Communications
The decline of America has been a very gradual and yet a very carefully orchestrated one. When I first became somewhat politically aware, i.e., I began to observe and pay some attention to the political goings on in the United States of America, I noticed that America, while in the professed pursuit of fighting world communism, had begun to adopt as its public policy a number of those things so common in communist nations.
I was baffled that supposedly wise and aware persons in the political arena did not grasp the obvious dichotomy.
I had never read the
After reading the Communist Manifesto I was both impressed and frightened by the specifics I have observed in America and their close correlation to the goals set forth by Marx & Engels in their manifesto over 150 years ago.
For those seeking a rational explanation for the decline of American life, this is a good start toward understanding it, this progressive [
what an odd and interesting term to employ when describing a society's movement from freedom to slavery!] move toward collectivism."Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be
pretty generally applicable.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class."
The Communist Manifesto,
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
[annotations (red)
mine]
1. No one in America has yet seriously proposed state ownership of the means of production on a large scale. Rather, those in America have chosen the fascist path. the contradictory supposition of private ownership and state control. This yields the best possible situation for the statist (collectivist) politicians. It gives them authority of decision and thus whimsical control of the business community while alleviating them of any and all responsibility normally associated with ownership and management of a business. When things go well, they pat themselves on the back for their success and when things go wrong, they blame the businessman. Business legislation and regulatory edicts are some of the most vague, arbitrary and conflicting rules in the nation. The businessman seldom if ever knows if what he plans to do business wise is legal until he hears the verdict rendered.
A quick locator for items discussed on this page:
A capitalist economy would have virtually eliminated the possibility of a disaster like the 1929 fiasco which resulted from direct control of the monetary supply by Congress and their irresponsible behavior relating thereunto. Only because the government had control of the economy in toto was it able to bring the entire American economy to its knees.The absurd, asinine hypocrisy of politicians never ceases to astound me. These arrogant, incompetent bastards declare that it is a grave threat to the consumer and the marketplace to allow vendors to reach agreements regarding the price at which they will sell their goods [it's called "price-fixing", a bad thing]. Conversely, it is a great benefit to the marketplace to allow mindless political hacks to dictate to both sellers and buyers what prices will be paid for goods offered in a "free market" [it's now called "Fair Trade" pricing and is now a good thing]! And the politicians presume you to be so stupid that you don't realize that they are the same thing! It is this brand of anti-intellectual endeavor which contrived the 'Divine Right of Kings'!
Franklin Roosevelt through his magnificent Socialist programs and constantly changing ground rules managed to perpetuate the worst economic disaster to befall America for many more years than it could have survived on its own. A spineless Congress was useless to overturn his collectivist (read Socialist or Communist) economic programs for many years. [Looking at the lack of resolve of Congress today when dealing with a case where impeachment is clearly the only rational, ethical, and reasonable legal course of action, I guess the lack of principles and ethics in Congress hasn't changed appreciably.]
In the first case, all parties act independently. The conglomerate has the advantage of economic strength and can procure raw materials in greater quantities and thus at a better price than smaller competitors. Likewise, the economic giant can secure credit at lower interest rates and can negotiate for labor rates more competitively. This entity can also automate more easily and on a larger scale making production more efficient. Doing so, the large corporation is able to produce far more product at better prices than smaller competitors.Can't happen in America you say? WRONG!!! After you look into the anti-trust case against General Electric in the 1950's, you can have a little crow for dinner.
By doing so and by pricing its products in line with production and delivery costs to maintain an operable margin of profit, the conglomerate can sell its products at a substantially lower price. Over the long haul, the smaller companies cannot compete for the most part and will collapse (go out of business because they cannot maintain an operable profit margin).
Also by doing so, the conglomerate comes in violation of anti-trust laws and MAY be prosecuted (persecuted is actually the proper term here) for unfair business practices causing failure of another business in direct competition.
In the second case, all parties act cooperatively. Knowing that it cannot satisfy the marketplace 100%, the conglomerate executes agreements freely with smaller competitors. Part of the agreement is that its retail prices will be inflated enough to keep the smaller companies retail prices competitive assuring the success of both parties in the marketplace and providing a greater selection of goods to the consumer.
Well, here we have another problem. Now not only is the conglomerate in trouble with the law but so are the smaller companies because they are now conspiring to artificially inflate prices and defraud the consumer (at least that's the political intonation).
So what's the moral of this story?. If you're running a business, no matter what you try to do in compliance with anti-trust laws, you are in violation of them! So be very careful who it is that you offend or anger. The government has the tools to punish you or put you out of business whenever it deems it to be of political benefit or the whim strikes.
Politicians have learned a valuable lesson in their evolution. They have learned that they can create problems and then at some later time decry the horrors of these problems and step in with a proposed solution which is always to give government greater authority and to further abrogate the rights of the American citizen.
The beginnings of this are not clear to me. The first example I can cite was with the growth of America toward the Pacific coast in the 19th century. Politicians in Washington decided that it was politically
desirable to have a transcontinental railroad. It did not matter to them that there was not adequate incentive economically to attract private enterprise which would have ensured the success of such a venture.
Their desire (wish, whim) was sufficient motivation for politicians then (and still seems to be today). They initiated a program for westward expansion of the railroads across the American continent. Since there was not adequate incentive to attract private investment and enterprise, those attracted by the government's proposition were the type of "entrepreneur" who is always attracted by government programs; those with a hand outstretched to receive money and property without any effort or accomplishment of their own required.
Land grants and monopolistic rights-of-way precluding competition were granted to those who were willing to pretend to realize the political whim of the government bureaucrats. Government financing was granted and those receiving the money had little or no incentive to spend it wisely; after all, it wasn't anything they had earned and if they squandered it foolishly, there was more where it came from.
The result was shoddy construction and quality control. Also, since the government had created a coercive monopoly, there was no chance for competition and the railroads could charge whatever they decided as there was no competitive option available to the captive audience of customers. As a result, rates were set at exorbitant levels which led to great outcries from the people who had no choice of rail service but that sanctioned by the government.
Finally, when the popular dissatisfaction became sufficient, politicians stepped in to offer a solution. Their solution? Government regulation, of course, of this monopoly which was the direct result of their own incompetent meddling in the marketplace. But of course their regulation did not apply only to the mess they had created; it also applied to the honest businesses which also existed and flourished prior to the political blundering and meddling.
