ANOTHER ROUGH WEEK FOR AMERICAN LIBERALISM/SOCIALISM

[Decyferon]

people keep referring back to the American revolution and I am sorry yea it worked for you that long ago but America is one of the countries I refer to when I say people are not equal. While someone may be born with these natural rights in truth they are born into poverty/ghettos with no way out. They are born into circumstances that, in the vast majority of people dictate the way they live their life, a baby is born to a junkie mother has a natural right to exist drug free however from the moment he/she is born they are in withdrawl.

 

If the American revolution took place in todays society I dont think it would have panned out as it did back then. Modern society has moved on, so while I agree in theory with the statement that everyone is born equal, I am a realist and know that is not how it works in practise.

[angelofdeath]

i think everyone is arguing semantics or something

there is a difference in rights and living situations or circumstances. rights cannot be blamed for oppressive leaders or living conditions one is born into.

 

i think a good study of negative rights is in order to under stand the natural rights theory correctly.

after natural rights are understood...

read this:

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard31.html

[Decyferon]

The thing I am saying aod is that while there may be natural rights in theory there isn't in practise as evidenced around the globe, it isn't as simple as natural rights when so many variables are in place, there are no black and White just varying shades of grey

[Mainframe]

^yeah, I tried tellin em that. Polarized black/white, yes/no, right/wrong viewpoints are very stubborn and self-righteous.

 

I think the most interesting thing going on in this thread involves psychological disposition rather than actual "issues" and political alignments, but I don't feel totally qualified to speak on that.

[angelofdeath]

decy:

 

you still dont understand. natural rights ARE NOT LIVING CONDITIONS. we are talking about negative natural rights. not living conditions, where someone is born, how governments are infringing on natural rights, or any of that.

 

just the fact that everyone is endowed by their creator with inalienable rights among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

once you understand what exactly natural rights are... then read the murray rothbard article i linked.

 

for instance... another natural right people have is to throw off a government that is infringing on their rights. it doesnt mean it will be possible, easy or work out in the end, just that one can do it legitimately. you have a natural right to self defense. it doesnt mean that you wont get killed or injured trying to defend yourself, just that you have a right to defend yourself.

[Decyferon]

No aod I understand I really do, what I am saying is that in a real world situation natural rights aren't as simple as you guys are making out, yes you have the right to pursue happiness there are too many other factors involved. Like I said I do agree in theory just not in practise

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

i feel what decy is saying---if my mom is a crackhead and im born addicted to crack, i have no right to choose to be addicted or not when i come out of the womb. However the reality is that i am physically addicted to crack cocaine.

 

same concept applied elsewhere---im born into a culture of castes. its my natural right to be the elite class if i choose, but my culture does not allot me that choice, and i dont know anything about other cultures, so im stuck with no right to be the elite.

its up to those in a country like that to choose to make it differant for their kids and the future generations of that country. If they dont care and dont want to begin changing that, then shut up and live in the untouchable class like your only living natural right says you have to.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Yeah but the Constitution is only talking about being equal in front of the law.

 

It has no more baring other than that.

 

Decy, from all of your responses, I don't think you understand. You keep bringing up things that have nothing to do with how men/women are viewed in front of the law. How much money you are born into, how healthy you are. The education you could potential receive, or the possible health care you could have available to you have absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

 

Life isn't fair, the libertarian ideology takes this into account from the jump. Creating a Utopia is not possible. At least not at this point in our civilization. So....trying to create one where everyone has an equal standing in every aspect of life is pretty silly, not to mention impossible. The American government can't do it, neither can any other government on the face of this planet.

 

Also jumping at AOD for responding to your question by calling him "obsessive" is pretty ass backwards. He was only clarifying the situation, and breaking down his response and covered all of the bases.

 

Sheesh.

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

werd^^^

[Decyferon]

Yeah but the Constitution is only talking about being equal in front of the law.

 

It has no more baring other than that.

 

Decy, from all of your responses, I don't think you understand. You keep bringing up things that have nothing to do with how men/women are viewed in front of the law. How much money you are born into, how healthy you are. The education you could potential receive, or the possible health care you could have available to you have absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

 

Life isn't fair, the libertarian ideology takes this into account from the jump. Creating a Utopia is not possible. At least not at this point in our civilization. So....trying to create one where everyone has an equal standing in every aspect of life is pretty silly, not to mention impossible. The American government can't do it, neither can any other government on the face of this planet.

 

Also jumping at AOD for responding to your question by calling him "obsessive" is pretty ass backwards. He was only clarifying the situation, and breaking down his response and covered all of the bases.

 

Sheesh.

 

I never called AOD obsessive, me and him are always very civil toward each other.

