|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 25 2013 13:59 sam!zdat wrote:
because that's what it does. it works like a sacred text. it doesn't matter whatever nonsense about how it got to be the sacred text, whether it came down on tablets from the mountain, the all-wise constitutional congress devised the eternal perfect document by rational deliberation, some watery tart threw it at you...
I didn't say that though. I'm allowed to agree with something based in its merits/ideals. It's not like I go every Sunday and worship at the Constitution alter.
i want people to understand that the system we live in is not some modern break into rational governance, it is a shuffled around and rearranged version of things that have existed for a long time. the constitution is completely functionally analogous to a sacred text, and so you should think about it in whatever way you are accustomed to thinking about sacred texts, which is a whole nother question
and whatever observations we may have about how religions and priesthoods and sacred texts work should be applied to american jurisprudence, the judiciary, and the constitution, because they are the same kind of thing
so the argument that kwizach and introvert are having is just an argument between a catholic and a protestant and should be conceived of in precisely this way
Actually, the American system was born out of the enlightenment and was a significant departure from what came before. Now was it to monarchy/parliamentary as communism/socialism (no, they are not the same, spare me) was to everything else? No, I suppose not. But I'm not arguing that the Constitution is some infallible, sacred text. Not even its authors believed that! Just because I don't agree with your (was it communist?) view of the world doesn't mean I'm some middle age peasant feeding off of what the educated can tell me.
As for interpretation, I just gave you a perfectly rational reason for my view. It's not a "well faith tells me it should be this way!" view.
I agree with the values that are the underpinning of the american attempt at government. I also think the Constitution is a very good document laying out the way it would work best. But I also think the anti-federalists were right about many things.
+ Show Spoiler +Wait, kwizach, I didn't say any of those things! 
|
On November 25 2013 12:09 sam!zdat wrote:
no, it's just written into the sacred text that you can change it.
what is reality grasshopper
It's not the text which is held sacred, it's the liberal principle that the government's power over the public should be limited. And that principle didn't come down from God nor was it decided by human fiat, it was derived from the mistakes of history.
|
On November 25 2013 14:35 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 13:59 sam!zdat wrote:
because that's what it does. it works like a sacred text. it doesn't matter whatever nonsense about how it got to be the sacred text, whether it came down on tablets from the mountain, the all-wise constitutional congress devised the eternal perfect document by rational deliberation, some watery tart threw it at you... I didn't say that though. I'm allowed to agree with something based in its merits/ideals. It's not like I go every Sunday and worship at the Constitution alter.
you don't have to. the sacred texts works regardless of what YOU think about it. anyway, you think people don't perceive themselves as believing in their respective religions based on their merits/ideals?
Show nested quote +i want people to understand that the system we live in is not some modern break into rational governance, it is a shuffled around and rearranged version of things that have existed for a long time. the constitution is completely functionally analogous to a sacred text, and so you should think about it in whatever way you are accustomed to thinking about sacred texts, which is a whole nother question
and whatever observations we may have about how religions and priesthoods and sacred texts work should be applied to american jurisprudence, the judiciary, and the constitution, because they are the same kind of thing
so the argument that kwizach and introvert are having is just an argument between a catholic and a protestant and should be conceived of in precisely this way
Actually, the American system was born out of the enlightenment and was a significant departure from what came before.
right, this is the Enlightenment mythology which I am specifically targeting in my critique. This is mostly an ideological fantasy.
But I'm not arguing that the Constitution is some infallible, sacred text.
nor do I believe that you are.
As for interpretation, I just gave you a perfectly rational reason for my view. It's not a "well faith tells me it should be this way!" view.
I never claimed that it was irrational to want to have a sacred text, or that, having a sacred text, one was under an obligation to believe it infallible. I don't think those are necessary conditions for something being a sacred text. It's a secularized sacred text, like I said.
