Madison: 'Does 'consent of the governed' imply 'informed consent'?'
Posted on Thursday, May 01 @ 09:49:51 EDT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Madison
Our president deceived us and talked us into invading Iraq by claiming Iraq had so many weapons of mass destruction that our lives and security were in immediate peril.
In his State of the Union address, George W. Bush enumerated Saddam Hussein's inventory of weapons of mass destruction as follows: 30,000 munitions, 500 tons of chemical weapons, 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin. Furthermore, administration officials said they knew where the WMDs were
Bush put visions of "mushroom clouds" into our heads. He claimed we could not wait to secure UN approval before invading Iraq, because of the urgency of the threat to us.
So far, no WMDs have been found and the administration is currently expressing the thought that finding or not finding WMDs is no big deal. Some administration officials say it as just a matter of "emphasis"!
With apologies to our Founding Fathers, I offer: When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to invade the country of another people, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to such invasion.
Is it okay when an American president deceives us to propel us into invading another sovereign nation?
When is lying okay in a democracy? My answer to that would be "Never, if the purpose of the lying is to deceive us into doing something we would not do if we knew the truth."
In past times, doctors used to perform medical experiments on people without ever telling those poor souls what was happening. But, eventually, laws were passed forbidding such willy-nilly experimentation -- no matter how worthy the cause -- unless the doctor first obtained written consent from the subject of the experimentation.
Later, even that proved to be inadequate protection from unethical experimentation on humans, and more laws were passed. The new laws require that doctors (or scientists) must first explain, in laymen's terms, the purposes of the experiments and the possible negative effects to the patients from the experiments. That is the concept of "informed consent." It requires the experimenters to be honest, thorough and forthright about the possible consequences to the patients of the experiments. "Informed consent" also means that doctors cannot experiment on those people who do not have the intellectual capacity to understand what they are consenting to.
In America, our democratic form of government relies on the "consent of the governed." Such consent was so vital to our Founding Fathers that they wrote into paragraph two of the Declaration of Independence: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Must we now amend our Constitution to require a president to Tell Us The Truth when he leads us into a war?
Should the Great Experiment of Democracy require the "informed consent" of its subjects?

...what if the public is actively disinformed? When the government lies about it's policies, and it's reasons for pursuing a given policy it is disinforming the American People.

When "News Organs" actively forward Spin supporting those policies and actions they again forward false information.

A person operating on false information, which they accept as true, is going to draw a false conclusion.

Or in computer programming parlance: Garbage In = Garbage Out or GIGO.

So, False Information in = False Conclusion out.

Giving the benefit of the doubt to some of the alleged Conservatives, I say alleged because I do believe several at least are paid disinfo/PR Shills, but giving them the benefit of the doubt one might ask do they support the positions they espouse because of false information accepted as true?

The same of course could be said for the other side of the argument.

So, THINK FOR YOURSELF. Do not rely on the Media to tell you what you think. They lie, and have been caught lying time and again.

Remember the logical Axiom: If two pieces of information are mutually exclusive the one thing you can immediately know is that One or Both are False.

Here's lookin' at you, kid.

http://www.gallup.com/

From the Gallup Poll FAQ page:

"The typical sample size for a Gallup poll which is designed to represent this general population is 1,000 national adults."

Then they go into a belabored explanation of how "random" they think their sample is.

Most of my friends in California hate Bush, especially those that are being laid off from their jobs. Nobody ever asked them about the president's approval rating.

Enough said.

Most of my friends love Bush. They did get asked either. There. Even.

The lengths you libs go to in order to attempt and dismiss what you don't like. These are the same people who would gladly embrace any poll that agrees with them. Pick & choose. Pick & choose.

Molester:"Most of my friends love Bush."

...that's gotta be one small sample....

"Most of my friends in California hate Bush"

A little over double the size of this one.

"They did get asked either."

The lengths you conservatives will go to in order to prove what morons you are.

...how one of the Trolls jumped right in to create a diversion away from the line established by the header article.

If you can't refute divert.

there is no organized front to divert attention from your precious post. we are not paid pr shills as your conspiracy filled mind tells you. We just want to share our thoughts on a public message boards and some of them are the opposite of yours. Your just creating this little fantasy to justify the amount of time and energy you put in around here. I understand. Because of there was no big bad wolf, no special ops then you would have to confront who you really are. I won't pretend to know who that is.