 

You say I bring things up that have nothing to do with how men/women are viewed in front of the law, I disagree, I am definitely bringing up issues people are NOT treated equally in the eyes of the law, while a law may not particularly say that someone doesn't have an equal standing, we all know that the justice system doesn't treat people equally.

 

Also, your social situation DOES affect how you are percieved in the eyes of the law, Rich people can and have literally gotten away with murder, and like i said about the caste system in India, the people are NOT born equal.

 

Yes as I have said before I do agree that all men are born with these natural rights, but it just isn't that simple in the world we live in, there is no point discussing an idea like natural rights without taking into consideration the reality of the world we all live in.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

My bad Decy, that wasn't directed towards you. The "obsessive" comments. I'll reply more later.

 

Classes await.

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

Decferon<QUOTE>Also, your social situation DOES affect how you are percieved in the eyes of the law, Rich people can and have literally gotten away with murder, and like i said about the caste system in India, the people are NOT born equal.

 

That is true. Boys-N-tha-Hood is a good example--a person who wants to do right and has done no wrong is automatically shaken down by the law because they were born and raised in Compton or wherever, so it assumed they just robbed somone or have crack under theyre tongue.

 

Same with the rich however--if a respectable millionaire is found in Compton there would be no way the law would think theyre up to no good; actually prolly offer to give them a lift home in the squad car. Or, they could have just been caught pulling the trigger, but money solves most things like that.

"Yes, i just shot that man. Heres 7 million dollars to keep it to yourself, Officer Romero."

"..uhhmm..uh, yeah. Looks like a random mugging to me. Need a ride away from the scene, Mr. Millionaire?"

 

bet that ish goes down alot. paying off judges, jury, police, etc. Poor people cant do that.

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

however it is not binding. ANYone, no matter their circumstances, can do what they have to do to better their position in life. Most just do not want to do what it takes and the time to do so. It may mean you start so primitively as to learn about human communication, then use that to gain alot of friends/connections, then work your way into a position of influence, then a position of power, and by that point, you are definately in a better position then you started. a risk most are not willing to take, and make excuses like 'impossibility' or 'theres not enough time to do al of that'

 

alot of it is obviously who you know, not what you know.

[Decyferon]

so if all men are created equal and under the CONSTITUTION it states this, why are a load of fuckwad retard senators debating if gays and lesbians should be in the army? (don't ask, don't tell) seems that you can now pick and choose what parts of the constitution you like.

 

Surely just by debating such an issue and creating a divide between people based on their sexuality they are commiting a breach of the constitution and isn't that illegal?

[angelofdeath]

so if all men are created equal and under the CONSTITUTION it states this, why are a load of fuckwad retard senators debating if gays and lesbians should be in the army? (don't ask, don't tell) seems that you can now pick and choose what parts of the constitution you like.

 

Surely just by debating such an issue and creating a divide between people based on their sexuality they are commiting a breach of the constitution and isn't that illegal?

 

regardless of the actual issue of gays in the military (you could just as easily make the case that they are discriminating against people who cant pass a PT test, people that are overweight or to old, people that are under 18, etc)....

 

the government has stopped following the constitution a LONG time ago. they dont even pretend to keep their oath of office anymore, they just laugh at you when someone asks if something is constitutional. like pelosi did when someone asked her if the health plan was constitutional.

 

which brings us to the point. if the government actually followed the contract that created the government, and people stopped allowing the government to engage in extra or unconstitutional activity, the rule of law as laid out by the constitution would still reign supreme. however all it takes is just one little thing... say 'its a good idea if we institute a national social security program' and the validity of the rule of law of the constitution is now null and void. because if one group can break it for their project, then another can break it for theirs. for instance, conversationally speaking, the left wants to break the constitution to have health care, and the right wants to break it to have a war.

 

(this is negating the fact that most of the mainstream left and right both favor some sort of healthcare managed or run by the government and both recognize that congress doesnt have to declare war at all anymore)

[Decyferon]

this is something that I don't understand, where in the constitution does it state that you cannot have universal healthcare? It is something that will benefit Americans and I don't understand why there is so much hate towards it (apart from the people that think taxes are wrong, but without them you wouldn't be the country you are)

 

Obviously I don't know the constitution like you guys because it isn't actually immportant or relevant to me.

[angelofdeath]

the constitution was written with enumerated powers. it lays out specifically what the government can and cannot do. the 10 th amendment then says that any powers not delegated to the federal governmetn are left to the states or to the people.

so the federal government has no jurisdiction to enact national healthcare. the states could if they wanted to. that is up to each state.

