Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 828 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 ... 42  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Global Moderator
 Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am
Posts: 44183
Location: New York
Gender: Male
LittleWing wrote:
stip wrote:
LittleWing wrote:
3. Here is why I am suspicious of progressives. You state that they eye profit motive with suspicion. Ignoring the ignorance in this position, it's impossible to take these people seriously when they deride profit, but don't seek to compete against it. Profits are a real cost to consumers, after all, this is why they deride it. Why is it that they can identify this as a problem, but are unwilling or unable to undercut the cost of profit to the consumer and provide similar products and services in a more egalitarian fashion in a free market? Why is there always the incessant desire to use the force of government to monopolize?



are you aware of the existence of something called the non profit sector? it exists primarily as a cautionary tale parents tell their children to get them to major in something outside of the liberal arts.

LittleWing wrote:
4. Again, you exemplify how easy progressives are at pointing out problems. Yet, you have no solutions, and make no comments about why you and a group of like minded professors don't start your own egalitarian college.


Are you aware of the existence of something called almost every college

LittleWing wrote:
Or nursing homes, or prisons.


Are you aware of the existence of something called 'the public sector'? It exists mostly as a place we can use your tax dollars to give jobs to people who hate freedom.


LittleWing wrote:
Do you not think that a private university that operated on maximizing money to go towards the students and their education wouldn't have market appeal? Why make it "public."



Are you aware of the existence of something called 'almost every private college'? Including the one I teach at. To be fair, mine is a pretty small school servicing a regional population, so I would not be insulted if you haven't.

LittleWing wrote:
5. I completely disagree with your position on local and state governments. The more localized government becomes, the more engaged the people will become. People will have a vested interest in their government. They will be more participative and attached to what is taking place. They won't feel disconnected because they won't be ruled from a ten mile square on the Potomac River. As a result they will be able to adjust and combat corruption, cronyism, and nepotism.


yes, and our country's stellar record of honest and efficient state governments certainly bears this out.

To be fair, I am completely sympathetic to the idea that when it makes sense people should be able to have as much local control as possible to maximize political participation.


Of course I'm aware of the non-profit sector. If the non-profit sector exists, then why the incessant pursuit of monopolization in the sphere of government?
Almost every college!? So almost every college doesn't operate on profit! Good, then we can all just pretty much shut up about the costs of college and how its a racket...
I would argue Nebraska, New Hampshire, and the Dakotas have far more efficient forms of government than our ten mile square does.


Colleges are non profit institutions. They are expensive to run. Non profit doesn't mean cheap. But at the end of the day we don't have shareholders who get the profits. They are invested back into the institution.

(I don't know why they are so expensive. the money isn't really going to faculty)

_________________
"Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR

The perfect gift for certain occasions


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Global Moderator
 Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am
Posts: 44183
Location: New York
Gender: Male
LittleWing wrote:
4/5 wrote:
LittleWing wrote:
5. I completely disagree with your position on local and state governments. The more localized government becomes, the more engaged the people will become. People will have a vested interest in their government. They will be more participative and attached to what is taking place. They won't feel disconnected because they won't be ruled from a ten mile square on the Potomac River. As a result they will be able to adjust and combat corruption, cronyism, and nepotism.

Federalist #10 wrote:
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. 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. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
...
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
...
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.


Indeed.



I'm not sure what you are trying to do here.

_________________
"Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR

The perfect gift for certain occasions


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Global Moderator
 Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am
Posts: 44183
Location: New York
Gender: Male
Okay, I'm out for a bit. Interestingly enough, I have to grade some homework assignments on federalism.

_________________
"Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR

The perfect gift for certain occasions


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Global Moderator
 Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am
Posts: 44183
Location: New York
Gender: Male
one other thing LW. Are you defending the communal integrity of the Amish and native Americans as an argument for individual rights?

