The rest of the world knows that lying assholes Juniorbush and Cheney LIED us into Iraq. They think we are dolts for following their incompetent, bungling direction this far.
Idiocy.
We're blaming diversity for our problems in Iraq? Have you not noticed the Hispanic names and the African Americans amongst the lists of those who have died serving this country in that war?
You should really be ashamed for having posted this shit Sirs. It is an affront to the men and women who are dying in Iraq as well as our Kurdish and Iraqi allies.
What is it that has made Iraq so hard to pacify, even after a swift and decisive military victory? In one word: diversity.
QuoteWhat is it that has made Iraq so hard to pacify, even after a swift and decisive military victory? In one word: diversity.It is clear that it is supposed to be the most significant factor in the author's opinion. This is racist swill. It isn't even very well veiled racist swill. Is this really what you and other "conservatives" believe?
This is racist swill. It isn't even very well veiled racist swill.
America's great achievement has not been in having diversity but in taming its dangers that have run amok in many other countries. Americans have by no means escaped diversity's oppressions and violence, but we have reined them in.
Sirs, is this what conservatives believe? Answer me that.
Ami:QuoteAmerica's great achievement has not been in having diversity but in taming its dangers that have run amok in many other countries. Americans have by no means escaped diversity's oppressions and violence, but we have reined them in.
Ami:QuoteAmerica's great achievement has not been in having diversity but in taming its dangers that have run amok in many other countries. Americans have by no means escaped diversity's oppressions and violence, but we have reined them in.
So what do you find problematic in Sowell's synopsis?
That word has become a sacred mantra, endlessly repeated for years on end, without a speck of evidence being asked for or given to verify the wonderful benefits it is assumed to produce.
Worse yet, Iraq is only the latest in a long series of catastrophes growing out of diversity. These include "ethnic cleansing" in the Balkans, genocide in Rwanda and the Sudan, the million lives destroyed in intercommunal violence when India became independent in 1947 and the even larger number of Armenians slaughtered by Turks during World War I.
Despite much gushing about how we should "celebrate diversity," America's great achievement has not been in having diversity but in taming its dangers that have run amok in many other countries. Americans have by no means escaped diversity's oppressions and violence, but we have reined them in.
Very Little. Least of all, it supposedly being some racist proclaimation that all minorities are the cause of the Iraqi war
QuoteVery Little. Least of all, it supposedly being some racist proclaimation that all minorities are the cause of the Iraqi warNo one here has said that.
We're blaming diversity for our problems in Iraq? ...Real nice blame game though.
the very source of america greatness is diversity
thee only reason this country grew as fast as it ever did is because it really is a melting pot.
the very source of america greatness is diversity thee only reason this country grew as fast as it ever did is because it really is a melting pot.Exactly. Well said, Kimba.
And who exactly is argueing against that? Sowell sure the hell isn't. "Melting pot" implies a commonality of all other diveristies coming together to make American culture great. It's folks from all parts of the globe, coming to America to make America great, to embrace that which makes America great. It's not requiring them to admonish or ignore their own culture to be American.
And who exactly is argueing against that? Sowell sure the hell isn't. "Melting pot" implies a commonality of all other diveristies coming together to make American culture great. It's folks from all parts of the globe, coming to America to make America great, to embrace that which makes America great. It's not requiring them to admonish or ignore their own culture to be American.
Do you, or Js, not understand the difference?
What is it that has made Iraq so hard to pacify, even after a swift and decisive military victory? In one word: diversity. That word has become a sacred mantra, endlessly repeated for years on end, without a speck of evidence being asked for or given to verify the wonderful benefits it is assumed to produce.
Worse yet, Iraq is only the latest in a long series of catastrophes growing out of diversity. These include "ethnic cleansing" in the Balkans, genocide in Rwanda and the Sudan, the million lives destroyed in intercommunal violence when India became independent in 1947 and the even larger number of Armenians slaughtered by Turks during World War I.
Despite much gushing about how we should "celebrate diversity," America's great achievement has not been in having diversity but in taming its dangers that have run amok in many other countries. Americans have by no means escaped diversity's oppressions and violence, but we have reined them in.
