The Political Compass

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

Re: The Political Compass

Unread postby Objectivist » Sat Apr 03, 2010 12:02 am

Shikanosuke wrote:If you're going to pigeonhole facism/nazism on the far-left, it is so far left not to be completely irrelevant. It is nothing which people today consider 'left-wing', especially in contemporary American politics. Those philosophies are inconsistent with even the far-left's political ideas.


Fascism is oppressive, dictatorial control...as defined by Websters dictionary.

As for Nazism...

The Nazi party platform, co-written by Hitler in 1920 called for...
-Nationalization of healthcare
-Expanded all age insurance
-Prohibition of child labor
-Guaranteed jobs for everyone
-Profit sharing in all major industries
-The abolition of incomes unearned by work (making money off of finance)
-The nationalization of all corporations and trusts
-Government takeover of department stores
-as well as countless progressive reforms

The very speech that seduced Hitler into the Nazi party was titled "How and by what means shall Capitalism be destroyed."

The Nazis all in the name of progress sought to purge the authority of the church and their tradition in society and replace them with the supremacy of the state. In Hitler's book Mein Kampf, he denounces Christianity as a spiritual terror, that it smash the pagan alters of the much freer ancient world.

Several protestant Bishops visited Hitler to complain about his anti-religious program, Hitler's rage got the better of him. He declared "Christianity will disappear from Germany, just as it did in Russia. The German race has existed for thousands of years without Christianity and it will continue long after Christianity has disappeared."

The Bishops objected that they supported Nazism' secular aims, just not it's religious innovations, Hitler exploded, "You're traitors, enemies and destroyers of Germany."

In 1935 mandatory prayer in school was abolished
In 1938 carols and nativity plays were banned entirely
By 1941 religious instruction for children 14 years and up was outlawed altogether

Lyrics to a typical Hitler Youth Song:

We are the happy Hitler Youth;
We have no need for Christian virtue;
For Adolf Hitler is our intercessor
And our redeemer.
No priest, no evil one
Can keep us
From feeling like Hitler’s children.
No Christ do we follow, but Horst Wessel!
Away with incense and holy water pots
The philosophy of Liberty

---If you do not believe in self ownership, you believe in slavery. Looking at all of human history, Liberty is a new concept still being introduced to man and it is growing every single day.
User avatar
Objectivist
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:39 am

Re: The Political Compass

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Sat Apr 03, 2010 12:33 am

Objectivist wrote:
Fascism is oppressive, dictatorial control...as defined by Websters dictionary.


Something no leftist hack in America would agree with, no matter how left.


As for the rest of your facts, I don't really see what you're trying to prove. It seems you think that because Hitler listed it in his agenda, he was actually going to implement without the authoritativeness with marked his regime. All of those things were subject to change at a whim. Leftists don't want to kill Capitalism, I don't even know if Hitler did. Hitler wanted power, and would use whatever rhetoric won him that power.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4318
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: The Political Compass

Unread postby Objectivist » Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:17 am

Shikanosuke wrote:Something no leftist hack in America would agree with, no matter how left.


You're either stupid or lying, because you're wrong. Apparently you also think you're the spokesperson for leftist hacks all across America. Let me ask you something...

Was it left wing or right wing politicians who recently passed a health care bill that initiates force upon the people, making them purchase a product from the market or be forced to pay government a fine?

Was it a left or right wing party that made it law that all American citizens who work should be forced to pay into social security?

Was it a left or right wing party that made it law that all American citizens who work should be forced to pay into medicare and medicaid?

Did cap and trade get passed in the house with mostly left or right wing support?

Do you hear more left or right wingers call for more control and regulations over the free market?

Do you hear more left or right wingers call for higher taxes over the people? The more earned money you are forced to give to government, the more you are being controlled and told what to do.

Shikanosuke wrote:Leftists don't want to kill Capitalism, I don't even know if Hitler did. Hitler wanted power, and would use whatever rhetoric won him that power.


Once again you're speaking for all leftists.
The philosophy of Liberty

---If you do not believe in self ownership, you believe in slavery. Looking at all of human history, Liberty is a new concept still being introduced to man and it is growing every single day.
User avatar
Objectivist
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:39 am

Re: The Political Compass

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Sat Apr 03, 2010 5:30 am

Objectivist wrote:You're either stupid or lying, because you're wrong. Apparently you also think you're the spokesperson for leftist hacks all across America. Let me ask you something...


