Originally Posted By TomSawyer Stupid Communists and their workman's comp laws holding employers accountable for unsafe working conditions!!! What were they thinking?
Originally Posted By cmpaley So, since some communists were involved in laws that protect working people, ALL laws that protect working people are communist? Faulty logic.
Originally Posted By RC Collins >>This might work if there were just a few businesses or landlords who did this. It would be easy to take one's business elsewhere. But I'm sure you must be aware that it wasn't that long ago in our history that blacks were essentially shut out of nearly ALL the best jobs because racial discrimination in hiring and promoting was rampant, widespread, and often even unconscious. When everyone's doing it, we really can't vote with our dollars and feet in that way.<< Times have changed. More people understand that someone different from them in appearance or background can be a great employee, renter, or customer. Minorities are much more integrated into the larger society, including in the area of buying power. Still, if someone wants to hire all “white†people for their business, why would you want to work for that person? Why would you want to do business with them? I certainly wouldn’t. Let all of those foolish people work with each other and do business with each other. After all, it is their property and should be their choice. I’ll choose to interact with people who aren’t so small-minded, thank you. And so will the vast majority of other people. >>Similarly, if someone wants to rent in neighborhood A, but no one in neighborhood A will rent to him, that person winds up in neighborhood B, along with others "of his kind." And the landlord in neighborhood A doesn't suffer because there were plenty of people of the "right" kind to rent in the neighborhood where THEY "belonged."<< If someone REALLY wanted to live in such a neighborhood as A, and they were offering the right amount of money for it, the landlord does suffer if he or she refuses. Supply and demand… if you cut down on your ut down on your own demand by automatically excluding people willing to pay you simply because of their skin color, you’re an idiot and you’re the one who suffers more, especially if others get wind of your practices. The overwhelming majority of people will vote with the dollars and their feet, and using government force won’t be necessary, just costly. >>The only thing that stopped that pattern, which existed until fairly recently in our history, were in fact federal laws against discrimination in hiring and renting. It would be nice if the market could have done it, but check the history - it didn't.<< I recall the Republicans of the 1960s doing more in that area than the Democrats. >>That's not an answer. It's not about what YOU personally do because it will never be enough on an individual basis.<< Do you think the Federal government will ever be enough? Trillions have been spent on “war on poverty†programs by the government, and has it been anywhere near as effective as person to person, family to family, church to neighborhood help? No way. And what is the Federal government? Where does it get its money? From the individuals of this country. Is the Federal government, with all of the bureaucracy, going to be better than the sum of the individuals in private charity efforts? No way. There is not some magical machine that the government has to create resources out of thin air. What you are essentially saying is that people should be forced at gunpoint to be “charitable.†It isn’t necessary. Private efforts can do it, and do a better job. >>>We didn't always have the kind of tax system we have now.<<< >>We didn't always have cars or planes, either. What does that have to do with anything?<< The point is, our country can function financially just fine under a different system of raising revenue (and it did), especially if the government sticks to that which it has been authorized to do by the Constitution. >>>>Second, Jesus never said how we are to do it.<< >>First, reread Matthew 25. I point to verse 32 where it says, "Before Him will be gathered all the NATIONS, and He will separage them one from another as a shephered separates the sheep from the goats." To be fair, let's look beyong the RSV:CE to make sure that Jesus is judging NATIONS, not individual believers or individual persons here:<< Right, so you think Jesus will say, “Hey, U.S. Federal officials… you didn’t use the power of your government to forcibly redistribute wealth! You let people decide for themselves how to care for the needy. You let the churches and the temples and the synagogues and the families do it all. Shame on you!†Sorry, I just don’t see that from the text. >>And the problem is that "charity" is not enough to meet the need.<< Maybe it would if people weren’t forced to pay so much of their income via different taxes and fees to be redistributed (sometimes unwisely) less the overhead costs? The more money I can keep to spend myself, the more charitable causes I can support, without paying for office space in Virginia. >>What is your plan to feed the hungry as quickly and in the same number as the current programs that feed the hungry? Hope that people will give to charity? That doesn't do anything but hope. You can't eat hope.