We are not required to "melt" to be Americans. Free Americans shouldn't have to meet someone's snotty and ridiculous standards to be thought of as American.
We are not required to "melt" to be Americans. Free Americans shouldn't have to meet someone's snotty and ridiculous standards to be thought of as American.I could not agree more.
Former South Africa president dies at 90
By CLARE NULLIS, Associated Press Writer
P.W. Botha, the apartheid-era president who led South Africa through its worst racial violence and deepest international isolation, died Tuesday, the South African Press Association reported. He was 90.
SAPA quoted security staff at his home on the southern Cape coast as saying that he died at 8 p.m. "Botha died at home, peacefully," Capt. Frikkie Lucas said.
Nicknamed the "Old Crocodile" for his feared temper and sometimes ruthless manner, Botha served as head of the white racist government from 1978 to 1989. Throughout his leadership he resisted mounting pressure to free South Africa's most famous political prisoner, Nelson Mandela. Mandela was released by Botha's successor, F.W. de Klerk in 1990.
Botha liked to depict himself as the first South African leader to pursue race reform, but he tenaciously defended the framework of apartheid, sharply restricting the activities of black political organizations and detaining more than 30,000 people.
Through a series of liberalizing moves, Botha sought support among the Asian and mixed-race communities by creating separate parliamentary chambers. He lifted restrictions on interracial sex and marriage. He met with Mandela during his last year as president.
But after each step forward, there was a backlash, resulting in the 1986 state of emergency declaration and the worst reprisals of more than four decades of apartheid.
Botha's intransigence on releasing Mandela led the anti-apartheid Johannesburg Daily, Business Day, to write: "The government is now the prisoner of its prisoner; it cannot escape his embrace."
Within a year after Botha stepped down, de Klerk released Mandela after 27 years in prison and put South Africa on the road to its first all-race elections in 1994, when Mandela became president.
In December 1997, Botha stubbornly resisted appearing before a panel investigating apartheid-era crimes. He risked criminal penalties by repeatedly defying subpoenas from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to testify about the State Security Council that he headed.
The council was believed to have sanctioned the killing and torture of anti-apartheid activists, and the panel wanted to know what Botha's involvement was.
Born Jan. 12, 1916, the son of a farmer in the rural Orange Free State province, Botha never served in the military or graduated from college. He quit university in 1935 to become a National Party organizer.
During World War II, Botha joined the Ossewabrandwag (Ox Wagon Fire Guard), a group that was sympathetic to the Nazis and opposed South Africa's participation on the Allied side.
Botha won election to Parliament in 1948, the year the National Party came to power and began codifying apartheid legislation. He joined the Cabinet in 1961 and became defense minister in 1966.
As head of the white-minority government in 1978, Botha repeatedly stressed the paramount importance of national security. He charged that the anti-apartheid struggle was a "total onslaught" on South Africa instigated by communist forces.
During a series of gradual race reforms, he told white South Africans they must "adapt or die." A new constitution in 1983 gave Asians and mixed-race people a limited voice in government, but continued to exclude blacks.
The new law also drastically increased Botha's powers, changing his title from prime minister to president. He declared a national emergency in 1986 after widespread violence erupted in black areas, where anger focused on the new constitution.
State security forces brutally quelled the opposition, and one of his former lieutenants — police minister Adriaan Vlok — told the Truth Commission that Botha had personally congratulated Vlok for successfully bombing a building thought to harbor anti-apartheid activists and weapons.
But in documents submitted to the panel, Botha denied knowledge of the killings, torture and bombings.
Botha's reprisals against the black majority drew international economic sanctions against South Africa during the 1980s that contributed to apartheid's fall.
In July 1989, Mandela went from prison to Botha's official residence for a conversation, which increased speculation that Botha would free Mandela.
Mandela recalled going into the meeting thinking he was seeing "the very model of the old-fashioned, stiff-necked, stubborn Afrikaner who did not so much discuss matters with black leaders as dictate to them."
He found Botha holding out his hand and smiling broadly "and in fact, from that very first moment, he completely disarmed me," Mandela wrote in his autobiography.