A) Your tone really isn't necessary. I could easily call you an idiot for all the nonsense you've espoused and your complete lack of understanding of basic jurisprudence and blatantly obvious bias, but I haven't. But your shit is getting old.
B) I am not a spokesmen at all, but I am also familiar with most of the left-wing rhetoric passed around and none of it is nearing fascism or Nazism, nor does any of it deny the Constitution or a basic dedication to fairness/freedom. So keep your shit to yourself if you're just here to piss and moan.


Was it left wing or right wing politicians who recently passed a health care bill that initiates force upon the people, making them purchase a product from the market or be forced to pay government a fine?


Purchasing healthcare is not akin to fascism. Many would argue (and I don't btw) that is a basic necessity and freedom. You'll also note that it is a fine, not death or imprisonment. You'll also note the left-wing doesn't deny those who oppose the right to remedy in court via due process. I mean..all fascists do that right?


Was it a left or right wing party that made it law that all American citizens who work should be forced to pay into social security?


Left wing! Crazy fascists thinking we're all in the same boat, we all sink or swim together! That can't be constitutional right? Oh wait, it is.

Was it a left or right wing party that made it law that all American citizens who work should be forced to pay into medicare and medicaid?


Yep, can't enjoy a basic public service unless you pay for it.

Did cap and trade get passed in the house with mostly left or right wing support?

Do you hear more left or right wingers call for more control and regulations over the free market?


Yea, lack of regulations really did us good this time!

Do you hear more left or right wingers call for higher taxes over the people? The more earned money you are forced to give to government, the more you are being controlled and told what to do.


Yea, those same people who make more who have benefited from this system that we all are in (sorry, this isn't Atlas Shrugged) and thus have to pay back into it. People don't exist in a vacuum.


I don't want to go through all these, and btw you left out education. I mean..we shouldn't be forced to pay for that crap too right? Or anything we don't want to, right?

On the converse, was the left or the right wing who has fought for the right to privacy against an authoritative invasion? Was it the right or left wing which has fought for the freedoms of speech and privacy. Balancing social freedoms and economic regulations? No way! True, it was the left wing who fought for the rights to minimum wages, and the right for the freedom of contract...but then again..I'm ok with that.


Once again you're speaking for all leftists.


And you don't speak for all Libertarians, can I suggest there are some Libertarians who want to a fascist and nazi regime too? Or can we assume that the general Libertarian is against said position? I think we can, no real reason to play to extremes.


I get your Libertarian position, and I don't deny you your grievances (there will be legit legal battles to be fought over whether or not people should be required (its weird how much a sentence context can be changed when you leave out 'forced) to buy health insurance..and I'm not sure which side I'm on yet as there are delicate Constitutional issues to be fleshed out). But there is no reason to assume leftists are against basic freedoms, or the Constitution. Nor is there a reason for me to assume Libertarians/Conservatives are either. This kind of topic seems to expose the useless rhetoric we engage in painting people who believe something different than us as hating freedoms, and that just isn't so.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4318
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: The Political Compass

Unread postby Objectivist » Sat Apr 03, 2010 6:14 am

Shikanosuke wrote:Your tone really isn't necessary.


You're right. I was just picking on you and shouldn't have said you were either stupid or lying.

Shikanosuke wrote:your complete lack of understanding of basic jurisprudence


That is nothing more than your opinion. There are plenty of Constitutional scholars who would agree with what I have said in regards to the supreme law of the land.

Shikanosuke wrote:your shit is getting old


Don't read it then. Stop bitching like a little girl who didn't get her pony. No one is forcing you to click on these threads or even read anything I post.

Shikanosuke wrote:I am not a spokesmen at all, but I am also familiar with most of the left-wing rhetoric passed around and none of it is nearing fascism or Nazism, nor does any of it deny the Constitution or a basic dedication to fairness/freedom.


When you make statements such as..."I am familiar with most" or "none of it is"...it sure sounds like you're speaking for more than just a majority of crazy left wingers.

Shikanosuke wrote:Purchasing healthcare is not akin to fascism.


You're pretty slimy in trying to manipulate what I said and make it sound like I said something else. Of course just buying healthcare is not fascism. But government forcing people to buy a service from the market...would equate "Oppressive, Dictatorial Control" (Fascism defined by Websters Dictionary). There are plenty of healthy hard working Americans who would rather spend that money in other ways.

Shikanosuke wrote:You'll also note that it is a fine, not death or imprisonment.


Right. If you don't play by the rules you'll be forced to give money to government. If you don't give money to government you will in fact go to jail. Again you're trying to play a twist on words that do not apply to reality.

