The Democratic Party has not ratified the actions of its chairman, with respect to the situation involving John, aside from the less than unanimous decision to pursue a cease and decist action on John for his blog name and presumably his postings. What is more, you and I both know, that elected committees, Congress, etc., have made wrong and illegal decisions before that run counter to what the state rule of law basis behind their authority and specific constructs of the governance would otherwise permit. I was one of the many that not only stood up to defend John at that meeting, but to further vote against taking such action to make him cease and decist his blog actions. It is also part and parcel of why I resigned from the committee. I will not keep personal company with such ignorance, when most of those who voted to take action against John took the word of those who were there to basically gang-up on him, and had never seen his blog. I don’t see how any reasonable, committee person could have voted against John that day and having not at least seen the blog or checked into the validity of the stories and claims that were made about him, again by someone who was not above reproach for even more egregious past actions that again were in clear written violation of state and county party by-laws.

Responsibilities are implied, to some level, yes, but not all responsibilities rise to the level of or enjoy the obligation of being legally proscribed and obligated. The complaint I would have, if there would be one, in the case you described of the “simply spelled out in authority and ratified by the committeepeople”, could be based on the legality of the move, in relation to other known or legally defined rights, responsibilities, freedoms, and limitations that would be violated as a result of the implementation of their otherwise properly drawn up ruling. By your claim, if I were sitting on some policy board at say a college or university, for example, and I was involved in passing an academic policy that its effect would be to clearly violate specific legal statutes or constitutional provisions for the state in which that college was located or federally, then those who that policy would effect certainly would have legal basis to challenge that policy in court, which I do believe is what John is doing or is about to do. As I do not know if or when he will or has filed his suit and that is his business.

Actually, responsibilities do not chip away at the ability of the person to enjoy their individual liberty, largely unhindered by government. They do help one understand either legally or by implied or understood means, what the gravity or implications are or would be should that person exercise a certain behavior or behaviors. While the firmly defined legally ordained responsibilities and prohibitions to certain actions spell out clear consequences, their existence alone does not mean that people are not at liberty to do those things, as otherwise we’d have no criminals, no miscreants, no civil liabilities to worry about being infringed or acts committed.

What is more, those responsibilities that are not legally ordained or prohibited, which there are plenty, are strictly within the purview of the individual to either deal with or avoid.

Positivism is dealing with the philosophy of knowledge by experience, derived from some elements of empiricism. Therefore your claim that I have no basis to say that one delineation is better than another is utterly flawed. My basis is this “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law, there is no law beyond do what thou wilt.” “Love is the Law, Law under Will.” (A.C.) If it is a statute or regulation that does not honor that to the most reasonable extent possible, then it is wrong and ends up oppressing or repressing the ability of some, many, or all people to do their Will, to reach their full potential. There are good laws to help this and there are a myriad of misguided laws that help to preclude or make this difficult, more than it should. It is not anarchism, sir.

Governing is to see that the populace for which the governing body has been established maintains the conditions and societal structure in which what I have laid out above can be best secured or supported and allowed to flourish. To a certain extent that is not always universally applicable, the governing body does at times need to define proscribed responsibilities, as the formation of the “social contract” would deem either as needed or as a lynchpin to ensure the liberty and good order of the community or populace in question.

You define a legalistic view of governance that would be driven to codify utterly every facet of something and therefore crush itself and those subject to such tightly constructed legal edicts, under the weight of an inflexible bulwark of logical conditions that lead to the kind of legal gridlock and nonsense that we have today. May I suggest to you to read “The Death of Common Sense” as a fine example of how this has happened and continues to happen in this country, with generally alarming and stupefying results.

I am not anarchistIc. I am thelemic. I could govern, as I have laid out. I would dare say that my way of governing would be exceptionally effective and would be welcomed by many, if not all. Only those who must cling to tightly defined, exceptionally inflexible constructs would fear it. Laws based upon moral absolutes, with some definite exceptions, usually do more harm than good and cannot handle well instances where their stringent standards do not mesh with the shifting reality of circumstances. Some of those exceptions would be obvious violent crimes against others, infringing upon the ability of others to do their Will, in so far as they have not infringed upon others in the first place.

You’d probably argue that without such tight constructs that people left to largely self-determination would probably not choose well and that you do not see any inherent potential of good in man, but I think it is wrong to simply place boundaries where there do not need to be any.

By virtue of the fact that the Democratic Party has ratified the actions of its chairman it has defined the limits of responsibilites as well. And where is your basis of complaint? Since responsibilities are implied, what compliant do you have when they are simply spelled out by those in authority and ratified by the committeepeople.

You, sir, are an anarchist. If elected, you would not be able to govern since governing by definitiion is defining responsibilities by use of law. Lawsuits are another way, as John may find out soon enough.

If the people the party had as their “official” committee people were not publicly elected by the citizens for the political sub-divisions of their respective positions, then I would agree the party would have carte blanche to basically appoint and drop whom they felt they wanted to on whatever grounds, stated, implied, or newly adopted by fiat of the chairman or presiding officer.

However, this is not the case and as such there is more to this than simply wanting to silence a gadfly or misanthrope of the party.

I resigned my committeeship in part b/c I am fed up with the party and the other major party and most minor parties, politically speaking. I prize individual liberty over most every other thing and twice on sundays.

In furtherance of my discussion on the natural consequences of having both rights and therefore responsibilities, let me also say that the level of responsibility should be both directly pendant to or pertaining to the situation or issue(s) at hand and within reasonable expectation of handling one’s self and actions.

It is a limitation if it is not documented if you are going to began to hold persons accountable or responsible for affronts or behaviors that run counter to what some group claims is allowed or prohibited.

It wa a kangaroo court, it is nothing more than a one-sided attempt to further try and justify the otherwise unwritten rules or rules made by fiat via Tom Herman’s own decisions.

The person who brought the allegations in the first place is rife with hypocrisy herself about being without reproach in a similar way of violating state and local bylaws in the past and yet nothing was done, and hers were actions that are specifically spelled out in the bylaws prior to her accepting the post she holds in the party.

Bush has been trying to redefine rights alright, but in a way that undermines and chips away at the ability of persons to enjoy their individual liberty largely unhindered by government. I thought the GOP was supposed to be all about personal freedom, less restriction from government, less intrusion, more about personal responsibility, etc. The formation and implementation of such new responsibilities or changed ones should come from the broader consent and realization of the people that those are not only needed but that they serve to improve upon or clarify ones already in place, not because they were driven into believing they were necessary when they were not. If the Patriot Act was that important, then why is Bush seeking to cut millions or billions from homeland security projects and toning down much of the harshest facets of what was brought about after 9/11? I can guess why, it is because the ruse that he pushed on a willing and scared populace has worn so thin as to be utterly naked for all intended purposes and the cost to keep it up is more than the bills of Iraq and Afghanistan can handle.

There, now I’ve cleared things up for you, perhaps.

Then you cite an example that one can be punished for violating someone else’s definition of your “responsiblity.” Certainly. But then your example proves my point. Isn’t the Bush administration simply redefining the rights of Amercan citizens under the Patriot Act by stating that the provisions of the Act constitute new “responsibilities” in exercising of rights? I see your point now. Thank you for clearing that one up for me.

Actually, by implied definition and consequence, all rights come with responsibilities, choosing to adhere to or fail to adhere to them is what enforcing laws or the basis of laws is all about.

“A right means never having to apologize for activity or lack of it”
You really need some serious mental help if you truly believe that one. Talk to people who’ve been charged and convicted of inciting riots or other calamities from exercising their right to free speech without “having to apologize” for their activity.