Mandela said the only tense moment was when he asked Botha to release all political prisoners — including himself — unconditionally.
"Mr. Botha said that he was afraid he could not do that," Mandela wrote.
The meeting was one of Botha's last acts before he was ousted as National Party leader by de Klerk in September 1989.
Botha refused to attend a farewell banquet held in his honor by the party he had served for 54 years. After 1990, he quit the National Party.
Botha's foremost loyalties were to his fellow Afrikaners, yet his moves to extend limited political power to nonwhites prompted a mass defection of hard-line segregationists from the National Party in 1982.
Beeld, an Afrikaans-language daily that supported Botha for many years, said, "The last image that will linger ... is that of a blind Samson who with his last strength tried to overturn the pillars of his party on himself and his own companions."
And one more time, who's "requiring" a melting? Pointing out flaws is a far cry from mandating behavior. Is there pending legislation I'm not aware of?
And one more time, who's "requiring" a melting? Pointing out flaws is a far cry from mandating behavior. Is there pending legislation I'm not aware of?
Aren't you expecting people to assimilate? Maybe you're not, but as I recall, that is one of the major objections to open borders and letting all those Mexicans "flood" into America.
assimilation is not a goods thing for america we really need to be exposed to a great deal of cultures and ideas.
no one ever had the ability to create out of nothing.
I say in the context I tend to hear immigrant must assililate to american culture.
I`m saying us americans could learn quite alot from immigrants
Concern for states' rights won't do it any more. Today's racists have to talk about diversity - - the menace and the threat.
Today's racists have to talk about diversity - - the menace and the threat.
No, I'm HOPING people will want to assimilate.
As Kimba has referenced, it's principly what has made this country great, and why our country has been referred to as the "melting pot". It's also at the core of what Sowell was trying to say, that was frequently being distorted this morning.
And NO, that's not counter to the idea of enforcing our borders. Apples & Oranges, but nice try
then our country continues to go downhill, as people have less and less reason to be an American
I'm simply extrapalating the points he was trying to articulate in his piece, and how they would coincide with the melting pot theory
ENFORCEMENT of immigration laws does not equate to not supporting the notion of immigrating & assimilating to this country.
I'll ask this once, in this thread.
Please do NOT try making me out as not supporting immigration.
I simply don't support open borders. I support LEGAL immigration, and for those who LEGALLY enter this country, I hope do so because they wish to be an American, and live the American dream. Which AGAIN does NOT equate to them ignoring or abolishing the culture they came from
APPLES & ORANGES......NO JOKE
That's kinda like asking, what exactly is the danger to heterosexual marriage brought about by legalizing gay marriage?
I'm simply extrapalating the points he was trying to articulate in his piece, and how they would coincide with the melting pot theory
I didn't extrapalate from that. Diversity has obviously produced a load of benifits to this country. But once again, diversity in the assimilation of cultures, for the sake of improving/enhancing American Culture is 1 thing. Diversity simply for the sake of diversity is much more likely what Sowell was referring to
Uh, anyway, why does the country go downhill?
As it continues to lose its identy, as more and more people see America as simply 1 big handout that , oh by the way, is this big mean imperialistic oppressive country, that they unfortunately just happen to live. More & more people sticking their hands out and decrying, "where's mine?". And likely less & less people willing to sacrafice their lives in the service of such a perceived wretched country
Diversity has obviously produced a load of benifits to this country. But once again, diversity in the assimilation of cultures, for the sake of improving/enhancing American Culture is 1 thing. Diversity simply for the sake of diversity is much more likely what Sowell was referring to
Okay, but that doesn't alter the fact that the assimilation issue is related to the immigration issue
Indirect relationship, yes. Direct coorelation that if person A supports X of 1 obligates that they don't support Y of the other, NO
no one said a word about enforcement of immigration law or about comparing it to anything until you did. So I have no idea why you're even bother to make this point.
The point was brought up with your quote "Aren't you expecting people to assimilate? Maybe you're not, but as I recall, that is one of the major objections to open borders and letting all those Mexicans "flood" into America.". YOU brought the 2 into play.
I was required to differentiate the 2.
