The Next President is...

[HeloDude]

If only there was a system of government where there were individual smaller governments (let’s call them states in this example), and they could largely be sovereign as long as they adhered to very basic principles (like no slavery, allowing people to have their own religion, not stop people from being able to protect themselves, etc)...and then people could pick and choose which state better reflected their own values and priorities.  This way the national government would have less influence on people’s everyday lives when compared to these state governments.  If only such system existed...

[busdriver]

2 hours ago, jazzdude said:

people that wanted to pull those government levers to effect a change will find other levers elsewhere within society to do

their basic rights are being violated.

if you're in the minority and that government power was protecting you from the majority, 

You assume that the minority is inherently fucked without big brother to step in an help/protect them.  Why?  Historically it has been the government that has been the one doing the fucking by actively enforcing violations of liberty.

[jazzdude]

You assume that the minority is inherently ed without big brother to step in an help/protect them.  Why?  Historically it has been the government that has been the one doing the ing by actively enforcing violations of liberty.

A minority isn't always in need of protection from the government. But it requires the majority to not abuse power to harm the minority. Otherwise, the minority could be left to either suffer, or turn to violence to fight back.

And at times, a minority can violate the majority as well. History is full of examples of individuals or small groups, and not just governments, inflicting their will on a larger population after they have consolidated some means of power, often through force/violence, technological advantage, or through control of key resources. Any number of groups can and have consolidated and abused power throughout history, such as religions, organized crime, businesses, terrorists/freedom fighters, etc. And that ignores outside forces like rival countries.

So the real problem is how to manage power within a society. That power can reside in either a majority or minority, though within our form of government, it largely rests with the majority for government matters.

I'd rather see power reside at lower levels of government, since they are closer to the people they represent. At the same time, issues that affect all Americans should be handled at the federal level.

[busdriver]

Man you really just waffle around the middle of the conversation don't you.

[jazzdude]

Man you really just waffle around the middle of the conversation don't you.

Well, that's where I think the solution lies, so yeah.

[lloyd christmas]

16 hours ago, jazzdude said:

History is full of examples of individuals or small groups, and not just governments, inflicting their will on a larger population after they have consolidated some means of power, often through force/violence, technological advantage, or through control of key resources.

BLM, teachers unions,Twitter, Facebook, ANTIFA, the media, etc...   

[Lord Ratner]

21 hours ago, busdriver said:

You assume that the minority is inherently fucked without big brother to step in an help/protect them.  Why?  Historically it has been the government that has been the one doing the fucking by actively enforcing violations of liberty.

Exactly. And when the federal government steps it it's usually well after the tide has shifted. Gay rights, civil rights, the legalization of weed, women voting, prohibition, unprohibition... All driven by the lower levels of society with national politicians jumping in front of the parade at the finish line to pretend like they were leading it the whole time.

[pawnman]

28 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Exactly. And when the federal government steps it it's usually well after the tide has shifted. Gay rights, civil rights, the legalization of weed, women voting, prohibition, unprohibition... All driven by the lower levels of society with national politicians jumping in front of the parade at the finish line to pretend like they were leading it the whole time.

It wasn't lower levels of society that escorted those black girls to school in Arkansas...

[busdriver]

But it was the state enforcing segregation.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[pawnman]

2 hours ago, busdriver said:

But it was the state enforcing segregation.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

Which was a more local government than the federalized troops who ensured desegregation. After the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students. 

Not exactly a case of the locals fixing a problem. 

[busdriver]

My point is it was enforced violation of individual liberty by government.

Arguing about which government body gets to be big government misses the point that big government is a danger to individual rights.

The state having a monopoly on the legitimate use of force is (I think) necessary, but it carries risk that must be mitigated.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Lord Ratner]

21 hours ago, pawnman said:

It wasn't lower levels of society that escorted those black girls to school in Arkansas...

No, it was the government jumping in front of the parade. 

 

If you think the very famous incident you are citing was at the beginning, rather than the end of the process that led to the civil rights of black people being recognized and enforced in America, you are mistaken. 

 

Where does government get it's power from? How well does it work when the government does something that the majority opposes? Were all the civil rights advocates voted out of office during the next election cycle?

 

The government could have stepped in 50 years earlier, why didn't it?

 

Remember that Jim Crow laws were *governments* forcing private citizens to segregate their business. Those laws were passed because citizens were desegregating on their own. 

Edited May 4, 2021 by Lord Ratner

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

No, it was the government jumping in front of the parade. 

 

If you think the very famous incident you are citing was at the beginning, rather than the end of the process that led to the civil rights of black people being recognized and enforced in America, you are mistaken. 

 

Where does government get it's power from? How well does it work when the government does something that the majority opposes? Were all the civil rights advocates voted out of office during the next election cycle?

