America - The Official Thread

[Swift]

This is a constitutional guarantee that should not be changeable, even by the majority. Our country DOES allow the majority to change the rules in the form of a constitutional ammendment, but that's a dangerous process and one that I'm not sure should even be allowed... because it opens up the ability for the majority to oppress the minority. However, thus far, constitutional ammendments have been used mostly to increase the fairness of government.

Without the ability to alter the government we would be in a situation that the government couldn't change as peope are enlightened. Could you imagine if the 13th-14th ammendments WEREN'T on the constitution? Giving all different types of people the right to vote as American citizens is a no brainer, but it wasn't part of the constitution till after the Civil War.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Vote.

That's prefectly fine. But it's necessary for the government to be restricted to moral action (via the bill of rights) to avoid the tyranny of the majority that inevitably occurs.

I agree. However, is/should morality be solely based on the Bill of Rights?

The government can grow and shrink, but there are certain restrictions that cannot be up for vote. Like the right to life, or the right to due process. This is why even the majority cannot pass a law requiring that the government kill all red haired people for example, or that there cannot be a law saying all black people are slaves, or cannot vote, or are not required to be tried by their peers should they request such a trial.

True.

Part of this is the constitutional guarantee that people will recieve equal protection under the law. This is a fundamental statement that the government will not treat citizens differently. This is why affirmative action is unconstitutional,

It may be unconstitutional but I believe it was justified by the times. I know what segregation looks like (de facto, anyway).

This kind of "equal treatment" doctrine makes perfect sense. We all belong to this society, we all pay taxes... we should each be treated no differently by our government.

This then leaves individuals the opportunity to discriminate against each other. However moral that may be, I personally think it's wrong.

This is a constitutional guarantee that should not be changeable, even by the majority. Our country DOES allow the majority to change the rules in the form of a constitutional ammendment, but that's a dangerous process and one that I'm not sure should even be allowed... because it opens up the ability for the majority to oppress the minority. However, thus far, constitutional ammendments have been used mostly to increase the fairness of government.

Precisely.

 

[Danoff]

Without the ability to alter the government we would be in a situation that the government couldn't change as peope are enlightened. Could you imagine if the 13th-14th ammendments WEREN'T on the constitution? Giving all different types of people the right to vote as American citizens is a no brainer, but it wasn't part of the constitution till after the Civil War.

Agreed, it has been critical to our development as a country. But I think maybe the ability to add to the list is the critical part. Taking away from the list is my main concern.

By being able to ammend our constitution we're able to remove constitutional guarantees that have kept our country free. We could essentially ammend ourselves into socialism, communism, or a dictatorship. These are unacceptable situations. That we could pass a constitutional ammendment that says that everyone except people named tom have the freedom of speech, is what concerns me at this point.

Anyway this is the idea behind the bill of rights, to prevent the majority from passing laws that make it a permanant majority, or from passing laws that are immoral - like the slaughtering of jews, or the slavery of blacks, or the removal of due process.

That's why the morality of our country is not subject to the whims of the majority - even though values may be.

 

[Danoff]

I agree. However, is/should morality be solely based on the Bill of Rights?

The morality of the government is based on the bill of rights and constitution.

It may be unconstitutional but I believe it was justified by the times. I know what segregation looks like (de facto, anyway).

You're all about justifications. Try to think of it in terms of right and wrong. Fair and unfair... the proper or improper role of government.

This then leaves individuals the opportunity to discriminate against each other. However moral that may be, I personally think it's wrong.

We are free are we not? If I don't want to associate with red haired people, that's my decision. It's discrimination, but it's up to me who I want to associate with. That's a part of my value system as an individual. For you to force me to try not to discriminate is a removal of my freedom and an imposition of your values onto me - that's immoral.

 

[Swift]

Anyway this is the idea behind the bill of rights, to prevent the majority from passing laws that make it a permanant majority, or from passing laws that are immoral - like the slaughtering of jews, or the slavery of blacks, or the removal of due process.

That's why the morality of our country is not subject to the whims of the majority - even though values may be.

Glad you agree.

I think it's very funny how you never hear the word "moral" or "morals" during an election campain but you here "values" like they having a sale on futons or something.

Also, I think that if congress started to ammend away the rights of people, then the people would simply put the people into office that would repeal such ammendments. Such as prohibition. I still think it's too bad that one didn't stick. Oh well.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

The morality of the government is based on the bill of rights and constitution.