I agree with the values that are the underpinning of the american attempt at government. I also think the Constitution is a very good document laying out the way it would work best. But I also think the anti-federalists were right about many things.
and that's how christians feel about Paul!
edit: haha I'm done arguing about this though, I concede all points! it's not a sacred text that's just some crazy sophistry. pay no attention
|
I think I understand Sam's motivation, especially after looking up the word ostranenie
|
Sam is spot on with his analogy in terms of how the actual text of the Constitution is and has been interpreted. Hell, for the Tea Party, the Constitution basically is a religious text in terms of being an object of reverence.
|
On November 25 2013 14:26 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 12:48 Introvert wrote:On November 25 2013 12:33 kwizach wrote:On November 25 2013 11:47 Introvert wrote:On November 25 2013 10:15 kwizach wrote:On November 25 2013 07:10 Introvert wrote:On November 25 2013 06:45 kwizach wrote:On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:This is ridiculously wrong. Please do tell what the GOP is supposed to have found to be wrong with the people whose nominations they recently rejected? I'm sure each person is "qualified" as in they already are/were a judge or they have a law degree, but they are failing what I called the "Constitutional understanding" test. If a potential justice thinks Obamacare is Constitutional, than they are not fit to be a judge, for instance. Fascinating - apparently the majority of judges on the Supreme Court are not "fit to be [judges]". Do you have any other brilliant criteria you want to pull out of your a** and share with us? Surely you realize what you just wrote has zero credibility, right? On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
The founders knew this was going to happen (ideological splits), so I'm not really concerned by saying that, yes, ideology does play a role. What "ideology" are you talking about exactly? What positions too controversial to make them judges are you attributing to the nominees? On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
I'll just repeat myself again: the Republicans have allowed LOTS of Obama appointees, this isn't some "oh block his appointments cause we don't like him" political maneuver. (well, I'm sure some of it is that.) It is exactly that. They're blocking his nominees because they don't like him and his positions, not because the nominees are unqualified or have taken "extreme" stances on issues. On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
And there is no vacancy "crisis." There are vacant seats. That's the one and only relevant criterion to fill them. Exactly. Those 5 justices had to twist the Constitution and the ACA into pretzels in order to make it legitimate. But you are right, the only criteria for a good judge should be "were they confirmed by the Senate?" That sounds great. I hope you've never disagreed with a court decision before in your entire life, because if so then that is obviously you putting yourself above them! I'm sure you missed it, which is fine, but a while back I had a nice long discussion with DoubleReed about the Constitutionality of Obamacare. I'm not going to lay it out again. Suffice it to say that I know my Constitution well enough to know that the ACA fails it and that John Roberts doesn't get to rewrite and selectively choose what he wants to use and what he wants to ignore when evaluating something. Seriously, you act as if merely being educated at some law school is enough for you to pass the test. It was a 5-4 decision. 4 very highly educated people agree with me (including the court "moderate," Kennedy)! And so did half or so of the Courts that ruled on it until the case came to the Supreme Court. So don't give me this BS. Yes, 5 of those justices have no place up there for a such a bad decision. It's too bad that the vast majority of constitutional lawyers, judges, and the judges of the Supreme Court were unaware that "Introvert" knew his Constitution well enough through his own "research and reading" (who needs an actual education in law?) to know that they were all wrong and that the ACA was unconstitutional. You're right, let's prevent anyone who happens to disagree with your detached-from-reality, purely ideological view on the ACA from becoming a judge - that sounds like a brilliant way to run the judiciary. On November 25 2013 07:10 Introvert wrote:
I'm talking about their political ideology, which whether or not one would care to admit it, matters for these sorts of things. Now I think that the most fair and even handed evaluations of the Constitution would be made by the judges who make decisions based on what the founders said and meant, not on what society has now deemed to be the norm. But I know that's not popular right now, instead most favor some strange judicial oligarchy that gets to decide when society/governance has "moved on" from the the oh-so-quaint ideals laid out in the document they swear to uphold. If you would like to get into the specifics about certain nominees.. well you first. Generally, however, I think Obamacare is really a great criteria to use, and I would bet money that all of those judges the Republicans were filibustering think the ACA is constitutional. I'll bet all the ones they approved also thought that as well, by the way. Just being "qualified" on basis of education or experience is a ridiculous sole criteria. Justices also rule from their ideology/constitutional interpretation, and thus should be confirmed (or not) on that basis as well. You are the one who declared that the nominees "failed the test". Explain how. Explain what is so shocking about their ideology. Your "they should have been against the ACA" criterion is so ludicrously detached from actual constitutional knowledge that it would qualify as a joke on the daily show. If anything, given how the vast majority of experts consider the ACA to be constitutional, looking at who thinks it isn't would be a great way to see who lets ideology get in front of sound appraisal of legality. Anyway, even if opinions on the issue were evenly divided among experts, it would be ridiculous to follow your idea of using it as a litmus test because it would mean ideology would take precedence over competence as the norm to become a judge. On November 25 2013 07:10 Introvert wrote:
