Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not arbitrary IF that rule is needed to protect the well-being of the governed. This is especially true when it comes to the rights of minorities or historically oppressed (race, orientation, religious, and such). What's more, society has legislators and an independent judiciary to repeal or overturn laws that blunt the "tyranny of the majority". It's what I call "the circle of accountability": citizens voting, citizens for change, and all the aspects of government's "Separation of Powers", the Constitution) .
Is the system perfect? No. Can the system be changed or made less bad? Probably, or at least "perhaps". So does a lot to prevent the worst aspects of human behavior from expressing themselves from expressing themselves - and this system, at its core, probably does the best job of blunting the worst abuses of lawmaking, those abuses being limiting freedom without a compelling reason to do so.
Who died and made you legally responsible for my God given right to choose? That which is further interacted by the Constitution laws of the land, yet depleted with every alphabet government agency created, to enact governing laws, beyond that of a pure and functioning Congress.
Minorities without the proper resources are far more effected by these agencies and their laws, than the elites. Stop advocating that the agencies are doing them a favor, by helping people with their choices, on how they are to conduct themselves on a day in, day out basis.
CPS, EPA, two of the many that minorities would be better off, without.
Who died and made you legally responsible for my God given right to choose? That which is further interacted by the Constitution laws of the land, yet depleted with every alphabet government agency created, to enact governing laws, beyond that of a pure and functioning Congress.
Minorities without the proper resources are far more effected by these agencies and their laws, than the elites. Stop advocating that the agencies are doing them a favor, by helping people with their choices, on how they are to conduct themselves on a day in, day out basis.
CPS, EPA, two of the many that minorities would be better off, without.
I wonder if you would care to explain to us what makes you an expert on what is good for minorities? Do you happen to be a minority? Or, are you a white male who believes you know what is best for them?
Who died and made you legally responsible for my God given right to choose? That which is further interacted by the Constitution laws of the land, yet depleted with every alphabet government agency created, to enact governing laws, beyond that of a pure and functioning Congress.
Minorities without the proper resources are far more effected by these agencies and their laws, than the elites. Stop advocating that the agencies are doing them a favor, by helping people with their choices, on how they are to conduct themselves on a day in, day out basis.
CPS, EPA, two of the many that minorities would be better off, without.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
I wonder if you would care to explain to us what makes you an expert on what is good for minorities? Do you happen to be a minority? Or, are you a white male who believes you know what is best for them?
Okay, let's put it this way and I'll let you decide ...
Parents decide that it is okay for their daughter (it is a news article) to walk their family dog down the street a block and back home again. Someone else sees the girl and she is young around 8 years old I think ... That someone disagrees with said parent on their decision and phones in a report to (established in the 70's) CPS.
Which 'class' stands the greater chance of retaining their parental rights?
The majority of laws concerning our personal liberties/rights that have been created have been done through the alphabet agencies Congress put into place, without any of those laws being reviewed or having to pass through Congress. Is there an amendment in the Constitution that makes that legal? Could be I need to take an online course in civics or spend some time at the Hillsdale College, so as I can get a better understanding of how that makes sense.
Still, the majority is going to tell the minority how it is they should raise their children with the belief they are incapable of doing that on their own? Who needs a village, when any one can place one simple phone call and poof, the child may never see their parents again.
Okay, let's put it this way and I'll let you decide ...
Parents decide that it is okay for their daughter (it is a news article) to walk their family dog down the street a block and back home again. Someone else sees the girl and she is young around 8 years old I think ... That someone disagrees with said parent on their decision and phones in a report to (established in the 70's) CPS.
Which 'class' stands the greater chance of retaining their parental rights?
The majority of laws concerning our personal liberties/rights that have been created have been done through the alphabet agencies Congress put into place, without any of those laws being reviewed or having to pass through Congress. Is there an amendment in the Constitution that makes that legal? Could be I need to take an online course in civics or spend some time at the Hillsdale College, so as I can get a better understanding of how that makes sense.
Still, the majority is going to tell the minority how it is they should raise their children with the belief they are incapable of doing that on their own? Who needs a village, when any one can place one simple phone call and poof, the child may never see their parents again.