And individual morality? Or is that somehow intrinsic to morality of the government?

You're all about justifications.

I blame me for that.

Try to think of it in terms of right and wrong. Fair and unfair... the proper or improper role of government.

We are free are we not? If I don't want to associate with red haired people, that's my decision. It's discrimination, but it's up to me who I want to associate with. That's a part of my value system as an individual. For you to force me to try not to discriminate is a removal of my freedom and an imposition of your values onto me - that's immoral.

Let's say this is the case and people are no longer forced to associate with another group. Consider this situation:

The only hospital within a 20 mile radius decides they won't take a patient because they have red hair, or because they're black and they die? Is that not a removal of freedom and/or an impostion of values onto the victim?

 

[Swift]

The only hospital within a 20 mile radius decides they won't take a patient because they have red hair, or because they're black and they die? Is that not a removal of freedom and/or an impostion of values onto the victim?

If it's a gov't funded hospital then yes. If it's a private one then no. But I'm sure the bad press would destroy the hospital in a matter of months.

For us to tell people who they have to serve or even higher in private industry isn't cool. But if my tax dollars are funding it, then it should be equal opportunity.

 

[Danoff]

If it's a gov't funded hospital then yes. If it's a private one then no. But I'm sure the bad press would destroy the hospital in a matter of months.

👍

And individual morality? Or is that somehow intrinsic to morality of the government?

Individual morality is a separate issue. The individual does not have the same power that that the government has. An individual does not have a police force or military behind him. An individual cannot say, "black people must pay higher taxes" and make it so.

But morality is independant. If an individual did have this power, the same morality would apply - and does in the case of dictatorships.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

If it's a gov't funded hospital then yes. If it's a private one then no. But I'm sure the bad press would destroy the hospital in a matter of months.

For us to tell people who they have to serve or even higher in private industry isn't cool. But if my tax dollars are funding it, then it should be equal opportunity.

👍

Well thank goodness for the courts, then. I call that negligent homicide, not preservation of rights.

 

[Danoff]

Well thank goodness for the courts, then. I call that negligent homicide, not preservation of rights.

That's because you have this notion that we are all responsible for each other. Does a privately owned gas station have to provide gas to the gasless? Does a privately owned transportation service have to provide transportation to those who want it? Why does a privately owned hospital have to provide service to anyone they don't want to ?

 

[Swift]

That's because you have this notion that we are all responsible for each other. Does a privately owned gas station have to provide gas to the gasless? Does a privately owned transportation service have to provide transportation to those who want it? Why does a privately owned hospital have to provide service to anyone they don't want to ?

That's it right there. Brian, I DON'T like the idea of someone being shut out. But if we force private institiutions to take anyone/everyone, then who's to say that we shouldn't force supermarkets to feed the hungry or real estate companies to shelter the homeless?

As I said, I don't like it. But the alternative is borderline communism and I don't want that in our country.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

That's because you have this notion that we are all responsible for each other.

You are absolutely correct. However, like all things, I know that there has to be balance. Here's how I see it:

Does a privately owned gas station have to provide gas to the gasless?

Absolutely not. Why? Fuel for a car is not a life and death matter. People go without driving cars and live just fine. Just ask any one of the millions of people in New York City who commute via the extensive network of subways/trains/buses etc.

Does a privately owned transportation service have to provide transportation to those who want it?

Depends on the situation. Here's where balance comes into play:

If circumstances are normal, and you can't pay for the transportation, you don't use it -- it's that simple.

HOWEVER:

In an emergency of 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina proportions, it shouldn't have to matter whether someone can pay for transportation or not.

Why does a privately owned hospital have to provide service to anyone they don't want to ?

Only if someone is teetering on the brink of death. Why? Put yourself into that same situation, then ask yourself that.

If you had a life-threatening medical emergency and the only public hospital was 1,500 miles away from your home and EVERY private hospital you stopped in along the way refused you, would your first thought really be:

"Oh well, it's their right not to help me."

That's it right there. Brian, I DON'T like the idea of someone being shut out. But if we force private institiutions to take anyone/everyone, then who's to say that we shouldn't force supermarkets to feed the hungry or real estate companies to shelter the homeless?