Yes, there are vacancies. But the Republicans are not in violation of the Constitution by refusing to confirm a particular judge. it's not like the DC circuit is so busy. it's certainly less busy then when the Dems blocked Bush's appointments. Where have I ever declared that Republicans were in violation of the Constitution? They still wouldn't be in violation of the Constitution if there were no active judges left and they still refused to nominate anyone. They can do plenty of stupidly partisan things that are harmful to the country without being in violation of the Constitution, but that doesn't mean those things aren't stupidly partisan and/or harmful to the country. Slow down a second. You are calling into question my authority to make the contentions I do. But, thankfully, I'm still allowed to make them. So are you... like I've said, I'm sure there are decisions courts have made that I'm sure you object to. I haven't called into question your authority or knowledge to say what you do. If you would like to debate the constitutionality of the ACA, I suppose we could do that.. but it's going to take a while. You act like I'm not supposed to question a ruling once it has gone through. The vote was 5-4! You act as if I stand against the whole of judicial precedent and constitutional scholarship. Roughly half the judges involved (from the lowest levels down) sided with me! The margin could hardly have been slimmer! So please, don't act like I'm some outlier. the problem with the judges and the polls of lawyers is that they rely on precedent. So yes, perhaps the outcome could be called by them, but that doesn't make it the right decision. I would also like to point out the same people who called for it to be upheld A) thought it would be upheld by the Commerce clause and B) that it would be entirely upheld (the medicare/medicaid extortion, as it were, was ruled against). I can go back to Constitutional Convention debates for my side, but you would dismiss it as "outdated" so I don't know what to say. There have been LOTS of bad decisions, many, IMO, involving the CC. see: Wickard v. Filburn. I'm sure if it were 1942 you'd be shouting about how legal it was, right? That decision has actually been acknowledged as so bad it would make a great mockery segment on the Daily Show. These judges are not God's gift to mankind, they make mistakes and are driven by the same things everyone else is. First of all, on the matter of the constitutionality of the ACA, yes, your position is very clearly in the minority among constitutional law experts. My point isn't that you're not allowed to have your own opinion on the constitutionality of the ACA. You very much are. And I'm certainly not trying to paint judges as infallible either, or saying that there aren't plenty of SC decisions that I disagree with. My point is that you are presenting your opinion as the indisputable truth on the matter of the constitutionality of the ACA, so much so that you consider it an objective criterion to separate good judges from bad judges. That is what's ridiculously out-of-touch with reality. On November 25 2013 11:47 Introvert wrote:
I didn't say "prevent the educated from holding seats!" I just said that law school credentials are not the only criteria that should be considered. IMO, the ACA was such a clear issue, constitutionally, it's a very good, basic test for judges. I mean, I just provided ONE quote from Madison himself that completely undoes the contortions that the CC has undergone. But see, judges like to make up new things, or as the analysts like to say- "re-interpret." Again, the fact that you are presenting the ACA as "a clear issue, constitutionally", only shows how incredibly biased, and dismissive of facts and opinions that go against your view, you are. No, it's not a clear issue. No, your arguments aren't the definitive word on the matter. You're the one who's completely partisan and ideologically-driven, not the nominees that we are discussing. And you still haven't explained what is supposed to be unacceptable about the views they hold to justify not nominating them. On November 25 2013 11:47 Introvert wrote:
Ideology already IS the issue. How often do presidents bring up backroom janitors for nominations? Ideology is first, competence is second in today's world. The pool is so large finding someone qualified is relatively easy. It's so easy they've been found and nominated by the president, and rejected by the Republicans in the Senate. It's a clear issue from my perspective, but I understand that not everyone shares my view on the relevance of the Constitution or the role of precedent. IF one is looking at it from an original intent perspective, then the ACA obviously fails. But if one looks at it through the lens of what all Court decisions on the last ~200 years, then yes, things get murky. And that's where the "experts" come in. Most of them don't just judge from an originalist perspective, they are essentially bound (and for making predictions this works quite well) to look at other decisions. So if I were a conservative in the Senate, then to ME the vote on some of these judges