<< How about voluntarily giving shelter, food, medical care, and training to those who need it? I can do with the property, the knowledge, and the funds that the Lord has entrusted to me. I don’t need a third party, and if I do, I can hire my own third party or ask for volunteer help. Everyone has something to offer their fellow human beings – some sort of service they can trade for money or goods and services they need. If you help people develop that, they can be self-sufficient and can help others. Even if they can never be self-sufficient, they are valuable as human beings and should be cared for, even if the only thing that can provide in return is fulfilling someone’s desire to care for another. It doesn’t need to be a government plan. There a million private plans in place for this. Americans are generous. We’ll take care of each other (and others) if allowed to. We should stop the vicious cycle of “let ‘the government’ do it. That’s what I pay them for.†And when you are doing this one on one, you can see if the person is making wise choices with what you give them. If my own brother takes gifts certificates and cashes them in for recreational drug money… guess what? No more gift certificates for him. I’ll directly feed him myself. Too many people living for generations on government assistance are either able to behave as they choose (and often perpetuate their dependency) or will have the government dictate their behavior. Neither one of those is a good thing. >>Republicans are all about cutting benefits to the poor, including refusing to fully fund education and vocational training, rewarding companies that ship good jobs overseas with big-time tax breaks,<< The Federal government should not be involved in welfare, education, or vocational training. States, counties, charities, and businesses can do this and ARE doing this. I don’t agree with the general idea of targeted tax cuts for businesses, but then I think the whole tax system needs be thrown out and replaced. >>harassing immigrants,<< Really? Harassing immigrants? Oh… you mean the people who cross the border illegally, not legal immigrants. Not all illegal border crossers are immigrants, either. Some are smugglers, some are simply working here temporarily or seasonally. I do think it is wrong to say, go to a Home Depot and harass someone (who is here illegally) who works hard and otherwise obeys the law and simply wants to work. Generally, people should be able to hire whomever consents to the conditions without having to verify their residency status. There’s nothing wrong, though, with having citizens patrolling the borders. >>refusing to do anything to help reform the health care system except help insurance companies make more money<< The Federal government should not be involved in health care at all, except for treating its employees (military, etc.), so the best way to reform the system is to stop interfering with it. >>Those aren't the actions of good Christian persons. They are the actions of GOATS.<< Good Christians don’t wait for the government to tell them what to do. The government is there to tell people what NOT to do (do not murder, do not steal), not give us marching orders (unless we’re soldiers). >>You rabid-righties have a distorted notion of what communism and socialism are.<< “Communism only killed 100 million people… let’s give it another chance!†Human nature + communism or socialism = disaster. >>Stupid Communists and their workman's comp laws holding employers accountable for unsafe working conditions!!!<< If my employer was providing unsafe conditions, I’d go elsewhere. How about developing your skills, talents, and resources so you have more choices of employment than looking to a government to guarantee you a job just because you’re there, with all of the conditions you’d like?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <>>This might work if there were just a few businesses or landlords who did this. It would be easy to take one's business elsewhere. But I'm sure you must be aware that it wasn't that long ago in our history that blacks were essentially shut out of nearly ALL the best jobs because racial discrimination in hiring and promoting was rampant, widespread, and often even unconscious. When everyone's doing it, we really can't vote with our dollars and feet in that way.<< <Times have changed.> Times changed because we passed those laws. <More people understand that someone different from them in appearance or background can be a great employee, renter, or customer. Minorities are much more integrated into the larger society, including in the area of buying power.> Well, yes. It's great that things are better now. Of course the laws I'm talking about goosed that along. And yet, every year there's an expose here on the local news (don't know if they do this where you live) that shows that discrimination in hiring lives on. Typically, it's coded now; one typical code a few years back was that applicants needed "front office appearance" - that translated to "not black." The TV station sent in two attractive people with nearly identical resumes; the white one got asked back, the black one did not. They repeated this at various businesses and found the same thing at a surprising number. The need for these laws, unfortunately, persists. <Still, if someone wants to hire all “white†people for their business, why would you want to work for that person? Why would you want to do business with them? I certainly wouldn’t. Let all of those foolish people work with each other and do business with each other. After all, it is their property and should be their choice. I’ll choose to interact with people who aren’t so small-minded, thank you. And so will the vast majority of other people.