Never to take responsibility for the incompetence, politicians of course decried the horrors of this situation which existed with the railroad monopolies. They blamed greedy businessmen for this calamity and got away with their lies. The truth was thoroughly obfuscated and denied. Honest businessmen were blamed for the incompetence of political meddling in the economy and people by and large accepted the lies from government as truth. They are still falling for this today from politicians aided and abetted by the press.
This was a beginning and their successors have continued creating a proliferation of ever more complex, vague, contradictory laws, rules, regulations and requirements so confusing and vague that you cannot help but violate at least one if you do anything at all. America has through this process of creating an ever increasing puzzle of laws and regulation made it impossible for a business (or even a private citizen) to take any action and know it is legal or illegal. That information isn't determinable or available until the court decision is rendered.
From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.This idea sounds quite noble unless you look carefully at the underlying principle espoused. It is upon this idea that the present day government social welfare program is based.
The legal system in America has degenerated since my childhood (the 1950's) that I can remember. At the time, things I heard didn't make sense to me and didn't carry the significance that they do with my more mature perspective.
I can remember stories of lawsuits files by someone 'falling' on your property, suffering some grievous injury and getting an award by the court for thousands of dollars (keep in mid, in the 1950's, $10,000-$20,000 was a lot of money; you could buy a house for that sum). I could not understand how someone else's ineptitude, carelessness or clumsiness was somehow the fault of the property owner.
Today, I understand much better than perhaps anyone should. This was the early warning sign of stupid, inept, corrupt or crooked members of the legal establishment being elevated to positions of authority for which they were not suited. They were the judges who did not have the intellect or integrity to throw out so blatant and offensive a case and to castigate the thug lawyer who would bring it to court.
At first, these ludicrously 'frivolous' lawsuits were aimed at extorting insurance companies for the most part. But progress will diversify! These
asinine thugs have degraded to the point that now a criminal who tries to rob you can sue you for injuries sustained if he is injured by your efforts to protect yourself and your property.
And the thugs who run this asininely self-serving system of corruption have the unmitigated gall to call it a system of justice! They don't have a suspicion as to the meaning of the concept.
And to really put this into perspective, the most egregious offender who wreaks the greatest havoc on society in general, our politicians, have carefully legislated themselves exempt from legal and financial responsibility. These are the same thugs who have gone after tobacco companies with a vengeance when the tobacco companies have done nothing wrong (except maybe to pay insufficient bribes to politicians). The person who puts the tobacco product into his body is responsible for the result. At the age of fourteen (14), I knew that cigarette smoke and tobacco use in general was a health hazard. I saw documentation presented by the American Cancer Society at that time (mid-1950's) which convinced me. There were many of my peers who saw the same thing as did I but they weren't afraid to face death, I guess, because they continued to smoke. I never started. Presumably, my life was more valuable to me than was theirs to them.
Yet there are fools composing juries who award countless dollars of someone else's to some fool who killed himself by the use of cigarettes (the same mentality that acquitted O. J. Simpson).
Why the onslaught of the tobacco companies? Moral crusade? Defending the small guy? Protecting the rights of the individual? Not a chance! !!!MONEY!!! Politicians can get their hands on vast sums of other people's money [OPM] to squander as they have our tax dollars for generations! And they have mounted a public crusade of lies creating an
artificial crisis to gather support from many people making their legalized piracy a holy crusade!
Were there any morality or conscience among the politicians who lead this lynch-mob lawsuit against a legitimate business, the people who use the tobacco products would be told the truth; they are responsible for their own actions. But the politicians don't want them to be responsible. That undermines the power of the politician and to him, nothing matters but his power over the lives and fortunes of others. If you question this conclusion, why does Slick Willie Clinton aver that it is irresponsible to return to the working people of America tax dollars stolen from them because they would not use their own money responsibly? This man who has never accepted responsibility for his immoral, criminal and treasonous behavior but has laid claim to the accomplishments of those whose ideology he despises and opposes! How dare this criminal SOB speak to anyone of responsibility!!
It is this collectivist mentality pervading society today that is the root of most of society's ills. The juggernaut effort to evade responsibility rolls ever onward because there are enough people willing to avoid responsibility that they won't make waves.
What follows is the text of some discussions in which I participated regarding this subject. The environment was an on-line Bulletin Board and the interactions is primarily by comment and rebuttal. Occasionally, others have asked questions and I have answered in that manner of discussion as well.
What follows is several exchanges between myself and other people participating in the site.
In places, the reader may note odd words or symbols like :cool: or :). These are BB codes which display a specified icon on the BB from which these excerpts are taken. I left them in the text as a matter of ease for myself.
These links permit selection of any of the seven exchanges as an alternative to scrolling through them from top to bottom.
| First Exchange | Second Exchange |
| Third Exchange | Fourth Exchange |
| Fifth Exchange | Sixth Exchange |
| Seventh Exchange |
Originally posted by poster1Because it violates the fundamental principles upon which this nation was founded, i. e., individual rights and freedoms.I want to talk some serious affirmative action on this board. Why are you opposed to it?
Originally posted by poster1It violates the concept of all men being equal before the law, i. e., there are laws created which create a favored political class based on skin pigmentation, ethnicity, etc., which, while not a valid basis for any decision, is even more horribly egregious when the government exercises a practice which violates the rights of free men in a free society. When the government, the legitimate protector of your rights, becomes the criminal, to whom do you turn for justice?Constitutionally what is unsound with this principle?
Also, it is so thoroughly intellectually dishonest it should be egregiously offensive to anyone capable of objective analysis.
It was Martin L. King's dream that men would be judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin. I think I can safely say he would condemn the idea of affirmative action as severely as anyone today because it is in direct contradiction to the ideas he espoused.
As an example, let's take a hypothetical scenario in which a community has a group of people who tell businesses in their locale, you hire people on the basis of rules we give you. If you don't comply with our demands, we will burn your business, your home and attack your family. Would you applaud them as progressive, honorable people advancing the lot and lives of the people whose cause they advocate? Or would you condemn them as thugs terrorizing and extorting people in that community?My point is, whether the above action is initiated by a group of private citizens or by a politician via the passage of a law, the principle involved is the same. No rational person can advocate one and condemn the other. Yet, the Liberal/Left mentality does exactly that with the idea of affirmative action. The Right does it with other ideas, so don't try to evade the point by telling me "they do it, too". That doesn't fly with me.
My granddaughter doesn't get by with that and neither will you. (But frankly, she's got a better chance. :cool: )
The Constitution defines those responsibilities and powers specifically permitted the Federal government. Find for me if you will the place where the Federal government is authorized to force upon any citizen an undesired association or in any other manner to violate the rights of an American citizen.