That too, is idealistic. I don't expected supermarkets to feed the hungry or real estate companies to shelter the homeless (except in maybe the most extreme circumstances).

As I said, I don't like it. But the alternative is borderline communism and I don't want that in our country.

Neither do I. However, the only other alternative I see is a kind of unrestrained capitalism that would make even David Friedman wince. I'm just looking for a middle ground, that's all. Incentivize productivity/progress and help those cannot produce. That's all.

 

[ledhed]

Dannoff you made this statement in another thread;

They chose to be poor. They chose to be unable to help themselves. Yes, they chose to die.

Thats just so wrong on so many different levels I just do not know where to start . But I am going to try .

You assume we are equal . We are not equal . We are not equal in circumstance. height weight intelligence nor education ETC . A person can improve his lot by hard work but reaches a point were he can go no further without luck or favorable circumstance .
not all races or classes are TREATED equally in the United States although it is required under the law . The fact is they are not . Every reasonable statistic supports this fact .
People are poor because they want to be . An insane statement . They may choose to be poor because they are not willing or able to improve themselves BUT not because they WANT to be poor .
In an ideal world everyone would have an equal oppurtunity to be successfull . IMO the US is closer to ideal in that respect than any other country I am aware of BUT a person with an I.Q. of 88 ( no Bush jokes please I am trying to be seriouse ) will NEVER be able to rise very far . Poor education due to circumstance and natural ability will limit a person to a poor payingjob , that will GUESS WHAT....limit him/her/ it to being POOR . The social aspects of a persons life and circumstances play a HUGE part in how far even the most intelligent and dilligent amogst us will succeed in life. In the real world. Not the idealized world you must be dreaming of .
Some people actually do reach their potential and that potential is POOR . They do not CHOOSE to die for it . Nor did the person who was injured in work and due to lack of physical ability been forced to work at a job below his or her former pay rate CHOOSE to be poor and CHOOSE to die for it . I could go on but by now you should have gotten the point .

 

[Danoff]

That's it right there. Brian, I DON'T like the idea of someone being shut out. But if we force private institiutions to take anyone/everyone, then who's to say that we shouldn't force supermarkets to feed the hungry or real estate companies to shelter the homeless?

As I said, I don't like it. But the alternative is borderline communism and I don't want that in our country.

This reminds me of a great southpark episode where Big Gay Al is a scoutmaster for a scout troop. The parents are obviously concerned about having a gay scoutmaster so they report it to the boy scouts and they have him removed and put a man's man in place as the new scoutmaster. Of course the man's man turns out to be a child moletser, so some lawyer takes up Big Gay Al's case and gets the court to FORCE the (private) boy scouts to reinstate Big Gay Al as the scoutmaster (and the judge puts the scout people in stocks and has rotten tomatoes thrown at them).

Just as you think the episode is going to end. Just as it seems that everything has been rectified, Big Gay Al comes out and says that he doesn't think it's right that the Boy Scouts should be forced to make him a scoutmaster. He says that he enjoys his freedom of speech, but the Boy Scouts should also enjoy their freedom of speech.

It's a great episode. Very nice that they came through with a libertarian message. It was hilarious too because that NEVER happens (in real life or on TV shows).

 

[Danoff]

People are poor because they want to be . An insane statement . They may choose to be poor because they are not willing or able to improve themselves BUT not because they WANT to be poor .

I didn't say they wanted to be poor. I said they chose to be poor. This is because (as you say) they are not willing to improve themselves.

 

[ledhed]

You missed the " or able " in that . Circumstances can make someone unable to improve beyond the poverty level. If that were not true than poverty would never be a concern no ? Who cares about someone who " chooses to be what he is ?

 

[FoolKiller]

This reminds me of a great southpark episode where Big Gay Al is a scoutmaster for a scout troop. The parents are obviously concerned about having a gay scoutmaster so they report it to the boy scouts and they have him removed and put a man's man in place as the new scoutmaster. Of course the man's man turns out to be a child moletser, so some lawyer takes up Big Gay Al's case and gets the court to FORCE the (private) boy scouts to reinstate Big Gay Al as the scoutmaster (and the judge puts the scout people in stocks and has rotten tomatoes thrown at them).