Liberty, we need some.
Apparently, you are not a minority or you would have said so. I will submit that you therefore don't know what is best for minorities. It is insulting and paternalistic for you to pretend that you do.
I occasionally run into people who believe they know better about the Constitution than the judges on our Supreme Court who are charged with the task of interpreting it. Such people are--well--"full of it".
Apparently, you are not a minority or you would have said so. I will submit that you therefore don't know what is best for minorities. It is insulting and paternalistic for you to pretend that you do.
I occasionally run into people who believe they know better about the Constitution than the judges on our Supreme Court who are charged with the task of interpreting it. Such people are--well--"full of it".
Its sad you have chosen to waste our time here the way you have. When I asked you if you were a minority, you dodged the question. Instead, you chose to answer in a long rambling fashion talking about an eight year old child walking through a neighborhood when CPS is called.
What you don't seem to understand is that you choose to define "liberty" in a particular way. Others may not share your definition. Those people are not "wrong" they simply have a different view than you have.
The "alphabet" agencies of the federal government exist for specific reasons. EPA exists because air and water pollution were serious problems that could not be effectively regulated by states because pollution problems cross state lines. The EEOC exists because many states refused to do anything about workplace discrimination against minorities and women. FEMA exists because many states did not have the financial resources to deal with natural disasters such as hurricanes, floods, and fires. I could go on and on. What is true of each of these agencies is that the Congress--which was elected by the people--enacted legislation creating these entities and has funded them ever since. Don't like it? Elect a Congress that will eliminate these agencies.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 11 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,606,656 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Its sad you have chosen to waste our time here the way you have. When I asked you if you were a minority, you dodged the question. Instead, you chose to answer in a long rambling fashion talking about an eight year old child walking through a neighborhood when CPS is called.
What you don't seem to understand is that you choose to define "liberty" in a particular way. Others may not share your definition. Those people are not "wrong" they simply have a different view than you have.
The "alphabet" agencies of the federal government exist for specific reasons. EPA exists because air and water pollution were serious problems that could not be effectively regulated by states because pollution problems cross state lines. The EEOC exists because many states refused to do anything about workplace discrimination against minorities and women. FEMA exists because many states did not have the financial resources to deal with natural disasters such as hurricanes, floods, and fires. I could go on and on. What is true of each of these agencies is that the Congress--which was elected by the people--enacted legislation creating these entities and has funded them ever since. Don't like it? Elect a Congress that will eliminate these agencies.
Sometimes the minority is right, sometimes it's wrong. When it comes to human actions, perfect precision is impossible. Humans are not machines (including computers/software). So some level of indefiniteness / subjectivity will remain -- unless humans develop the biotechnology to trade their "wetware" for hardware and software. That said, I
Individuality is a tricky one. The same individuality that leads to great things much sooner also leads to terrible things that didn't have to exist were there any laws and regulations strongly enforced. The best example I can think of is Gene Sequencing - a very powerful technology that allows people to "manufacture" extremely deadly substances. It's also MUCH cheaper and likewise MUCH more discrete than building nuclear weapons or even your basement chemist lab to make chemical weapons. The more people you have with any kind of item, the more likely they will put it to evil uses. That is why we need laws and "alphabet soup" agencies - to protect the public from the consequences of the worst effects and uses of these technologies.
Okay, let's put it this way and I'll let you decide ...
Parents decide that it is okay for their daughter (it is a news article) to walk their family dog down the street a block and back home again. Someone else sees the girl and she is young around 8 years old I think ... That someone disagrees with said parent on their decision and phones in a report to (established in the 70's) CPS.
Which 'class' stands the greater chance of retaining their parental rights?
The majority of laws concerning our personal liberties/rights that have been created have been done through the alphabet agencies Congress put into place, without any of those laws being reviewed or having to pass through Congress. Is there an amendment in the Constitution that makes that legal? Could be I need to take an online course in civics or spend some time at the Hillsdale College, so as I can get a better understanding of how that makes sense.