Shikanosuke wrote:You'll also note the left-wing doesn't deny those who oppose the right to remedy in court via due process


You just spoke for the left again, as if you are the spokeperson for the left.

Shikanosuke wrote:Yea, lack of regulations really did us good this time!


You're clearly not an economist.

Shikanosuke wrote:you left out education. I mean..we shouldn't be forced to pay for that crap too right?


It's true that I believe I should not have to pay for your education.

Shikanosuke wrote:there is no reason to assume leftists are against basic freedoms, or the Constitution


I guess it depends on what you consider basic freedoms. Left wing Democrats are constantly trying to push anti free speech legislation such as the fairness doctrine, or further regulations on gun ownership. They're always pushing for higher taxes. I believe hard working Americans have a right to the fruits of their labor...leftists do not. They think government should take money from people who earn it, and use it any way they perceive would be better for the "Greater good" of the country.

It's beyond me how anyone could ever say leftists are for basic freedoms, when they want to take my money, censor or moderate my speech and restrict my rights to own a gun. They're also all about keeping abortion legal...which immediately ends an innocent growing life, giving no say to the person being killed or the father who helped create the life. Basic freedoms my ass. Leftists want to control the lives of Americans, period.
The philosophy of Liberty

---If you do not believe in self ownership, you believe in slavery. Looking at all of human history, Liberty is a new concept still being introduced to man and it is growing every single day.
User avatar
Objectivist
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:39 am

Re: The Political Compass

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Sat Apr 03, 2010 5:10 pm

Objectivist wrote:
That is nothing more than your opinion. There are plenty of Constitutional scholars who would agree with what I have said in regards to the supreme law of the land.


It is my opinion about the politics, it is not my opinion about what the law is. Those scholars may agree with you, but they (if they are worth two salts) don't deny 200 years of jurisprudence. They definitely don't sit on the benches. Furthermore, though you can look up cases on wikipedia, you've demonstrated neither knowledge of nor any interest in the legal approaches developed in our country. You scoff at the notions that the Courts are tasked with the duty to interpret and apply the law. The notion of how they determine what and what isn't constitutional to you seem alien, rather you seem confident that you are the only one with the right of it because you read original intent documents. I'm sure many legal scholars disagree with both me and many of the Supreme Court decisions over the past 200 years, but I bet alot of their reasoning depends on not on political philosophy or economic philosophy (as yours seems to) but on legal principles. And if it isn't, they are sucky legal scholars you shouldn't be paying any heed.


Don't read it then. Stop bitching like a little girl who didn't get her pony. No one is forcing you to click on these threads or even read anything I post.


Bitching like a little girl infers that I wanted to get something out of this from you. I certainly don't intend or expect to change your mind on these issues. My comment merely addresses the fact that your arguments are stale and overplayed. I love debating, but repeating ourselves is just boring especially when half of it is needless insults about the others intelligence. No one is forcing you to do that either.


When you make statements such as..."I am familiar with most" or "none of it is"...it sure sounds like you're speaking for more than just a majority of crazy left wingers.


Fair enough, I'm just asserting that isn't in the majority of political ideas. I don't know all the crazyiness white suprmeacy groups spew either, but I can make general assumptions about a majority of it (and I'm less familiar with that than I am about left-wingist rhetoric).


You're pretty slimy in trying to manipulate what I said and make it sound like I said something else. Of course just buying healthcare is not fascism. But government forcing people to buy a service from the market...would equate "Oppressive, Dictatorial Control" (Fascism defined by Websters Dictionary). There are plenty of healthy hard working Americans who would rather spend that money in other ways.


I'm sitting in gak! Just kidding. Anyway, there is a choice. The choice has a slight penalty. It isn't at gunpoint. And nothing forcing those to choose it. We'll see soon if this even plays out in court. I would support this health bill even without such a requirement as I'm not sold on its constitutionality yet. But I also think the government 'forces' you to buy into tons of things. Drivers' Liscences for you to drive, roads for you to drive on, education for others to go to school, welfare so people don't go without, etc etc. I don't think there is pretty much any basic public service you couldn't apply this logic towards. We're being 'forced' to do all kinds of things, then. As you stated in another post, they always have the option of leaving.

EDIT: Furthermore, unlike Hitler's oppressive policies, you as an American have a means of redress other than just the courts. The leftist agenda surely doesn't deny you this, as they themselves used it to implement their policies. Think something stinks of oppression? Vote em out! Change it! It certainly isn't impossible. But once in office, your elected representatives make the laws and you're bound to follow them. If you think they are too invasive, vote em out and change em.


