This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Universe Prince
Pages: 1 ... 238 239 [240] 241 242 ... 244
3586
« on: October 21, 2006, 12:02:07 PM »
c) Supporters of the war support it
They didn't support it exactly. More like they just tried to dismiss it. I recall lots of talk about "putting it in perspective" and comparing it to a college frat prank. I guess that isn't really support, but it hardly looks like a condemnation either.
3587
« on: October 21, 2006, 11:57:37 AM »
My thoughts are that we weren't so "unconstitutional" then, or now
That contributes to it being amazing. But maybe it's just me. I don't know how anyone can read the Constitution and conclude that the Japanese internments or the current administration's attempts to deny habeas corpus are in any way constitutional. Whether it is or is not constitutional doesn't seem to matter in the least, so why bother justifying it as constitutional? Maybe this "it's constitutional because I'm okay with it" attitude is the way we should all think about it, but I don't and honestly don't want to do so.
3588
« on: October 20, 2006, 07:09:17 PM »
There's no reason to believe we would have a highway or interstate system without the government either.
Okay, but this does not prove we need government to give us a highway/interstate system. In any case, it seems rather likely to me that we would have some sort of a highway or interstate system in place if only because people would want a solution for traffic and for getting from here to there, and someone would build it. No, it probably would not look like what we have today, but that doesn't mean we have no reason to believe it would exist.
All of our Nobel Prize winners this year came from the public school system.
So? I did not say no one ever came out the public school system with an ability to excel.
We have such a system to establish social equality that private schools would not have the impetus to provide (which there is ample proof of in other nations).
Hm. Here all this time I thought we had a public school system to educate the children. What sort of social equality do you think the public school systems of America establish?
Why should society have your beliefs in laissez-faire economics pushed upon their school system? Why are you above the Christians and Progressives in that respect that your ends somehow justify your means, where theirs do not?
I knew it was only a matter of time before someone pulled out this argument. For criticizing the system, I get asked why my way should forced on other people. I'm not asking for my way to be forced on other people. In this conversation, I'm merely suggesting that we not only don't absolutely have to have government to address issues of the common good, but also that government doing so does not always mean the results are the best we could have.
One problem with your questions is that it is not "their" school system. It is mine too, insofar as I went to public schools for a time and because my taxes help pay for it. So I am inclined to ask in turn, why should "their" school system be forced on me or anyone else not satisfied with the system? "Their" school system forces everyone to pay for it whether or not they have children in school and whether or not they even will send their children to public schools. Why is "their" school system above the Christians and "progressives" in that "they" get to justify "their" means by "their" supposed ends?
Frankly, that people endeavor to insist that I'm trying to force my views on other people is something I find rather silly. I'm not trying to tell other people how to educate their children or what to spend their money on. I'm not advocating having government take money from everyone to pay for what I want. I suppose you can argue that I'm trying to impose my views by my arguing that people should be free, but that's like saying I'm trying to control others by my arguing that people shouldn't be murdered or have their property stolen. I'm not trying to impose anything at all. I just want government to leave people alone to decide for themselves where and to spend their money or have their children educated, et cetera. How is that imposing anything on others? Let's take this to an extreme example. Which group of people was trying to impose their will on others, the slavers or the abolitionists? Were the abolitionists, by advocating for the end of slavery, trying to enslave the plantation owners? No, of course not. I'm not arguing that my will be imposed on others. I'm arguing that the social desires of some should not be imposed on everyone.
If you want a government run public school system, okay, but why does everyone have to pay for it? And if it is okay for "their" public school system to impose "their" will on everyone else, how can you complain that I'm somehow the bad guy if I want to "impose" my will by not having "their" will imposed on everyone else? If what I want is somehow the philosophically or ethically equal to what "they" want, why is it okay for "them" but not for me?
You realize of course that Adam Smith discusses the "common good" in his writings? As does Jefferson and others who epoused democracy.
Yeah. So... what's your point? Did I say anything against the concept of a 'common good'? I don't remember having done so. I have no problem whatever with the notion of there being a 'common good'. The problem is when people use the term 'common good' to sell what is not the 'common good' but a policy of imposing what they want on everyone else.