Nothing you've said refutes the notion that the matter of immigrants assimilating into our culture is a major part of the general objection to open borders
WRONG. Assimilation IS absolutely beneficial to American culture. Those that don't support open borders do so as a "major part of the general objection" based on our own finate resources, for our own citizens, and the absolute threat of foreign terrorism
In any case, you still have yet to explain why we need legal and illegal immigration in the first place. Yes, we all know you support legal immigration. But why?
Been there, done that. See above quote for a quick recap
I kinda see that with the chinese
If you go into their there`s these banner and statues all over the place.
but in china nobody has these in there home.
immagrants don`t truely retain their cultures .
they retain their idea of what the culture should be to them.
also immagrants tend to be very poor example of their land of birth.
ex. filipinoes
almost every single one I`ve met is a marcoes supporter
but in the philipines he`s not that well loved.
The danger of diversity is scism and an attitude of "I'll get mine".
There is a brotherhood amoung Americans , it allows us all to be Irish on St. Patricks day while in Ireland itself not even the Irish are entirely Irish if you ask one about another.
When we have the brotherhood thing going on we are invincible and willing to self sacrifice our comfort , wealth and even lives to the comon good as volenteers . Volenteers have always gotten a lot done in America.
Is Assimilation joining the brotherhood? The fellow feeling is the important part , the accent , clothing , minor customs , religious prefrences and etc. are secondary to the central idea that America is a nation .
WE do things for each other , when in need especially or when under threat most especially. We garuntee for each other a certain minimum respect and mutual protection for each oters rights. Some of our worst problems have been caused by drawing a line around the tribe and trying to be exclusive , Americans who speak strangely and beleive strange things and do strange things or look diffrent can actually be good Americans if they have the Affection for the ideal that makes America America in the first place.
A lot of immagrants arrive with a good idea of how to assimilate into this brotherhood scheme , some even have an exaggerated idea of how good it is , guys like that refresh our idealism , reinvigorate the affection we feel for our American way.
Are some immagrants a threat to this fellowship? Maybe some are , if they can't or won't respect the rights of their fellows and help to build the ideal why do we want them and why do they want to be here? But who is this?
I`m using me to point out being creative is tough.___________________________
And I think being innovative require greater exposure to non related ideas.
ex. steve jobs travelled and studied eastern philosophy.
our engineers tend to be too speacialized.
we need to be exposed varied concepts to get the creativity going.
We are a society of freedom, right?
Sirs, did you by chance read this article before you posted it?
Yes
Clearly Sowell states, in very plain English, that he does not accept the notion that diversity benefits America
I do believe we have the continued diverging ideas of what diversity means, the way Sowell is using it. Meaning, if you have a negative perception of Sowell, prior to even reading his piece, you're going to assume he's anti-ANY diversity, regardless of how the term being used. For those who have a positive understanding of his work, it's very easy to understand how he's using the term. A) it has nothing to do with racism B) it has everything to do with embracing one's country, and that country's culture vs embracing their own at the expense of the country that happen to reside in.
I would opine that diversity used in the former, by folks like Js & Prince, believe that it references one's embrace of their own culture, while happening to live in America, thus Sowell must be against such "diversity". I'd opine, that Sowell believes such an embrace at the expense of supporting America as their new home, with avoidance of assimilating into this country, is the cornerstone of his criticism in the term "diversity". I'd opine that THAT's the "diversity" that Sowell believes doesn't benefit America.....and he'd be right
What are the oppressions of diversity?
I think that's already been addressed. Once again, IMHO, it appears to reference a prioritising of one's culture they came from over that of being an American. No one, incl Sowell, is arguing that one not embrace their own culture. Simply that it fall in line after that of supporing and assimilating into American culture. I don't think I need to repeat the the point about immigrant stories, coming to America, with the dream of being an American
How are you and I being oppressed by diversity?
Personally I'm not. My country is however, when the theme is to embrace one's own culture, over that of American culture. Do you think I can go to any other non English speaking foreign country, and demand that all my reading materials be provided me in English? More importantly, SHOULD they be required to? Why would I be so special? Because I'm an American?
