• In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Liberal thought

A forum dedicated to friendly and civil conversations about domestic and global politics, history, and present-day events.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Jeremy1952
Kindle Fanatic
Posts: 545
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 2:19 pm
21
Location: Saint Louis

Re: Liberal thought

Unread post

Izdaari Quote:. . . they [republicans are] less bad than the alternative and give me enough to work with.Jacoby sums up my perception of contemporary republicans in Chapter 11: "Kennedy was fortunate to have been a candidate for the presidency forty-four years ago instead of today, when his forthright support for a "wall of separation " would antagonize not only the evangelicals..."The Republicans have put a president in power who sees nothing wrong with making prayer a part of the official government; with giving everyone's tax dollars to his favorite churches; and now, he's come out in support of corrupting American science education by forcing theology into biology classes. Quite simply the Republicans have allowed themselves to become the party of theocracy. What good is it to defend our country from external threat, if we allow what it stands for to be destroyed from within? If you make yourself really small, you can externalize virtually everything. Daniel Dennett, 1984
User avatar
Mr. P

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
19
Location: NJ
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 137 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: Reply to Mr. P., Part II

Unread post

Quote:Did I say anything about rampant welfare fraud or lack of a work ethic? I don't think soNo, actually you just made that comment (Uncle Sugar) without much explanation at all...so forgive me if I go on to interpret that statement to mean what MOST mean when they say it.Quote:I think middle-class people and rich folk are also too dependent on government. Again...you are just making statements...please elaborate on this idea. How do the middle class depend on the government?Quote:I don't think "taking care of its people" is the proper role of government at all.So by this reasoning...the goverment should not provide military to defend the people? Or are you picking and choosing what fits your ideas?Quote:No such role is defined in the Constitution, but only things relating to maintaining order, national defense and international relations, a justice system and some infrastructure.Yes...the Justice system rules on the facts of a case, at which point, they may set a precedent for similar, future cases...like Roe v. Wade...like Brown v. BOE. You know...protecting it's citizens (and please do not go into semantics games about the word or concept of 'it's people'...you know full well that I mean the people under a government by this term. If we really were not 'it's' people, we could pick and choose if we pay taxes and there never would have been a draft.)As for maintaining order, I would say that helping the less fortunate does indeed preserve order...by reducing crime and keeping citizens from feeling betrayed and thus fostering hatred for the government. For giving people the sense of worth all humans deserve. By lending the helping hand. You know...by being a moral society.Quote:No, employers don't set wages. The market does, just as with every other price. Pretty naieve....I have seen first hand how employers set wages...and even if we take your 'price' analogy...the market for employees trends to pay as little as possible for the most valuable asset a company has...people. So do you think that if there were no mandated minimum wage, that employers would not try to pay less than that? Come now. I have personally seen the dictatorship that is the modern corporation in action, when a friend I worked with once got his salary cut by $20,000 in one year, simply because the owners of the company decided that they needed to make more money. (One of the owners subsequently went out and bought a boat, motorcycle and other toys). I quit the company before this could happen to me. I resent this mentality, and I reject your assertion that there is this mysterious 'market' that looks after employees...did this market come into effect after the Enron, Global Crossing, Tyco and Arthur Anderssen fiascos?For you to treat people as a commodity is very telling. Now, I hope you will not retort with the age old comeback of: "well, everyone is free to go get another job if they don't like it", you must realize, as a person with an exceptional IQ, that many, many people in our society do not have that luxury. Many of us live BEYOND paycheck to paycheck and need to work two jobs just to survive...and we are not even talking about geographic location as a factor here. Again, if things were just that easy, and the 'market' was the only factor in making a living, unemployment would not be a problem at all. Most of the country does not have many options, for whatever reasons, to just pick up and quit a job...for there is no real guarantee that it will be a piece of cake to find another.Goverment is indeed here to protect it's people...and that includes, especially nowadays, regulating business to a small extent...like setting safe work habits and minimum wage requirements. Even at minimum wage, a person can starve to death and be forced to live on the street. I make a ton more that minimum wage, yet I struggle every week to meet just the mortgage and utilities, and barely have enough for food most times...can you imagine what it must be like to have to live on minimum wage Izdaari? In the land of opportunity?It is so sad how we treat other humans sometimes...Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
Jeremy1952
Kindle Fanatic
Posts: 545
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 2:19 pm
21
Location: Saint Louis