You just spoke for the left again, as if you are the spokeperson for the left.


I can, as this an official position. No where in the health-care bill, which you propose is a product of the left-wing, does is say that Americans can't challenge this in court. Unofficially I've seen no where where a leftist has said they oppose redress in the courts. I can't make observational statements?


You're clearly not an economist.


Neither are you, I'd wager. I'd also wager we have differing opinions on the subject. Many economist differ on the issue, so I doubt we're going to come to a consensus either.


It's true that I believe I should not have to pay for your education.


Luckily your not paying for mine, but exactly. It is just another thing that they are 'forcing' you to pay. I'm pretty sure even those on the right side of the spectrum support public education. Its fun not having a nation full of completely un-educated morons (see third-world countries).



I guess it depends on what you consider basic freedoms. Left wing Democrats are constantly trying to push anti free speech legislation such as the fairness doctrine, or further regulations on gun ownership.


They support free speech in general, especially the first amendment. They do support gun control, but until recently (see DC v. Heller) this wasn't even considered a fundamental freedom. And even then, that only applies to the federal government so far, not states. It a constitutional incorporation issue. Personally, I'm for gun ownership. However, that also doesn't mean (to me) that it shouldn't be regulated.



They're always pushing for higher taxes. I believe hard working Americans have a right to the fruits of their labor...leftists do not. They think government should take money from people who earn it, and use it any way they perceive would be better for the "Greater good" of the country.


Yes they are, as a revenue measure not a desire to punish 'hard working Americans'. As a hard working American, I don't mind my fruits being taxed as I benefit from the system which they support. I certainly believe, and I think many 'leftists' do too, that Americans deserve to reap what they sow. However, taxes don't take all of your income, they take a portion. It is part of being of citizen, and within the constitutional powers of Congress.

It's beyond me how anyone could ever say leftists are for basic freedoms, when they want to take my money, censor or moderate my speech and restrict my rights to own a gun.


Its beyond me how anyone could say they aren't. Taxes aren't stealing. Freedom of speech is rather a misnomer, even though I haven't met very many leftists who pull punches on their desire to speak their minds freely (free of censorship). Freedom of speech is certainly partially limited (hate speech/libel).

They're also all about keeping abortion legal...which immediately ends an innocent growing life, giving no say to the person being killed or the father who helped create the life.


Giving females the freedom over their body is hardly a deprivation of freedom. This is a random and explosive topic which we're going to disagree on. A fetus doesn't have rights, it isn't life. For someone who wants to point to things in the Constitution that have a textual basis good luck on that one...that'll be an inference. And the father's rights aren't at issue, it isn't his body. I find it ludicrous, though unsurprising, you blame the leftists and call this the absence of a freedom. We're obviously not going to agree on this, but I assert that is the promotion of a freedom.

Basic freedoms my ass. Leftists want to control the lives of Americans, period.


Basic freedoms, indeed. As you said, you have to define and debate what those are and what constitutional basis we have to govern them.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4318
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: The Political Compass

Unread postby Objectivist » Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:12 am

Shikanosuke wrote:The notion of how they determine what and what isn't constitutional to you seem alien, rather you seem confident that you are the only one with the right of it because you read original intent documents.


To be fair...I base my opinion on the Constitution behind the father of the document (James Madison) among several other founding fathers and what they had to say about government. It's true that the federalist and anti-federalist papers are not law, but the founders did speak to great extent about issues such as the commerce clause and general welfare. They explained their personal feelings on the matters and I take the words they wrote to heart. Maybe that means nothing to you or any justice who has ruled otherwise. The founders wrote the commerce clause among others to overall summerize what they had already written in the Constitution.

As I previously stated, the founders would not have listed the powers of the Congress if they actually had unlimited power to regulate and do whatever they want. There would be no reason to have a tenth amendment if they could do whatever they want. A judge can make up laws all they want...but they can't say the founders meant something they did not, which is displayed in various documents from the time of the nation's founding. While original intent may seem to you like something that is in the way...it's quite important to myself and libertarians everywhere.

Shikanosuke wrote:there is a choice. The choice has a slight penalty. It isn't at gunpoint. And nothing forcing those to choose it.


Actually it is at gunpoint, technically. Police will arrest you and take you to jail if you do not pay the federal fine for not buying healthcare from the market. You're trying to downplay the actual truth of the matter. Why would you do that?