Just as you think the episode is going to end. Just as it seems that everything has been rectified, Big Gay Al comes out and says that he doesn't think it's right that the Boy Scouts should be forced to make him a scoutmaster. He says that he enjoys his freedom of speech, but the Boy Scouts should also enjoy their freedom of speech.

It's a great episode. Very nice that they came through with a libertarian message. It was hilarious too because that NEVER happens (in real life or on TV shows).

Trey Parker and Matt Stone openly admitted to being conservative (never said Republican or Libertarian) during an interview about Team America.

 

[Swift]

Trey Parker and Matt Stone openly admitted to being conservative (never said Republican or Libertarian) during an interview about Team America.

That's actually very obvious when you watch seasons 7 & 8. So many overtones of tolerance isn't acceptance, the tobaco industry, Sex and violence, etc. I really have to give it to those guys for saying things that most people don't have the guts to say on TV.

 

[FoolKiller]

That's actually very obvious when you watch seasons 7 & 8. So many overtones of tolerance isn't acceptance, the tobaco industry, Sex and violence, etc. I really have to give it to those guys for saying things that most people don't have the guts to say on TV.

They thought Team America would be their swan song because they made fun of Hollywood so much.

Best quote from that interview was Trey Parker saying, "Sean Penn went to Iraq for a week and came back saying he knew all about it. I went to the Grand Canyon, it doesn't making me a ****ing expert!"

 

[Danoff]

You missed the " or able " in that . Circumstances can make someone unable to improve beyond the poverty level. If that were not true than poverty would never be a concern no ? Who cares about someone who " chooses to be what he is ?

That's a strong statement. "Circumstances can make someone unable to improve beyond the poverty level". No matter what?? Regardless of ANY decision that person makes? Given every single possible outcome that person was destined to be poor? I don't think you can make that claim.

Yes, it is possible that someone could try really really hard and only manage a meager existance. Let's take a particularly difficult example. Let's take the example of someone with minor physical and mental disabilities. This person has few career options and, even with all the education in the world, will not end up at a very high powered position. This person is likely to end up working for very little money his whole life and, if anything should go wrong, may end up in a critical situation.

Tugs at the heartstrings doesn't it? Now.

I give you this person. I put, let's call him joe, I put joe in your hands. And I put the rich people of the world in your hands. Is it your right to take their money and give it to Joe? Do you have the authority to take their posessions and reallocate them the way you wish?? I understand that you care about Joe. I care about Joe. I think we both want to see Joe get out of his troubles, but does that give you the right to take other people's property to do it?

Here's the solution. You and I reach into our OWN wallets (not someone else's) and help the Joes of the world that we care so strongly about. We'll let other's care about the charity cases they care about.

If nobody chooses Joe as a charity case, then that's fair. I hate to say it but if nobody wants to help Joe enough to reach into their own wallet, then Joe just shouldn't be helped.

But I think Bill Gates's billion dollar charity donation would probably help quite a few Joes out there. I think that the millions and millions of dollars that fantastically rich people donate to private charities will ensure that very few Joes fall through the cracks. You and I can do our part as well, freely of our own choosing.

But here's the thing. We only have our own money to give. If we want to give more, we have to earn more.

 

[sumbodycool]

I didn't say they wanted to be poor. I said they chose to be poor. This is because (as you say) they are not willing to improve themselves.

I'm sorry, but I can't stand when people say this. That statement is bull****. I am a lower class guy, but it is NOT because my father chose not to work hard. In fact, he used to be a lawyer before he came to America. Many years of hard work, but since it was in a foreign country, there wasn't much opportunity for him. You know what happens when a lawyer from another country comes to America? The law changes, and his past hard work is irrelevant. His skill is no good, but even after he got a decent pay as an accountant, he would still make the same amount of money overseas as a lawyer as he would in America. America is where he decided to stay for an opportunity for his children (like me). And I tell you, my family being less rich then we should be has NOTHING to do with laziness or choice.

I am aware that what you said is usually the case, but not always. Just wanted some clarification 👍

 

[Swift]

I'm sorry, but I can't stand when people say this. That statement is bull****. I am a lower class guy, but it is NOT because my father chose not to work hard. In fact, he used to be a lawyer before he came to America. Many years of hard work, but since it was in a foreign country, there wasn't much opportunity for him. You know what happens when a lawyer from another country comes to America? The law changes, and his past hard work is irrelevant. His skill is no good, but even after he got a decent pay as an accountant, he would still make the same amount of money overseas as a lawyer as he would in America. America is where he decided to stay for an opportunity for his children (like me). And I tell you, my family being less rich then we should be has NOTHING to do with laziness or choice.