Re: Liberal Thought

Unread post

Izdaari: I do not favor such a "wall of separation." Jeremy: Acknowledged... you are the enemy. Interesting. Izdaari: No, I'm the opposition. There's a difference. Izdaari:Quote:I just believe in interpreting the Constitution very strictly, according to the actual language of the text first, as the phrases used were understood at the time . . . My reasons for interpreting the Constitution this way are entirely based on my libertarian politics, not my religious faith.A conflation of two separate, albeit related, issues. How you think the constitution should be interpreted is a legal issue. Separation of church and state is a political and moral issue. I would be strongly in favor of separation of church and state if the U.S. constitution DID declare us a Christian nation. Great Britain, with her official church, seems to be doing a better job of separation than the US right now. If you make yourself really small, you can externalize virtually everything. Daniel Dennett, 1984
pctacitus

Re: Liberal Thought

Unread post

That's not hard for the Brits, not many of them believe in god. Let alone are members of the Anglican Church. Doug Larson: "The cat could very well be man's best friend but would never stoop to admitting it."Edited by: pctacitus at: 8/9/05 2:55 am
Izdaari

Re: Liberal Thought

Unread post

Quote:And so does society, the founders realized this and left it a malleable document and idea. THAT is why the Constitution should NOT be interpreted in the parlance of the times or to the letter; heck, the original Constitution did not forbid slavery, but it was changed by the growing society to reflect such.If you want to be ruled by a document that was written over 200 years ago that is your perrogative...but I really do not think that is what the founders had in mind.Why don't you join Mad and I in discussing the "Federalist Papers" (and maybe we can add the book on the convention as well)...it may just bring insight into our discussions if we examine the words of the founders directly.I think you and I have a rather different understanding of the purpose of the Constitution. It's the founding document of a limited constitutional republic, and as such, "limited" is a very key word. As I understand it, the main point is to limit government, to be the chains that bind down Leviathan. And what use are flexible chains? Surely someone will be eaten!Now, it is of course true that society evolves, but that wasn't intended to be dealt with via reinterpretation, but rather by the amendment process.Perhaps I will join you in that other discussion, which I wasn't aware of.
Izdaari

Re: Liberal Thought

Unread post

Quote:It's interesting, Izdaari, that a strict constructionist like you should have inserted the word "official" into your statement of the first amendment.Don't read too much into it, Ken. I wasn't thinking anything along those lines. Now that you point that out, I'll happily strike the word. It isn't necessary to my meaning and it apparently led you off on a tangent.
Izdaari

Re: Liberal Thought

Unread post

Quote:No, actually you just made that comment (Uncle Sugar) without much explanation at all...so forgive me if I go on to interpret that statement to mean what MOST mean when they say it.No, I don't think I will. You don't know enough about me or my thinking to make such assumptions, and I do find them offensive. Oh, ok, I'll forgive you, but I'll ask you please to avoid doing that as much as possible.Quote:Again...you are just making statements...please elaborate on this idea. How do the middle class depend on the government?There are a large number of programs, especially entitlement programs, that benefit the middle class. I don't want to spend the time to go into detail because this is a tangent. Quote:So by this reasoning...the goverment should not provide military to defend the people? Or are you picking and choosing what fits your ideas?You are SO infuriating sometimes. You know perfectly well the difference between things that come from expansive interpretations of the General Welfare clause and basic functions that are specifically defined in the Constitution. I have no problem with those defined functions.Quote:Yes...the Justice system rules on the facts of a case, at which point, they may set a precedent for similar, future cases...like Roe v. Wade...like Brown v. BOE. You know...protecting it's citizens (and please do not go into semantics games about the word or concept of 'it's people'...you know full well that I mean the people under a government by this term. If we really were not 'it's' people, we could pick and choose if we pay taxes and there never would have been a draft.)In point of fact, I DO think we should be able to pick and choose whether we pay taxes, and that there should never have been a draft.Quote:...can you imagine what it must be like to have to live on minimum wage Izdaari? In the land of opportunity?Oh yeah, I can imagine. Some days, when business isn't so good, I make less than minimum wage. I'm losing all patience with this. Your smug assumption that you have the moral high ground, when in fact you don't, is grating on my nerves, and your patronizing attitude is offensive. I'm done with this topic, at least with you, at least for now. Yeah, I have foul moods too. This is one of them. Edited by: Izdaari  at: 8/8/05 8:17 pm
Izdaari