The most necessary common ideal might be to "Live and let live " or to "Let all go to hell in their own way" as sort of a minimum requirement . What is the solution for a person or set of persons who do not share this minimum and live amoung us?
Gay marriage? Terry Schiavo? Abortion? Prayer in school, 10 commandments on the courthouse steps...on and on.
I took the time to reply Sirs. I think you can certainly do the same. I'm interested in how you will continue to defend this author's and your point of view.
I think I've said my peace Js. I appreciate the time, but it's obvious you're not going to understand my POV, be it on purpouse or not, the position that this isn't about being against diversity. It's about beng against diversity for the sake of simply being for diversity. It's about being against support of an immigrant's own culture over that of American culture. And the wreckless allegations and innuendo that Sowell is simply against anyone embracing their own culture & diversity, simply reinforces how this disagreement is not going to be solved
The problem with your point of view Sirs is that it is not found in this article. There's nothing reckless being said here. You simply have been completely unable to demonstrate how this article is not against diversity.
QuoteWe are a society of freedom, right?
No.
We are a society based on the rule of law.
The rights that belong to a Human Being by natural right should always be a matter of discusson between citizens.
The enjoyment of a right in the context of a society is often a compromise , the social order can be a tool for the protection of rights and the production of priveledges the enhancement of safety.
With no social order only the strong and intellegent and welthy would have a full set of rights , the less advantaged become by one means or another enslaved.
With a social order there can be a structure that protects rights and safety mutually up to the amount that there can be a consensus of what is needed and right , this consencus ought to involve fair and strong debate open to all.
The most necessary common ideal might be to "Live and let live " or to " Let all go to hell in their own way " as sort of a minimum requirement . What is the solution for a person or set of persons who do not share this minimum and live amoung us?
I consider conformity to be a thing with a proper place and proper times , it is most proper when it is volentary , forced conformity is so unAmeircan it ought to be avoided in any circumstance short of deadly necessity.
QuoteThe problem with your point of view Sirs is that it is not found in this article. There's nothing reckless being said here. You simply have been completely unable to demonstrate how this article is not against diversity.
Actually, I do believe I have. You've simply concluded that it can't possibly be accurate
Actually, I do believe I have. You've simply concluded that it can't possibly be accurate
I do believe we have the continued diverging ideas of what diversity means, the way Sowell is using it. Meaning, if you have a negative perception of Sowell, prior to even reading his piece, you're going to assume he's anti-ANY diversity, regardless of how the term being used.
I do believe we have the continued diverging ideas of what diversity means, the way Sowell is using it. Meaning, if you have a negative perception of Sowell, prior to even reading his piece, you're going to assume he's anti-ANY diversity, regardless of how the term being used.
This is not about Thomas Sowell. This is about Mr. Sowell's words. The man directly and without subtlety said there has been no evidence "given to verify the wonderful benefits [diversity] is assumed to produce." ....Please note the lack of any positive connotations to diversity in Mr. Sowell's description of the situation. Mr. Sowell himself has defined diversity as something dangerous that must be contained and something without benefits. .... His entire column is entirely negative toward diversity period. And so far, Sirs, you have not been able to point anything among Mr. Sowell's words that indicates otherwise
Is it your assertion then that our society, American society, is not free? America is not the land of the free but the land of the rule of law?
Well that's 1 opinion, that i'm afraid I don't share, as I've read the piece many a time, and it comes across as specfically referencing the negative of diveristy simply for the sake of diversity.
Yes, he criticises diversity, but thru-out the piece appears to connect that criticism to the idea of we must be a diverse country or else, not simply a blanket criticism of diversity. At least that's how I read it. You & Js obviously read it differently
America is a nation govern by ratified legislation. All legislations are subject to, amendment and repeal. All states have the same constitutional process, but have individual constitutional statues. So, America is a country that makes up the law as we go along. Those who seek to deny the people the right to change existing laws, illegally deny the people the right of diversity. Due Process is the one constant, if we amend or repeal due process we no longer have a democracy.
QuoteIs it your assertion then that our society, American society, is not free? America is not the land of the free but the land of the rule of law?
Yep.
Define free and then see how well we stack up.