_________________
"Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR

The perfect gift for certain occasions


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
stip wrote:
Okay, I'm out for a bit. Interestingly enough, I have to grade some homework assignments on federalism.
grades are subjective. you should give them all F's and keep posting here.

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Global Moderator
 Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am
Posts: 44183
Location: New York
Gender: Male
I'm teaching my first online class, so it was basically just posting in a different forum.

_________________
"Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR

The perfect gift for certain occasions


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
stip wrote:
I'm teaching my first online class, so it was basically just posting in a different forum.
cha-ching!!

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar
On the bright side
 Profile

Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 8:42 pm
Posts: 17495
Location: Surfside Beach, SC
Gender: Male
Some good discussion going on here, I definitely learn a lot. I know this is a simple question, but why are the democrats now claiming that it (health care penalty) isn't a tax, when the SCOTUS essentially said that's the only way this thing is legal?

Is it because they said it wasn't a "tax" when they were initially campaigning for it or is there another reason?

_________________
I remember thinking, "that's really gay". -- Cameronia


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Global Moderator
 Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am
Posts: 44183
Location: New York
Gender: Male
pledges not to raise taxes are stupid. Even republicans are starting to back away from Norquist.

It's a tax, but it wasn't their intention to make it a tax, I guess.

it's all electoral/constitutional semantics

Do we have any other penalty taxes on the books?

_________________
"Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR

The perfect gift for certain occasions


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:47 pm
Posts: 9282
Location: Atlanta
Gender: Male
Unless one has a tax refund coming, (and even then isn't this based on honesty?) the "tax" for not having a plan, can it even be enforced?

There are a ton of issues to look at with the ACA prior to 2014 that have nothing to do with repealing it. Not to mention the "safety net" hospitals right now that are struggling the most.

I think they had to recently give up a percentage of medicare and medicaid paybacks for the ACA to pass, and they won't get that money back unless a certain percentage of people are then paying into the system by 2014.

_________________
Attention Phenylketonurics: Contains Phenylalanine


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Global Moderator
 Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am
Posts: 44183
Location: New York
Gender: Male
agreed. This is a really massive, potentially transformative piece of legislation. I can't think of any act that large that was implemented in a final form. This is time and effort better spent addressing what will be the inevitable shortcomings of the law.

I'm sure that's what we'll get.

_________________
"Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR

The perfect gift for certain occasions


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 12:04 am 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am
Posts: 10694
stip wrote:
LittleWing wrote:
4/5 wrote:
LittleWing wrote:
5. I completely disagree with your position on local and state governments. The more localized government becomes, the more engaged the people will become. People will have a vested interest in their government. They will be more participative and attached to what is taking place. They won't feel disconnected because they won't be ruled from a ten mile square on the Potomac River. As a result they will be able to adjust and combat corruption, cronyism, and nepotism.

Federalist #10 wrote:
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. 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. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
...
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
...
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.


Indeed.



I'm not sure what you are trying to do here.


My point is that Hamilton's argument against an absolute bottom up government is what our top down government has turned into. Tyranny of the majority that does not respect property rights.

Anyhow, 4/5, your excerpt from Federalist 10 as a justification that Hamilton never changed would be more salient if not for the existence of say...Federalist 15, and numerous other pennings from Hamilton during this time period existed.

_________________
Its a Wonderful Life


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 12:05 am 
Offline
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:37 pm
Posts: 1281
Location: Tampa, FL
Stip, after reading the last 8 pages of this thread, I have a quote for you to ponder:

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw.

For the record, LW, I am not calling you a pig.

_________________
"Relaxed, but Edgy" - Ed, Raleigh, NC April, 2003


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 12:42 am 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am
Posts: 10694
stip wrote:
one other thing LW. Are you defending the communal integrity of the Amish and native Americans as an argument for individual rights?


YES! At least the Amish get rumspringa...