Originally posted by poster4Bill is quick to point out how AA is directly at odds with all people being treated equally under the law but isn't the institutionalized racism in the US(And, to a lesser degree, my country) simply a large scale public violation of that same principal? If minorities aren't being treated equally and fairly by everyone shouldn't there be a response that attempts to enforce that very thing?
How do you mean institutionalized racism? When and where I grew up, there were racially based laws, i. e., colored people were treated differently under the law, i. e., by government. To me, that is institutional racism. According to the Constitution, this is wrong and the situation was rectified.
If there are laws mandating different treatment of citizens, then they are wrong and should be abolished. But who is it today crying to create and perpetuate such laws in force? The Left/Liberal leadership. For the AA laws are precisely the thing against which they rail, racial discrimination. But, since government is the practitioner in this case, they find it an acceptable practice.
What I find curious is that they find it acceptable, even desirable, for the one entity in society (government) with the potential to exert totalitarian abusive authority to behave in a racially discriminatory manner, but the individual who has no such extent of power cannot.
And hardly anyone calls them on their hypocrisy.
Originally posted by poster5I think most people would support laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, creed, sex, etc. You shouldn't be able to use any of those factors/traits to support a decision not to hire someone. Or as a reason to fire someone.
This is a point where we differ. I do not and cannot in good conscience support any laws that allows the initiation of the use of force, the most basic definition of a criminal action. That violates the rights and freedoms of those subjected to it, be it one person or all of us. And to grant this authority to government is to endorse and invite tyranny.
It is an attempt for the government to deny your right to choose with whom you associate. If the government can deny that aspect of your freedom to make your own decisions, then it can just as legitimately extend that power to any other decision you might wish to make.
For once you accept the idea that rights and freedom are not innate, then you are tacitly accepting that they are the product of the largess of government, the same tenet that provides the basis of tyranny. This is the idea that is embodied in the concept espoused by Clinton when he commented that the government should not give a tax reduction to American citizens because they wouldn't spend their money properly.
They have already succeeded in extensive inroads in this arena to the extent that they tell you what products and services you may offer, what environment you must have in order to conduct your business, what you must pay your employees, and literally thousands of pages of laws and regulations specifying virtually every aspect of how you will conduct your business.
In short, government has become so invasive and so intrusive already that people are beginning to accept that it is proper. They are not educated anywhere that the Federal government in particular is now operating far beyond it's Constitutional authority.
And if government can legitimately do this to your business, they can just as legitimately do it in your personal life, for your business is hardly more than an extension of your personal life.
And those in power are not about to relinquish their stranglehold unless forced to do so. But the mechanism which should be protecting us from these abusive legislators, the courts, are not doing their job. These laws and regulations with the force of law created by appointed officials with no legitimate authority to legislate are enforced by the courts despite their illegitimacy.
And while I consider racism and bigotry the product of ignorance, arrogance, stupidity and feelings of inferiority, it is a situation where the creation of laws to rectify moral failings make the cure worse than the disease. History has demonstrated time and again that legislating morality does not work (Amendment 18 is a great example).
History has demonstrated many times over that collectivism in any form is a despicable form of government, i. e., tyranny. Yet there are people today who champion it. These people I regard as the epitome of arrogance because they presume that they are somehow better than everyone else and should be the ones deciding how others should live their lives, make their choices, etc. These are not people who respect the ideas of individual rights and freedoms. Had they that respect, they would not advocate laws dictating behaviors they deem proper.
I cannot understand how anyone who believes in the concepts of rights and freedoms expressed in the Declaration of Independence could support the idea of laws which are in direct conflict with those rights and freedoms. To me, the dichotomy is blatantly obvious.
Originally posted by poster4First of all I suggest you review your reading of the Constitution. What are the "lofty ideals" to which you refer.Here's what I'm getting at Bill
1) Imagine if you will a country where there is such a long history of racism that it's still around in the minds of many. Affecting how many people see the world even today.
2) Imagine, if you will, that this long standing racism severely harms a particular minority group both in terms of education opportunities, job prospects and in the courts.
3) Now don't you suppose that the government should attempt to somehow get this minority up to equal footing? The metaphor of the playing field is often used and for good reason. Once again, I'm not big on AA programs but I see the reasoning. I honestly think that Bill believes the field is a level one and AA tries to unfairly de-level it. I think, Bill, that the other side thinks that the playing field is so bizzarely slanted already that legally enforced levelling might be the best way to go about their business.
4) If the American public lived up to the lofty ideals in the constitution then there wouldn't be a need for things like the ERA, AA or Gun legislation. The American public was high on slavery and "Seperate but Equal" and to an extent are still guilty of these many of the social ills that need rectification. I'm sure as a white male it's easy to sit back and say "The constitution says an equal chance for all so we can't intervene" but try to see how the other half lives Bill. Imagine if you never had the chance to have an equal chance.
Having read the Constitution myself, it is an outline or blueprint for the American Federal government. Little in the way of ideology resides therein.
If there is potential for tyranny in a society, government is the greatest repository of that potential. This was recognized and acknowledged by the Founders.
This is the reason they went to the lengths they did to lay out the plan for a republican federal government and made the statements of explicit power assigned to it. The remainder of power was left to the states and to the individual. The idea was to minimize the likelihood that the federal government could rise to the position of tyrant. And so long as those in the federal government respect the constraints of the Constitution or are held to them by the electorate, that is pretty well assured.
They also recognized that the potential for one person or group to seek to use government against others. They based their judgment on observation and study of various governments over man's history and noted that when government was by men not laws, the potential for this was often used to advantage.
Government legitimately in a free society has a monopoly on one thing, the use of force, and that is its only legitimate function. But the use of force must be constrained to retaliatory and the retaliation must be limited to those who initiated the use of force, i. e., the criminal.
If you make the error of granting government the option of initiating the use of force, you then relegate government to the role of criminal. Once government is authorized that power, it is then empowered to become the tyrant against which the Constitution was created to protect us.
The only legitimate purpose of government in a free society is to protect the rights of its citizens. However, it cannot do that by violating their rights. If it is permitted the power to violate the rights of one among us, we are all at peril. It is along the idea of the story that goes, "When they came for the Jews, I did not object for they were not coming for me. ... And when they came for me, there was no one to object."
Government, to be given the means of "leveling the playing field", must necessarily be authorized the use of tyrannical power, i. e., it must be given authority to initiate the use of force against some citizens on the behalf of other citizens. Yet the initiation of the use of force is the most basic definition of a criminal action. Thus the idea of government leveling the field is a dichotomy.