Re: Liberal Thought

Unread post

Quote:A conflation of two separate, albeit related, issues. How you think the constitution should be interpreted is a legal issue. Separation of church and state is a political and moral issue. I would be strongly in favor of separation of church and state if the U.S. constitution DID declare us a Christian nation. Great Britain, with her official church, seems to be doing a better job of separation than the US right now.I'm not quite sure what you're saying there, Jeremy. I'm not for any level of theocracy if that's what you're implying. I prefer government to be neutral when it comes to religion, but I don't take that to mean we have to ban all expressions of religion from public places.
User avatar
Mr. P

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
19
Location: NJ
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 137 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: Liberal Thought

Unread post

Quote:Oh, ok, I'll forgive you, but I'll ask you please to avoid doing that as much as possible.Then explain yourself when you make statements.Quote:I don't want to spend the time to go into detail because this is a tangent.Tangent? You say that you are against assistance programs or government helping the people it governs, and then you say that explaining yourself is a tangent? I think it is very pertinent.Quote:You know perfectly well the difference between things that come from expansive interpretations of the General Welfare clause and basic functions that are specifically defined in the Constitution. I know perfectly well that what the founders wrote was not a closed discussion. The Constitution was a beginning and was drafted to meet the needs of the times. It is an intrinsic aspect of the Constitution that it CAN be changed and re-interpreted by subsequent generations. It is not a static document at all.Quote:In point of fact, I DO think we should be able to pick and choose whether we pay taxes, and that there should never have been a draft.People fail to realize that taxes are necessary. how would the government maintain anything without taxes? If we could pick and choose whether or not we participate in supporting the government, what would happen to our society? Do you support the idea of anarchy? Where do you think the military would go if there were no taxes? Do you think our government would still exist and be able to function without tax dollars?I gladly pay whatever taxes I am required to pay. I am for the common good. Now I am NOT for government wasting my money, and waste is the biggest problem to me. Mismanagement waste, like most corporations today. I also think our elected leaders get paid way too much money. Do you realize that those is congress get a sweet deal of a retirement plan? What about the people? They deserve nothing?Quote:I'm losing all patience with this. Your smug assumption that you have the moral high ground, when in fact you don't, is grating on my nerves, and your patronizing attitude is offensive.I see...and I thought we were talking. If stating my position and feeling that I am honestly doing such is patronizing, I cannot help you there.I can respect foul moods...shows we are all human.Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
Doc Tiessen

Taxes

Unread post

Mister PPeople fail to realize that taxes are necessary. how would the government maintain anything without taxes? If we could pick and choose whether or not we participate in supporting the government, what would happen to our society? Do you support the idea of anarchy? Where do you think the military would go if there were no taxes? Do you think our government would still exist and be able to function without tax dollars?Sorry for interrupting and introducing a tangent... I fully agree that people sometimes forget about the importance of taxes. But I would like to clarify that taxes arise, not from the government, but from the economical system. Taxes are necesary whenever the society of a country decides to allow private property. Actually, taxes can be seen as the cost you pay for the government to legalize, protect and facilitate the private ownership. This is the hardcore justification of taxes in the capitalistic system. Actually, there cannot be a functioning capitalism without taxes. However, taxes have been expanded to such extend, that we can call them involuntary donations for a social purpose. There is no capitalistic reason why a rich person has to give so much of his money for the benefit of the poors, but the government forces us all to do exactly that through taxes. Many people regard taxes as a kind of social requirement... like building streets and schools. But a hardcore capitalist could say that he does not need a government to pay for education, because he can pay it for himself. And who cares about the poor? A capitalist accepts taxes only as the cost of freedom and security. Historically, taxes have gone up, because the government has increased so much its costs of operation.Actually, a person who does not need the government to defend his private property, indeed is in no need to pay taxes. Those who have a private police and can protect all their belonging without the help of the government, do not pay taxes. For example, drugdealers.On the other hand, in an economic system in which there is no private property, taxes are not necessary. This is the case in Comunism. When you are not allowed to have private ownership, you do not need to pay taxes. In comunist Russia and China, you do not need to pay anything to the goverment. The socialist goverment has other means to support itself. And definetly, those examples contradict some of your statements... they show that a military force is indeed possible without taxes. A government can exist without tax dollars... what cannot exist is private property and a capitalistic system without tax dollars. Diversity is Good!
Post Reply

Return to “Current Events & History”