Difference between revisions of "2009-05-31 Why do people persist in voting Republican/woozle/2009"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Tabula Rasa: response... wanted to find more references, but out of time.) |
|||
| Line 662: | Line 662: | ||
What do you see as the biggest, most urgent problems America currently faces? | What do you see as the biggest, most urgent problems America currently faces? | ||
| − | ===Tabula Rasa=== | + | ===(Midian) Tabula Rasa=== |
A new beginning. Here's where I would start: | A new beginning. Here's where I would start: | ||
| Line 690: | Line 690: | ||
====Taxes==== | ====Taxes==== | ||
| + | ===(Woozle) Tabula Response=== | ||
| + | ====The Constitution==== | ||
| + | * [M] ''"The founding fathers were far more intelligent, prescient, and concerned with our nation as a whole than any of our politicians today."'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | I don't know that this is universally true, but one would have to do a lot of research to figure out which of today's politicians come anywhere near to the standard set by the founding fathers -- and the FFs weren't deeply entangled in a centuries-old political establishment, either, so they were much more free to act on their consciences. | ||
| + | |||
| + | So, yeah, I'll agree with your basic assertion here: the Constitution is an honest document, and the vast majority of recent legislation far less so. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [M] ''"I disagree entirely with your protestations that the left is any less worse than the right in any manner whatsoever."'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | On what grounds? Obama's big betrayal is his failure to reverse many of Bush's worst policies and actions. To my knowledge, he has not ''initiated'' anything evil on his own, and he has done considerable reversal of some of Bush's lesser crimes. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Yes, Obama has a lot to answer for -- but how can you possibly say that his spinelessness in declining to reverse every bit the neocon agenda is even ''comparable'' to the evil and malice of those who conceived and initiated that agenda in the first place? | ||
| + | |||
| + | You speak of "tabula rasa" -- but let's not forget who got us into this mess, if you're going to blame Obama for not getting us out of it fast enough. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | "We" didn't do that; a few (relatively speaking) power-mongers did. My observation is that people only act foolishly en masse when persuaded by others -- as many are now being persuaded to act foolishly by the [[mainstream media|corporate-owned media]]. Otherwise how could we possibly have gotten as far as we did? It's not as if the Founding Fathers came down from on high and ''imposed'' freedom on the masses; people ''wanted'' freedom, and were rationally persuaded as to the best means of accomplishing that when presented with one. | ||
| + | |||
| + | But sure, let's go back to the founding document and see what we should have. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [M] ''"Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion."'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion|It means]] the freedom to be personally free of religion if one chooses -- the right not to have a religion, the right to not take anything seriously if it cannot be defended on [[rational]] grounds. "Freedom" as in "not enslaved or owned by another". | ||
| + | |||
| + | You are correct that it doesn't imply a freedom from ''exposure'' to religion. I don't think anyone is making that claim. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [M] ''"kids want to pray in school, they should be allowed the free exercise thereof."'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Nobody is stopping them. I believe the ACLU (often accused of being a bastion of liberal anti-religious oppressiveness) has defended the right of ''individual'' students to pray in school on at least one or two occasions. [http://www.talk2action.org/story/2009/5/15/10043/6018] What is ''not'' okay is for the school -- or officials acting on behalf of the school -- to endorse religious activities; the reasons why religious people should see this as a ''good'' thing were explained by Thomas Jefferson. | ||
| + | |||
| + | This includes things like courtroom displays of the [[Ten Commandments]], which really have absolutely nothing to do with our legal system other than a chance overlap on a few obvious items (like not murdering or stealing). Even a broken clock is right twice a day... | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [M] ''"If you feel your view is not included, make your own display."'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Then why is it that someone always seems to get upset if a Muslim wants to put up a display celebrating one of their holidays -- or an atheist wants to put up a non-religious seasonal display? | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [M] ''"You cannot have the right to not be offended without removing the right of free speech."'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | I ''think'' we're agreeing here -- there is no right to [[freedom from being offended]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''2nd amendment''': the problem is that the horrendous array of portable personal weapons currently available is nothing the founding fathers could reasonably have foreseen, and clearly they did not anticipate the social problems caused by such weaponry. We can't depend on the original language here; we ''have to decide how to handle this ourselves'' -- gleaning what wisdom we can from anything else the Founding Fathers may have had to say on the subject, but focusing more heavily on what effects have been accomplished by various levels of gun control in other countries. | ||
| + | |||
| + | If you ''just'' want to look at the Constitution, it seems to me that the federal law can only be kept out of gun control if it can be shown that guns are not having a substantial effect on interstate trade. Once something becomes significant in that field, then the Constitution specifically grants the power to regulate it. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''4th amendment''': I think we're in agreement here. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''5th amendment''' and eminent domain: I think we're in agreement here too. I've never been a fan of eminent domain. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''6th amendment''' ''"Judges allowing the suppression of evidence does not allow the jury to be impartial."'' Again, we agree -- and I am heartened to see you taking anti-Bush-doctrine positions here and on the 4th amendment. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | I'm willing to concede that criminals are, in many cases, being treated too luxuriously -- though I have to wonder how many of the oft-quoted examples are real. Do you have any sources? | ||
| + | |||
| + | The prison system is a huge mess, and needs reform. For-profit prison management companies have far too much power to set the agenda -- I believe they are at least partially responsible for the unprecedented percentage of our population which is in prison ''as well as'' many of the excesses in both good or bad treatment. This field needs to be much more accountable than it is -- and I doubt very much that private enterprise is a good way to handle it. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''10th amendment''': We would probably agree about a lot of specifics and disagree about a lot of others. We agree about the war on drugs, at least. I ''think'' we're agreeing that what one state legalizes for itself should not be binding on any other. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''14th amendment''': Here's what I have to say about [[User:Woozle/positions/hate crimes|hate crimes]]. | ||
| + | ====Taxes==== | ||
| + | I think we agree that the income tax system needs to be overhauled and possibly eliminated; see the questions I asked in round 4. I do ''not'' think it can be replaced ''without'' first understanding what benefits it is considered essential in providing, however (and why). I suspect that, at the very least, we could do much better taxing ''only'' the rich, and using a very simple formula with no loopholes. | ||
| + | |||
| + | On the subject of deficit spending, you might want to read [http://acandidworld.com/2009/11/19/if-not-the-deficit-then-what/ this]. | ||