Shikanosuke wrote:We'll see soon if this even plays out in court.


I believe the supreme court will strike the mandate down. Is there anywhere in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to force Americans to buy a product or service from the market? No.

Shikanosuke wrote:I also think the government 'forces' you to buy into tons of things. Drivers' Liscences for you to drive, roads for you to drive on, education for others to go to school, welfare so people don't go without, etc etc. I don't think there is pretty much any basic public service you couldn't apply this logic towards. We're being 'forced' to do all kinds of things, then.


Here is why you are wrong. You don't have to drive a car. You don't have to send your kid to public school. Welfare is paid for by taxpayers, even though more than a majority of working tax paying Americans do not like it. Just another case of government forcing the people to pay into something they may not agree with.

To address education...homeschooled kids test much higher than students at public schools. So the facts and numbers could never prove that forcing people to pay for other people's kids' education could ever be considered a positive thing. The public education system is a joke...the more our federal government gets involved the worse things get.

Shikanosuke wrote:as an American have a means of redress other than just the courts. The leftist agenda surely doesn't deny you this, as they themselves used it to implement their policies.


Actually the original house healthcare bill had a provision that said no future Congress or court could overrule the bill. That's about as totalitarian and fascist as it gets.

Shikanosuke wrote:Its fun not having a nation full of completely un-educated morons


If you truly believed this you'd call for lower taxes and more tax credits for homeschooling. The public education system is a joke. See Michigan for the best example. Only a quarter of students graduate. Pathetic. A perfect example of how government has ruined a system that would be much better in the free market.

Shikanosuke wrote:I don't mind my fruits being taxed as I benefit from the system which they support.


With general security by military force being the only exception, I've never benefitted from the federal government. As a matter of fact, I think they've made my life less enjoyable overall.

Shikanosuke wrote:taxes don't take all of your income, they take a portion.


Between 30-40% of what I make goes to government. That's entire too much money. There is so many wonderful things I could do for people I care about and myself with that money.

Shikanosuke wrote:Taxes aren't stealing


Spoken like a true leftist. If I disapprove of most of what government does with the money they take from my earned income, I consider it theft for government to force me to pay into a system I disagree with.

My god man...we're spending nearly two trillion dollars more than we take in tax revenue this year. A TWO TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT FOR ONE YEAR.

Shikanosuke wrote:Giving females the freedom over their body is hardly a deprivation of freedom.


Sure, if you believe a woman has more rights than the child inside her or the father that helped create the child. Of the three people involved in a pregnancy, ABORTION gives exclusive rights to one out of the three people involved, while direcly taking away rights of two thirds of the people effected by the situation. Isn't it strange how men are legally required to support a child for eighteen years once it is born, but before the kid is born the mother has the right to kill the child and has no legal obligation to get consent from the father?

Shikanosuke wrote:A fetus doesn't have rights, it isn't life.


You're wrong. If I punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and the baby dies, I can be charged with murder. If I'm driving a car and wreck into a pregnant woman, I can be sued for killing the baby. The unborn child has legal and civil rights. Only left wingers like yourself pick and choose when an unborn child has rights...and your defense of the murder of innocent babies shows your true colors.

You know what pisses me off about people like you? You lie and pretend like you're a centrist. You want people to believe that you're a moderate who could easily vote one way or the other. The truth is that you fully believe in the power of government. You fully endorse high taxes, abortion rights and government intervention in the economy. You're a blatant leftist, whether you want to admit it or not. You're willing to make any argument possible for government to control the economy or the market. You're a statist, and that's not what has made this country great and seperated it from the rest of the world.
The philosophy of Liberty

---If you do not believe in self ownership, you believe in slavery. Looking at all of human history, Liberty is a new concept still being introduced to man and it is growing every single day.
User avatar
Objectivist
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:39 am

Re: The Political Compass

Unread postby Zhai Rong » Sun Apr 04, 2010 11:04 am

I have no doubt that home schooling would lead to superior results compared to public education when the child is being taught by someone who has sufficient knowledge themselves, as it is hardly surprising that having the full attention of a teacher works better than having to share it with thirty others. However, this is a luxury that is not available to everyone. There are plenty who do not have the wealth that would enable them to have quality teaching time unimpeded by the need to earn a living. Taxation changes do little to solve this problem as it would have little effect on those on low incomes. Welfare payments would be necessary to enable home schooling to be an option for all, which would not only be more expensive than public education (due to the parent/child ratio being far higher than teacher/child ratio) but also a far inferior educational outcome as it fails to address the hordes of parents who simply lack the educational background.