 

legally and constitutionally a constitutional amendment would have to be passed to give congress authorization to engage in healthcare.

like they did with the income tax and alcohol prohibition and its repeal. good laws or not, atleast they passed they passed an amendment like they were supposed to.

 

its no different than if you sign a home owners association contract that ONLY says.... 'the hoa can legislate what colors your house can be painted. ' then next year they start telling what you can buy at the grocery store and what foods you can store in your house and how they have to be prepared.

[Decyferon]

But it is something that is benficial to the vast majority of Americans, this is why I don't understand why people ar so against it. It is better to have a government run healthcare system run from taxes that are about providing a service and having no exclusions to the cover you have in comparison to a private healthcare system that's main agenda is profit and refusing cover for pre-existing conditions etc.

[angelofdeath]

But it is something that is benficial to the vast majority of Americans, this is why I don't understand why people ar so against it. It is better to have a government run healthcare system run from taxes that are about providing a service and having no exclusions to the cover you have in comparison to a private healthcare system that's main agenda is profit and refusing cover for pre-existing conditions etc.

 

see, you are confusing emotions with constitutionality.

if you enact something you like that is unconstitutional you have no right to bitch and moan when someone passes something you dont like that is unconstitutional.

 

look at the divisive nature of this topic. you have very strong supporters and very strong opponents. why have a big ass battle over it to the death and force whatever outcome there is on 300 million people? why not just let the debate take place in the states? they are smaller and more than likely people will have a better chance of getting what they want. like minded people flock to certain parts of the country. this constitutional solution solves everything and takes away all the fighting among people. just let them live their lives how they want to on the local level instead of the national level.

 

if a national initiative is to take place with healthcare, legitimately a constitutional amendment needs to pass. this will never happen. easiest just to follow the constitution and let each state debate the issue themselves.

[Decyferon]

I do t belive that individual states would have the funding available to provide the healthcare. I am glad we don't live by the constitution here, while there are things I agree with within it I wouldn't want someone that was voted into power by the people in today's society having his hands tied by an ancient document that is not fully relevant in today's world. It seems to halt the progress of change rather than facilitate it

[angelofdeath]

if the federal government stopped taxing citizens as high as they do now, they surely would have enough money to. but some states ALREADY HAVE FORMS OF SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE.

 

that is exactly what the constitution was supposed to do. chain down the government. americans wanted liberty not security or free healthcare or a statist society. they wanted freedom from government. a government that existed to protect the rights of citizens and do little else doesnt NEED to be changed often. but still the framers put in a means of amending the document and increasing or decreasing the federal jurisdiction. but this in no way means that the states didnt or couldnt have pretty much any power they wanted. in fact the federal constitution's bill of rights wasnt even applied to the states until the passage of the 14th amendment. while state constitutions had their own bills of rights.... the federal government could not get in the way of a state trampling a citizens rights.

 

so you could have a state siding with you in that a group of people that call themselves a corporation are forbidden from speaking freely and can pass laws with a penalty to punish these evil people.

[Decyferon]

You say Americans don't want healthcare, security etc, but I beg to differ, you may not want these things but a hell of a lot of people voted for Obama because they wanted to have healthcare. These people that voted him into power, and he won fair and square, should be bale to have the person they voted into power push these reforms through.

[angelofdeath]

so if we vote in a dictator who mass murders 200 million americans, should everyone just say...'well, we voted him in and that is what the people wanted!!!" ??

 

hitler gained power through a democratic election.

 

why force your will on the entire population when things can be decided much better on a more local level?

 

by extention, decy, you must also favor world government. why not just have one world government body with healthcare for everyone? why are you so stingy and only want people in the UK to have free healthcare. they should take over the world and make everyone have free healthcare!

[Decyferon]

Individual countries have the right to decide on who they want to run that country and the policies that that candidate has put forward. Obama was voted into power a lot of people voted for him for healthcare, but stupid laws in american politics are making them not have what they voted for, essentially the politicians are not doing what the PEOPLE wanted.

 

I don't favour a world government, because each country has different needs, but governments do need to be aware of their countries influnce on the global arena.

 

I am not stingy, I believe everyone should have the right to free healthcare, if they are not prepared to vote for someone to get into power that wants to grant free healthcare then they don't get it.

 

If you vote for a dictator that then starts slaughtering millions of people then that is when the whole world stands up in arms and says no you cannot do that, it is against human rights and you end up with a situation like WW2, do i think the people that voted them in to be retarded, yes. Do I think they deserve it, No. They should have been a little more wise to what they were doing at the polling station. But it was their right to vote that person in.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Can you stop saying "free" health care. Nobody receives health care for free.