3589
« on: October 20, 2006, 04:51:32 PM »
Amazing how unconstituional this nation was to the Nazis and Japanese POW's back in WWII.
Amazing how some folks seem willing to excuse unconstitutional behavior now by comparing it to unconstitutional behavior then. As if somehow ignoring the Constitution before makes it okay now.
3590
« on: October 20, 2006, 04:42:55 PM »
If we were so afraid of immigrants we wouldn't have the legal kind either.
If we're not afraid of immigrants, why do we have such ridiculously burdensome immigration law in the first place?
3591
« on: October 20, 2006, 04:36:14 PM »
I don't understand why conservatives and "libertarians" have such a ridiculous kneejerk reaction to the phrase "common good".
They don't. People who object to the use of the term 'common good' usually are not objecting to the term itself but the fact that the person or group using it to justify some government action, proposed or otherwise, generally means "common good as I/we choose to define it for everyone else". As a libertarian, I'm all for the common good. As a libertarian, I am not, however, all for someone or some group getting to decide everyone else should accept and submit to what he/they want everyone else to do in the name of the 'common good'. That goes for "progressives" or Christians or whatever.
There is no denying that as Americans, and more importantly humans, there are some goals that we all agree on and share, therefore, as a society or the largest of special interest groups, we can use the tool that represents us all to accomplish these shared goals. If we all agree that there is an agreement that a certain goal that we all share, the use of government to accomplish these goals is the best way to reach that goal.
If we all agreed on it, we wouldn't need the power of the government to get it done.
Examples of "common good" ideas that have been addressed by the government, for the most part, effectively. Clean water, for instance, is a notion that we all share and desire. The government can set rules to ensure that the populace can safely drink clean water with ease.
Is this the same government that recently needed to a scientific study to tell it that animals contribute more than half the bacteria that ends up in streams and rivers? But anyway, if clean water is something we all want, then why do we need government to set rules about it?
The nations highways, I believe are a result of "common good" thinking. It was good for business, for vacationers, good for all.
I believe the interstate system was proposed as a matter of military importance, allowing the military to transport troops and equipment across the country with more ease than the highway system we had in place at the time. In fact, as I recall, something like every tenth mile of interstate was to be straight so that military planes could use it for landing. Whether they still have this requirement, I don't know. In any case, there is no reason to believe that we would not have some sort of highway/interstate system without government.
"Common good" thinking can be exemplified by the our laws against murder and theft.
I agree. Laws against the violation of individual rights serve the common good. I've said as much more than a few times.
"Common good" thinking is responsible for the idea of public education. Simply put, a more educated populace is a freer, more productive populace.
That assumes that our public school system is contributing to a more educated populace and that private schools could not accomplish the same thing. The former I am increasingly doubtful of and the latter I am convinced is not the case at all.
The military is the ultimate in "common good" thinking. Protection works for everyone. Attack works for a few and that's because it steps away from "common good" thinking and serves a special interest. Those who support the war are in actuality trying to make people think that attacking Iraq pre-emptively was for the "common good". (Though that has been proven a misconception over and over.)
Thank you for providing an example of 'common good' thinking that illustrates why claiming this or that action is for the 'common good' is not a good enough excuse. And why the few should not be deciding for everyone else what is the 'common good'.
Firefighters are a result of "common good" thinking. Police forces, as well.
Again, there is no reason to believe we must have government to have fire fighters or the equivalent of police forces.
So, when you're whining about the Dems "new" slogan, remember America was founded on the idea of "common good".
When you're busy gushing over how the "new" slogan describes what you want to see government accomplish, remember that for some people the 'common good' means the war in Iraq and and 'faith based initiatives' and laws against homosexual marriage. Saying that a desire to tell others what to do is really just a compassionate desire for the 'common good' doesn't make it so.
3592
« on: October 20, 2006, 12:07:44 PM »
What in the world is wrong with setting limitations on legal immigiration?