> Sounds good in theory, but in the real world, how do you know? I'd never know just by walking in to some place and seeing the reception desk what their hiring practices are. They might well be like one of the businesses I described above. I guess I don't understand what you have AGAINST laws that simply mandate non-discrimination in hiring. >>Similarly, if someone wants to rent in neighborhood A, but no one in neighborhood A will rent to him, that person winds up in neighborhood B, along with others "of his kind." And the landlord in neighborhood A doesn't suffer because there were plenty of people of the "right" kind to rent in the neighborhood where THEY "belonged."<< <If someone REALLY wanted to live in such a neighborhood as A, and they were offering the right amount of money for it, the landlord does suffer if he or she refuses. Supply and demand… if you cut down on your ut down on your own demand by automatically excluding people willing to pay you simply because of their skin color, you’re an idiot and you’re the one who suffers more, especially if others get wind of your practices. The overwhelming majority of people will vote with the dollars and their feet, and using government force won’t be necessary, just costly.> Again, great in theory, not in practice. I live in a neighborhood that up until recently had very few black people. Certainly there were black people who could afford it. But there was an unspoken code among landlords that you did NOT rent to them. And that unspoken code stood for decades. And the landlords in my neighborhood did fine - it was a booming neighborhood. In NY anyway, real estate is always at a premium. It's only been recently with some court challenges that this has changed. And of course, without the non-discrimination laws on the books, no court challenges. I wouldn't call that government "force" so much as "equal protection for all citizens." >>The only thing that stopped that pattern, which existed until fairly recently in our history, were in fact federal laws against discrimination in hiring and renting. It would be nice if the market could have done it, but check the history - it didn't.<< <I recall the Republicans of the 1960s doing more in that area than the Democrats.> Liberal Republicans (not an oxymoron in the 60's) joined liberal Democrats to get it done. And it did TAKE those laws to get it done. The rest of your post is answering someone else, so I'll let him take that.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Human nature + communism or socialism = disaster.<< The same can be said for unregulated capitalism. In fact, it HAS been said by John XXIII in his encyclical Mater et Magistra.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>>>That's not an answer. It's not about what YOU personally do because it will never be enough on an individual basis.<< Do you think the Federal government will ever be enough? Trillions have been spent on “war on poverty†programs by the government, and has it been anywhere near as effective as person to person, family to family, church to neighborhood help? No way.<< People are a lot better off then they were before the programs were implemented. Do you want to go back to the Gilded Age when people starved to death? >>And what is the Federal government? Where does it get its money? From the individuals of this country. Is the Federal government, with all of the bureaucracy, going to be better than the sum of the individuals in private charity efforts? No way. There is not some magical machine that the government has to create resources out of thin air. What you are essentially saying is that people should be forced at gunpoint to be “charitable.†It isn’t necessary. Private efforts can do it, and do a better job.<< All well and good, but what is your equivalently effective PLAN? It's nice to talk about it, but what kind of ACTION is being taken by the right wing to accomplish the goal of feeding the hungry, quenching the thirst of the thirsty, welcoming the stranger, clothing the naked and visiting the sick and imprisoned. >>>>>We didn't always have the kind of tax system we have now.<<< >>We didn't always have cars or planes, either. What does that have to do with anything?<< The point is, our country can function financially just fine under a different system of raising revenue (and it did), especially if the government sticks to that which it has been authorized to do by the Constitution.<< Once again, do you want to return to the Gilded Age where there were NO laws to protect working people and the poor died for lack of support? >>>>>>Second, Jesus never said how we are to do it.