would be obvious. I'm not saying that we should throw out every old court case, but I'm saying that when bad judges make bad decisions, it's still something that future judges down the line are required to take into account, and are very adverse to the idea of undoing a previous ruling. First of all, no, looking at the ACA through originalist lenses certainly does not automatically lead one to conclude it is unconstitutional. Beyond this, several scholars have criticized the dichotomy you're working with here - see for example Jack Balkin's writings on "living originalism". Second, the entire point is that if you understand that "not everyone shares [your] view", and that in fact your view on this issue is in the minority (and has no more objective validity than others'), you cannot possibly defend the position that it constitutes an objective litmus test for nominees. Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 11:47 Introvert wrote:
Ideology is a test. Take Cornelia Pillard. Now I'm sure you would agree with her on just about everything, but from my perspective she's pretty far left. That's who their blocking, not Joe Schome the moderate. Yes, let's take Cornellia Pillard. What's supposed to be the problem with her? Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 11:47 Introvert wrote:
Whether you like it or not, ideology is the determining factor now, not credentials. I have a feeling you're misunderstanding this discussion. I am precisely saying that Republicans are blocking the nominations because of their radical ideological stances - and, more generally, the extremely uncompromising attitude they've adopted with Obama. That's what I'm denouncing: the ideological element is going too far. Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 11:47 Introvert wrote:
It's so easy that, as provided by heliusx on an earlier page, Obama has had 207 of his 275 nominees approved. Still a lot are not approved, but they aren't blocking everything. They are being extremely obstructionist, in particular once the nominations reach the Senate floor and can be filibustered. I never said they were blocking every single nominee.
Yes, an originalist perspective does lead there. I already provided one quote from Madison on the issue, but here is a brief, from an originalist perspective, that several justices actually took arguments from in their dissent (if my memory serves, several justices used it. Could be wrong). The Commerce clause is NOT a general grant of power. I don't know the conservative that the website you provided quotes, but I have NEVER heard an originalist who has said the following “that the powers conferred on the national government are huge, sweeping, overlapping, and, when taken together, very nearly comprehensive.” I guess you can always find one guy...
I said it was a good litmus test to use, if you want judges who make decisions based on original intent. This seems preferable to avoid an excess of judicial power. So, if that is the goal, then it seems perfectly rational. Moreover, what most lawyers say is not as important as you think it is, since they all go from precedent and their own ideas. They aren't trained from an originalist perspective because, frankly, that view hasn't been popular in a very long time. I still contend, however, that it is the right one. Just like you think yours is the right one.
I'd prefer not to talk about individuals because it will just be a values discussion and moves from the filibuster debate.
But here is a good example-http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/354112/dc-circuit-nominee-cornelia-pillard-part-5-ed-whelan
Yes, Yes I know it NR. But it was a quick search away and leads to this case-http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf
This decision was even unanimous. And Cornelia was to left of all 4 liberals on this issue! Who would have thought that possible?
I agree, they are being blocked on ideological grounds. I just don't have a problem with it. They have approved plenty of other judges for Obama... so I don't see this as particularly "obstructionist" especially considering that Obama is being stubborn by not pulling back some of these nominees.
|
On November 25 2013 14:54 xDaunt wrote:
Sam is spot on with his analogy in terms of how the actual text of the Constitution is and has been interpreted. Hell, for the Tea Party, the Constitution basically is a religious text in terms of being an object of reverence.
However for some reason he keeps putting this stuff in his replies to me, which is why I'm responding the way I am :/
|
On November 25 2013 14:41 jacevedo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 12:09 sam!zdat wrote:
no, it's just written into the sacred text that you can change it.
what is reality grasshopper It's not the text which is held sacred, it's the liberal principle that the government's power over the public should be limited. And that principle didn't come down from God nor was it decided by human fiat, it was derived from the mistakes of history.
and the constitution which expanded the power of the federal government by an enormous amount is associated with that principle why?
|
On November 25 2013 15:08 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 14:41 jacevedo wrote:On November 25 2013 12:09 sam!zdat wrote:
no, it's just written into the sacred text that you can change it.
what is reality grasshopper It's not the text which is held sacred, it's the liberal principle that the government's power over the public should be limited. And that principle didn't come down from God nor was it decided by human fiat, it was derived from the mistakes of history. and the constitution which expanded the power of the federal government by an enormous amount is associated with that principle why?
