reparations

[StephenHarper]

I'll say reparations are in order... but in different ways than I think most African Americans want. Native Canadian Indians have reparations. They still ;ive like shit. It's no lie. I've lived on the reservations in Saskatchewan at one point and I can definetly tell you that giving a fuckload of uneducated, poor people a wad of cash doesn't solve shit. They buy fancy cars, booze, and drugs... but nobody prospers. The educational system needs a serious overhaul. All races need to seriously intergrate. I mean as in racial freindship, not sexual relationships. I have been lucky enough to have grown up with all ethnicity of people, and I can tell you that all the color/racial bullshit dfferences are nothing compared to the bigger problem of "priority" of all north american people. Fuck, I cold go on all night. The word "success" is missunderstood. Being materially "loaded" will still leave you with a poor level of human worth.

 

Night,

Sg.

 

This is an excellent example for all you Americans. It seems as though one of the underlying arguments for reparation is that ever since the end of slavery black have been at an economic disadvantage. Our government built a northern native community an entire new town because their old one was unsuitable to live in and subsidizes their living expenses with loads of cash. Guess what’s happened? "Fancy cars, booze, and drugs... but nobody prospers". Nobody takes care of their property and the towns a dump. It’s like what my parents taught me, if you don’t work for it you won't take care of it. If you really think reparation is going to solve any problems then you’re out of you mind.

[fermentor666]

Just because Locke and others have stated that property rights are the basis of liberty does not make it so. In my opinion, your insistance on unlimited property rights limits the ability of individuals to move from place to place, to conduct business and to live their lives. I think this is more of a llmit on freedom than regulating a certain amount of safety minimums for business owners. That's just my opinion, you are free to disagree with it, but please stop acting like it is some kind of empirical maxim that cannot be debated or refuted.

 

 

 

Locke wasn't talking exclusively of physical property, he was talking conceptually, as well. His arguements were much more complext than AOD makes it out to be. Case in point being that Locke can be easily interpretted as standing against, say, a Wal-Mart-like corporation and very much for all the social programs that AOD seems to hate so much. In fact, as I learn more about him it seems that is a more accurate interpretation than the one that's being displayed by him. Lesson being, read up on it instead of taking someone's word over the internet.

[angelofdeath]

Locke's social contract had no obligation for the state, through coercion to support society. considering that he helped found the old whigs movement in england, he had a dim view on taxes and big government in general. there is a big difference between liberalis in the classical sense and the modern socialist statist sense. basically liberals today believe that the state is necessary and they are 'liberal' in the dishing out of a state power. the old liberal tradition was the opposite. absence of state power, was thier goal.

only a hard marxist could possibly find some sort of advocation of increased state power out of his locke's thought. sort of like how they 'find' all kinds of things in the constitution and declaration, disreguard the bulk of the documents body, and stick to a perverted meaning of something taken out of context.

 

just like how the constitution has the general welfare clause and the interstate commerce clause and hte necessary and proper clause, and its means unlmited power! it means it is living and can be molded and shaped to whatever the people want!

with this logic, it is totally rediculous to call bush out on his 4th amendment and habeus corpus scams. with your logic, you have set the precedent.

 

but i forgot, im on ignore. well, that is, only when you cant form a rebuttal to my argument.

[fermentor666]

I pick and choose which messages of yours to ignore. Your view on Locke is wrong and your statement that anyone who thinks otherwise is a Marxist is absurdly wrong. Locke believed in the legislative and executive process and believed in government. The whole Second Treatise on Government is about bringing man from the state of nature into a civil society in a way that preserves his freedom that requires him to give back to that society. The idea that your property (land, freedom, happiness) is to be protected by society is only half of his arguement, the other being that the person has to obey the laws of that society. He says in Chapter 9:

 

"For it would be a direct contradiction, for any one to enter into a society with others for the securing and regulating of property, and yet to suppose, his land, whose property is to be regulated by the laws of the society, should be exempt from the jurisdiction of that government. By the same act therefore, wherefore anyone unites his person, which was before free, to any commonwealth; by the same he unites his possessions, which were before free, to it also: and they become, both of them, person and possession, subject to the government and dominion of that commonwealth, as long as it hath a being."

