PDA

View Full Version : Maybe the States



zelmo1234
07-18-2014, 02:11 AM
I think of all of the things that we, from every corner of the political spectrum disagree on, there is one thing that almost all of us have in common!

We all believe that Government is broken and not working as it should for the people, I have come to understand that some feel more government is needed and some feel that less is needed, but we all desire change. this is why every politician runs on being the instigator of that change!

We all desire to see the poor fed, the sick healed, and equality for all. And we all are at wits end at the failed attempts of our elected officials to bring about these desired changes.

And while we all understand that it is not a perfect world, we desire to see it moving in the right direction.

This is much the same fate that the Continental Congress faced in 1775. while they petitioned the king for change they only received the status quo for answers, along with Tyranny and despair as punishment for their request!

Much the same could be said of the situation that we face today in this country.

So while we have been discussion the Constitution and the laws of the land, maybe we have become blind to what is needed.

Maybe it is time once again for a group of states to rise up against the most powerful nation in the world and say ENOUGH!

After all the founding fathers instructed us in the declaration that it is the right of us all to be free of oppression and tyranny, and when a government infringes on those rights it is the duty of the people to cast off such government, and form a new one.

Maybe it is time that we as the 50 United States of America take the time to once again pledge our Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honor, and cast off this ineffective massive and expensive government

Maybe instead of looking to the Constitution we should start at the beginning and have the states sign a new declaration severing ties with our own oppressive, expensive and ineffective government, and form a new government of, by and for the people once again?

Just a thought

Green Arrow
07-18-2014, 02:23 AM
Unfortunately, we will never see real change as long as we allow ourselves to be herded into division against our fellow brothers and sisters.

Redrose
07-18-2014, 02:29 AM
zelmo1234
I agree with almost all you say, but we cannot provide equality for all, simply because we are not all equal. Not in intelligence, motivation, creativity, character, morally, ingenuity, ability, or physically.

Our Constitution does not guarantee equality for all. Liberty and Justice for all, but not equality. It states all men are created equal, but what each man chooses to do with his life, his freedoms, determines outcome.

A poor Black child, from a single parent home, originally a poor student, was able to rise from those difficult beginnings to become a renowned pediatric neurosurgeon, Dr. Ben Carson.

Two wealthy, privileged White boys, raised by two loving affluent parents, chose to take a different path and ended up in prison. The Menendez brothers.

We can guarantee equal opportunity, but not equal outcome. There are too many variables to make that guarantee.

Green Arrow
07-18-2014, 02:34 AM
I agree with almost all you say, but we cannot provide equality for all, simply because we are not all equal. Not in intelligence, motivation, creativity, character, morally, ingenuity, ability, or physically.

Our Constitution does not guarantee equality for all. Liberty and Justice for all, but not equality. It states all men are created equal, but what each man chooses to do with his life, his freedoms, determines outcome.

A poor Black child, from a single parent home, originally a poor student, was able to rise from those difficult beginnings to become a renowned pediatric neurosurgeon, Dr. Ben Carson.

Two wealthy, privileged White boys, raised by two loving affluent parents, chose to take a different path and ended up in prison. The Menendez brothers.

We can guarantee equal opportunity, but not equal outcome. There are too many variables to make that guarantee.

I've never heard anyone argue for equal outcomes. It has always been (in my experiences, anyway, yours may be different) equality of opportunity.

Redrose
07-18-2014, 03:10 AM
I've never heard anyone argue for equal outcomes. It has always been (in my experiences, anyway, yours may be different) equality of opportunity.
Actually Obama argues for equal outcome. His platform of "shared prosperity", correcting "economic inequality" and 'income redistribution" is the basis for the comment.

KC
07-18-2014, 03:27 AM
I've never heard anyone argue for equal outcomes. It has always been (in my experiences, anyway, yours may be different) equality of opportunity.

I disagree, I've known a few progressive professors to argue for equality of outcome. Isn't equality of outcome the ultimate goal of many socialists? The outcome being a relatively equal material distribution in society?

Green Arrow
07-18-2014, 03:44 AM
I disagree, I've known a few progressive professors to argue for equality of outcome. Isn't equality of outcome the ultimate goal of many socialists? The outcome being a relatively equal material distribution in society?

