------------------
Step 1: Become a senior member,
Step 2: ?,
Step 3: Global Domination.

BTW, we already know its fallacious to assume that the cell as we know it is the least complex bit of life. Virii, mitochondria and self-replicating DNA are simpler. They are also hard to preserve, hence the paucity of microscopic fossils. I put it to you, though, that some cells are MUCH simpler than others (red blood cells, for example) and so a progress can be inferred.
Amino acids (known to exist primordially)
Proteins (believed to have)
Simple RNA / DNA
Complex RNA / DNA
Very simple cells
Viruses
Simple cells (red blood)
Mitochondria
Complex Cells
Microscopic life with specialization.

The ONLY example we don't have concrete evidince for (YET)is very simple cells.

But I digress...

Sol: Please point out some examples of small governments providing more freedom historically.

Omega: Early US, maybe? Basically, the idea is that big governments that control everything are invariably opressive. Thus smaller government.

ME: And the early US government FAILED MISERABLY. That's why it only lasted ten years. Each state under the Articles of Confederation acted selfishly, with no regard for the needs of the republic as a whole. They taxed each other to death, squabbled amongst themselves nearly to the point of armed conflict. And then there was Shay's Rebellion. The pre-constitutional government was stable for about 6 years, then things went rapidly downhill.

Regulation or chaos? You choose.

The "State's Rights" concept of government doesn't work. It never has. It didn't work for a small country of thirteen states, and it SURELY won't work on a huge country of fifty. Basically, it's taking power out of the hands on one regulatory machine, and giving it to a bunch of smaller ones even less equipped to handle it, and all working at cross-purposes. Kind of like the difference between a Indy race and a demolition derby.

Besides, I just posted a couple quotes on how the founding fathers made it clear that religion should be kept out of state institutions as well, so the strength of your argument from that angle evaporated before you made it.

------------------
'In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to Liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ---- Thomas Jefferson

------------------
"I see you have the ring. And that your Schwartz is as big as mine!
-Dark Helmet, Spaceballs

Well what I believe Omega was speaking about in Small government refered to the pre-New Deal government before the Federal Government had so much power in the affairs of States (which under the current system is clearly unconstitutional, but the money given to States makes them not contest it, Can you say "Bribe").

Actually I don't know anymore I do want less government spending, but I don't want people to get hurt. Perhaps a reasonable compromise is if we can pay off some money on the principle on the national debt I would not care where the money when.

Virii need a host, mitochondria can't live outside a cell, and self-replicating DNA has the same problems as a cell with but one chromosome would (see previous posts). And if protiens are so simple, why can't we create them in a lab? We can create a few types of amino acids (out of dozens that exist), so why not protiens? And how DO you know that amino acids existed primordially, anyway?

"And the early US government FAILED MISERABLY."

Check my reply to HMS.

"Besides, I just posted a couple quotes on how the founding fathers made it clear that religion should be kept out of state institutions as well, so the strength of your argument from that angle evaporated before you made it."

I'm not saying that a state SHOULD declare Shinto or whatever as their official religion. I'm just saying that if they did, the US government couldn't constitutionally do anything about it. Religion should have nothing to do with the state government, either. I agree with that. My problem is that the US government is sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

Warped:

Again, see HMS reply.

HMS:

You got it, HMS. Before New Deal, not before constitution. And if the states get back their power, the debt WILL be paid off. If the government could stop spending so much money, they could drop taxes dramatically and STILL start paying off the debt.

Ya know, the debating I've done lately is Calvin's/Wesley's theology. I kinda like it that way and I have a mid-term in the morning! I'll say this: ANY religious belief will come from the "heart" not the mind.

I am carrying a 3.3 gpa or so right now, but my spiritual life is heading for the provost's list.

*got a 98 on his Torah test*

------------------
With 17 hours of class, guess what I'm doing.

"It was sweet, like lead paint is sweet."

As for the rest, I'll get to it later.

just kidding about Shatner

------------------
"One Tequila, Two Tequila, Three Tequila, Floor". George Carlin

You know, HMS kinda has a point there. No-one's convincing anyone here, despite well laid out arguments on certain peoples parts. so let's call it a day.

But...

There's nothing more infuriating than when someone refuses to agree with your viewpoint. It doesn't matter how much evidence you show them for it. It doesn't matter how much you can disprove their theories. They stubbornly refuse to believe it. And you keep arguning with them.

BTW, dirty pool you used a few posts back Omega. Using emotional stuff that isn't directly related to the argument isn't really gonna get Sol to agree with you now is it?

------------------
Cordellia: "Well, does looking at guns make you wanna have sex?"
Xander: "I'm seventeen. Looking at linoleum makes me wanna have sex."

Though I will admit that big government isn't the best thing to ever come along, it has shown that it can be better than small government can. Before the New Deal, the government was small, and had little control over many things. That is true.

It is also true that before the New Deal, many territories were part of the "Wild West". And that "Wild West" (no reference to the movie ) was unlawful, and had no order. It took the involvement of the federal and state government to take gain control over the wild territories.

Before the New Deal was enacted, the US was in the middle of a deep depression. FDR's New Deal may have expanded the government, but it also ended the depression in less than 8 years. It provided jobs, and improved the country at the same time. That's what the New Deal, and increasing government involvement was all about. Though I will concede that somewhere along the way, someone misplaced those thoughtful ideals, in place of lining their pockets.