And I disagree with your perception of the view of the "other side" to which you refer in paragraph 3). My perception is that they are infatuated with the power they have managed to seize. They like the idea of being able to use the government to coerce their political agenda on America under the attractively packaged rhetoric. But despite the nice sounding intentions, the result is they garner more government power to force their will upon the American citizen. They use government to initiate the force of arms to get acceptance of their ideology which they cannot sell on an intellectual basis. And this is the reason they resort to lies, character assassination, slander and any other means available to destroy, suppress and oppress dissent. And under the previous [Clinton] administration, you saw that practice elevated to an art form. And in the case of Clinton, not only was it used for political gain, it was used as the defense for his personal criminal behavior.
Government cannot eradicate racism any more than it can eradicate alcoholism or smokers' addictions. Government has, since the civil rights legislation of the 60's, made the situation worse under the guise of righting wrongs of the past.
Much of the resentment and hatred of today is the result of government discrimination in favor of one segment of the populace against another. Even when it was proposed, having far less understanding of philosophy and government than I do now, I recognized how thoroughly ludicrous the politicians sounded when they claimed the fix for discrimination was more discrimination. But very few people seemed to recognize that intellectual truth. Too many were caught up in the emotional wave to "right the wrongs of the past" by penalizing people who were not part of perpetrating those wrongs.
So even in the ignorance of my youth, I saw through this facade as the evil it was and was totally aghast that so few people stopped to actually think about the reality. And I have learned by reading the Constitution that the Federal government has no legitimate authority to do as you suggest.
If racism is to be eradicated (and I doubt it will ever be completely), it will be by education and example, not by force of arms. As a good example, look at the Middle East. The Islamic nations teach systemic hatred for the Jews generation after generation. Why? It's always been that way. And until there is some intellectual intervention, that situation will not change.
But education can reveal the ugly face of racism for the despicable thing it is and perhaps via popular opinion suppress even the most ignorant who cling to its tenets despite the best enlightenment offered them. But attempts to legislate racism away and legislation of special privileges for a certain segment of society at the expense of others only fosters more resentment and hatred and justifies in the minds of those who believe in and practice racism the validity of their beliefs.
And the Negro is not the first group to face bigotry in this country. Look back into our history at the Irish in New York and that area. The "Irish need not apply" signs are reminiscent of the "Negroes need not apply" of this century. And the Irish are not the only other ones who suffered at the foot of the bigot. The Chinese faced similar treatment when they began immigrating here. Even until the 60's, there were homes in Norfolk, VA, [a huge Navy town] where you could see signs posted on the lawns of peoples' homes, "SAILORS AND DOGS KEEP OFF THE GRASS".
In an earlier post, poster1 made a remark about "hidden racism". To me, the idea that racism has achieved the status of "hidden" is a great moral victory because it is no longer given serious open public acceptance, i. e., it has been driven underground. To me that idea implies that one who acts openly racist is publicly condemned and shunned as I believe is morally proper and justified.
And regarding the ERA, AA and Gun Legislation, most of what we have now we don't need. As far as ERA, it was never about rights if you take an objective assessment of the idea as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. As far as AA, there was never any honest intellectual basis for it. And for Gun Legislation, the greatest deterrent you can have for criminals whether they use a gun or other weapon, is to punish them for the crimes they commit. Thousands of gun laws on the books don't stop a single crime. They only make it difficult for honest men to get a gun if they choose to do so. A criminal will not abide by any gun law because they don't respect them or care about them. And stupid laws denigrate the respect of the honest citizen for all laws.
As to the idea of government putting everyone on an equal footing, that's the explicit promise of collectivism in all its variants. That is not the promise of the United States Federal government nor is the power to do so within the scope of its Constitutional
authority
Kicking around words like "legitimate" and "retaliation" is nice, but doesn't actually say anything. Just because they're your views, or anyone else's, doesn't make them the only real ones, or the only possibilities. By "kicking around" these words, I'm defining my statements to a rational context. Only in a free society are men's rights acknowledged and offered protection. And government in that context is the agent of protection of his rights. The difference is, my views are consistent, i. e. non-contradictory. Those who advocate "leveling the field" are engaging in a dichotomy, i. e., "protecting the rights" of some while violating the rights of others. You may reject that fact but rejection does not eradicate the truth. What constitutes the use of force? Is "white collar crime" forceful? Should it be unpunished because non-violent? Whose grievances are legitimate? Who gets to define these terms? The ones who get elected get to write the laws, appoint the courts that evaluate them, and hold veto power and the option of executive mandate. So, who gets elected? (And, don't forget, Who gets access to the vote? ) Force may be overt or covert. It amounts to taking property from someone or gaining their compliance against their will or inducing them via deception to do what they would not when provided factual information, i. e., confidence men are using covert force to separate the mark from his property. Anyone whose rights are violated has legitimate grievance. As I indicated previously, those elected are not empowered
carte blanche to create whatever laws they wish. In today's environment, I can understand how that is your perception, however. But if they are constrained by the limits placed on them, the abuses to which you allude are out of their reach. Crime, whether violent or not, is crime and should be punished commensurately. Isn't it interesting that as of the 21st century, a black person can't even win a leading role Oscar, much less get elected to executive office. I don't see a lot of women or minorities on the ticket. Hmm...maybe they're unqualified? But, isn't the executive office allegedly designed to be holdable by any educated person? How important is money to this process? And your solution is tyrannical government authority? Interesting that you use Hollywood as an example. The Hollywood crowd is one of the most vocal on the subject of racism, prejudice, righting past wrongs, and many of the other popular Left programs. Should they be subject to the same tyranny as is proposed for the remainder of America to achieve the implementation of the noble agendas? Should there be laws requiring the recognition of the (fill-in-the-blank) set to receive nominations and awards? Aren't these people who purport themselves to be so noble and honorable when dictating what others should do and think to be subjected to the same tyranny? And as to the point of integrity, look at the furor last year regarding the transition of power (chairmanship) in the DNC. The mayor of Atlanta (a black man and loyal Democrat for many years, imminently qualified according to the press) was pushed aside in deference to a Clinton fund raiser and friend. And when did I ever offer that qualification was a criterion for selection to a party ticket? If I did so, please point out where for that was an egregious error on my part. However, in light of the statistics indicating the great percentage of women who voted for Clinton, that information lends some credence to the judgment of the founders that women might not be competent to be trusted with the responsibility of suffrage. The US government was not designed for everybody. Women, blacks, and non-landholders are the most glaringly obvious examples of those it was not designed to include in its umbrella protection of rights. Also, it's not a holy text. It's subject to change according to the needs of the people it has come to serve. (Actually, so are holy texts--ask King James) Actually, it was and the design was a superb one for the flaws permitted at its outset. The Founders realized that if they attempted to cure all the ills that existed, they would never be able to convince enough people of the wisdom of their choice of a republican federal government and get the Constitution adopted. And their rights (with the exception of slaves) were not denied, only suffrage. And they built in the means and impetus to change things they recognized as wrongs but were unable to correct then. I wonder at what you mean by …needs of the people