The entire point is that they have some measure of autonomy to live their lives as they so desire. Again, in my world there is room for the Amish, the Native Americans, polygamist sects of Mormons, Mormons in general, Socialist Vermont, Libertarian New Hampshire, fundamentalist Texas, social welfare state California, etc, etc. There's plenty of room in this country for all different types and methods of administrating government. And none of them should be allowed to supercede any other.

Quote:
Because I think individuals exist in, are formed by, and bounded by, larger communities and that the rights of that individual need to balanced against the needs of that community. - Stip


Needs of the community are subjective. You think they need all kinds of things. I pretty much think they need a bill of rights. Where is the origin of debt for me to have to labor as an engineer so that some the female going to college as she freely chose can have birth control? Where is the origin of debt for me to labor for another's healthcare? Where is the origin of debt for me to labor for someone's housing? Or their food? Or any sort of redistribution? Particularly when mutually exclusive alternatives exist for those on the dole.

Again - free rider problem. You ignore the free rider problem and in the end you enslave a portion of us to the benefit of others.

Quote:
The amish are a pretty exceptional case because, for religious reasons, they have largely chosen to turn the backs on much of modernity. Great. We give them that freedom.


Okay, so if you're religious, turn your back on modernity, you get freedom? But everyone else - fuck you? Explain to me why that is acceptable, but this isn't.

"The <whatever group you want> are a pretty exceptional case because, for <whatever reason they want> reasons, they have largely chosen to turn the backs on <whatever it is they turned their backs on>. Great. We give them that freedom.

Quote:
But if the Amish wanted to engage in some kind of truly reprehensible moral behavior they would probably not be allowed to do so. And when they engage in commerce they are still obligated to follow the same rules as everyone else. - Stip


Uhhhh, yeah, welcome to the precepts of Libertarianism. Don't hurt other people. Engage in a regulated free marketplace.

Quote:
Plus we were in general much less nice to them than white people, so we feel bad and cut them some slack. - Stip


Unless your name is Scumbag Cuomo...

Quote:
Because they're the Amish? Are you really comparing the Amish economy to ours? - Stip


There's no "their economy" and "our economy." It's just an economy. It's people engaging in free mutually beneficial transactions. Just because the size and scope of those transactions may vary does not make it any less of an economy.

Quote:
I am not disputing that human beings are ends in themselves, btw. - Stip


Woops - just a second here

Because I think individuals exist in, are formed by, and bounded by, larger communities and that the rights of that individual need to balanced against the needs of that community.

Could have fooled me.

Quote:
But every self contained end comes into conflict with other self contained ends, and then we need to have ways of mediating those conflicts, as well as recognizing the way forces that exist outside of the individual impact the ability of that individual to create himself. - Stip


None of this justifies redistribution of any kind. Our constitution is built upon the idea that self contained ends can come into conflict. It's why we are a nation of laws, and why we have a justice system. The difference between you and I is that I believe what you describe is a situation where if your natural rights of life, liberty, and property are not violating someone else in an explicit fashion that there is no problem.

Quote:
I don't think that an 18th century political vocabulary designed for a world where economic autonomy was possible and trade was for the most part genuinely local and self sufficient applies to the world of 2012 (or 1912). - Stip


Why?

Quote:
The end result of your philosophy, in practice, is the constriction of autonomy, agency, and general decrease in the possibilities of people to live like they are ends in themselves. Millions of people lacking the ability to pay for medical care is a FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR greater threat to their human dignity and decency than making you pay a tax. - Stip


Sorry, this is another is-ought fallacy. First, over HALF of the people who don't have health insurance could. Pretty much all the rest qualify for medicare or medicaid but have no signed up. Second, just because the condition exists where people can't pay for health insurance does not mean that mutually exclusive opportunities do not exist for those people to do so. One of the largest problems I have this kind of logic is that it examines THE SYSTEM only by its outputs, while ignoring the INDIVIDUAL inputs that create the summation of the statistics. With no examination of inputs, your reasoning becomes empty, emotional, and lacks rationality. The irony is that if the people of able body and sound mind embraced the economic signals that should push them towards professional careers in a modern world, we'd be more able and capable to take care of the people who genuinely need it. There would be less antagonism as well.