Maybe nothing at all, but first I want to know why we need limitations on legal immigration. Why do we need to stand in the way of people who happen to come from another country buying houses or finding work here? What do we gain by standing in the way of people trying to create a better life for their families? Nothing that I can see. Maybe you want to worry about criminals. Okay, we have laws and law enforcement to deal with people who commit crimes like theft and murder. And I have nothing against extraditing wanted criminals from another country. But why do we need to make criminals of people coming here to make a living and otherwise be law-abiding citizens? What do we gain from this? Nothing. Not a damn thing. But we do have a mess of bureaucracy and tax-dollar spending to try to deal with something that should not even be an issue. And it would not be an issue, except for fear, fear of change, fear of people who are not like us. So please, tell me why we need limitation on legal immigration.
And what is wrong with target hardening against illegal immigration. You seem to dismiss it as a fear reaction, but it seems to me that if you have laws they should be enforced. Else why have them.
Laws should be enforced, why else have them? I was not aware laws existed for the sake of having laws enforced. But that probably isn't what you meant. My problem with cracking down on illegal immigration is we shouldn't have immigration laws so difficult to navigate that people find risking death to get here a preferable option. To me, that right there, people preferring to risk death by making their way through desert to get here rather than to make their way through our laws, that says to me there is something seriously wrong with our immigration laws. You want immigration laws to control the flow of people into this country? Fine, but would it be so wrong to make them less difficult? People are dying, dying, for a chance to come here and make some money so they and their children can live better lives, and I know of no reason why we should be trying to stop them. We should not be trying to make getting here more difficult. We should be trying to make it easier for people to come here legally so that they can benefit from opportunities here.
Entering America from Mexico to work shouldn't be any harder than living in one town or state and commuting to work in another town or state. Coming here from Mexico to live shouldn't be any harder than moving from one state to another. Or do you perhaps think that every state in the Union should have walls around their borders so they can control who comes and goes? Perhaps every city should have check points to check the identification of everyone who enters and leaves? I mean, we wouldn't want those crazy Free Staters from New Hampshire ruining the culture of Vermont, right? And we wouldn't want those folks from San Diego taking jobs away from natives of Los Angeles, now would we? And God forbid them damn yankees come down and start ruining New Orleans.
A wall is no more than low tech automation, replacing human labor with a cost saving device. Certainly as a libertarian, you aren't demanding job protection for border guards.
Heh. You made me laugh with that one.
Putting up a wall on the border is hardly going to eliminate or even reduce the need for man power. The wall will only be successful insofar as it is monitored to make sure people are not climbing over or digging under or otherwise finding a way to get past it. And do you really think that people who are already willing to risk jail or death to get here are going to give up because America built a wall?
And no, as a libertarian, I am not demanding job protection for border guards. As a libertarian, I am suggesting that what we need in this situation (as in pretty nearly all situations where the government sticks its fat nose) is for the government to stop getting in the way of life and of humans who are not actually doing anything wrong. The only reason some immigrants being here is wrong is because we have immigration laws that they violated to get here, not because the immigrants being here is by itself any sort of violation of anyone else's rights. Say what you will about enforcing the law or else why have the law, but the law isn't always right. And when the law is wrong, it should be repealed not enforced.
3593
« on: October 20, 2006, 08:19:55 AM »
Well, if her action was really equivelent to assistance of the enemy in its war effort , then her sentance is rediculously light , You may not think that her action was treason but MT seems to think it was.
Okay, but what has that to do with how al-Qaeda might treat you?
3594
« on: October 20, 2006, 08:16:45 AM »
3595
« on: October 20, 2006, 08:13:13 AM »
Those walls did indeed work, for centurys the Great wall of China made getting into China without paying your tarriff difficult , not impossible of course , but difficult is worth doing.
If the Great Wall of China had been built to enforce tariffs, you might have a point. But it was built to keep out invading armies. It failed.
Hadrians wall was built to keep some ancestors of mine out of the Romans hair it worked pretty well.