it has come to serve…? The American government was never intended to be the provider for the American citizen. This role was not part of the power and authority stipulated to the Federal government. It was never envisioned by the founders that the government they established would become the provider, the paternalistic protector from all evils, accidents, misadventures, etc. which the citizenry might contrive. This vision of government as the omnipotent protector who shields all from every potential bad thing that might befall them is a utopian mythical concept of the would-be tyrant, because as the protector from all things bad, one must be granted the power to dictate all choices available to those protected. And it seems it has been embraced openly by the Liberal/Left political cadre. The role of provider is the role of a collectivist government and is incompatible with a free society in which one makes any pretense of respecting the rights of men. But it is at least partly the role of any and every collectivist society you can name. And once you allow that role to government, you necessitate that it treat certain citizens differently negating its legitimacy. Government 's only legitimate role in the context of a free society is to protect the equal rights of ALL citizens which means that government does not have any legitimacy when it treats one citizen differently from another. Who, exactly, are "they?" I'm always suspicious of talk about "those people", who seem to be responsible for everything. I'm having a hard time imagining a politico who doesn't use rhetoric to sell their ideas to the (largely disinterested and distracted) populace. How is this relevant? From the context, "they" is the people who are advocating the irrational supposition that the solution to discrimination is more discrimination, analogous to the idea that the antidote for poison is more of the poison. Were the Federal government constrained to its defined authority, it would not be relevant. It only becomes relevant when politicians for their own benefit attempt to convince some people that they are owed something at the expense of another and they wish to accrue followers who support their efforts to confiscate the wealth of some for distribution to others. This is in essence the idea of nobless oblige, which while there might be a valid argument for it under a monarchy or other dictatorial style of government, is not valid in a free society which holds man's rights and freedom as values. Ah, the old "those who disagree just aren't thinking it through" argument. Don't take it personally, Bill. It's been lobbed around by both sides. Embracing a dichotomy is thinking the issue through? How is violating the rights of some protecting the rights of any? That merely legitimizes the use of tyrannical power by government (which today means whatever politician can get himself elected), a government of men, not laws. Who is objective? I'd be curious to meet this hypothetical person with no personal stake in the politics of their own nation and the interpretation of "rights". Again, the "fuzzy thinking" argument. For one, I am objective. I offer that a consistent definition of the concept of rights means that everyone has the same rights. One man's right does not impose any obligation on another except that others NOT violate his rights. Once one man's "right" imposes an obligation on another, it ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege because it does not have universal application. This is why I have said that the concept of "minority rights" is an intellectual atrocity. There is no smaller minority than the individual citizen yet the individual's rights are to be subjugated to the "good of society". This is the standard line used by the collectivist mentality to attempt to make their tyrannical style of government sound palatable. I used to work for a man who used "collectivism" as a dirty word. He was remarkably pedagogical on the subject, but when I tried to engage in dialogue with him, he just thrust Ayn Rand books at me. Fascinating. I read them. They were tautological and dull. But seem to have sparked an interesting political movement--and the myth of "objectivism," the claim that there's not only is an objective truth, but that it's obviously (*insert political claim here*) Collectivism is simply a term which subsumes all its variants; communism, socialism, fascism, Nazism, etc. It refers to any form of societal organization in which the individual's rights are subordinated to the power of the state, in effect making the life of the individual citizen the property of the state to be disposed of as the state sees fit. This is what makes the United States of America different from every other government in the world's history, that the individual's rights were to be respected and protected, especially from the government, that these rights are innate, not bestowed by government. The other potential violator is the individual criminal or a gang of such thugs. I can understand someone finding Ayn Rand's works dull; some are difficult and tedious. They are challenging to read and comprehend. They deal with some very complex abstractions. But they are reasoned and consistent. Perhaps the repetition was due to the consistent nature of her philosophy. Her declaration of objective truths were always laid on a consistent foundation of reason. And the chain of logic is traceable back to her fundamental presumption that reality is real and facts of reality are fact independent of the perception, wish or whim of any person or group of people which might be at variance. She did not accept faith as a legitimate means of cognition or basis for one's judgment. Her attitude toward faith is best stated through a character in one of her novels, "Faith, the alleged shortcut to knowledge is actually a short circuit destroying the mind." (paraphrased) This isn't a critique of the political right, though it might seem like it. The left has many just as ridiculous claims, as several right-wingers have pointed out. My objection to the Left is not so much the ridiculous claims as it is their commitment to outright lies to achieve their political ends, their embracing the collectivist idea that the end justifies the means. This, right here, is exactly what's wrong with the current party system. Partisanship, lack of choices, and an almost total lack of actual discussion between the party ideologues. Either we get discrimation in the guise of a fix for discrimination, or we get ostrich-like refusal to see the lived realities of those who live without privilege and easy political access. What a choice! The demonstrated ideology of the Left is win at all cost by any means available. There are no constraints of any perception of honor, honesty, common decency, truth or morality beyond their acceptance of the premise that the end justifies the means. The Right is more likely to be constrained by some limits of decency for reasons I've noted before. It is repeatedly demonstrated that the Left is not inclined to argue their ideology. Rather they use the "politics of personal destruction" to attain their political goals. They seem unwilling or unable to offer their ideas in the free marketplace and gain acceptance, thus their necessity to fall back to the tactics they employ continually to win their point. Yet when confronted with the same tactics, they are the first and loudest to scream about the unfairness of it (re: the John Stossel junk science indoctrination in our schools report on ABC of recent notoriety). A recent example of the Left's demagoguery being the arsenic level in drinking water specified in federal regulations (see NOTE below). While the levels set by Bush's action overturning Clinton's edict were the same as those in effect for 8 years under Clinton, Bush was demonized and demagogued for returning to effect the same standard under which the Clinton regime had operated. Even members of Congress who voted to extend the period of the EPA evaluation of the new standards were demonizing Bush for doing what they had supported. But they are not liars and hypocrites? This is a demonstration of their bi-partisanship? This is a demonstration that they are interested in what's best for America, not what's best for their political gain? NOTE: Which by the way, is beyond the authority of the fed, but who cares, right? After all, Adolf just wanted to improve the lot of the German people, right? If your intentions are noble, what does it matter of the cost is a few million lives or a few billion or even trillion dollars? Your intentions are noble, thus whatever means it takes to achieve them are then justified are they not? So if you must give tyrannical power to a government to achieve your noble ends, what does it matter if that power is used against a few hundred or a few thousand or even a few million innocent people who are not guilty of what you declare? After all, they must share at least some of the guilt my association, mustn't they? It seems to me it's become like the Bible. Certain parts of it are quoted to prove a point that can be disproved by quoting certain other parts of it... Makes me wonder just how much of it, if any, you have read. The Constitution is not a philosophical document per se nor a record of history nor any such chronological record as the Bible is represented. It is the design blueprint for the American federal government.