...or your post is simply more disinfo. Sorry to disabuse you but ideas are powerful things. To people of a certain mindset that people would freely and openly critque and analyze public policy in an open forum is threatening. Knowledge is Power and keeping people ignorant gives them power over them. When you destroy their lies it, to their twisted minds, threatens their power - as they perceive it to be based upon the lies they have told to establish it. And so yes we do have professional disinfo agents, from a variety of sources I am sure, who come here to stamp on any ideas they find inimical their power - particularly when those ideas contain a germ of truth.

I do not flatter myself that what I do here is epoch making. It is however fun. I enjoy a good debate and I despise liars. To the degree that I have provoked even one person into thinking beyond their normal frame of reference I am content. To the degree that I make the disinfo people's jobs a little tougher I am pleased.

"When you destroy their lies it, to their twisted minds, threatens their power - as they perceive it to be based upon the lies they have told to establish it."

So THAT'S why you have such a rabid fear of us conservatives. We threaten your "power" here.

This is an exerpt from the Federalist #10 (the federalist papers)
Friday, November 23, 1787

Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.
However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true.
It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other.
These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.
With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens?
And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine?

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good.

Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole

Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
.....''''''''''''...........'''''''''''''''..............'''''''''''''.............''''''''''''''...............'''''''''''''''''............''''''''''''''''............'''''''''''''''''............

the federalist papers are the modern day interpreter of our constitutional rights.....
read the truth about the foundations of your government.
SySteM*FaiLUrE

Dio continues to flatter himself by thinking he's significant enough to merit the attention of paid shills.

And he's not alone in his hubris. Everyday people come here to stroke their big brains and fat egos. Mental masturbation is definately the most satisfying kind.

No, no paid shills around here Dio. But I'm watching you. I'm monitoring your every move. Don't act surprised either.

It is better to be thought a fool
that to open your mouth and remove all doubt
]]]]]]]]
go back to philosophy 101
and read your assignment again
scrub

Turns' out, HUBRIS
was used correctly.
Failure , of course,
as per usual is wrong.

...hi fresca. How are things over at Mossad?

To Systemfailure: Great quote. Madison was probably my favorite of the Federalist Team. I think he got it right most of the time. He is second, in my mind, only to Jefferson.

For anyone still interested in Individual Liberty - the article at the header is worth a read.

And while you are at it you might consider The Federalist Papers. Taking all 85 at one gulp might seem intimidating but taken at the rate of one a day or a couple per week and you'll be amazed. You might find yourself wishing there were more than 85 when you are done.

As I said, Diogenes isn't the only one around here wallowing in it.

BTW Fresca, you're drive a hard bargain, but my offer still stands. We're at (5) Alan Colmes, (7) Jesse Jackson, and (14) Bill Clintons for YOUR soul. Let me know.

Would you kindly change my diaper? It's awfully full and I'm starting to stink a bit.

To the degree that you feel you have to discredit me it is both amusing and flattering.

However, I can do without the flattery. You are all welcome to go back to under your rock anytime.

As for my continued request to the thinking people please read the article at the head of the thread and think about it.

Sorry, I'm too stupid to comprehend what I read. I'm a conservative.

diogenes
you and dis faker guy seem to
always be on
at the same time
you appear to be
one and the same

diogenes - Like everyone who posts here I do sometimes use others when
it amuses me, or to avoid giving the Trolls an opening for attack. For me it occaisions a wry smile.

to post under a differnt name
is not an option open to you
if i continue to see a pattern
im gonna spam this plce
like theres no tomorrow

Awwwwww, poor little KOBE baby. Do you want your bottle?

The work "hubris"
From Greek philosophy
usually meant
"the root of evil and suffering is usually human arrogance"
this word
typically had its orgins
within Greek culture
to explain that another persons misfortunes
happened when they were insolent
they threatened the "Gods will" and envoked divine intervention.

Hubris does not mean the same thing as "arrogance"

It is probally closer to saying "insolence to divine authority
without fear of reprecussion from God"
there is more to it than that
In stories it was shown that grat misfortune would come to all persons
that set themselves up as equals to the gods.
In greek culture people were punished by the Gods for lack of hubris.
The idiot should have written "arrogance"
but
"hubris" does not really apply to american culture or language at all

thank you for your support
I suggest taking a greek philosophy course.

I think, therefore I Spam.
But I don't leave it on your driveway.