Still, the majority is going to tell the minority how it is they should raise their children with the belief they are incapable of doing that on their own? Who needs a village, when any one can place one simple phone call and poof, the child may never see their parents again.
Liberty, we need some.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Apparently, you are not a minority or you would have said so. I will submit that you therefore don't know what is best for minorities. It is insulting and paternalistic for you to pretend that you do.
I occasionally run into people who believe they know better about the Constitution than the judges on our Supreme Court who are charged with the task of interpreting it. Such people are--well--"full of it".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
It's sad that you can not make a better argument.
~ cheers ~
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Its sad you have chosen to waste our time here the way you have. When I asked you if you were a minority, you dodged the question. Instead, you chose to answer in a long rambling fashion talking about an eight year old child walking through a neighborhood when CPS is called.
What you don't seem to understand is that you choose to define "liberty" in a particular way. Others may not share your definition. Those people are not "wrong" they simply have a different view than you have.
The "alphabet" agencies of the federal government exist for specific reasons. EPA exists because air and water pollution were serious problems that could not be effectively regulated by states because pollution problems cross state lines. The EEOC exists because many states refused to do anything about workplace discrimination against minorities and women. FEMA exists because many states did not have the financial resources to deal with natural disasters such as hurricanes, floods, and fires. I could go on and on. What is true of each of these agencies is that the Congress--which was elected by the people--enacted legislation creating these entities and has funded them ever since. Don't like it? Elect a Congress that will eliminate these agencies.
You have asked a 'personal' question which is irrelevant to the topic, so why do you feel the need to know? It makes no difference to me, your sex, your wealth, or your social status. As long as you can discuss the topic in an objective manner ... we're good.
Second, it is not 'my' definition, it is the legal definition of liberty. Which encompasses by law, the legal boundaries for alphabet agencies. Constitutional Freedom
Quote:
Constitutional freedom refers to those freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Such freedoms are granted by the Constitution to its citizens and they can enjoy it under the protection of the Constitution. The freedom guaranteed under the Constitution includes the aggregate of personal, civil, and political rights of individuals. These freedoms are secured against invasion by the government or any of its agencies. Freedom of religion, speech, and press as guaranteed by the first amendment and the due process clause of fourteenth amendment are certain basic freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to its citizens.
It is a problem relevant to citizens liberties when the agencies pass laws rather than those laws go through Congress, which is what the Constitution was written in order to prevent 'mob' rule and secure our freedoms.
Last I asked "Which 'class' stands the greater chance of retaining their parental rights?", in which you haven't an answer. So I guess we are done here.
People who believe freedom has no limits are called, um, prisoners.
No, they are called politicians. Many people in prison are victims of self righteous leaders that should not be in charge of filling an animal's water bowl.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 11 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,606,656 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellils Bell
Constitutional freedom refers to those freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Such freedoms are granted by the Constitution to its citizens and they can enjoy it under the protection of the Constitution. The freedom guaranteed under the Constitution includes the aggregate of personal, civil, and political rights of individuals. These freedoms are secured against invasion by the government or any of its agencies. Freedom of religion, speech, and press as guaranteed by the first amendment and the due process clause of fourteenth amendment are certain basic freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to its citizens.
Still, there have to be some limits on freedom. Otherwise we'll end up with Somalia-type situation. Granted, there is the opposite extreme of North Korea, which sets up my point. It's not "either Somalia or North Korea", but that further implies there has to be some limits on actual freedom, as I defined in the OP.
An aside here: With all due respect, that's the US Constitution definition, which may or may not be universalized. At any rate, it's not like the US Constitution is holy scripture, so to speak (although a lot of people love to treat it that way). Some nation's constitutions (most notably Germany) suggest human dignity is more important than individual personal freedom. Similar story for South Africa (its very constitution itself explicitly places limits on personal freedoms - including speech) Yet, nobody would say they're like even Russia or China, let alone North Korea or Saddam Hussein's Iraq. It's likely an eternal issue, regardless of whatever nation's constitution says. Suffice to say that if a principle can't be "universalized", then that principle is at the very least debatable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