Ringing with objectivity, this is. Certainly, voting for the "wrong" candidate invalidates the "objective rights" of 51% of the populace. I'm sorry you missed the humorous innuendo intended, hence the icon (which was omitted due to an edit on the original post). Not only does this attempt to interpret the personal beliefs and utopian desires of the constitution's framers, but it raises another question: in a representative republic, isn't suffrage the most basic affirmation and realization of citizenship's "rights"? How can one be represented, their rights protected, without it? Actually, the writings of these men provide a great deal of insight into their thoughts behind their creation. So I'm hardly divining anything, just reading their own words. The Federalist Papers are one good source. The Constitution serves the people. I do not imply that the government is a paternalistic provider, but that the Constitution is itself a tool used to serve the will of the people whose government it describes, constrains, and ultimately delineates. It is a tool, no more, no less. And to address a question posed later, even deprived of suffrage, when government is constrained by the Constitution, even those who may not or choose not to vote, have nothing to fear from it. It is only when government becomes the tools and means of those with ambitions of power over the lives and property of others that any of us have reason to be fearful of it. And this is the situation in America today and many people have good reason to fear the government. Would you, for example, have no trepidation whatsoever of an IRS audit? Because I can guarantee you that they can find a violation of a tax law or regulation (there are about 9,000 pages of it) in your records if they wish to do so. And with the IRS, you are guilty until you prove your innocence. How does that match up with your knowledge of the Constitutional protections? Or how about civil asset forfeiture procedures (see link)?
Asset Forfeiture As the debate on this topic has exemplified, when faced with irresoluble contradictions, the human mind has a nearly infinite capacity to choose an ideology, and embrace it despite its contradictions. This is true of both sides, and their respective illogics. And, once again, if the constitution was framed in such a way as to violate the rights of many (especially slaves), how can it ever have protected the rights of any, under your own logic? How can it sustain as the definition of a rights-protecting republic, given this understanding of rights?
Fifth ExchangeOriginally posted by poster6
Originally posted by poster6
Originally posted by poster6
Originally posted by poster6
Originally posted by poster6
Originally posted by poster6
Originally posted by poster6
Originally posted by poster6
Originally posted by poster6
Originally posted by poster6
Originally posted by poster7
Sixth ExchangeOriginally posted by poster6
Originally posted by poster6
Originally posted by poster6
My perception is a bit different. I see the Constitution as being the design plan for a government that protects a society from the "will of the people" when that will is an irrational whim like a welfare state or other form of tyrannical government.Originally posted by poster6
I don't see contradictions as insoluble, only some more difficult than others. And that is not to imply that I have all the answers. Much of what I offer is to point out that many of the political solution offered today are not permitted to the government, thus illegitimate.
The framers had a choice between some protections with the means to rectify others or no protections at all. They settled for the lesser of two evils
Originally posted by poster6I am not implying that repeating the same argument consistently is objective or even accurate. Repeating a lie does not change its falsity.Consistent argumentation does not simply equal objectivity. The rhetoric of "Objectivity" holds that some truths are true simply because they are, an illogical tautology that holds that the "right minded" perceiver is the one with the correct subjectivity, thus embracing the subjective assessment one finds most appealing as irreducible truth.
I am saying that consistency in Ayn Rand's Objectivism is fundamental. It starts at the most basic premise and each step upward in the hierarchy is logically based on a concept demonstrated at a lower level in the chain of reasoning. Her philosophy has an almost mathematical order and precision. Her philosophy also includes a self-validating premise that is contradictions do not exist in reality. She bases this idea on the law of identity: A is A. If you find what appears to be a contradiction, there is an error. For example, if you encounter a situation where you draw conclusion indicating opposites, you have committed an error in your process. To correct your conclusion, you must identify the error and rectify it because at least one of your conclusions is wrong.
This is the idea of consistency I was trying to convey, not the idea of consistently spouting a certain line validating the line. As an example, the ceaseless media and Democrat references to the "vast right-wing conspiracy", while a consistent message, does not make it a true or accurate one.
If I make the declaration that the present Socialist Welfare State established by the U. S. Federal government violates the Constitutional restrictions on the Federal government, that declaration is consistent with reality, i. e., there is no provision in the Constitution for such an establishment.
Originally posted by poster6Finding Rand dull is not necessarily a reflection of ignorance, or lack of understanding the abstractions. While this may be revolutionary, one canunderstand without embracing, endorsing, or enjoying them. Then again, perhaps her objectivity didn't allow for the "abstractions" of art, only architecture as structure, rather than artform.
I did not intend to imply that finding it dull is based in ignorance. While I did not find it dull, I did find it tedious and demanding. At times, I had to set it aside and get away from it. At times it took several such instances to finally come to grips with some of her concepts and abstractions. And not only did her philosophy allow for the "abstractions of art" but explained the psychology of it. If interested, it's in The Romantic Manifesto.
And the thing I find most interesting and attractive about her philosophy is its consistency and that it integrates consistently into every facet of human endeavor.
Originally posted by poster6Ah, so. If everyone disagrees about reality, whose definition is correct? Who gets to set the terms? That "reality is real" is an unhelpful tautology. They are abstractions which reflect human apprehension of their own surroundings. Those surroundings, as history and discussions clearly reveal, are subject to near-infinite conflicting interpretations. Different interpreters use different criteria for their acceptance of the terms of their own understanding. "Science," "religion," "objectivity (often linked to science), and many others have served as these criteria. That does not, however, mean that one or another of them holds exclusive dominion over the "reality of reality" to anyone but those who find a particular criterion compelling enough to attach their belief to it.
