You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Tron and Steemit Join Forces
"witnesses and that entire structure itself is merely ignored with changes being implemented"
Witnesses should have no say whatsoever in what rules are implemented. When they do, they do so only for their own personal advantage, and not at all for the community at large. Is it fair that scumballs like @themarkymark can earn over $135,000 while downvoting and cheating lower-reputation members out of all their rewards so that their reputations are ruined and they get nothing at all? I think not! I call that fraud, but what else can you expect from such a lousy scumbag?
Star World, do you prefer a democracy or a republic? My question is in reference to what you wrote: "Witnesses should have no say whatsoever in what rules are implemented." My second question is, do you like free markets? It is true that Steem has problems. One of them might be relating to witnesses. Another issue is the downvoting which can be problematic. Now, all of this can be pretty complex. I encourage Steemit, I mean Tron, to mirror free markets and a republic type system as opposed to the potential of mob-ruling democracy, etc.
"Star World, do you prefer a democracy or a republic?"
A combination of both! While I am certainly pro-democracy, there are instances where there must be a certain degree of control over those who are abnormal in some way and lack the ability to reason the difference between right and wrong.
Would you want to allow a mad man to buy a gun without question, knowing that he planned to use it for no good? Would you want your kids to fall victim to your corner drug pusher, or to some pervert, or perhaps even worse? Would you like to fall victim to a major scam or have your bank account cleaned our with no recourse to get your money back? Would you like to drive your car on a road where insurance was not mandatory, and there were no laws to protect the innocent from the villains? If you are normal, you would not be in favor of any of those scenarios.
Indeed! Without such control, clearly society as a whole would decent into total chaos. Power is not something that you are given, but rather it is something that you take if given the opportunity to do so. When there is no one to stop a power hungry person, they will more than likely turn corrupt and try to destroy the rest of society. History is filled with such people.
Are you against the second amendment? Who do you want to help keep your family safe, federal government or you? I prefer local communities over the tyranny and authoritarianism of global government. Do you want government to grow and grow, bigger and bigger? History shows patterns of how people try to take more an more power. But they generally try to do so by pretending to help keep us safe.
"Are you against the second amendment?"
No, I am not totally against the second amendment! What I am against however is the fact that there have been no changes to it since its original drafting, to actually define the term "arms".
When the second amendment was first drafted, firearms were no more than single shot pistols and rifles which had to be reloaded after every shot. That fact alone would have made mass shootings as we see so widely today, totally impossible.
The second amendment should be changed. Otherwise one day (perhaps not far off), some mad man is going to come up with a micro-nuclear firearm, and claim that under the constitution, it is his "right" to carry it. Really? If you truly want your family and kids to be safe, you will do all you can to make sure that day never happens. Changing the constitution now would be a great first step.
In the 1700's, didn't people own canons?
Perhaps so, but they sure did not carry those canons around with them, nor did they qualify as concealed weapons.
Did they even have concealed weapons or was that never a real thing?
Did they even have
Concealed weapons or was that
Never a real thing?
- joeyarnoldvn
I'm a bot. I detect haiku.
Of course not! That's the whole point! When the second amendment was originally drafted, none of today's deadly weapons were available, or even comprehended. And that same argument can be used to justify changing many aspects of the constitution, not just the second amendment, and the right to bear arms. In short, the constitution is seriously outdated and should be rewritten so as to be more in line with society of today, not the one which existed in 1787. You cannot step into the future if you leave one foot firmly planted in the past.