If you think we are not a free society, I would very much like to see your reasoning as to why
------------------------------------------
It is within living memory that Indian children would be practicly kidnapped from their parents and raised in dorms where they would be forbidden to learn their languages , Languages like Navaho and Cherokee survive inspite of intolerance because there was a hard kernel of resistance that carryed through the worst part of the supression.
I think we get along better than we used to , nobody is joining the "Know Nothing " party anymore and it is harder to kidnap a child from an Indian family.
QuoteIf you think we are not a free society, I would very much like to see your reasoning as to why
I didn't say that.
I simply said we are a nation of laws. And those laws limit absolute freedom, thus we are not a "society of freedom", which i believe was your original claim.
I am not sure why I have to qualify my comments to say that I don't mean "absolute freedom" since clearly our society is not in that situation and since I did not say "absolute freedom". And since I have never, in this conversation or any other, advocated any sort of lawless "absolute freedom" I have no idea why you would have thought I might have meant it.
| Reason: One of your editors said, "Well, Dave's a libertarian, that's true. But he's not an irresponsible libertarian." Doesn't that kind of take the fun out of it? Barry:: I'm not sure what they mean by that. If you tell most people what libertarians think, they immediately assume that you cannot mean it all the way, that you're really just taking a position for argument's sake. When you say you don't think we should have public schools, they can't believe you mean that. You must mean that they should be smaller. But you can't really mean no public schools. Therefore, if I don't argue too much, they probably think I'm responsible. I don't think I'm particularly responsible. I resent that! Reason: Last fall you wrote a piece in the Tropic and explicitly acknowledged being a libertarian. . . Barry:: John Dorschner, one of our staff writers here at Tropic magazine at The Miami Herald, who is a good friend of mine and an excellent journalist, but a raving liberal, wrote a story about a group that periodically pops up saying that they're going to start their own country or start their own planet or go back to their original planet, or whatever. They were going to "create a libertarian society" on a floating platform in the Caribbean somewhere. You know and I know there' s never going to be a country on a floating anything, but if they want to talk about it, that's great. John wrote about it and he got into the usual thing where he immediately got to the question of whether or not you can have sex with dogs. The argument was that if it wasn't illegal to have sex with dogs, naturally people would have sex with dogs. That argument always sets my teeth right on edge. And I always want to retort with, "You want a horrible system, because you think the people should be able to vote for laws they want, and if more than half of them voted for some law, everyone would have to do what they said. Then they could pass a law so that you had to have sex with dogs." I was ranting and raving about this here in the office. So my editor, Tom Shroder, said "Why don't you write a counterpoint to it?" So I wrote about why I didn't think libertarians are really doing this kind of thing so that they can have sex with dogs. I discussed some of the reasons that a person might want to live out of the control of our federal, state, local, and every other form of government. Actually, I don't think I even called myself a libertarian in the article. I think Tom Shroder identified me as one. Reason: Did that give you pause, coming out of the closet on this? Barry:: I guess libertarianism is always considered so weird and fringe that people assume that you're in the closet if you don't go around talking about it. Usually in interviews we're talking about humor writing and they don't bring it up. Because I don't write an overly political column, people just assume I'm not. I guess nobody assumes anybody is a libertarian. It's a more complex political discussion than most people are used to, to explain why you think the way you do about public education or drug laws, and why it's not as simple as being for or against something. Reason: Did you get any mail about being a libertarian after that article? Barry:: I got a few letters, mostly pretty nice. One or two letters saying, "Here's why it wouldn't work to be a libertarian, because people will have sex with dogs." Arguments like, "Nobody would educate the kids." People say, "Of course you have to have public education because otherwise nobody would send their kids to school." And you'd have to say, "Would you not send your kids to school? Would you not educate them?" "Well, no. I would. But all those other people would be having sex with dogs." |
So, um, thanks for pointing out that we have laws in America. I'll be sure to, uh, not forget that. Yeah.
One last time, it's not against diversity in how diversity does enhance American culture. It's against diversity simply for the sake of advocating diversity at the expense of American culture. I don't know how many other ways I can say the same thing, and in what I read out of Sowell's piece
We are a society based on the rule of law.