Reality sets the rules. And I did not say that everyone disagrees about reality. Only that to deny reality or to wish it different does not change it. For example, if I wish to have wealth on a par with Bill Gates, that does not change the reality that I do not have it and likely never will. The reality is independent of the observer and of any wish for it to be otherwise.
Originally posted by poster6I lacked specific clarity in this instance. This refers to faith in the sense used religiously and by others who use faith as a tool of cognition, i. e., acquisition of knowledge.And this is one of the central ironies. Acceptance of one's own interpretation of the world is itself an expression of faith: faith in one's own powers of perception, faith that one has all the necessary information to see the picture in its entirety, faith that the criteria of judgement are the proper ones. While one's certainty of their "objective truth" may be based in religious faith, it can also be based in faith in science, statistics, tradition, a philosophical or rhetorical path, or any number of other things. What one calls faith, another calls science.
For example, I have faith (more accurately expressed as confidence) in certain knowledge. I have faith (confidence) that in an electrical circuit, I can do certain things and achieve the desired result. I also have the same faith that if I violate certain laws of physics, I can cause damage to or by that same circuit.
As another example, I have faith in physics that atoms are composed of protons and electrons. I have not seen either of these particles but there is enough scientific data to allow me to accept this theory on faith, or confidence. But when it comes to religion, I see no objective evidence that would give me reason to believe the assertions thereof. Because here, faith is a tool of cognition, not a manifestation of confidence in one's knowledge, but the source of that knowledge.
This is why I try to avoid the word faith in discussions because it frequently conveys the meaning I did not intend.
The faith you address above I sense is in the manner I described as confidence in one's ability to perceive, observe and integrate information. As has been demonstrated numerous times, observers often miss things. I have seen a few "staged" crimes in which a specific scenario was executed and recorded.
Witnesses reported numerous versions of the "crime", all usually containing some significant facts, and usually some misperceptions of what happened. The reality was captured by the camera and their various perceptions were recorded by their minds as they observed and correlated their perceptions colored by whatever their emotional and psychological filters. This is what I mean when I say reality is real independent of the observers' perceptions, biases, etc.
Originally posted by poster6Which brings me back to my original point: politics, as a field which expressly delineates the possibilities and consequences of human interaction, is rife with power mongering and demagoguery. Honor, dignity, and mutual respect for each other's "rights" continues in short supply.
I agree. And it is to the extent that politicians have violated the most fundamental legal document of our government that we as a nation are at risk. The career politician has learned that he can ignore the most fundamental law, create a constituency whom he promises some benefits at no cost (at least to them, ignoring the truth that he is stealing from others to provide these benefits) and build a lucrative career by brokering one segment of society against another. And the group I see most egregiously offensive is the Left/Liberal/Democrat contingent.
I have never absolved the Right of guilt. They are willing to go along with most of the abuses perpetrated by the Left because they also share in the political power. The major difference I perceive is, by and large, the leadership of the Right is more likely to be constrained by some measure of decency and the degree of abuse that find tolerable to their sensibilities.
Originally posted by poster3That was the purpose and intent of the smiley, to convey the irony. I'm glad you presumed it TIC!whoa! hehe. I could get my panties in a wad about this statement but I feel it was said more tongue-in-cheek... at least I hope.
Originally posted by poster3 … However, I also believe that government does have a responsibility to somehow care for those members of society who are indigent and who are unable to effectively penetrate societial racism in order to have a way to promote themselves.
First, I disagree that you can claim societal racism. Society is not a living entity, rather it is a conceptual or abstract one consisting of a number of individuals. Thus society cannot be racist, per se, even though some or many within the society are. Racism (and other ignorant choices) are individual choices. Rights is a concept applicable only to the individual. Membership in a society or group carries no rights with it.
In some cases, membership in an organization may infer privileges. For example, membership in the Masonic organization infers the privilege of that member to participate in their organized activities and functions. That I am not a member does not negate any right of mine; I merely do not enjoy whatever privileges their members enjoy. Were those privileges important to me, I would petition for membership but if they chose to reject me, I would accept that and not seek legal recourse to force myself upon them. And it is based on my respect for the rights of others to choose freely that I oppose the government coercing the Boy Scouts (or any private organization) to admit persons they choose to exclude.
The idea that I reject the concept of societal racism does not preclude racism being prevalent in a specific sector of the population, however, the extent to which it can survive and proliferate is in my opinion becoming more limited. Although the public education system's recent gains in the regression to ignorance can certainly nurture its recovery.
And to brand the entirety of American society as racist I find patently offensive. This to me is nothing more than the Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton, James Carville smear tactic of trying to make the innocent defend themselves against a baseless charge, thus diverting attention from the real and serious issues, the offenses of which they are guilty.
I do not claim racism is extinct, in fact I argue it will never be. Education can suppress its public acceptance and tolerance, but it will never go away as long as there is human emotion.
Today, with our society as mobile as it is, racism is much more difficult to institutionalize in any significant geographical area. The number of people moving around via tourism, job relocation, and other reasons make the open acceptance of racism in any locality less palatable. Forty to fifty years ago, it was not so difficult because big businesses did not encroach on some geographic areas, particularly through the "south". But as big business has become more mobile, partly due to incentives (read less political and taxation abuse) in geographic areas they formerly avoided, it becomes more and more difficult.
In addition, people from these areas moving away from generation old homesteads brings them into an integrated society where, if they act on their racist beliefs, they are likely to fail or at least suffer isolation and rejection. Thus, the incentive is to behave civilly. So, my perception is that economic, industrial and technological advances play into the demise (don't I wish) or at least atrophy of racism and bigotry.
Second, as to government responsibility, let's suppose for illustration that idea is legitimate.
First of all, how do you justify having government treat citizens differently? Since the government is tasked to treat all men as equal under the law, how do you reconcile the parts of that dichotomy, i. e., government must treat all equally but for some (but not all) it must provide sustenance?
Second, presuming you can find a means of justifying government discrimination (and with me, you have a Herculean task), how does government generate the financial means to meet this obligation? Government does not produce a product or service that it sells on the market, therefore how does it finance this expenditure? If you offer taxation, you are now back to the idea of forcing one citizen to pay the bills for another. In essence, confiscating (stealing) the property of one to give to another and that I do not accept as legitimate on the premise that theft is wrong without regard for the identity of the thief.