Hadrian's Wall worked as a massive military garrison along the border of the Roman Empire on the island of Great Britain. Do you think we need a military garrison of 10,000 troops or more along our southern border?
3596
« on: October 20, 2006, 07:51:09 AM »
If the Berlin Wall was built to keep people in, what fear drove them to do that?
Before the Berlin Wall went up, thousands of people were immigrating from East Berlin to West Berlin. It was a massive hemorrhaging of workers that was was not only an embarrassment for the socialists, but was going to ruin East Berlin and even East Germany economically. The fear that prompted the building of the Berlin Wall was a fear of societal collapse and a fear that the immigration would become symbolic of the relationship between the socialist East and the capitalist West. Of course, the Berlin Wall then became the symbol of the relationship between the socialist East and the capitalist West.
And how does that relate to the US Wall, which as previously stated, is purposed with keeping people out, or at the minimum making it more difficult to get in?
I should think that would be obvious, what with all the hoopla about the horrors of Mexican immigrants. Excuse me, illegal Mexican immigrants. We supposedly have people coming here and taking jobs away from Americans, taking advantage of the "social safety net" and—GASP—speaking Spanish without learning much English. (Cue "Dun dun DUN!" sound effect here.) And then, of course, there are the terrorists who are sneaking across our "porous" borders with such ease that the next "nine-eleven" is surely soon to come. The reasons for building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border are nothing but fear. Fear of societal collapse at the very least. And I doubt I need to tell you that some people view the border situation as symbolic of America's attitude toward the "war on terror", the threat of immanent danger stares us in the face, and we are unwilling to do what it takes to stop it. I haven't heard politicians saying that directly, but the ones who want a wall or a fence or whatever to close our borders are bringing up the threat of terrorists sneaking in to the country.
The problem with socialist East Germany (and a problem with socialism in general) is that it required a rigid social structure to sustain itself. With people leaving in droves, they could not maintain their rigid social structure. Here in America, we have instituted socialist programs that are now threatened, so we are told, by people coming here in droves and altering our social structure by their very presence. So one wall was intended to keep people in, and one wall would be intended to keep people out, but the actual goal is really the same. The goal is to protect structure of society by severely restricting immigration. This seems glaringly obvious to me, and I am surprised that you wouldn't see it.
3597
« on: October 19, 2006, 10:50:58 PM »
Cop killing CANNOT be condoned or anarchy reigns, neocons or not.
Doesn't that depend on the cops and the situation? Take Cory Maye: he was asleep; police burst into his home at night; he never heard the cops announce themselves; and to protect his daughter against an intruder, Cory Maye got his gun and shot a man he would not until later know was a cop. Are you going to tell me Cory Maye deserves to be gunned down?
3598
« on: October 19, 2006, 10:38:41 PM »
I would expect my trial , were I ever to fall into the hands of the Al Quieda, to be short and the sentance would be to shorten my stature by a head.
Do you really consider her abettment amd mine to be equivelent?
If I fell into the hands of Al Queda I would argue that those killings I have abetted were scumbags ?
This would lighten my sentence?
Are you suggesting we should base how we punish someone on how al-Qaeda would punish someone? Maybe you're not suggesting that, but I am having trouble understanding why how al-Qaeda might treat you has any bearing how the American courts should treat Lynne Stewart.
3599
« on: October 19, 2006, 10:12:58 PM »
But it had little to do with my point.
So?
3600
« on: October 19, 2006, 08:52:18 AM »
When the Soviets and the East Germans built the Berlin Wall it was to keep people in. The Chinese and now the US are building a wall to keep people out.
The Great Wall of China didn't work. And the Berlin Wall didn't work all that well either. Both were built due to fear. The American wall will be the same. If it is built, it will be built due to fear, and it won't stop people from coming in. And we will end up hurting ourselves. We don't need a wall or a fence of hundreds of miles of armed guards. We need less fear, less childishly fearful reactions. We need our leaders and talking heads to stop blaming other people for the problems we have made within our own society, to put on their big girl panties, and to act like adults.
Pages: 1 ... 238 239 [240] 241 242 ... 244
Show Posts