Show me, in the article where the author makes that assertion. You posted the article and you are defending it. So let's see it.
In other words Sirs, you cannot defend the article's view of diversity based on the text of the article itself?
Then we follow the new laws until those get changed. Law isn't static. It changes and evolves according to the customs of the time. Though the law trumps freedom, you are free to choose to disobey the law if you are willing to accept the consequences and possibly lose your freedom.
QuoteIn other words Sirs, you cannot defend the article's view of diversity based on the text of the article itself?
Based on the small snipit Sowell applied to diversity, and the sentence I used, is still obviously not enough for you, is it? I can only hope you've rarely read Sowell's other stuff
I never heard of the guy until you posted this article. I made that clear earlier. I take it that the answer to my question is: "no" ?
Well, that's a relief then. And the answer to your question is "not to your satisifaction"
The answer is clearly "no." There isn't a single contextual sentence that shows how the author has a positive view of diversity. I'll note also that you have failed to answer most other questions brought up in the conversation. It is obvious you don't even understand the piece as it is written.
And you expect me to believe we are a "society based on the rule of law?" Perhaps in a theory written on a piece of paper, but in reality? No, I don't think so.
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." Might want to consider it.
Is there a way to experiment and learn whether some of these laws and penaltys might could be done away with without causeing too much harm?
To be specific , I would like to repeal the laws that restrict Marijuanna use and replace them with more reasonable regulation that is designed to make the stuff safe to use responsibly rather than the law as it is which seems to be designed to punish a user or provider without reguard to the safety and responsibility of the use.
The rights that belong to a Human Being by natural right should always be a matter of discusson between citizens.
"Why?"
Because we are not born agreeing on what is good and needful, nor do we die at great age haveing learned all.
Try to keep in mind that those same laws trump freedom, absolute or otherwise. The concepts of freedom and rule of law are not in conflict. But the ideal is far from the reality. And that is what really needs to be kept in mind.
The assertion is based on the mountrain of articles he's written over the years,
Is there a way to experiment and learn whether some of these laws and penaltys might could be done away with without causeing too much harm?
Sure. Let the states do it.
To be specific , I would like to repeal the laws that restrict Marijuanna use and replace them with more reasonable regulation that is designed to make the stuff safe to use responsibly rather than the law as it is which seems to be designed to punish a user or provider without reguard to the safety and responsibility of the use.
A few states are progressing toward that. I think Colorado is the state closest to legalizing casual (as opposed to medical) possession of marijuana, but that is a huge controversy there. And who knows if the U.S.D.O.J. would even allow it.
The rights that belong to a Human Being by natural right should always be a matter of discusson between citizens.
"Why?"
Because we are not born agreeing on what is good and needful, nor do we die at great age haveing learned all.
Why do we have to agree on that? Are we so afraid of everyone becoming murderers and rapists and pedophiles that we cannot allow people to decide for themselves what is good and needful? If we are, that seems like a severe lack of faith in one's fellow humans.
So this becomes a states rights issue?
We cannot agree, but we must have a policy
-----------------------------------
The rights that belong to a Human Being by natural right should always be a matter of discusson between citizens.
"Why?"
Because we are not born agreeing on what is good and needful, nor do we die at great age haveing learned all.
Why do we have to agree on that? Are we so afraid of everyone becoming murderers and rapists and pedophiles that we cannot allow people to decide for themselves what is good and needful? If we are, that seems like a severe lack of faith in one's fellow humans.
One word: Slavery.
"Because we are not born agreeing on what is good and needful, nor do we die at great age haveing learned all."
It wasn't meant to be. It was meant to be a justification for laws banning it."Because we are not born agreeing on what is good and needful, nor do we die at great age haveing learned all."
I don't consider this a good justification of slavery.
But look at the things that we could not do in the 1950s: No right of girls to have equal athletic programs in high school, thus very few women's college athletic scholarships.
We had to make a law. Title 9.
Some countries sell children into sex slavery. We have laws against that.
We used to not recognize that women could even be raped by their husbands. So yes, I think it requires a majority consensus imposed on everone, to safeguard some that otherwise would live lives of horror and desperation.