Quote:
Last night my wife and I had to bring our daughter to the emergency room due to a high fever and trouble breathing. I have health insurance. What if I didn't? And if something was seriously wrong with her what happens afterwards. With all due respect for the terrible burdens you are forced to endure, I don't think these are even remotely equivalent. - Stip


What you are setting up here is a false choice between utopia and nihilism. Universal healthcare, your daughter gets the care she needs because of the universal healthcare system. Without insurance if you were poor, she just dies. What about getting the treatment she needs and then, ohhhhhhh, paying it back? Setting up a payment plan?

I'll ask you a couple serious questions. I spent two years in the Horn of Africa. What separates our poor people from poor people in the Horn of Africa? You think I don't know what problems are? Fine. What is the origin of debt between me and someone in Djibouti, and me and some white trash fat fucking bitch here in the states?

Second, why should someone that performs a menial task that society determines to be not worth much value be entitled to walk into an emergency room and have access to the things that exceptionally skilled people have created and employ? The relationship is absurd. The notion that you can be granted access to the benefits of someone else's labor in the raw basis that you won the sperm lottery is offensive. We should not tolerate free riders.

Quote:
Your desire to not pay taxes is not an issue of fundamental humanity.


Whoa, whoa. It's not that I do not desire to pay taxes. It is a fundamental question of HOW our taxes are spent. It's the QUALITY of tax dollars that pisses people off.

Quote:
Do we want to let people try their best to pay for health care in a private market (or not pay for it at all) or do we want to structure our economic rules to encourage a certain type of outcome and levy taxes to support it.


We let people make their own decisions and sink or swim on those decisions - like the Amish. And if they make the wrong decision, we then determine on a case by case basis, via charity, whether they are deserving of redemption of not. We have no right, no authority, no ethical position to engage in technocratic social engineering that places one's subjective priorities above anybody else's.


Quote:
What does free speech mean? - Stip


It means that insofar as my speech does not harm anyone that I am free to say whatever I want.

Quote:
Right now congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. If we decide we don't want to give Congress that power we are more than free to amend the constitution. In the meantime what does interstate commerce mean? - Stip


Regulate - to make regular.
Intersate - between two states
Commerce - mutually beneficial trade

The commerce clause was written as a means of pre-empting issues that various European nations were experiencing with the county system. I wanted to sell some wheat to Thodoks. But to get to Thodoks I have to ship my goods through your state. you don't like Thodoks or me, because we are free market oriented, so you impose tariffs on my goods simply because you don't like me. You artificially obfuscate the value of this trade.

The power to regulate interstate commerce was specifically meant to make commerce regular between the states. It was to prevent third parties from standing in the way of two other parties trying to engage in commerce.

It didn't mean that you could tell me I couldn't grow wheat. It didn't mean that you could regulate me from selling my wheat to my direct neighbor. It didn't mean you could force me to purchase anything. In plain mother fucking English it says that it empowers the government make mutually beneficial free transactions regular throughout the states.

Quote:
Right now congress has the power to tax in the interest of the general welfare.


No, congress has the power to tax in direct relation to Article 1 section 8. Those areas and those areas ONLY as they apply to the general welfare. IF they had the power to tax in the interest of the general welfare they wouldn't have made the next enumerations and left it as a general power.

_________________
Its a Wonderful Life


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar
See you in another life, brother
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:01 pm
Posts: 13165
Gender: Male
LittleWing wrote:
Anyhow, 4/5, your excerpt from Federalist 10 as a justification that Hamilton never changed would be more salient if not for the existence of say...Federalist 15, and numerous other pennings from Hamilton during this time period existed.