Having to pay for someone else's education may deprive us as taxpayers of the right to spend that money on other things, but the opposite would greatly reduce the educational opportunities for many children who through nothing but misfortune were born into impoverished or poorly educated families, thus limiting the choices they can make with regards to their future career (and since the highest paying jobs tend to require a fairly high degree of education, their income as well).

As for the original topic in this thread, this is how I stand:
Economic Left/Right: -4.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.92
Zhai Rong
Master
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2002 5:19 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: The Political Compass

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Sun Apr 04, 2010 3:11 pm

Objectivist wrote:
To be fair...I base my opinion on the Constitution behind the father of the document (James Madison) among several other founding fathers and what they had to say about government. It's true that the federalist and anti-federalist papers are not law, but the founders did speak to great extent about issues such as the commerce clause and general welfare. They explained their personal feelings on the matters and I take the words they wrote to heart. Maybe that means nothing to you or any justice who has ruled otherwise. The founders wrote the commerce clause among others to overall summerize what they had already written in the Constitution.


I don't disregard original intent documents are useless, they have their value and deserve respect. However, understanding law is not accomplished by reading the federalist and anti-federalist papers. They are not law, they are secondary authorities which should be given both their proper place as well their due. What the founders thought on the matters was important, but it was also part of their discourse in debating with one another as well as their attempt to convince others to sign on to their political philosophy.

As I previously stated, the founders would not have listed the powers of the Congress if they actually had unlimited power to regulate and do whatever they want. There would be no reason to have a tenth amendment if they could do whatever they want.


We're already been over this, there are no 'new' powers. We've been over the fact that with one listed power you can find yourself in a swamp of application problems. This is my problem with your argument, you look to actions by the federal government and say 'that power isn't in the constitution', yet it is.

A judge can make up laws all they want...


No they can't. A judge's, and the Supreme Court's, duty is interpret and apply the law and no more (and no less).

but they can't say the founders meant something they did not, which is displayed in various documents from the time of the nation's founding. While original intent may seem to you like something that is in the way...it's quite important to myself and libertarians everywhere.[/i]


Original Intent is not in my, or anyone else's, way. It is not in the way because it isn't at the heart of much of our problems and because theres nothing I've ever tried to advance which is hindered by original intent. I don't look at original intent as hostile to my understanding of the law, it is neutral. It is, no more.


Actually it is at gunpoint, technically. Police will arrest you and take you to jail if you do not pay the federal fine for not buying healthcare from the market. You're trying to downplay the actual truth of the matter. Why would you do that?


Police arresting you does not have to involve gunpoint. I'm downplaying the matter, but not the truth of it, because you're attempt to reinforce the idea that left of the center political ideaology is on the same kind of moral and logical footing as Nazism and fascism, which it isn't. It isn't that I care that you don't agree with the left, not at all, but that you're attempting to paint them into a moral light they don't warrant.


I believe the supreme court will strike the mandate down. Is there anywhere in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to force Americans to buy a product or service from the market? No.


That is a fair bet, but it isn't this simple. There will plenty of issues debated in that courtroom, and none of them will rely solely on the fact that it is absent. It will involve the Commerce Clause (whether it extends this far), The 10th amendment (whether it bars this), and Interposition (even if it does extend this far, whether since it something which states may interpose themselves and protect the citizens from). There probably alot more I'm forgetting at the moment. But that is really my core problem with your analysis. There is none. It is like you open a web-document of the Constitution, hit the search feature for 'healthcare' (or social security or anything you disagree with), and when it comes up 0 results you think the matter is over. That isn't how it works. But you seem to think that the fact that it doesn't work like that is blasphemy.

Here is why you are wrong. You don't have to drive a car. You don't have to send your kid to public school. Welfare is paid for by taxpayers, even though more than a majority of working tax paying Americans do not like it. Just another case of government forcing the people to pay into something they may not agree with.


True, you don't have to drive car. But you still have to(forced to) pay taxes to fund DMV centers and police to enforce the driving laws. In fact, you may step foot into a car or onto a road but you're still paying for it, period. As for welfare, I'd disagree with you. I think most people are over welfare, and the ones who aren't merely are still hung up on the fact that some people abuse the system (which will always occur).

As for education,you do have to send your child to public school unless you provide an appropriate alternative. Since this is a impractical possibility for a good number of Americans (i.e. most working Americans cannot afford either private education nor have the time and money to invest in home-schooling), they are basically forced the scenario of "send your children to public education or face the consequences". You don't escape this "forcing" by noting there are alternatives for those who can afford it.