<< >>First, reread Matthew 25. I point to verse 32 where it says, "Before Him will be gathered all the NATIONS, and He will separage them one from another as a shephered separates the sheep from the goats." To be fair, let's look beyong the RSV:CE to make sure that Jesus is judging NATIONS, not individual believers or individual persons here:<< Right, so you think Jesus will say, “Hey, U.S. Federal officials… you didn’t use the power of your government to forcibly redistribute wealth! You let people decide for themselves how to care for the needy. You let the churches and the temples and the synagogues and the families do it all. Shame on you!†Sorry, I just don’t see that from the text.<< No, but since we are a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, we have a collective responsibility to ensure that these things get done. That's not what He will say, what He will say is: "Depart from Me, you accursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels, for I was hungry and you did not feed Me, I was thirsty and you gave Me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did NOT welcome Me, I was naked and you did NOT clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not come to Me." No excuses. No ideological bullcrap. Just that you didn't do it. Period. That's the bottom line. As a NATION, and as individuals, we have a responsibility to fulfill this mandate and the Right is in the forefront of preventing it from being done. >>>>And the problem is that "charity" is not enough to meet the need.<< Maybe it would if people weren’t forced to pay so much of their income via different taxes and fees to be redistributed (sometimes unwisely) less the overhead costs? The more money I can keep to spend myself, the more charitable causes I can support, without paying for office space in Virginia.<< Yadda yadda yadda >>>>What is your plan to feed the hungry as quickly and in the same number as the current programs that feed the hungry? Hope that people will give to charity? That doesn't do anything but hope. You can't eat hope.<< How about voluntarily giving shelter, food, medical care, and training to those who need it? I can do with the property, the knowledge, and the funds that the Lord has entrusted to me. I don’t need a third party, and if I do, I can hire my own third party or ask for volunteer help. Everyone has something to offer their fellow human beings – some sort of service they can trade for money or goods and services they need. If you help people develop that, they can be self-sufficient and can help others. Even if they can never be self-sufficient, they are valuable as human beings and should be cared for, even if the only thing that can provide in return is fulfilling someone’s desire to care for another.<< Nice words. What pretty words. No actual PLAN, though, to fulfill the need as a nation. >>It doesn’t need to be a government plan. There a million private plans in place for this. Americans are generous. We’ll take care of each other (and others) if allowed to. We should stop the vicious cycle of “let ‘the government’ do it. That’s what I pay them for.â€<< I agree that it doesn't need to be a government plan. There does need to be a plan that does fulfill that as a national action. What is your non-governmental plan, then? >>And when you are doing this one on one, you can see if the person is making wise choices with what you give them. If my own brother takes gifts certificates and cashes them in for recreational drug money… guess what? No more gift certificates for him. I’ll directly feed him myself. Too many people living for generations on government assistance are either able to behave as they choose (and often perpetuate their dependency) or will have the government dictate their behavior. Neither one of those is a good thing.>> Oh, come now. The Right has no problem with dictating behavior...as long as its behavior that the Right agrees with. >>>>Republicans are all about cutting benefits to the poor, including refusing to fully fund education and vocational training, rewarding companies that ship good jobs overseas with big-time tax breaks,<< The Federal government should not be involved in welfare, education, or vocational training. States, counties, charities, and businesses can do this and ARE doing this. I don’t agree with the general idea of targeted tax cuts for businesses, but then I think the whole tax system needs be thrown out and replaced.<< Fine, once again, what is your workable plan to replace what is being cut? Spouting more platitudes about "charity and personal giving can fill the need" or "the market does a better job of it" feeds no one, quenches no one's thirsts, welcomes no one, clothes no one, visits no on who is sick or in prison. >>>>harassing immigrants,<< Really? Harassing immigrants? Oh… you mean the people who cross the border illegally, not legal immigrants. Not all illegal border crossers are immigrants, either. Some are smugglers, some are simply working here temporarily or seasonally. I do think it is wrong to say, go to a Home Depot and harass someone (who is here illegally) who works hard and otherwise obeys the law and simply wants to work. Generally, people should be able to hire whomever consents to the conditions without having to verify their residency status. There’s nothing wrong, though, with having citizens patrolling the borders.