Because contrary to popular leftist rhetoric, the right is not a "no government" idea, but a "limited government" idea. There is such a thing as too little government. The AoC were just too weak, required unanimous consent for changes, etc. It was unworkable.
|
On November 25 2013 15:10 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 15:08 Mindcrime wrote:On November 25 2013 14:41 jacevedo wrote:On November 25 2013 12:09 sam!zdat wrote:
no, it's just written into the sacred text that you can change it.
what is reality grasshopper It's not the text which is held sacred, it's the liberal principle that the government's power over the public should be limited. And that principle didn't come down from God nor was it decided by human fiat, it was derived from the mistakes of history. and the constitution which expanded the power of the federal government by an enormous amount is associated with that principle why? Because contrary to popular leftist rhetoric, the right is not a "no government" idea, but a "limited government" idea. There is such a thing as too little government. The AoC were just too weak, required unanimous consent for changes, etc. It was unworkable.
Don't be silly. The US of the articles of confederation and perpetual union was a long way off from having no government.
|
On November 25 2013 15:36 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 15:10 Introvert wrote:On November 25 2013 15:08 Mindcrime wrote:On November 25 2013 14:41 jacevedo wrote:On November 25 2013 12:09 sam!zdat wrote:
no, it's just written into the sacred text that you can change it.
what is reality grasshopper It's not the text which is held sacred, it's the liberal principle that the government's power over the public should be limited. And that principle didn't come down from God nor was it decided by human fiat, it was derived from the mistakes of history. and the constitution which expanded the power of the federal government by an enormous amount is associated with that principle why? Because contrary to popular leftist rhetoric, the right is not a "no government" idea, but a "limited government" idea. There is such a thing as too little government. The AoC were just too weak, required unanimous consent for changes, etc. It was unworkable. Don't be silly. The US of the articles of confederation and perpetual union was a long way off from having no government.
I was responding in particular to the implication that the Constitution was opposed to the idea of limited government power. I know it wasn't anarchy.
|
On November 25 2013 15:05 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 14:54 xDaunt wrote:
Sam is spot on with his analogy in terms of how the actual text of the Constitution is and has been interpreted. Hell, for the Tea Party, the Constitution basically is a religious text in terms of being an object of reverence. However for some reason he keeps putting this stuff in his replies to me, which is why I'm responding the way I am :/
The quote at the end of all of your posts does say:
"I know the Constitution is quaint to some people, this is a trend that must be reversed."
|
On November 25 2013 14:41 jacevedo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 12:09 sam!zdat wrote:
no, it's just written into the sacred text that you can change it.
what is reality grasshopper It's not the text which is held sacred, it's the liberal principle that the government's power over the public should be limited. And that principle didn't come down from God nor was it decided by human fiat, it was derived from the mistakes of history.
I don't think there's anyone today that disagrees with the principle of limited government. It's more the fine print of what exactly is the government limited to.
In the US, there's plenty of examples of government overreach and overspending that get very little attention, and face only token opposition at best. On the other hand, there's plenty of examples of government power being too limited or too easily obstructed, preventing its institutions from doing what is necessary and making adequate reforms happen.
Mass surveillance is much more of an overreach than banning creationism from schools, for example. The former involves government peeking into your communications and everyday life, an all-time classic symbol of Big Brother government overreach. The latter merely protects children from being taught, from a very young age, concepts that are unanimously regarded as and proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be factually incorrect. The former costs more in tax-payer money to operate than the latter does to implement. And yet the side that opposes government overreach will readily come up with some superficial rationalizations of why they're breaking their self-proclaimed fundamental principle and ignoring the former while fiercely rejecting the latter.
It's not some sort of linear progression where one side wants a lot of government, and the other wants a limited one. It's about how that limited power is distributed and what's it focused on. At least that's the difference between the political right and the left, though not necessarily between the two actual parties (with Democrats not actually representing the interests of the left, or only pretending to do so in a very dishonest fashion).
|
On November 25 2013 23:21 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 14:41 jacevedo wrote:On November 25 2013 12:09 sam!zdat wrote:
no, it's just written into the sacred text that you can change it.