To address education...homeschooled kids test much higher than students at public schools. So the facts and numbers could never prove that forcing people to pay for other people's kids' education could ever be considered a positive thing. The public education system is a joke...the more our federal government gets involved the worse things get.


As to your beginning statements, thats wonderful for homeschooled kids. However, most people don't have the time or family structure to home-school, so its nice that that alternative is available for a minority of Americans. But I'm pretty sure we want all Americans to be educated, not just those with the ability to be home-schooled. As for your latter comments the connection is nonsensical. Because homeschooled kids (who exist in a minority overall, with parents who have the time and money to spend on them) do well does not at all factor into the fact that public education for all Americans is not a positive thing. I bet private school kids do better as well, but I don't try to then make the connection that therefore all public education is detrimental to the nation.


Actually the original house healthcare bill had a provision that said no future Congress or court could overrule the bill. That's about as totalitarian and fascist as it gets.


I never saw this, and I note you said 'original'. And that would be unacceptable, and unconstitutional.


If you truly believed this you'd call for lower taxes and more tax credits for homeschooling. The public education system is a joke. See Michigan for the best example. Only a quarter of students graduate. Pathetic. A perfect example of how government has ruined a system that would be much better in the free market.


No, that is not what I would do it I truly believed that. Well, maybe the latter part (as a principle, not as a matter related to our discussion). The reasons why students do not graduate can hardly be placed solely on the public education system. You can have a brilliant public education system, but if the socioeconomic factors aren't there to support it the kids will fail anyway. And there are plenty of public education facilities, I myself went to one, who scored brilliantly. I don't disagree with you the system needs help, a lot of it. But because I think I want a nation of baseline educated people don't therefore lead to the conclusion that I think we should all be homeschooled or that I should be supporting lowering taxes.

With general security by military force being the only exception, I've never benefitted from the federal government. As a matter of fact, I think they've made my life less enjoyable overall.


Sorry about that. You're free to leave (might I remind you). Me and my family have never needed to benefit from the government economically, but we have and we also pay into it. Pretty cool how its worked out. Many families do the same, and they actually need it. I bet you also benefit from the guy who paves your roads too, unless you don't drive, have people visit you, or have goods delivered.


Between 30-40% of what I make goes to government. That's entire too much money. There is so many wonderful things I could do for people I care about and myself with that money.


And now we arrive at the traditional welfare vs. charity dilemma. Lets just agree to disagree, because we won't and we do.


Spoken like a true leftist. If I disapprove of most of what government does with the money they take from my earned income, I consider it theft for government to force me to pay into a system I disagree with.


That is illogical. Stealing is someone taking something from you they have no right to. The government has a right to tax you, therefore it isn't theft. Secondly, you qualified your statement as 'most'. You don't logically get to say 'they are taking my money and giving me nothing in return' and then say 'oh yea, except military security'. Thats a big 'oh yea', and defeats the point of the meaning of theft.

My god man...we're spending nearly two trillion dollars more than we take in tax revenue this year. A TWO TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT FOR ONE YEAR.


Not really related to our discussion, yes we need reduce our deficit.


Sure, if you believe a woman has more rights than the child inside her or the father that helped create the child.


God, we had to get into this yea? Thought we could just say 'hey we're not going to agree'. And yes, I believe a fetus has no rights. Even if they did, a living womans' right to autonomy would trump it.


Of the three people involved in a pregnancy, ABORTION gives exclusive rights to one out of the three people involved, while direcly taking away rights of two thirds of the people effected by the situation.


Except the other two don't have rights, and it isn't their bodies autonomy in question so its moot.

Isn't it strange how men are legally required to support a child for eighteen years once it is born, but before the kid is born the mother has the right to kill the child and has no legal obligation to get consent from the father?


Not really. That is kind of the point of being born vs. being a fetus. Under your logic, the father should begin paying child support as soon as he impregnates the mother. That is nonsense. Rights aren't given like that, and to say they are ignores the wildly raging debate we have right now.


You're wrong. If I punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and the baby dies, I can be charged with murder. If I'm driving a car and wreck into a pregnant woman, I can be sued for killing the baby. The unborn child has legal and civil rights. Only left wingers like yourself pick and choose when an unborn child has rights...and your defense of the murder of innocent babies shows your true colors.