<< Funny...I don't see any differentiation between any arbitrary distinction between "legal or illegal." Jesus simply says, "I was a stranger and you did not welcome me." Do you have the special version that only the Right is given that says, "I was a stranger, but not an illegal alien, and you did not welcome me?" >>>>refusing to do anything to help reform the health care system except help insurance companies make more money<< The Federal government should not be involved in health care at all, except for treating its employees (military, etc.), so the best way to reform the system is to stop interfering with it.<< Once again, read what I said. The only people who benefit from our health system today are corporations involved in it....health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. >>>>Those aren't the actions of good Christian persons. They are the actions of GOATS.<< Good Christians don’t wait for the government to tell them what to do. The government is there to tell people what NOT to do (do not murder, do not steal), not give us marching orders (unless we’re soldiers).<< No, good Christians will make use of every means necessary to meet this need, including using the government to promote the common good of ensuring the no one goes hungry, thirsty or naked. >>>>You rabid-righties have a distorted notion of what communism and socialism are.<< “Communism only killed 100 million people… let’s give it another chance!†Human nature + communism or socialism = disaster.<< Here's John XXIII's quote: "Unrestricted competition in the liberal sense, and the Marxist creed of class warfare; are clearly contrary to Christian teaching and the nature of man." >>>>Stupid Communists and their workman's comp laws holding employers accountable for unsafe working conditions!!!<< If my employer was providing unsafe conditions, I’d go elsewhere. How about developing your skills, talents, and resources so you have more choices of employment than looking to a government to guarantee you a job just because you’re there, with all of the conditions you’d like?<< Once again, Jesus gives no out for anyone to excuse themselves from these things. There's no excuse, "but Lord, I thought they would use the money for drugs," or "but Lord, they had opportunities to educate themselves," or "but Lord..." Jesus says, "Inasmuch as you did it NOT to the least of these, my brethren, you did it not unto Me, depart from Me." Period. End. Begin eternal hell. Get it? There's no excuse. No platitude that He will accept.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>>>Those aren't the actions of good Christian persons. They are the actions of GOATS.<< Good Christians don’t wait for the government to tell them what to do. The government is there to tell people what NOT to do (do not murder, do not steal), not give us marching orders (unless we’re soldiers).<<<< By the way, there's a correction I must make here. The job of the government is to promote the common good. The idea is in the Preamble to the Constitution as "...promote the general welfare and promote the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity..."
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<By the way, there's a correction I must make here. The job of the government is to promote the common good. The idea is in the Preamble to the Constitution as "...promote the general welfare and promote the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity...">> Sorry cmpaley, I'm afraid that falls on deaf ears. It not only appears in the preamble; it appears in Section 8: <<The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States>> When I posted that quote in another thread I was told that was not what was really meant by those who wrote the constitution.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Money cannot be applied to the General Welfare, otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measure conducive to the General Welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the General Authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made. - James Madison [O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. - Thomas Jefferson From Wikipedia: In his last act before leaving office, Madison vetoed a bill for "internal improvements," including roads, bridges, and canals: "Having considered the bill...I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling this bill with the Constitution of the United States...The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified...in the...Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers..." [1] Madison rejected the view of Congress that the General Welfare Clause justified the bill, stating: "Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms 'common defense and general welfare' embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust."
Originally Posted By patrickegan No, nothing of the sort is true. <<You rabid-righties have a distorted notion of what communism and socialism are. Then again, you also have a distorted notion of what capitalism is, too, so I'm not surprised. Just leave it at "distorted notion", cmpaley.>> <<Stupid Communists and their workman's comp laws holding employers accountable for unsafe working conditions!!! What were they thinking?>> So, since some communists were involved in laws that protect working people, ALL laws that protect working people are communist? Faulty logic. Republican logic>> We’ll at least we have Logic and I’ll take that over Dean and Pelosi any day!