[Decyferon]

fair enough, I wont call it free, it just comes out of my taxes so to me it is free because I am not paying anything in addition to my normal tax payments.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Which is fine. If you want to participate in that system, good for you.

 

I don't and I shouldn't be forced too. That is what is being said.

 

I'm pretty sure the majority of American's also did not vote Obama in based off his health care policy. They voted him in because his overall campaign of "change".

 

People just expected the change to be a positive change. Health care was just something that came along with it. As you can see by the recent sway to the Republican party (which again isn't helping us, it just is significant due to the resistance of policy) American's aren't necessarily for public health care.

 

What I would say most American's are for, ending the wars abroad. Making America, look like the America of old compared to the rest of the world. IE: Public opinion swaying in our favor, not against it. I think the rest of the world wants this too. Hence Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize while he is still waging illegal wars, allowing torture to continue and yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

____

 

Edit:

 

This whole argument is getting real repetitive for me. You guys try to support Obama, "give him a chance". Than people like me follow that with he hasn't done anything he's promised, the only thing he's actually attempted to put into policy was his health care bill. Which it seems to me he wants to be his legacy as president. The president that got every American health care.

 

Whatever.

 

I guess we'll have to wait another year to than raise the question. "What has he done in 2 years." Which you guys will reply, he's only half way through his presidency, the republicans aren't letting him do anything.

 

Here we go again. I will say this though. The Republicans are listening to their constituents. They aren't just playing politics, if they were, the next time elections come around you would see a sweeping of Democratic candidates taking office. That isn't happening.

[Decyferon]

I'm sorry but this whole issue of I shouldn't be forced to participate arguement just seems very selfish and childish to me. I don't agree with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but I know my taxes contribute to the military.

 

If you take the selfish approach that you are not going to contribute to aspects of society because you aren't going to use them then to me that is completely selfish. What if you have no savings, you get made redundant. You have no choice but to go on welfare to support your family or you end up destitue on the street, you will need welfare. Just because you don't use something at this moment in time doesn't mean at some point in time you will need that service.

 

You are contributing to the country you live in and the people that need help, you may have health insurance, others don't. Why not help out the people that are suffering. Seems morally and politically the right thing to do.

 

As for your arguement that people voted him for change, I agree, one of those changes was healthcare and it seemed like a hell of a lot of Americans were crying out for it. It wasn't just about wars.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

You do not understand how this country was founded.

 

It took the human race what? Two thousand plus years to come up with such a document? You are greatly over looking it's significance.

 

And you pass this off as just being selfish? Because I don't want to give up the money I earn myself to the collective group of our society?

 

That isn't selfish. Do you keep a jar of money outside your house so people can just take money when needed. Because not doing so would be selfish!

 

Do you hand out money to every bum/random joe on the street who asks it of you? Because if you don't that's selfish!

 

Seriously your argument is so backwards at times that I can't even follow it.

 

You can't help everyone, regardless of the system you think you can create to do so. People die, they get sick. It is reality.

 

Also if the war's were to cease, and our military industrial complex was to be taken apart, you would free up billions of dollars that you could distribute accordingly.

[angelofdeath]

Individual countries have the right to decide on who they want to run that country and the policies that that candidate has put forward. Obama was voted into power a lot of people voted for him for healthcare, but stupid laws in american politics are making them not have what they voted for, essentially the politicians are not doing what the PEOPLE wanted.

 

why not the states, is the point of my argument? if the UK has no jurisdiction over germany, as the federal government has no authority over the healthcare of the states, why do you say hold your position. its the same exact thing.

the UK has no right to tell germany what to do on the matter just like the federal government has no right to tell the states what to do on the matter.

 

if you favor a body taking over hte rights of individual states, you must also favor world government.

 

I am not stingy, I believe everyone should have the right to free healthcare, if they are not prepared to vote for someone to get into power that wants to grant free healthcare then they don't get it.

 

ah yes.

voting for something to vote away the money of one class of people to give to another. what a great protection of citizens rights!

 

If you vote for a dictator that then starts slaughtering millions of people then that is when the whole world stands up in arms and says no you cannot do that, it is against human rights and you end up with a situation like WW2, do i think the people that voted them in to be retarded, yes. Do I think they deserve it, No. They should have been a little more wise to what they were doing at the polling station. But it was their right to vote that person in.

 

your point illustrates the end game of my beliefs.

people have right to defend violations of their person, property and liberty. plain and simple. while you may draw the line at someone murdering massive amounts of people, i draw the line at anyone violating any of my basic human rights. speech. religion. right to self defense and any other right that i hold that i can exercise when i want so long as i violate no one elses rights.

 

atleast you acknowledge there is SOME sort of limit to the state. even though it seems anything short of genocide is fair game in your democratic society