what is reality grasshopper It's not the text which is held sacred, it's the liberal principle that the government's power over the public should be limited. And that principle didn't come down from God nor was it decided by human fiat, it was derived from the mistakes of history. I don't think there's anyone today that disagrees with the principle of limited government. It's more the fine print of what exactly is the government limited to. In the US, there's plenty of examples of government overreach and overspending that get very little attention, and face only token opposition at best. On the other hand, there's plenty of examples of government power being too limited or too easily obstructed, preventing its institutions from doing what is necessary and making adequate reforms happen. Mass surveillance is much more of an overreach than banning creationism from schools, for example. The former involves government peeking into your communications and everyday life, an all-time classic symbol of Big Brother government overreach. The latter merely protects children from being taught, from a very young age, concepts that are unanimously regarded as and proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be factually incorrect. The former costs more in tax-payer money to operate than the latter does to implement. And yet the side that opposes government overreach will readily come up with some superficial rationalizations of why they're breaking their self-proclaimed fundamental principle and ignoring the former while fiercely rejecting the latter. It's not some sort of linear progression where one side wants a lot of government, and the other wants a limited one. It's about how that limited power is distributed and what's it focused on. At least that's the difference between the political right and the left, though not necessarily between the two actual parties (with Democrats not actually representing the interests of the left, or only pretending to do so in a very dishonest fashion).
People are very happy to support limited government, as long as it doesn't get in the way of campaigning for bigger government in every way. It is exactly your thought that counteracts it. You believe that limited government, in principle, is dangerous in preventing its institutions from doing what is necessary and making adequate reforms happen. It is exactly the expansive government that labels its opposition as opposing what is necessary. It is that government that calls all its regulations and laws as adequate reforms. Its end is a government that crafts the net of complicated laws to solve everything, since writing a law is far easier than examining the problem to find more causes than "Make it illegal, Force teachers/businessmen/individuals to do it this way and submit this paperwork." Now, government throws money at problems with little thought to whether it has helped the solution at all (that is, aside from perhaps needing to have spent more money).
I agree in part with your division of serious transgressions and minor transgressions in government overreach. Certainly I would place decreeing private schools to forbid creationism from their teaching is a major overreach. At the same time, requiring public high schools to teach evolutionary biology and prohibiting them from teaching creationism's is absolutely fine by me. If you want to make that class an elective, that's a freedom for the school and not a demand from the state. I look to the current drive to get more schools to offer an elective class in the Bible as literature, approved already in many school districts.
Limited government has come up debated in principle with Obamacare. I've done enough talking in the last 20 pages on it, but that's a serious debate that collides with your belief. People, who in theory you say generally believe in limited government, think a limited government does include taxing or penalizing individuals that choose not to purchase a product or service. How limited is a government that can punish you through taxation or penalties when you choose not to buy something, as well as buying something (sales tax, bottle deposit-style schemes)? Maybe for you and others, limited government extends just short of government from telling individuals what profession to pursue and what food to purchase. I'd argue in this case that government is characterized by its lack of bounds rather than the few present.
|
On November 25 2013 15:05 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 14:54 xDaunt wrote:
Sam is spot on with his analogy in terms of how the actual text of the Constitution is and has been interpreted. Hell, for the Tea Party, the Constitution basically is a religious text in terms of being an object of reverence. However for some reason he keeps putting this stuff in his replies to me, which is why I'm responding the way I am :/
Don't feel bad. He does this to everyone, which is part of his charm.
Look on the bright side. He hasn't yet compared you to a monkey who has found his erection for the first time.
|
On November 26 2013 00:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 23:21 Talin wrote:On November 25 2013 14:41 jacevedo wrote:On November 25 2013 12:09 sam!zdat wrote:
no, it's just written into the sacred text that you can change it.