Originally Posted By RC Collins >>I guess I don't understand what you have AGAINST laws that simply mandate non-discrimination in hiring.<< First, I think people should be able to do what they want with their own property, as long as it doesn’t infringe on the true rights of anyone else. For example, if I wanted to dump radioactive waste on my own property, and it is harmful to my neighbors, I’m violating their rights, because they have right to protect their lives and their own property. You do not have a right to a job. You have a right to exchange whatever you have (your labor, your thinking ability, your skills, your talents, your time, the food you farmed on your own property, whatever) for whatever you need or want, insofar as the other person or persons involved consent. If they want to hire you, and agree, great. If they don’t want to hire you, for whatever reason (stupid, evil, or good), they shouldn’t have to. Secondly, I don’t think people should be working for people who don’t like them. It isn’t good for them, no matter how many laws are in place. Finally, to enforce these laws, we have to have a government staff and budget, creating a bigger government that has powers to look into and change internal business practices. Let me be clear. I think people who discriminate in hiring and promoting on the basis of anything other than merit/ability are wrong and foolish. But I do not think it should be Washington, D.C.’s job to correct such idiocy. Government jobs are an exception, because the government is supposed to represent us all, and is funded by all… in a sense, we all own the government. >>And of course, without the non-discrimination laws on the books, no court challenges. I wouldn't call that government "force" so much as "equal protection for all citizens."<< It is force. What happens if you disobey and defy the law and court orders, and keep doing so? Eventually, people with guns come to take you away by force. >>>Human nature + communism or socialism = disaster.<<< >>The same can be said for unregulated capitalism. In fact, it HAS been said by John XXIII in his encyclical Mater et Magistra.<< Any system, without seeking to adhere to the will of God, will end up badly, capitalism is no exception. However, capitalism is the best system. It is a natural way of doing things, and it will always exist. Do you think there was no capitalism in the Soviet Union? There was, but only those willing to break the law or rich/powerful enough to engage in it. The more open and free the capitalism, the most people will have access to make the most of the system. Free enterprise and the representative democratic republic will do best only if a large enough percentage of the population is willing to be generally moral most of the time. Our founding fathers said as much. From a Christian standpoint, there is nothing wrong with being a successful businessperson. And if the businessoperson is truly a Christian, he or she will willingly and gladly VOLUNTARILY give money and other resources to those in need. >>Do you want to go back to the Gilded Age when people starved to death?<< We live in a world transformed by the information age. We don’t need to “go back†to any of the negatives. We can chose to help each other, without the force of government. >>All well and good, but what is your equivalently effective PLAN? It's nice to talk about it, but what kind of ACTION is being taken by the right wing to accomplish the goal of feeding the hungry, quenching the thirst of the thirsty, welcoming the stranger, clothing the naked and visiting the sick and imprisoned.<< My plan is to have the private sector do it, and there are million plans already in place, that with more time and funding can take care of it. Asking what a Republican lawmaker will do about it is confusing categories. You shouldn’t ask the Pope how he will make the Lakers or the Bulls NBA Champions again. That isn’t the Pope’s job! Now, if he was a great basketball player, he could certainly play for one of the teams. Likewise, many of those Republican lawmakers are involved in charitable efforts APART from their role as lawmaker. The plan? “Here… you need food, let me buy your groceries.†Simple. I don’t need to send $200 to D.C. to give someone $100 in groceries. >>No, but since we are a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, we have a collective responsibility to ensure that these things get done.<< Jesus asked US, His followers, to take care of the needy. He didn’t tell us to force everyone (believers and nonbelievers alike) at gunpoint to fork over their money to do it. I understand that, ultimately, everything I have is entrusted to me by the Lord. He owns it all, really. However, unless we’re living in His benevolent dictatorship, I do not agree that the government’s role is redistribute everything. >>I agree that it doesn't need to be a government plan.<< Good. >>There does need to be a plan that does fulfill that as a national action. What is your non-governmental plan, then?