I am aware that what you said is usually the case, but not always. Just wanted some clarification 👍

Just wanted to make a clarification to you really quick. If you're online, with a computer in your home, I would not put in the class that Danoff was talking about when he said poor.

 

[sumbodycool]

I'm glad you guys have a good understanding of what poverty really is then. I didnt mean that statement DIRECTLY to danoff, but here in connecticut, people have a wide range of what people think rich and poor is, and often around here, if you're not upper or middle class, people assume you as poor. And from there, people around here seem to think its because of laziness, which is unfair to assume.

 

[Danoff]

I'm glad you guys have a good understanding of what poverty really is then. I didnt mean that statement DIRECTLY to danoff, but here in connecticut, people have a wide range of what people think rich and poor is, and often around here, if you're not upper or middle class, people assume you as poor. And from there, people around here seem to think its because of laziness, which is unfair to assume.

Where in my post did I say anything about laziness? I said it was personal choice. Regardless of the reasons for that choice, the amount of money you, your father, me, and my father make is a result of choice.

 

[sumbodycool]

no no no, im just saying my sentence in general, regardless of whether or not you mentioned laziness. Im just saying, that misunderstanding happens often around HERE, where im from

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm sorry, but I can't stand when people say this. That statement is bull****. I am a lower class guy, but it is NOT because my father chose not to work hard. In fact, he used to be a lawyer before he came to America. Many years of hard work, but since it was in a foreign country, there wasn't much opportunity for him. You know what happens when a lawyer from another country comes to America? The law changes, and his past hard work is irrelevant. His skill is no good, but even after he got a decent pay as an accountant, he would still make the same amount of money overseas as a lawyer as he would in America. America is where he decided to stay for an opportunity for his children (like me). And I tell you, my family being less rich then we should be has NOTHING to do with laziness or choice.

I am aware that what you said is usually the case, but not always. Just wanted some clarification 👍

I would love to know what you consider lower class. I know plenty of accountants and their starting pay was more than my wife and I make together. I don't consider us lower class, lower-middle maybe. When I think lower class I think less than $25,000 a year. I don't even consider myself to be lower class. If you all are struggling that much I recommend your dad look elsewhere for accounting work.

Of course it could be a different kind of accountant too. But even accountants focusing on personal taxes appear to be pretty well off. It might be a location issue too.

 

[Swift]

no no no, im just saying my sentence in general, regardless of whether or not you mentioned laziness. Im just saying, that misunderstanding happens often around HERE, where im from

I'm sorry that happens around there. But I wouldn't consider you "poor" for a second. So, relax.

 

[sumbodycool]

I think we make around 55,000 a year, which is actually good, but its spread out to 7 children. Basically, if you live in or around the hood, you're poor, lazy, and didn't work hard enough in the past, is the common belief around here.

 

[FoolKiller]

I think we make around 55,000 a year, which is actually good, but its spread out to 7 children. Basically, if you live in or around the hood, you're poor, lazy, and didn't work hard enough in the past, is the common belief around here.

That's middle class as far as I am concerned. Here in Kentucky there are the few areas around Louisville and Lexington where the rich live and then the rest is considered po'dunk country farm land by them. The rest of us consider it the real Kentucky. Most of us do quite well in our jobs and those who are willing to scarifice the time and effort join the rich, which always drives them crazy when their neighbor walks out in jeans, t-shirt, and a baseball cap in the rich neighborhood.

You all probably are stretched thin being in Connecticut and having 7 kids. That money would go a lot farther in a more rural area near a city. I drive 40 miles to work every day but my money goes a long way too.

But like it was said before. If you have a computer, Playstation, and Internet then you are doing fine. Danoff was referring more to people drawing welfare and not trying. I have some of those in my family and since their choice is to play bingo or go to the casino boat instead of looking for a job I don't feel sorry for her when the welfare check comes up short.

 

[Swift]

Danoff was referring more to people drawing welfare and not trying. I have some of those in my family and since their choice is to play bingo or go to the casino boat instead of looking for a job I don't feel sorry for her when the welfare check comes up short.

That's it right there. I seriously can't stand when people do this.