what is reality grasshopper It's not the text which is held sacred, it's the liberal principle that the government's power over the public should be limited. And that principle didn't come down from God nor was it decided by human fiat, it was derived from the mistakes of history. I don't think there's anyone today that disagrees with the principle of limited government. It's more the fine print of what exactly is the government limited to. In the US, there's plenty of examples of government overreach and overspending that get very little attention, and face only token opposition at best. On the other hand, there's plenty of examples of government power being too limited or too easily obstructed, preventing its institutions from doing what is necessary and making adequate reforms happen. Mass surveillance is much more of an overreach than banning creationism from schools, for example. The former involves government peeking into your communications and everyday life, an all-time classic symbol of Big Brother government overreach. The latter merely protects children from being taught, from a very young age, concepts that are unanimously regarded as and proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be factually incorrect. The former costs more in tax-payer money to operate than the latter does to implement. And yet the side that opposes government overreach will readily come up with some superficial rationalizations of why they're breaking their self-proclaimed fundamental principle and ignoring the former while fiercely rejecting the latter. It's not some sort of linear progression where one side wants a lot of government, and the other wants a limited one. It's about how that limited power is distributed and what's it focused on. At least that's the difference between the political right and the left, though not necessarily between the two actual parties (with Democrats not actually representing the interests of the left, or only pretending to do so in a very dishonest fashion). People are very happy to support limited government, as long as it doesn't get in the way of campaigning for bigger government in every way. It is exactly your thought that counteracts it. You believe that limited government, in principle, is dangerous in preventing its institutions from doing what is necessary and making adequate reforms happen. It is exactly the expansive government that labels its opposition as opposing what is necessary. It is that government that calls all its regulations and laws as adequate reforms. Its end is a government that crafts the net of complicated laws to solve everything, since writing a law is far easier than examining the problem to find more causes than "Make it illegal, Force teachers/businessmen/individuals to do it this way and submit this paperwork." Now, government throws money at problems with little thought to whether it has helped the solution at all (that is, aside from perhaps needing to have spent more money). I agree in part with your division of serious transgressions and minor transgressions in government overreach. Certainly I would place decreeing private schools to forbid creationism from their teaching is a major overreach. At the same time, requiring public high schools to teach evolutionary biology and prohibiting them from teaching creationism's is absolutely fine by me. If you want to make that class an elective, that's a freedom for the school and not a demand from the state. I look to the current drive to get more schools to offer an elective class in the Bible as literature, approved already in many school districts. Limited government has come up debated in principle with Obamacare. I've done enough talking in the last 20 pages on it, but that's a serious debate that collides with your belief. People, who in theory you say generally believe in limited government, think a limited government does include taxing or penalizing individuals that choose not to purchase a product or service. How limited is a government that can punish you through taxation or penalties when you choose not to buy something, as well as buying something (sales tax, bottle deposit-style schemes)? Maybe for you and others, limited government extends just short of government from telling individuals what profession to pursue and what food to purchase. I'd argue in this case that government is characterized by its lack of bounds rather than the few present.
For me, the definition between limited government and statism would not be a question of where the government legislates, but rather how. Banning creationism is in line with limited government insofar, the extend of control is not very consuming for schools and the executive entity for upholding the law. Mass surveillance takes a massive investment in and of itself and for every minimization procedure or surveillance program you effectively add to the cost in number of jobs in the field and the economic burden it presents.
Since government size in terms of expenditure and jobs is the easiest way to look at government, that is often the angle for moderate libertarian-leaning people.
In many cases another angle is the market-effects of the regulation on companies. Text-book authors/publishers may have a problem with their books getting censored due to a ban on creationism teachings, but ultimately it is only truely hitting creationism scholars selling their drama. On the other hand, security companies will get very pissed at NSA for their weakening of security standards. That is market-manipulation by a government agency and it can easily be termed government overreach.
Ultimately the terms "limited government"/"overreach" are politically powerful words, like job creation and safety, but without specification in terms of context and the underlying theories they are meaningless.
|
United States42804 Posts
It becomes more meaningless if you realise that the power being used to enforce the Obamacare opt out fees (the government's right to tax) is the exact same power being used when the government makes things like tax credits for families, and for exactly the same reason. Republicans will happily argue that imposing a special tax upon people who make a financial decision in their personal life to have a certain insurance, or go without insurance, in order to force them to do something against their wishes is a huge abuse of the power to levy taxes in order to impose upon the personal lives of people. But make it a tax exemption for nuclear families, tax which has to be made up elsewhere with a burden therefore falling more heavily on other groups who have, in their personal relationships and sex lives, made choices the government disagrees with, and suddenly that's legit. It's a nonsense. Government is inherently coercive, all government everywhere. The trick is to make it coerce things which make sense and not coerce dumb stuff.
|
On November 26 2013 02:25 KwarK wrote:
It becomes more meaningless if you realise that the power being used to enforce the Obamacare opt out fees (the government's right to tax) is the exact same power being used when the government makes things like tax credits for families, and for exactly the same reason. Republicans will happily argue that imposing a special tax upon people who make a financial decision in their personal life to have a certain insurance, or go without insurance, in order to force them to do something against their wishes is a huge abuse of the power to levy taxes in order to impose upon the personal lives of people. But make it a tax exemption for nuclear families, tax which has to be made up elsewhere with a burden therefore falling more heavily on other groups who have, in their personal relationships and sex lives, made choices the government disagrees with, and suddenly that's legit. It's a nonsense. Government is inherently coercive, all government everywhere. The trick is to make it coerce things which make sense and not coerce dumb stuff.