Federalist #10 was written by Madison and was posted in direct response to your claims about how much better and less corrupt, etc local governments are than national ones. Nothing to do with Hamilton. I responded to that in a different post.

LittleWing wrote:
My point is that Hamilton's argument against an absolute bottom up government is what our top down government has turned into. Tyranny of the majority that does not respect property rights.
Again, Madison not Hamilton. And I think you completely missed the point of what that essay is saying.

_________________
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
-- John Steinbeck


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar
See you in another life, brother
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:01 pm
Posts: 13165
Gender: Male
LittleWing wrote:
The entire point is that they have some measure of autonomy to live their lives as they so desire. Again, in my world there is room for the Amish, the Native Americans, polygamist sects of Mormons, Mormons in general, Socialist Vermont, Libertarian New Hampshire, fundamentalist Texas, social welfare state California, etc, etc. There's plenty of room in this country for all different types and methods of administrating government. And none of them should be allowed to supercede any other.

I hate to break this to you, because you're not going to like it, but you're really just arguing for a tyranny of the majority in smaller governments here.

_________________
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
-- John Steinbeck


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
4/5 wrote:
LittleWing wrote:
The entire point is that they have some measure of autonomy to live their lives as they so desire. Again, in my world there is room for the Amish, the Native Americans, polygamist sects of Mormons, Mormons in general, Socialist Vermont, Libertarian New Hampshire, fundamentalist Texas, social welfare state California, etc, etc. There's plenty of room in this country for all different types and methods of administrating government. And none of them should be allowed to supercede any other.

I hate to break this to you, because you're not going to like it, but you're really just arguing for a tyranny of the majority in smaller governments here.
clearly LW is just upset about the house majority forcing the contempt vote through this week, we can't have mob rule!

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar
See you in another life, brother
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:01 pm
Posts: 13165
Gender: Male
LittleWing wrote:
The notion that you can be granted access to the benefits of someone else's labor in the raw basis that you won the sperm lottery is offensive.
Indeed.

_________________
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
-- John Steinbeck


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am
Posts: 10694
4/5 wrote:
LittleWing wrote:
Anyhow, 4/5, your excerpt from Federalist 10 as a justification that Hamilton never changed would be more salient if not for the existence of say...Federalist 15, and numerous other pennings from Hamilton during this time period existed.

Federalist #10 was written by Madison and was posted in direct response to your claims about how much better and less corrupt, etc local governments are than national ones. Nothing to do with Hamilton. I responded to that in a different post.

LittleWing wrote:
My point is that Hamilton's argument against an absolute bottom up government is what our top down government has turned into. Tyranny of the majority that does not respect property rights.
Again, Madison not Hamilton. And I think you completely missed the point of what that essay is saying.


Oh, I see it was Madison, I didn't think he had any until 37. Anyhow, let's ignore 15, and skip to say...42,43,44,45. You only have a point if you ignore the pages and pages of text that Madison penned describing the finite bounds of the government they sought to create and the justifications for those bounds. The bounds were to be placed upon the federal government specifically because they placed more trust in bottom up government than top down government. But you know this and are being purposefully naive, ignoring broader context.`

Quote:
I hate to break this to you, because you're not going to like it, but you're really just arguing for a tyranny of the majority in smaller governments here. - 4/5


No, not really. If I don't like the way things are going in my state, it is more equitable for me to move to a state that conforms to my viewpoints than try expatriate. If you're going to make an absurd argument that all democracy is therefore tyranny of the majority, then certainly you would agree that bottom to top affords far more freedom than top down. In my opinion, it is not tyranny if there is a viable, equitable alternative to the impositions of government that you disagree with.

_________________
Its a Wonderful Life


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 7:02 pm
Posts: 6405
Location: DC
Gender: Male
So, can you guys tell me what side I'm supposed to be on? Team Pub, or Team Dem?


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 828 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 ... 42  Next

Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 9:58 am