------------------
"I see you have the ring. And that your Schwartz is as big as mine!
-Dark Helmet, Spaceballs

My point is, the Constitution is not meant to be a document permenently embedded in the Revolutionary era. I think it should be a constantly evolving guideline. And yet, ironically enough, I am completely opposed to almost every amendment idea to come down the pipe. Hence, your suggestion that we should amend the Constitution everytime we want to build a highway strikes me as being silly at best, and quite dangerous at worst.

Firstly: "Before the New Deal, the government was small, and had little control over many things. That is true." isn't exactly true. With every major military conflict that the United States engaged in, the government grew. The major growth of the U.S. government came with the Civil War. The New Deal era represents the culmination of events that began with the necessity of saving the Union or loosing the American experiment in democracy forever.

Moreover, the regulatory powers of the government began in earnest in the 1890's. As the people of the U.S. learned that the unchecked growth of corporate robber barrons constituted a serious threat to the health and saftey of the people who worked for them.

Which leads to a point that a strict literal interpretation of the Constitution is bollocks, and remains the fantasy of the right-wing. The beauty of the Constitution is that is has survived for so long because the framers left leeway in the document that allows it to grow and to come to terms with modernity.

The framers were wise enough to understand that the future would bring events that people like an Adams or a Jefferson could never invision in their strangest dreams. Take the creation of the atomic bomb for example. Does the 2nd Amendment cover in terms of specific languange that I, as a memeber of a "well regulated militia" can have one in my basement? Hmm, not covered. I'll put one on my shopping list.

In a very real way, in the federal system of the United States, there exists the primacy of the Federal Government over the individual states to insure that the body lives inspite of the resistance of the foot.

The Preamble reads "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States of America." The healthy polity of the United States rests on the balance of vague phrases and specific language of the Constitution...and the living, expanding intrepretation thereof.

------------------
What good is money if it can't inspire terror in your fellow man?
~C. Mongomery Burns

"Before the New Deal was enacted, the US was in the middle of a deep depression. FDR's New Deal may have
expanded the government, but it also ended the depression in less than 8 years. It provided jobs, and
improved the country at the same time. That's what the New Deal, and increasing government involvement was
all about. Though I will concede that somewhere along the way, someone misplaced those thoughtful ideals, in
place of lining their pockets."

I think you've just found our problem. The government has to have limited economic control, in order to prevent depressions and such. I think that this is what was meant by Article I, Section VIII: "The Congress shall have the Power To... provide for the... general Welfare of the United States". My belief is that this was intended to give the Congress leeway in case they have to do something before they can pass an ammendment. It's a short-term measure only. The entire problem is that this one sentance gives completely boundless power to the national government. Congress can do whatever they want, if it promotes the general welfare. I believe that one delegate refused to sign the Constitution because of this clause. The Constitution has only one vague point, and this is it. What's to prevent Congress from blowing up New York and justifying it by saying that it was for the general welfare of the US? That clause should never have been included in the constitution. The New Deal was a good idea, but it's gone way too far.

Sol:

"Do you seriously believe that it was the intent of the Founding Fathers to make sure that space travel would always remain an impossibility?"

What the founding fathers intended is irrelevant. It's what they SAID when they wrote the constitution that matters. The text of the constitution is all that matters, and we have to go by it, not their intentions.

"The Constitution is not meant to act as a hinderance to freedom."

You're right. It's a guarentee of freedom. That's why the national government can't go beyond it.

"My point is, the Constitution is not meant to be a document permenently embedded in the Revolutionary era. I think it should be a constantly evolving guideline."

That's what ammendments are for. I don't think that we need an ammendment for every interstate. Just one that covers transportation in general. The constitution is strict and literal, and there's very little room for interpretation. Can you come up with a clause somewhere that can in any way be interpreted to mean that you can have a space program?

Jay:

"...I thought it was going to come down to 'my religious dogma can beat up your scientific research any day.'"

*decides not to dignify this with a response*

"Which leads to a point that a strict literal interpretation of the Constitution is bollocks, and remains the fantasy of the right-wing."

And why is that? I think an ammendment could easily be passed allowing the government limited economical regulatory powers, for instance. If the people knew that, without this ammendment, monopolies could control everything, then I can guarentee that they'd vote it in. With an ammendment, you wouldn't need to rely on some vague interpretation of something that isn't even there. The government would have clearly defined and contained powers, which is the way democracy is supposed to work. Anyone can place anyone else in check. One man can take a case to the supreme court and change hundreds of laws. All vagueness does is lead to a government being able to take more and more power, which of course they will. That leads to socialism. We all know what happens then.

"Take the creation of the atomic bomb for example.
Does the 2nd Amendment cover in terms of specific languange that I, as a memeber of a "well regulated militia" can have one in my basement? Hmm, not covered. I'll put one on my shopping list."

That's a good point. It does say "well-regulated", though. I'm sure there are laws stating who gets inspected and when, and what they can have. Besides, a nuclear weapon is going to damage public and private property, no matter where it's detonated in the country. If, however, you just had one in your basement as in your example, they could probably justify constant inspection, having a guard contingent on duty at all times, even dismanteling the thing to see if there are any possible ways to detonate it by remote, then putting it back together. They could not constitutionally prevent you from having one, though.

"The healthy polity of the United States rests on the balance of vague phrases and specific language of the Constitution...and the living, expanding intrepretation thereof."

There's only one vague phrase that gives the government any power in the constitution, and it's the "general welfare" clause that's already been discussed. All the others are quite specific.

Coddman:

Should I ask?