Poll

How much freedom should people have?

100% no government interference of any kind
75% mostly free but government takes some of your freedoms (ability to discriminate or create hateful exhibitions)
50% regressive government control of much of your life possibly through state religion
0% total control by a government or other entity. No personal decisions allowed or made. Completely at the mercy of government

Author Topic: Freedom  (Read 10232 times)

Offline Ray Brinzer

  • Ipse Dixit
  • Administrator
  • Get a Job
  • *****
  • Posts: 7546
    • View Profile
    • http://ray.brinzer.net/
Re: Freedom
« Reply #45 on: April 06, 2015, 03:46:44 PM »
For those interested in this project of bringing our government in line with what the Constitution actually says:

Say someone made a really compelling case that Brown vs. Board was incorrectly decided, on pure textual grounds.  The argument is so good that everyone here, despite our diverse political views, comes to agree that "separate-but-equal" was actually not barred by the text of the U.S. Constitution.

What, then, would you like to see done about it?

Offline ViseGrip

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 36887
    • View Profile
Re: Freedom
« Reply #46 on: April 06, 2015, 04:30:54 PM »
For those interested in this project of bringing our government in line with what the Constitution actually says:

Say someone made a really compelling case that Brown vs. Board was incorrectly decided, on pure textual grounds.  The argument is so good that everyone here, despite our diverse political views, comes to agree that "separate-but-equal" was actually not barred by the text of the U.S. Constitution.

What, then, would you like to see done about it?

Well I for one would support a Constitutional Amendment that requires the US government to treat all citizens equally. I would also support a state amendment (if there isnt already one) to do the same thing.
"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all that want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics" -Thomas Sowell

Offline Cougar1

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 22854
    • View Profile
Re: Freedom
« Reply #47 on: April 06, 2015, 04:49:05 PM »
For those interested in this project of bringing our government in line with what the Constitution actually says:

Say someone made a really compelling case that Brown vs. Board was incorrectly decided, on pure textual grounds.  The argument is so good that everyone here, despite our diverse political views, comes to agree that "separate-but-equal" was actually not barred by the text of the U.S. Constitution.

What, then, would you like to see done about it?

Well I for one would support a Constitutional Amendment that requires the US government to treat all citizens equally. I would also support a state amendment (if there isnt already one) to do the same thing.
It would be a sad day if we had to have an amendment to the Constitution to accomplish that.
“Once abolish the God and the government becomes the God.”

― G.K. Chesterton

Offline Ray Brinzer

  • Ipse Dixit
  • Administrator
  • Get a Job
  • *****
  • Posts: 7546
    • View Profile
    • http://ray.brinzer.net/
Re: Freedom
« Reply #48 on: April 08, 2015, 03:49:17 AM »
For those interested in this project of bringing our government in line with what the Constitution actually says:

Say someone made a really compelling case that Brown vs. Board was incorrectly decided, on pure textual grounds.  The argument is so good that everyone here, despite our diverse political views, comes to agree that "separate-but-equal" was actually not barred by the text of the U.S. Constitution.

What, then, would you like to see done about it?

Well I for one would support a Constitutional Amendment that requires the US government to treat all citizens equally. I would also support a state amendment (if there isnt already one) to do the same thing.

"Equally" isn't so much the issue.  After all, "separate but equal" was an acceptable case before Brown v. Board; "separate and unequal" was already considered unconstitutional.  But I'm assuming you mean something like "indifferently", where the government can no longer make distinctions between people of different races.

The reason I brought this up is because it's the best example of a major underlying issue.  Senator Lee doesn't mention that many people don't want to go back to a straightforward reading of the Constitution.  Some of these are motivated by bad and selfish reasons; I expect in not mentioning this, Lee is being politic, which is good.  On the other hand, some people have deep and legitimate concerns about this sort of thing.  These concerns should be addressed.

Freedom is, amongst other things, a refuge for scoundrels.  Freedom of speech, for instance, is good for groups like the KKK, Westboro Baptist Church, etc.  In fact, it's more obviously good for them than for the average citizen or organization, because the average person or organization isn't near as likely to be censored without it.  A lot of good people support freedom of speech, anyway, however, and believe that it has an overarching merit which makes it worthwhile to tolerate hearing from groups which offend them.

The problem is, when you advocate for freedom, people you deplore are going to take your side.  So unless you're careful, it's very easy to look like you're a scoundrel yourself.

So, states' rights, for instance, is bound to be part of such a project.  A lot of people associate states' rights with institutionalized racism... and they have excellent reason for doing so.  That's not what state's rights is inherently about, of course, but it's been the refuge of many, many people who did want that.  If you want this project to be politically viable, it needs to aggressively repudiate that... which means distancing itself from some potential supporters.

The pattern, in my view, matches these:

In my view, this suffers the same problem as a lot of other political solutions:  a lack of trust.  Take gun control, for instance.  Those in favor complain that they can't pass modest, middle-of-the-road measures; a lot of those on the other side see these as letting the camel's nose in the tent.  The problem is, such suspicions tend to be right.

A president who secured the border would, I believe, have a relatively easy time convincing people across the aisle to agree to a workable approach for those who have already crossed.  Without this, the suspicion remains that the problem benefits him, and that the idea is to keep forcing "solutions".

Not to mention:

When conservatives loudly decry giving money to poor people, and silently deplore giving it to rich people, you don't actually look like the good guys.  Meanwhile, the other side is saying, "We aren't anti-business!"  But when you have the same imbalance, and all they talk about are the problems with big businesses, it doesn't much sound like it.

You have to tackle the "We know what you really want!" issues if goals like Lee's are to be politically viable.

Offline Ray Brinzer

  • Ipse Dixit
  • Administrator
  • Get a Job
  • *****
  • Posts: 7546
    • View Profile
    • http://ray.brinzer.net/
Re: Freedom
« Reply #49 on: April 08, 2015, 03:51:45 AM »
Well I for one would support a Constitutional Amendment that requires the US government to treat all citizens equally. I would also support a state amendment (if there isnt already one) to do the same thing.
It would be a sad day if we had to have an amendment to the Constitution to accomplish that.

While that's true... we did have to have one.  And the one turned out not to be enough, so the Supreme Court essentially created others.

Offline Cougar1

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 22854
    • View Profile
Re: Freedom
« Reply #50 on: April 08, 2015, 06:55:46 AM »
Well I for one would support a Constitutional Amendment that requires the US government to treat all citizens equally. I would also support a state amendment (if there isnt already one) to do the same thing.
It would be a sad day if we had to have an amendment to the Constitution to accomplish that.

While that's true... we did have to have one.  And the one turned out not to be enough, so the Supreme Court essentially created others.

Yes. The more we stray from the Constitutional freedoms the more we seem to enact more laws and amendments to muddy the waters. I think that is unfortunate but perhaps needed in some respects.
“Once abolish the God and the government becomes the God.”

― G.K. Chesterton