 

It seems that you are ignoring that half of the equation or you just called John Locke a communist. The Tenth Amendment might leave anything not on the constitution to the state, but it sure as hell doesn't mean that the states don't have to answer to the government, at some point. That is the whole purpose of congress!!! To make the arguement that the Bush administration and the senators and congressmen who voted on the Torture bill should be held to account for violating the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eigth amendment makes perfect sense and is not contridicted by the arguement for government welfare, education, etc. The Torture Bill and wiretaps leave the door wide open for the potential elimination of searches requiring warrents, due process, speedy and public trial, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. All those things are specifically PROHIBITED by the Bill of Rights. There is no actual prohibition in regards to funding within the original Bill of Rights, only the vague Tenth Amendment could be interpretted in that way.

 

The point I keep trying to make, over and over, is that without the federal government, it would instead be fifty different little countries. Thomas Jefferson himself was extremely adament about public education. This country is not just founded on the principle of land but on equality, and yes, giving everyone an equal chance. Hence the elimination of aristocratic traditions that enabled families to keep massive amounts of land and money by passing it all down only to the first-born son and the seperation of church and state, among other things. And another thing, when the Bill of Rights was written, there were only thirteen states and about three quarters of the country was "undiscovered". Things and situations change and while it's impossible to say for sure what ideas the political pioneers of the 17th and 18th century would have concocted, I believe that dis-vowing the poor would not be one of them.

 

To throw it back in your face, I don't see how you could support Wal-Mart and it's ilk when they so improperly harvest the land in such a wasteful fashion, taking far more than they need and letting so much go to rot. Surely, Locke did not write his Treatise and America was not founded to enable the Wal-Mart family to build a multi-million dollar, underground bunker on a huge tract of land while the thousands of people they have put out of business are left to greet people at the doors of the architechturally and culturally abominable retail giant.

[angelofdeath]

"t seems that you are ignoring that half of the equation or you just called John Locke a communist. The Tenth Amendment might leave anything not on the constitution to the state, but it sure as hell doesn't mean that the states don't have to answer to the government, at some point. That is the whole purpose of congress!!! To make the arguement that the Bush administration and the senators and congressmen who voted on the Torture bill should be held to account for violating the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eigth amendment makes perfect sense and is not contridicted by the arguement for government welfare, education, etc. The Torture Bill and wiretaps leave the door wide open for the potential elimination of searches requiring warrents, due process, speedy and public trial, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. All those things are specifically PROHIBITED by the Bill of Rights. There is no actual prohibition in regards to funding within the original Bill of Rights, only the vague Tenth Amendment could be interpretted in that way."

 

my view on locke is definately not wrong. and he is not a communist. i did say that marxists have taken some of his thouhts and turned them for his agenda, as you are trying to do. no where have i suggested anarchy. my whole premise is based on the simple lockean argument for government to protect natural rights, life liberty and property and not to interfere in them. locke is not my sole mentor. he has given the american system of government some insights. so has montesquei. i reject your argument because you are trying to find some single central authority to regulate every aspect of our lives, john locke was not.

 

" The Tenth Amendment might leave anything not on the constitution to the state, but it sure as hell doesn't mean that the states don't have to answer to the government, at some point. That is the whole purpose of congress!!!"

 

you have a faulty understanding of the original constitution. the whole purpose of congress was not to be a watch dog of the states, it was to execute the enumerated powers. all other powers were left to the states. plain and simple. the only check the federal government was supposed to have over the states was if the states formed non republican governments. if the people consented, there was no interference from the feds. as jefferson noted, the states were the vehicles of the people and the greatest bulkwark against tyranny and anti republican sentiment.

 

i tend to call you a hypocrite, because when i argue from a constitutional standpoint, you have said 'fuck an extremist view point like that.' you must follow all parts of the constittion if you expect for the rule of law to stick. you cant throw away the 2nd amendment but expect to have absolute free speech rights. you cant be outraged and call for impeachment over 4th amendment infringements, and call 'declaring war' an 'extremist view point.' if you abandon the rule of law in one area, you invite more infringement of rights in other areas!