 

The government could have stepped in 50 years earlier, why didn't it?

 

Remember that Jim Crow laws were *governments* forcing private citizens to segregate their business. Those laws were passed because citizens were desegregating on their own. 

You can’t reason with the far left (and right)—they’re the same people who think that it’s racist to require an ID to vote and it’s like Jim Crow, but yet requiring that same ID to purchase a gun is just “common sense”.  We even have people on this site who support such nonsense.

The difference I see is that for the most part it’s the left that has gotten far more extreme with their views in the last 10+ years.  Remember when the left was against illegal immigration, and now if you even say the words the left will call you a racist?  Just one of many examples.  And sure there are examples on the right—the abortion issue for one. But again, which side has seen the greatest change in the last 10+ years?  I think it’s obvious.

[bfargin]

6 hours ago, HeloDude said:

......  And sure there are examples on the right—the abortion issue for one. ......

That's about the worst example you could use for an extreme view. The Constitution, science, logic, and religion all agree on abortion. It's not a right or left issue, its a human life and death issue. The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution both speak to our individual right to life. ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  -  "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.")

[brickhistory]

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, bfargin said:

That's about the worst example you could use for an extreme view. The Constitution, science, logic, and religion all agree on abortion. It's not a right or left issue, its a human life and death issue. The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution both speak to our individual right to life. ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  -  "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.")

Not to get on an abortion debate, but do you think women who get an abortion should be charged with murder?  

[Day Man]

1 hour ago, bfargin said:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.")

This has nothing to do with individual choices. Also, your religious beliefs are irrelevant.

[Guardian]

This has nothing to do with individual choices. Also, your religious beliefs are irrelevant.

I’ve read your statement several times. I don’t understand your point alone or as related to the quote you are quoting. Could you please explain what you mean?

[bfargin]

1 hour ago, Guardian said:

I’ve read your statement several times. I don’t understand your point alone or as related to the quote you are quoting. Could you please explain what you mean?

I'm pretty sure he doesn't even know what he meant. I left any "religious belief" out of everything I wrote, and last time I checked a "person" is an individual.

[Day Man]

3 hours ago, Guardian said:

I’ve read your statement several times. I don’t understand your point alone or as related to the quote you are quoting. Could you please explain what you mean?

Sure. Abortion is an individual decision. @bfargin quoted the constitution and bolded 'life' implying it referred to abortion. I highlighted "nor shall any state" because it doesn't apply to an individuals actions, only the state.

1 hour ago, bfargin said:

I'm pretty sure he doesn't even know what he meant. I left any "religious belief" out of everything I wrote, and last time I checked a "person" is an individual.

🤨

6 hours ago, bfargin said:

The Constitution, science, logic, and religion all agree on abortion.

Science and logic usually don't agree with religion on anything. Let me know if I incorrectly inferred what you were saying (that the constitution, science, logic, and reason are all against abortion).

 

 

[Lord Ratner]

6 hours ago, bfargin said:

That's about the worst example you could use for an extreme view. The Constitution, science, logic, and religion all agree on abortion. It's not a right or left issue, its a human life and death issue. The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution both speak to our individual right to life. ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  -  "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.")

They all agree huh? 

 

I'm anti-abortion, but to act as though it's a settled topic is pretty obtuse.

Using your words, define "person."

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, bfargin said:

I left any "religious belief" out of everything I wrote, and last time I checked a "person" is an individual.

You literally wrote "religion" In your second sentence. 

Can an infant be an individual if it is wholly reliant on another person for existence?

[bfargin]

30 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

.You literally wrote "religion" In your second sentence. 

They all agree huh? 

 

I'm anti-abortion, but to act as though it's a settled topic is pretty obtuse.

Using your words, define "person."

Can an infant be an individual if it is wholly reliant on another person for existence?

I'm not arguing against abortion because of my religious view. That was a statement highlighting that because science now confirms that a fetus is a human (fully understood and yes settled - once the egg is fertilized), they agree.

The supreme court acknowledged, when they somehow pulled the roe v wade ruling out of their rear, that if science showed that a fetus was a human life (person), then a different ruling would have been made. "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, in this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Roe 410 US

After my accident, was I an individual (person) for the two weeks I was on life support and totally dependent on others? Is the person on hospice care and can't feed themselves and sometime can't even communicate an individual? Reliance doesn't define if someone is an individual.

 

1 hour ago, Day Man said:

Sure. Abortion is an individual decision. @bfargin quoted the constitution and bolded 'life' implying it referred to abortion. I highlighted "nor shall any state" because it doesn't apply to an individuals actions, only the state.

🤨

Science and logic usually don't agree with religion on anything. Let me know if I incorrectly inferred what you were saying (that the constitution, science, logic, and reason are all against abortion).

 

 

If you abort you can't really have life, so it applies in that the government can't take a life without due process. So if somehow we could charge and convict those little fetuses with a crime worthy of the death penalty, then I guess it would be legal.

Science has now confirmed the fetus is a human life with distinct dna - different from the mother and father. Religion already claimed it was a human life so I lumped them together. So no, they don't necessarily agree on abortion, but on the fact that a fetus is human life they agree.

 

This is way off the topic of this thread so I'll stop discussing here. If we move it elsewhere i'm more than willing to discuss, but frankly I don't see any legitimate arguments to support state sanctioned infanticide. Discussions should be had on how to help expectant mothers who face difficult circumstances with a newborn (whether that is through government policy and assistance programs or private sector organizations that provide prenatal and postnatal services).

[jazzdude]

If you abort you can't really have life, so it applies in that the government can't take a life without due process. So if somehow we could charge and convict those little fetuses with a crime worthy of the death penalty, then I guess it would be legal.
Science has now confirmed the fetus is a human life with distinct dna - different from the mother and father. Religion already claimed it was a human life so I lumped them together. So no, they don't necessarily agree on abortion, but on the fact that a fetus is human life they agree.
 
This is way off the topic of this thread so I'll stop discussing here. If we move it elsewhere i'm more than willing to discuss, but frankly I don't see any legitimate arguments to support state sanctioned infanticide. Discussions should be had on how to help expectant mothers who face difficult circumstances with a newborn (whether that is through government policy and assistance programs or private sector organizations that provide prenatal and postnatal services).

The abortion (and by extension, pregnancy and children's) issue doesn't live in a vacuum. It touches on healthcare access, economic issues, and societal/community support both during pregnancy and through when that child becomes an adult.

1- The state isn't making that decision to abort a pregnancy, typically it's the mother. If we were looking at state-directed abortion or sterilization, then you have a point here, but that's not the case. However, the US still allows forced sterilization, which was upheld by the supreme court...(you could argue that this just prevents life from starting, or that this is the government's way of killing off kids before they can even be conceived)

2- Your argument doesn't address problems with triage. How do you weigh the life of the mother against the life of the unborn baby? If carrying the baby to term will kill the mother, who's life is more important? And who should make that decision (the mother who's life is in danger, or someone else)?

3- It also ignores the need for access to medical care, both for the the mother and baby, and not just for the pregnancy, but through the first several months after birth, assuming no complications.

4-We also don't have any real mandated maternity leave (sure, they can take 12 weeks of unpaid leave through FMLA assuming they meet the criteria, but what pays the bills then?). Maybe if you work for a decent company and have decent insurance, they'll get some maternity pay, but likely reduced from normal.

5-Should women who have a miscarriage be charged with manslaughter?

6-Should a mother with a fetus with known serious genetic disorders be forced to give birth to the child, when that child will suffer and live a very shortened life? What if the parents have no means to pay for the medical care for that child? It's laughable to think the gov will pay for that child's medical bills-the parents would likely go bankrupt doing what they can for the kid, or be judged harshly (or criminally) for "letting" the kid die if they don't exhaust every avenue for medical treatment.

7- There's the personal choice argument as well-don't have sex unless you're ready to have a baby. Sure, if you want to take that hard stance, then why not apply it elsewhere and be consistent? Should a drunk driver that wraps their car around a tree receive medical treatment? Should insurance be forced to cover their medical bills for an objectively bad (science shows alcohol degrades cognitive and motor skills needed to operate a car) and illegal personal choice? Should they be allowed to discharge the medical debt through bankruptcy, or should they be forced to pay off what they owe for services provided or harm/damage caused regardless of how long it takes (or maybe cap it at 18 years of payments...).

I don't see how people can believe so strongly that abortion is wrong, and yet work so hard against helping that child be born healthy (specifically, access to healthcare and paid maternity leave), as all of those issues show how society values life. If it's so important to society that the child is born, even against the mother's wishes, society should pay to ensure the child is born healthy and has a support network after birth (which means people need to be willing to adopt or foster kids when the birth parents do not wish to raise the kid).

I'm not advocating for abortion, nor do I believe that is generally the right choice. But there's enough edge cases where it may be the best option available given the circumstances involved. So I'd rather defer the choice from government to the individual, to make the choice that is right for them, rather than have the government dictate what to do.

[Day Man]

30 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

1- The state isn't making that decision to abort a pregnancy, typically it's the mother. If we were looking at state-directed abortion or sterilization, then you have a point here, but that's not the case

 

31 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

So I'd rather defer the choice from government to the individual, to make the choice that is right for them, rather than have the government dictate what to do.

i was trying to say these things without writing a book...thanks.