In fairness, republicans generally want to eliminate those types of tax expenditures in exchange for lowering the general rates. Democrats are the ones who really like to deal in tax credits.
|
On November 26 2013 02:25 KwarK wrote:
It becomes more meaningless if you realise that the power being used to enforce the Obamacare opt out fees (the government's right to tax) is the exact same power being used when the government makes things like tax credits for families, and for exactly the same reason. Republicans will happily argue that imposing a special tax upon people who make a financial decision in their personal life to have a certain insurance, or go without insurance, in order to force them to do something against their wishes is a huge abuse of the power to levy taxes in order to impose upon the personal lives of people. But make it a tax exemption for nuclear families, tax which has to be made up elsewhere with a burden therefore falling more heavily on other groups who have, in their personal relationships and sex lives, made choices the government disagrees with, and suddenly that's legit. It's a nonsense. Government is inherently coercive, all government everywhere. The trick is to make it coerce things which make sense and not coerce dumb stuff.
I'm almost in total agreement with you on levying taxes based on personal decisions. The federal taxing power should only be on the individual's income (aside from the others enumerated proportioned capitation, excise). Overhaul the tax code to make it so, I say. Until then, the tax credits such as family credits are part of the tax code needing replacement and part of the overall tax burden. I've disagreed with many Republicans on this, and criticized them plenty in this thread generally, so argue with another on that topic. Tax cuts not tax credits.
I disagree strongly with your phrasing of a "financial decision in their personal life." Purchasing something is far different than choosing not to in terms of freedom, though both are a financial decision. I you want to buy a car, state sales tax, an excise tax. If you don't want to buy a car, do not tax that decision. It is an important limitation on government to tax commerce, not the failure to undertake commerce. It is an important limitation on the federal government to limit taxing power to income, excise, and to apportion any capitation by state. It will use powers allowed it by the people to do all kinds of dumb things that reap political and financial benefits.
If you give your government the power to coerce all kinds of behavior without limits on its taxing power, I am curious what is on your mind as a "trick" to make it "not coerce dumb stuff."
|
On November 26 2013 03:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2013 02:25 KwarK wrote:
It becomes more meaningless if you realise that the power being used to enforce the Obamacare opt out fees (the government's right to tax) is the exact same power being used when the government makes things like tax credits for families, and for exactly the same reason. Republicans will happily argue that imposing a special tax upon people who make a financial decision in their personal life to have a certain insurance, or go without insurance, in order to force them to do something against their wishes is a huge abuse of the power to levy taxes in order to impose upon the personal lives of people. But make it a tax exemption for nuclear families, tax which has to be made up elsewhere with a burden therefore falling more heavily on other groups who have, in their personal relationships and sex lives, made choices the government disagrees with, and suddenly that's legit. It's a nonsense. Government is inherently coercive, all government everywhere. The trick is to make it coerce things which make sense and not coerce dumb stuff. I'm almost in total agreement with you on levying taxes based on personal decisions. The federal taxing power should only be on the individual's income (aside from the others enumerated proportioned capitation, excise). Overhaul the tax code to make it so, I say. Until then, the tax credits such as family credits are part of the tax code needing replacement and part of the overall tax burden. I've disagreed with many Republicans on this, and criticized them plenty in this thread generally, so argue with another on that topic. Tax cuts not tax credits. I disagree strongly with your phrasing of a "financial decision in their personal life." Purchasing something is far different than choosing not to in terms of freedom, though both are a financial decision. I you want to buy a car, state sales tax, an excise tax. If you don't want to buy a car, do not tax that decision. It is an important limitation on government to tax commerce, not the failure to undertake commerce. It is an important limitation on the federal government to limit taxing power to income, excise, and to apportion any capitation by state. It will use powers allowed it by the people to do all kinds of dumb things that reap political and financial benefits. If you give your government the power to coerce all kinds of behavior without limits on its taxing power, I am curious what is on your mind as a "trick" to make it "not coerce dumb stuff."
The same as for limiting anything that government does. Popular pressure. There is no other limit on what government is doing anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