Yea, see that is just legally inaccurate. I'm not really surprised. See, states define their laws regarding the subject of when you may be charged with the additional killing of a fetus. Basic Crim law 101! (This is important because the states get to define it, meaning they could eliminate it, meaning your assertion of what they have would be null). In most states, it qualifies it only as a viable fetus at the time of death. Therefore in the majority of jurisdictions you can only be held liable for the additional death of the fetus if had the baby been born that instant it would have been able to draw breath independently of the mother or a respirator. So yes, some fetus's have legal and civil rights (but not all, really). Your willingness to paint anyone who says different as a 'baby murderer' + your ignorance of basic crim law jurisprudence shows your "true colors".

EDIT: For instance, California's earliest case on the issue was in 1970. In deciding whether or not the killing of unborn but viable fetus (via the killing of the mother) counted as the death of a 'human being', they never even discussed the issue in the context in which you frame it. They never assigned the fetus itself legal or civil rights. Rather the question they decided was merely if it fell within statute's definition. What did they defer to? Legislative Intent! Funny, because if fetuses had basic unalienable civil and legal rights, this would be a no-brainer right?

(Of note: the guy got off, which is bad/good depending on how you look at it and the law, as the court didn't want to exercise judicial legislation and told the legislature that if they wanted to include it they should write it into the law. CA later did. Now certain fetuses have rights, however, as we see, these arent inalienable constitutional rights like you seem to be implying).



You know what pisses me off about people like you? You lie and pretend like you're a centrist.


Nope. Don't really give a shit, either. You know what pisses me off about you? Bet you don't care either. You think either of our opinions on the subject are relevant to the conversation? Doubtful. I'll prepare for the "baby-killer leftist!" vent to follow.

You want people to believe that you're a moderate who could easily vote one way or the other. The truth is that you fully believe in the power of government. You fully endorse high taxes, abortion rights and government intervention in the economy. You're a blatant leftist, whether you want to admit it or not. You're willing to make any argument possible for government to control the economy or the market. You're a statist, and that's not what has made this country great and seperated it from the rest of the world.
[/quote]

Yea, you're right. People like you are the only good kind of Americans. We should all emulate and agree with you, otherwise we're unpatriotic baby-killers! Disagreeing with you means I have to be a leftist hack, I mean, there is no validity in trying to find common ground.

God, this shit is so lame. Isn't there a 'lets bomb the leftists' messageboard you should be trolling, or is this for our benefit?
Last edited by Shikanosuke on Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:52 pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4318
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: The Political Compass

Unread postby WeiWenDi » Sun Apr 04, 2010 8:39 pm

Shikanosuke wrote:Yea, you're right. People like you are the only good kind of Americans. We should all emulate and agree with you, otherwise we're unpatriotic baby-killers! Disagreeing with you means I have to be a leftist hack, I mean, there is no validity in trying to find common ground.


Well, though Shikanosuke and I might disagree on a few issues, I have to second what he's saying here.

Also, yeah - if you're going to be in favour even nominally of giving people more freedom over their individual conditions, it is more than a bit hypocritical to demand that everyone think the exact same way as you do, and try to dismiss them into boxes with labels when they don't think the way you do. Shikanosuke said it pretty well, and I'd only add that it's kind of an Orwellian abuse of language that speaks more to the fascist modus operandi than does anything the Obama administration has done thus far.

As a matter of historical record, having a fiscal policy is not fascism, nor is paying insurance companies more to cover people with pre-existing conditions - put another way, Baron Keynes and FDR were not fascists, and it would be a total abuse of the language to claim that they were. The fascists of Italy, Spain and Germany didn't really have a coherent economic or fiscal policy, though they aligned themselves politically with large corporations (Hitler allied himself early on with various sympathetic American corporations) and against leftist organisations such as trade unions and farmers' collectives (whom they pretty much killed in the streets through mob violence like the massacre of Turin, or later rounded up and put in concentration camps).

Oh, and my PC position?

Image

I'm the guy in the red quadrant (barely). I'd describe my own politics as 'red Tory', economically-left (-5.69) but socially-moderate-to-conservative (0.46).
Some more blood, Chekov. The needle won't hurt, Chekov. Take off your shirt, Chekov. Roll over, Chekov. Breathe deeply, Chekov. Blood sample, Chekov! Marrow sample, Chekov! Skin sample, Chekov! If I live long enough... I'm going to run out of samples.
User avatar
WeiWenDi
Hedgehog Emperor
 
Posts: 3832
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:09 am
Location: L'Étoile du Nord

PreviousNext

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved