Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Havohej]

Yeah... honestly, the fact that so many people are so upset about Arizona enacting State-level laws to enforce Federal-level laws that up to this point nobody's had State-level laws for but which the federal government was barely enforcing (but which were already federal laws) is kinda...

 

But whatever, once a bit of time passes and the rest of the states see whether it's been good or bad for Arizona, other states will either follow suit or they won't.  vOv

[Kamiko Hautala]

The outrage is worthy. The police are going to question anyone that looks the slighest suspicious, and it'll add a boost to their ticketing quotas, so expect Nazi Germany conditions. Also, the fact that you have to carry your proof of citizenship everywhere? The last time people had to do that were the Jews. This goes against all civil liberties granted by the country, and there needs to be a less privacy-infringing law to go into effect nationally.

[Lillith Blackheart]

The outrage is worthy. The police are going to question anyone that looks the slighest suspicious, and it'll add a boost to their ticketing quotas, so expect Nazi Germany conditions. Also, the fact that you have to carry your proof of citizenship everywhere? The last time people had to do that were the Jews. This goes against all civil liberties granted by the country, and there needs to be a less privacy-infringing law to go into effect nationally.

In order:

1. Not really.
2. They already could, the laws are in the books that allow it for a long time coming, if they haven't before what makes you think they'll suddenly up and start?
3. Wow, 8 pages before Godwin's Law is evoked.
4. You already have to carry proof of identity everywhere, in many cases that proof of identity already traces back to citizenship (your citizenship status can be pulled up by running your driver's license)
5. Godwin's x2! Bad form! BAD FORM!
6. No it doesn't. This is already necessary in many ways. You can't get behind the wheel of your car without indirectly carrying proof of citizenship and identity. You can't go to another country without it, and if you do you can't come back without it. To be entirely technical, a legal immigrant is required to carry their VISA with them at all times, just like we have to carry a license.

This is a molehill, not a mountain.

[orange]

the government is seen as bad by the right

Talking from the bottom right of the graph.

Because it is, or rather interference/involvement from the government is bad.

I think most of us can agree that the government dictating what you can and can't say, where you can and can't go, etc are all bad things.  These represent government interference.

Now, going to government programs.  Whenever a government (or anyone) provides funds there are strings attached to those funds.  For example, Federally mandated speed limits in the US were tied to highway funds.  Montana, forgoing said funds, did not have to set a Federally mandated speed limit.

Concerning government programs, those on the "right" are against something for nothing programs.    Does a citizen who is not taxed and on the public option beholden to anything?

To compromise, I have a simple response to those who want a national health care system.
National Service program. 

4 years of service in any of the armed services, local fire/police departments, teaching in public schools, various other societal volunteer services gets you into the National Health Care system (convert the VA).  Children of those who served are covered so long as they are student and younger than 24.

And it should be written in plain English, not gods-damned legalese!

[Kamiko Hautala]

the government is seen as bad by the right

Talking from the bottom right of the graph.

Because it is, or rather interference/involvement from the government is bad.

I think most of us can agree that the government dictating what you can and can't say, where you can and can't go, etc are all bad things.  These represent government interference.

Now, going to government programs.  Whenever a government (or anyone) provides funds there are strings attached to those funds.  For example, Federally mandated speed limits in the US were tied to highway funds.  Montana, forgoing said funds, did not have to set a Federally mandated speed limit.

Concerning government programs, those on the "right" are against something for nothing programs.    Does a citizen who is not taxed and on the public option beholden to anything?

To compromise, I have a simple response to those who want a national health care system.
National Service program. 

4 years of service in any of the armed services, local fire/police departments, teaching in public schools, various other societal volunteer services gets you into the National Health Care system (convert the VA).  Children of those who served are covered so long as they are student and younger than 24.

And it should be written in plain English, not gods-damned legalese!

If you're familiar with Starship Troopers, you must serve time with the military or any government program in order to become a Citizen. If you don't, that's fine, but you can't vote, and you're called a Civilian. Sounds like some elements of fascism. The problem with that is that of the 300 million people in the United States, not everyone will be on the same level of ability. The citizen who is not taxed may have a disability that cannot be cured, and may need government assistance to support any visits to the doctor. By focusing on one particular idealogy of "survival of the fittest", you're putting individual willpower over society's needs. There needs to be a government that assists with keeping everything together.

Also, speed limit concerns? Really? If we didn't have a government telling us what the basics are, there would be more murders and accidental deaths in this country than any other industrialized country. What I find hypocritical is that these anti-government "hands off my freedoms" types complain about the government watching them, yet when their house burns down or they are mugged, they beg for the firefighters or police officers, both government programs, to assist them.

My last point is that times have changed from the beginning of the United States to today's United States. We cannot vehemently follow the Constitution when the planned population at that time was much lower than expected, and society's values and habits shifted. I'm not saying the Constitution is false, but strict following of it jeopardizes the current programs that have been made to support every unique type of person living in America.

[Vikarion]

RE: the Arizona law.

Honestly, I've never understood why government should be able to compel one to pay taxes for services one doesn't want, require community service for a diploma, regulate business out of existence, but not verify the citizenship status of a person.

Anyway, that aside, illegal aliens are a serious problem in the south-western states, and Arizona is simply trying to find a way to deal with it. As far as this law goes, you apparently already have to be breaking the law, or very close to doing so in order to be questioned. Police won't be stopping people randomly on the street - they don't have the right to do so unless you are acting suspiciously. And there have been cases about that, and so forth, but the bottom line is that harassing people will get them sued out of existence.

In all honesty, we're talking about traffic stops here. And on the road, if you don't have ID, in the form of a drivers license, you are in a fair amount of trouble in any case.

Will some Hispanic persons be unfairly inconvenienced? Yes. But the reality of the situation is that most illegal immigrants are Hispanic. It will be impossible to ensure that some profiling does not end up being used, even unconsciously.

But that's not an excuse to avoid arresting people. Blacks are a disproportionately large segment of our prison population. Does that mean we shouldn't arrest a black person, or convict them of a crime, just to keep things fair? No.

The reality is that something has to be done about the problem. Border security needs to be enforced, actual citizens need protection, and we can't afford the cost drain of this continuing problem. Our system isn't designed to support an influx of undocumented immigrants this large.

[Natalcya Katla]

...so expect Nazi Germany conditions.

Just for the sake of digression, the efficiency of the Gestapo has been severely overrated in popular culture. They were brutal and wore scary (though stylish) uniforms, sure - but they were also severely understaffed, largely corrupt and forced to rely on local informants to a very large degree.

For a truly salivation-triggering law enforcement agency, a better example would be their latter counterparts in the DDR - the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (nicknamed Stasi). They were good. Oh yes, they were. Mmmmm.

[Vikarion]

RE: Government

I think it's fair to say that I view government, on the whole, as an entity that is dangerous in the extreme. That's not to say that I see it as unnecessary, but I believe that government should be primarily regulatory in nature.

For example, I support such things as a fire department, a police department, and national defense. Government tends to do these things fairly well, and the private sector does not. What government does not tend to do well is function as a provider of goods and services on the whole. There are multiple proofs of this, and I shan't go into them now.

But my view of government as an entity hostile to its citizenry is one backed up by thousands of years of history. By and large, governments working for the people tend to become government serving themselves or a leader. In the twentieth century alone, millions died at the hands of governments.

Not corporations, not citizens with guns, not criminals, but governments.

Power corrupts. No, that's not correct - people are corrupt, and power amplifies that. You cannot protect against that corruption save my minimizing the amount of power persons may exercise over others.

I fear government because the government that provides free health care today decides who deserves it tomorrow, even if the people who planned the program had no such intention. The government that gains the capability to coerce will eventually use it - perhaps not in the near term, but eventually.  Institutions inevitably grow corrupt, and governments are not subject to the creative destruction of the marketplace.

The conservative/libertarian objection to governmental controls and interference is not borne ultimately out of an irrational dislike of government, but of a very real understanding of its capabilities of destruction, tyranny, and oppression. The hand that caresses the populace today is merely an iron hand in a velvet glove that may well crush them tomorrow.

[Havohej]

I had this whole big post written up.. but then Lilith posted before me.

[orange]

If you're familiar with Starship Troopers, you must serve time with the military or any government program in order to become a Citizen. If you don't, that's fine, but you can't vote, and you're called a Civilian. Sounds like some elements of fascism. The problem with that is that of the 300 million people in the United States, not everyone will be on the same level of ability. The citizen who is not taxed may have a disability that cannot be cured, and may need government assistance to support any visits to the doctor. By focusing on one particular idealogy of "survival of the fittest", you're putting individual willpower over society's needs. There needs to be a government that assists with keeping everything together.

I am very familiar with Starship Troopers and its system, it is a very authoritarian system.  I am of the opinion that if the government is going to provide universal services, it can demand more than just taxes from its citizens.

Your example places the needs of an individual before society's needs.  If the person is disabled such that they cannot contribute to society in anyway, why should the government save them?  Because they are a human being?

I am not saying that other societal structures cannot care for those individuals, their family or philanthropic organizations.  Both of these likely are better at then any bureaucratic system anyway.

Also, speed limit concerns? Really? If we didn't have a government telling us what the basics are, there would be more murders and accidental deaths in this country than any other industrialized country.

So, individuals are idiots and big government is smart? 

It was an example of how the Federal government ties control to funds.  Why can Montana's State government not determine what is "safe" on the highways it pays to build?  Why are Washington bureaucrats who have never been to Big Sky country smarter about what is "safe" there than the locals?

What I find hypocritical is that these anti-government "hands off my freedoms" types complain about the government watching them, yet when their house burns down or they are mugged, they beg for the firefighters or police officers, both government programs, to assist them.

If the person pays taxes that fund those services it is not hypocritical.  One could hire private security and their own private fire fighters, but that is inefficient if I am already paying for the government ones via taxes.

In an anarcho-capitalist society (oh no!), coalitions of insurance companies likely will establish contracts with local security and fire prevention companies to protect their customers property & persons. The companies will even put out the fires of those not covered by insurance in order to prevent the fire from spreading and destroying customer property.

This gets interesting when you begin to look at how war occurs.

My last point is that times have changed from the beginning of the United States to today's United States. We cannot vehemently follow the Constitution when the planned population at that time was much lower than expected, and society's values and habits shifted. I'm not saying the Constitution is false, but strict following of it jeopardizes the current programs that have been made to support every unique type of person living in America.

You will have to explain your last sentence more.  I think the Constitution as written is a very flexible document and if it had been followed would have prevented the expansion of American power abroad and avoided many of the snafu's of the early 20th and 21st century.  Population has little to do with State's rights and the checks and balances.

As an example, if the government had actually followed the Constitution, Afghanistan would be a declared war and Congress would have actually had to put its butt on the line for Iraq.  Instead, like the Gulf War & Vietnam, Congress ceded its Constitutional duty to the office of the President.

[Kohiko Sun]

My last point is that times have changed from the beginning of the United States to today's United States. We cannot vehemently follow the Constitution when the planned population at that time was much lower than expected, and society's values and habits shifted. I'm not saying the Constitution is false, but strict following of it jeopardizes the current programs that have been made to support every unique type of person living in America.

Umm... This is why I don't like these circular threads. Too much ideology, not enough US Civics 101. The Constitution is a living document. It can be modified at any time, so long as the voting criteria are met. That's why it has amendments. Prohibition is the example of both addition and subtraction happening to it.

It's not a straightjacket; it's a protection, our social contract between government and people written down. Suffrage rights regardless of sex, race, religion, or creed? It's written down to show it cannot be taken away. (Note it doesn't protect against voting be taken away from felons.) The ever-argued right to bear arms? It's written down to show we have it. The argument is not if we have it but to what degree is best. (And, again, it doesn't protect against felons losing that right.) It's vague on purpose; it gives room for shifting social values without the need to make amendments every decade.

Just as an example: legalized drugs are not a matter for the Constitution one way or the other; at least not to me, but it can be amended. (It's why Prohibition got yoinked.) In fact, the government avoids wading into that mess with a neat trick. Illegal drugs aren't illegal because they're bad - at least, not on paper. They're illegal because of taxation and permits, the same method that finally got Al Capone convicted. Research and medical reasons are the only time these permits are given, however. These legal sales are taxed. Street dealers don't have permits, so their sales aren't taxed. Tax evasion. Kapow. You might say, "That's sneaky and underhanded." You can't say, "It's unconstitutional and against my rights!" At least, you can't unless and until it gets amended in there.

The US Supreme Court has the job of deciding if any law violates these protections. It's not some junta; if the protections are changed by public demand, the decisions they make on cases will change. And, so, it will not decide on my drug example, because unless that permit and taxation system violates something in the Constitution, it's outside of its domain to decide.

Now, it's time to flee from all these soapboxes!  .../o/

[Lillith Blackheart]

I would like to suggest something to those who argue for "big government". People who are arguing against "big government" aren't always arguing against government having control of things. What they're arguing against is the federal government having control over things.

I often toss out the following line just to see how people will react to it, and I will do so here as well:

The worst thing that ever happened to this country is the South losing the Civil War.

Discuss.

(Hint: It wasn't about slaves.)

[Havohej]

I often toss out the following line just to see how people will react to it, and I will do so here as well:

The worst thing that ever happened to this country is the South losing the Civil War.

Discuss.

(Hint: It wasn't about slaves.)

If you're referring to the fact that the South had lucrative export crops (cotton, tobacco) and the North had lucrative export... eh... less stuff?

Well, things would be very different.  Slavery would eventually have been abolished as the world continued to modernize and the Confederacy would've had to follow suit to be taken seriously on the world stage, so in the context of your discussion exercise it really is irrelevant as you said.  I've never read the Confederacy's constitution, so I can't comment on that at all.  What I will comment on is that it seems at least somewhat likely that "welfare state" concepts would have gone on to be much less popular than they are currently.

[Lillith Blackheart]

If you're referring to the fact that the South had lucrative export crops (cotton, tobacco) and the North had lucrative export... eh... less stuff?

No, I am not. The Civil War was about a fundamental basis of our entire country.

What I will comment on is that it seems at least somewhat likely that "welfare state" concepts would have gone on to be much less popular than they are currently.

Actually, that isn't entirely true. The "welfare state" concept is a bastardization of the New Deal, which was an excellent practice for its purpose, however it has since been horribly, irrevocably dissected into its constituent parts into something utterly reprehensible.

[Havohej]

No, I am not. The Civil War was about a fundamental basis of our entire country.

It was about money.