<< There are many organizations out there who efficiently meet (through voluntarily contributions) each of the needs a person can have – shelter, clothing, food, education, purpose, health care, etc. If I were President, I would call on everyone to give some of either their time, talent, or treasure (or any combination thereof) to worthy organizations, and I would provide an example by giving some of my own personal money to one. Rather than simply shutting down government programs (which almost never happens), I’d work toward spinning them off as privately-funded entities. Department of Education? Spin it off. There are plenty of individuals and organizations that would be willing to fund it and/or control it. Of course, being subject to the Department would then by voluntarily. Rob Reiner wants universal pre-school in California. Fine. Set up a voluntary fund for it, instead of passing a new tax. >>Oh, come now. The Right has no problem with dictating behavior...as long as its behavior that the Right agrees with.<< I agree that people on the Right often believe in using the government to control behavior. I’m convinced that government control of behavior is only valid where it protects true rights, such as the protection of property. >>Funny...I don't see any differentiation between any arbitrary distinction between "legal or illegal." Jesus simply says, "I was a stranger and you did not welcome me."<< If you think he truly meant we should handle things the way you’re saying, then your home should be open to anyone who wants to enter it, regardless of why they want to enter it. You should have no locks on your doors. Does the person want to murder, molest, or steal? Let them in! Are they infectious with a deadly disease? Let them in! I’m convinced, however, that Jesus was telling us to care for even those people we do not yet know. Find out who they are. Find out what their need is. Love them. It is easy to love your family (most of the time!), but we should also show our love for others. >>The only people who benefit from our health system today are corporations involved in it....health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies.<< Then do not visit a medical office or hospital. Do not take medicine. Do not use health insurance. If it doesn’t benefit you, why use it? My point was that Federal government regulations, monopolistic medical associations, and unions all play a part in adding dysfunction to our medical system (which is still great, by the way). More freedom, more choice, more competition in medical care will help us all. >>No, good Christians will make use of every means necessary to meet this need, including using the government to promote the common good of ensuring the no one goes hungry, thirsty or naked.<< Like I said above, Jesus wanted people to volunteer. He didn't say "Take OTHER people's money by force and spend it how you think it will be best spent!" We are also called to be perfect, but I doubt you agree with having the government get involved punishing or trying to prevent every sin (lying for self-gain, fornication, etc.). >>By the way, there's a correction I must make here. The job of the government is to promote the common good. The idea is in the Preamble to the Constitution as "...promote the general welfare and promote the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity..."<< As someone else has already noted, if you read the comments by the people who wrote and approved the Constitution, this was a statement of purpose, not an authorization to do something in particular. Otherwise, I could say I was doing anything I wanted to do for the “general welfare.†The branches of the Federal government are supposed to stick with the duties specifically enumerated to them in the Constitution. It isn’t that they should do whatever they want unless there is a clear prohibition in the Constitution. The States, the local governments, and the People are given the authority to do everything not specifically assigned to the Federal government. How many “Departments of…†were there in those early years? That should give you some clue. >>The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States<< If you think this means the tax system that we have in place now, then you’re saying they went through all of that trouble to pass the Sixteenth Amendment (income taxes) for no reason. That wasn’t even until 1913. Wow… how could this country possibly have existed from 1787 to 1913? <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am16" target="_blank">http://www.usconstitution.net/ const.html#Am16</a> Getting back to the original thread: I believe that the Federal government should stick to what it is authorized to do by the Constitution. I believe in amending the Constitution as a valid way to deal with national questions. For instance, does a doctor have a right to privacy with patients that supersedes state laws against aborting pregnancies? That was the original question of Roe v. Wade. If the states were violating rights, then that right should have been specifically put into the Constitution by amendment, since it has escaped notice from 1787 to 1973. I do not support Bush’s funding (increases) for things the Federal government shouldn’t be handling in the first place. However, I think Bush was a better choice than Gore or Kerry. Does that make me a neocon? Why doesn’t that just make a conservative?