ago
You can understand the basics...if you goddamn read quality sources, which you refuse to do just because I said "the whole source is good" and didn't cherry pick out specific parts for you like a parent preparing food for their child.
Eat the whole damn sandwich, man. You brag about your thinking and dismiss "rote knowledge" but actually you aren't thinking and have no knowledge. Saying "this whole book is a great source you should check out" is a very reasonable thing to say and you taking offense to that is absurd.
1
u/GShermit Libertarian 1d ago
"Saying "this whole book is a great source you should check out" is a very reasonable thing to say...."
Sure but it doesn't answer specific questions or win the debate.
Now I've got to go to town to get parts, to fix my homemade backhoe. That gives you a Iot of time to prove why the people demanding, a immediate grand jury investigation, into an ex-president, suspected of infamous crimes isn't democracy.
PS. Explanations are not proof.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/Weak_Swordfish_9610 Anarcho-Communist 2d ago
The only way we have authority or control, over our lives is to use our rights
Authority and control historically existed before states existed and therefore before rights existed.
Since rights presuppose a state, and that state necessarily rules over you, you do not rule yourself by using your rights.
0
u/GShermit Libertarian 2d ago
Someone has to define and defend our rights. Authority is the only entity that can do that. That's why our rights have power, authority has to defend them.
1
u/anewleaf1234 Progressive 2d ago
Using your rights doesn't allow you to rule yourself.
You can use your voting rights to restrict the rights of others.
What think millions of people did when they voted against gay marriage.
1
u/GShermit Libertarian 2d ago
"Using your rights doesn't allow you to rule yourself."
How do you think, we rule ourselves then?
1
u/Weak_Swordfish_9610 Anarcho-Communist 1d ago
By doing exactly that. Not by having a state allow you to do x, but by doing x regardless.
1
u/GShermit Libertarian 1d ago
Who defines and defends your rights?
"...by doing x regardless."
So other people's rights don't matter?
1
u/ViskerRatio Centrist 2d ago
You seem to be imagining a "we" that marches in lockstep with your personal ideology. Government is a representative of collective will - which means that much of the time it will do things you don't like.
0
u/GShermit Libertarian 1d ago
"we" is important but what I'm talking about is individual rights (any right) trying to influence the due process of the country. If it gains approval and more people do it, it'll become more powerful.
1
u/roylennigan Social Democrat 1d ago
trying to influence the due process of the country
What do you think "due process" here means?
1
u/GShermit Libertarian 1d ago
": a course of formal proceedings (such as legal proceedings) carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules and principles"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/due%20process
You find, the definitions for the words I use, in Merriam Webster...Which is why, when people complain my words are incomprehensible, I suspect them of "bad faith"
1
u/roylennigan Social Democrat 1d ago
How do individual rights try to influence due process? What do you mean by that?
1
u/GShermit Libertarian 1d ago
Voting influences due process. Free speech can influence due process. Juror's rights can influence due process. Citizen's arrest rights can influence due process.
•
u/roylennigan Social Democrat 22h ago
I feel like I might understand what you're getting at, you're just explaining it in an extremely vague way. It's like saying that eggs influence my gas bill. I could imagine a way that might make sense, but I've got to make a lot of assumptions about your statement to do that.
•
u/GShermit Libertarian 11h ago
The principle that our rights allow US to rule ourselves is not vague. It's very simple and logical, our rights are the only way we can legally exert authority and control over ourselves.
How I use that principle can be vague because there are SO many ways, people could imagine legally using their rights (any right they want) to influence the due process of the country AND I don't want to limit democracy.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.
To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:
Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"
Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"
Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"
Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"
Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"
Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.