If you offer charities, I will completely agree so long as it remains entirely private. Private charity has demonstrated that it is vastly more efficient in the distribution of funds collected actually reaching the intended beneficiaries than is any government "charity". But for the government "charity", I am of the opinion that charity at the point of a gun is not "charity", it is merely theft regardless of the good intentions of the thief.
Originally posted by poster3I was under the impression that AA was a way to get a foot in the door but that after that - the person had to show competancy. Ex. AA would get you in college but you still had to make the grades to STAY in college. Doesn't that translate into the employment arena as well? So the argument that "someone not qualified is in "so & so" position" doesn't really hold water when that person must continue to meet the same standards as anyone else after admittance to school or given the projmotion. This is just a question on my part - this is the teachings I have about AA and thus found no reason to object to its implementation.
I understand your acceptance of the idea as promoted and it does sound good. However, one thing the proponents of AA did not tell you and won't (if they are even aware of it or concerned about it), while it does get the foot in the door, it also sets the "beneficiary" up to fail. This was pointed out to me by Dr. Walter Williams, PhD, Chairman of George Mason University Economics Department http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/95/costly-affirmative-action.htm. This article addresses LT Hultgren's death in a Navy F-14 crash.
And as far as demonstrating competency, that's the purpose of the entry requirements for the school, job, or whatever the applicant seeks. How are you doing anything but patronizing the applicant when you tell him that you are "lowering the bar" for him, in other words, you're telling this applicant, "You can't make it on your competence. You need my condescension to lower the standards for you to get this ---- and thus you owe me."
Personally I find this an offensive approach and would be very irate at anyone who treated me thusly.
While her case resulted in her death, the result of AA is seldom so costly. But it does put students whose GPA's are insufficient into schools where they often cannot keep up with the academic requirements. The result is that they flunk out. So they get into Harvard, Yale, or some similar class school, and after a semester or two (or three), flunk out. Yet in a school with lesser academic demands, they might well have succeeded and attained a degree. Which of these results is more beneficial to the potential AA beneficiary? Flunking out of MIT or a diploma from SDSU?
Originally posted by poster3For the government operated (public) schools, it was the only proper course of action. Government may not be permitted to treat any citizen differently. However, the use of government force to integrate privately owned and operated schools becomes an egregious abuse of government power.I suppose the statement you made about gov't not using force would apply to the legislation passed to integrate schools? Are you saying that Brown v. Board of Education should never have happened? Do you believe that ultimately we'd be better off as a nation and less racist had those laws not been enforced? That is the impression that I garnered from your posts. All the amount of education in the world will not help to enlighten people and equalize social relations between races if we were still segregated.... right?
I have no problem with segregation BY CHOICE. While I consider it ignorant and morally corrupt to segregate by choice, it is within the rights of the person making the choice. When it was sanctioned and enforceable by law, that was ENTIRELY WRONG and should never have happened. It did happen but it was also rectified.
To further illustrate my concept of freedom of choice in this arena, I completely support the right of a person to open and operate a business and to selectively deal with people as he chooses in to operation of that business. If he wishes to deny service to someone for whatever reason (and the reason may be as stupid and offensive as skin color, religion, gender, ethnicity, or whatever), that is his right.
Another illustration: you will be hard pressed to find someone who despises cigarettes and the filth accompanying them more than I. But when it comes to government telling a business owner that people may not smoke on his premises, the politicians have stepped way over the line. They have no legitimate authority to dictate his choice to allow or inhibit smoking on the premises of his business. That choice is legitimately his and his alone. His choice is subject to acceptance or rejection by his customers who will reward or punish him as they see fit by taking their business to him or a competitor. And the progressive politicians of California are now writing laws to prohibit people smoking in their own homes.
Politicians have managed to completely corrupt some simple concepts and have so many people accept their fallacies so that their declarations are now accepted as truth. And the beneficiaries? Politicians, of course, by expanding their power over the disposition of the lives and property of others.
A particular one I mean in this case is private property. A business run by it's owner(s) is private property yet you will be hard pressed to find anyone who does not believe the political rhetoric that these people have "public property" and accept the premise that it is properly run under the dictates of government, i. e., that government may dictate the manner in which the owners conduct their business, with whom they deal, the people they hire, what they will offer for wages, etc. That the government intrusive and abusive authority violates the owner's right to freedom of association is ignored if not outright applauded.
And along the same lines, it is entirely within the rights of people to form private clubs and exclude from membership persons for whatever reason they choose. This is the aspect of the right to freedom of association. And when government intrudes and forces them to accept those they chose to exclude, government has degenerated to the class of thug in so doing because it is now violating their rights, no matter how stupid, bigoted, ignorant or inane the basis for exclusion.
This is the price of living in a free society, the price of having to tolerate stupidity, arrogance, ignorance, etc., so long as it does not initiate the use of force, i. e., become criminal.
As a footnote, let me be very clear on one thing. While I advocate and support the right and freedom of any individual to be stupid, that is not an endorsement, advocacy or support for their acting on that stupidity in their behavior and treatment of others. For example, I support one's right to believe in racism or bigotry but I consider anyone who practices this belief to be stupid, shallow and immoral and I tend to presume they have some serious (likely justified) feelings of inferiority.
Originally posted by poster3I never intimated that it was fast. It has been a slowly growing cancer for over 100 years. Part of it was the railroad debacle brought about by government meddling in a private economy in the 1800's. The rate and degree of abuse has accelerated in the past 40 years or so, primarily since the establishment of FDR's Socialist programs and the Socialist Welfare State of the 60's. It has been accompanied by another facet of the disease, the "career politician".And for the record, I believe you make some very good points and some of which I'm inclined to agree, however I've found throughout my life that usually it isn't all or nothing, it is a little of both. I don't believe that America is fast becoming a tyrannical rule simply because of the "collectivism" apparent in the legislation being passed over the last 40 years. But.. you have made me think about the motives behind supporting such legislation and how invasive it has already become.
The Founders envisioned a government of citizen legislators who served a term or two and returned to their private lives. This was their behavior if you look back at the first half-century of our nation.
But with the arrival of the career politician (the equivalent of a leech on a healthy body, a parasite) the disease became serious. "Career politicians" make a career of "public service". A service in which they serve themselves to cushy jobs with nice salaries and no accountability at taxpayers' expense. And jobs, the scope of which, they seem to be able to continually expand with increasing power which require ever more money and assistants to accomplish. And they manage to design for themselves some very comfortable pensions which are paid at our expense. The Congressional retirement system by which they collect more in pension than while in office is a particularly nice scam but I'm sure you think the service they're providing is worth the cost, now, isn't it?
Communications