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>I guess I don't understand what you have AGAINST laws that simply mandate non-discrimination in hiring.<< <First, I think people should be able to do what they want with their own property, as long as it doesn’t infringe on the true rights of anyone else. For example, if I wanted to dump radioactive waste on my own property, and it is harmful to my neighbors, I’m violating their rights, because they have right to protect their lives and their own property. You do not have a right to a job.> So someone denied employment merely because of his skin color is not having his rights violated? <You have a right to exchange whatever you have (your labor, your thinking ability, your skills, your talents, your time, the food you farmed on your own property, whatever) for whatever you need or want, insofar as the other person or persons involved consent. If they want to hire you, and agree, great. If they don’t want to hire you, for whatever reason (stupid, evil, or good), they shouldn’t have to.> I disagree. Because look at the situation before these laws passed. So many people didn't want to hire an entire race of people for the same stupid reason that that entire race was essentially denied equal employment. Surely you can't be okay with that? Black people simply could not get the best jobs. Sometimes this was conscious bigotry, other times more of an understanding or "gentlemen's agreement." What you're saying makes a certain sense for individual racism, but we had systemic racism, and to deny we did is simply being blind to reality. Luckily, most people agree with me - non-discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and religion is supported by a wide majority of americans and even adding sexual orientation to that now commands a solid majority. <Secondly, I don’t think people should be working for people who don’t like them. It isn’t good for them, no matter how many laws are in place.> Many people initially followed the law grudgingly only to discover that - hey - that black guy or that Jewish guy I hired is a good worker. I like him. Sometimes you have to goose people along. <Finally, to enforce these laws, we have to have a government staff and budget, creating a bigger government that has powers to look into and change internal business practices.> Equal Opportunity enforcement is a quite small part of government. Luckily, most employers these days do not discriminate to the degree they did in the past - it's a non-issue many places. But we had to have the laws in place to get us there. <Let me be clear. I think people who discriminate in hiring and promoting on the basis of anything other than merit/ability are wrong and foolish. But I do not think it should be Washington, D.C.’s job to correct such idiocy. Government jobs are an exception, because the government is supposed to represent us all, and is funded by all… in a sense, we all own the government.> In fact, most such enforcement is at the state level, I believe. And when such idiocy was widespread, it wasn't just idiocy - it was a contributor to de facto economic segregation based on skin color (which I would call a downright evil condition), which in turn was a contributing factor to racial disharmony nationwide. >>And of course, without the non-discrimination laws on the books, no court challenges. I wouldn't call that government "force" so much as "equal protection for all citizens."<< <It is force. What happens if you disobey and defy the law and court orders, and keep doing so? Eventually, people with guns come to take you away by force.> Or serve you with papers. Let's not be too dramatic. But okay, if you break the law enough, yeah you may have to pay the price for knowingly breaking the law.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>So someone denied employment merely because of his skin color is not having his rights violated?<< I think RC comes from the school of thought that says the work isn't a right, per se...yet you must work in order to get money so you can eat. I used to claim to understand it but then I entered the real world.
Originally Posted By woody "I used to claim to understand it but then I entered the real world." The real world isn't so pretty.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>"I used to claim to understand it but then I entered the real world." The real world isn't so pretty.<< That's why laws to protect the working person are necessary.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Since the Constitution grants the right to Congress to regulate interstate commerce, it seems that Congress can pass whatever laws it deems necessary to regulate fair interstate commerce. If that means that some states can't use slave labor, then that is within Congress' authority.
Originally Posted By woody "If that means that some states can't use slave labor, then that is within Congress' authority." HA!!! It's so difficult to pass laws to outlaw illegal immigrant labor.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer That's irrelevant as to whether or not Congress has the authority to do so, Woody.
Originally Posted By Spree hmmm....I guess I need to post here more or change my name to chopped liver