 

the 10th amendment is not vague. it is quite clear. it is explained rather well in the federalist papers and even some anti federalist writings. it means exactly what is says. even alexander hamilton, the predecessor to the FDR style of government, said so. jefferson believed it the FOUNDATION of the constitution. federalism was the greatest thing the founders gave us. it said that a central plan cannot manage a society as big and diverse as ours. that is why the bulk of legislation was done at hte state and local level, so the people could consent to what they wanted. government of by and for the people.

 

" The point I keep trying to make, over and over, is that without the federal government, it would instead be fifty different little countries. Thomas Jefferson himself was extremely adament about public education. This country is not just founded on the principle of land but on equality, and yes, giving everyone an equal chance. Hence the elimination of aristocratic traditions that enabled families to keep massive amounts of land and money by passing it all down only to the first-born son and the seperation of church and state, among other things."

 

i guess i should throw in that the first 'public' schools were christian, huh?

im sorry, but i do not consider the US founded on equality, it was founded on liberty. which is why it was hypocritical for the drivers of slaves to be screaming about liberty. the founders owned slaves. so i fail to see how the US was founded on 'equality.'

 

" And another thing, when the Bill of Rights was written, there were only thirteen states and about three quarters of the country was "undiscovered". Things and situations change and while it's impossible to say for sure what ideas the political pioneers of the 17th and 18th century would have concocted, I believe that dis-vowing the poor would not be one of them."

 

the bill of rights took care of this. by creating a weak, central government for common defense, post roads, trade and treaty regulation, and a few other things. this allowed for the new territories to govern themselves without an overwheening central government. they cited montesquei in thier federalism design, as they noted that republics cannot stretch over big peices of land. this is why they decentralized political power. it is the key to liberty. when you have a strong central governmetn governing many miles, you have tyranny, not liberty.

 

i like how lew rockwell says it...

 

" There is something intuitively plausible and honest about the statement that if a government can't control its own capital, it cannot control the rest of the country.

 

 

 

In fact, I propose that the same approach be used domestically. Before the federal government makes any more attempts to bring their proposed utopia to the rest of the country, let them eliminate poverty, crime, gang war, hate, despair, abuse, corruption, and injustice in Washington, D.C. Once that city is cleared of all such vice, we can talk about moving on to other parts of the country.

 

 

 

I think we can safely predict a quagmire. "

[fermentor666]

I don't see how you can interpret that quote from Locke any other way, let alone the way that you do it. It's queer that you think what I'm talking about is communism, you are backwards.

[angelofdeath]

i dont think you are talking about communism.

but i definately think you are a social democrat. the tie that binds you together with marxists is that there is no such thing as voluntary cooperation in a market. it is viewed as continued conflict with no benefit for the 'victimized class.' and that there is a third party, the state, that is needed to control the victimizer class (rich, racial and ethnic majorities, capitalists, entreprenuers, people who have large savings, the well armed etc) to provide justice to the victim class (poor, racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, people who live in rural areas, women, etc)

so, sorry if i came across as calling you a communist, which i wasnt trying to do.

[fermentor666]

I don't think it's impossible for private corporations to voluntarily work for the greater good, it's just far too rare. I think that, as much as I hate Microsoft's monopolization of PC operating systems and corporate ethics, Bill Gates does amazing charity work that should be at least equaled by other corporations. When companies like McDonald's thinks that philanthropy means setting up a donation box for change at the register, what other option is there other than to tax them? I don't think it's a matter of all rich people or race, when it comes down to the theology rather than the specifics, it's that society just doesn't work when there is not a level of equality in the education and health care of it's citizens. Not every person can go to private school and not even rich people can afford certain health plans. Someone needs to step in, whether it's government or private companies.

 

I think that the danger Locke, Mill, and others saw in "government interference" was that it would be uncontestable, like the monarchies they were criticizing and the Church. I would think that in modern American democracy, there is much less of a danger of that happening. The difficulty in avoiding it MAY be the reason why it's taking so long to get these programs into place, because they are inevitable. There is no way that a country this large can stay united for much longer (meaning decades) if the gap between upper and lower class is so obviously not about money. Philosophers as far back as Socrates have said as much. But maybe I'm being optimistic.

[russell jones]

co-sign.