No, that would be communism. Socialism's Theory of Distribution almost guarantees the outcome will not necessarily be equal: To each according to his contribution. Those who contribute receive a portion of the community pie equal to their contribution.

Green Arrow
07-18-2014, 03:46 AM
Actually Obama argues for equal outcome. His platform of "shared prosperity", correcting "economic inequality" and 'income redistribution" is the basis for the comment.

Those things aren't necessarily equality of outcome. Or, at least, what they actually are is not necessarily equality of outcome. Where Obama is concerned, who knows what he means by it. I don't think even he knows.

Chris
07-18-2014, 05:35 AM
Here's the thing about equality, the original classical liberal meaning of it, when the Declaration was written, and you have to remember this was a time when kings held they have divine rights--had to do with equality before the law, that is everyone, from king to servant was supposed to be subject to the same law. It did not mean equal outcome or even equal opportunity. It meant no one was above the law. It was originally religious, part of, I believe, Judaic law, thus the notion "all men are created equal."

As for "the Right of the People to alter or to abolish" their government, let's do it.

donttread
07-18-2014, 06:07 AM
@zelmo1234 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=588)
I agree with almost all you say, but we cannot provide equality for all, simply because we are not all equal. Not in intelligence, motivation, creativity, character, morally, ingenuity, ability, or physically.

Our Constitution does not guarantee equality for all. Liberty and Justice for all, but not equality. It states all men are created equal, but what each man chooses to do with his life, his freedoms, determines outcome.

A poor Black child, from a single parent home, originally a poor student, was able to rise from those difficult beginnings to become a renowned pediatric neurosurgeon, Dr. Ben Carson.

Two wealthy, privileged White boys, raised by two loving affluent parents, chose to take a different path and ended up in prison. The Menendez brothers.

We can guarantee equal opportunity, but not equal outcome. There are too many variables to make that guarantee.

Equity for all

Libhater
07-18-2014, 07:23 AM
I've never heard anyone argue for equal outcomes. It has always been (in my experiences, anyway, yours may be different) equality of opportunity.

That well-known Leftist Hitler argued for equal outcome for every jewish person in Eastern Europe. He almost fulfilled that ideal.

Mainecoons
07-18-2014, 07:29 AM
Liberals argue for equal outcomes constantly and this ranges from the trivial (everyone gets a trophy) to the significant (everyone gets paid whether they work or not).

Chris
07-18-2014, 07:30 AM
Equity for all

Yea, I think equity get close to the original meaning of equality before the law. Equality today seems to imply society or government owes you something, that you're entitled.

Libhater
07-18-2014, 07:33 AM
Liberals argue for equal outcomes constantly and this ranges from the trivial (everyone gets a trophy) to the significant (everyone gets paid whether they work or not).

Yeah, its the same with Common Core (Teacher's Union) equaling out grades in our public schools so that dumb students don't get psychologically scarred.

Chris
07-18-2014, 07:36 AM
Liberals argue for equal outcomes constantly and this ranges from the trivial (everyone gets a trophy) to the significant (everyone gets paid whether they work or not).

Problem is equal outcome is but a step away from equal opportunity especially if that opportunity is seen as an entitlement, as something society or government owes you. By it might be argued everyone needs equal education or some need a leg up so they have the same opportunity. This, for example, is from the Whitehouse: Expanding Opportunity for All: Ensuring Equal Pay for Women and Promoting the Women’s Economic Agenda (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/08/fact-sheet-expanding-opportunity-all-ensuring-equal-pay-women-and-promot).

1751_Texan
07-18-2014, 08:04 AM
@zelmo1234 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=588)
I agree with almost all you say, but we cannot provide equality for all, simply because we are not all equal. Not in intelligence, motivation, creativity, character, morally, ingenuity, ability, or physically.

Our Constitution does not guarantee equality for all. Liberty and Justice for all, but not equality. It states all men are created equal, but what each man chooses to do with his life, his freedoms, determines outcome.

A poor Black child, from a single parent home, originally a poor student, was able to rise from those difficult beginnings to become a renowned pediatric neurosurgeon, Dr. Ben Carson.

Two wealthy, privileged White boys, raised by two loving affluent parents, chose to take a different path and ended up in prison. The Menendez brothers.

We can guarantee equal opportunity, but not equal outcome. There are too many variables to make that guarantee.

No American should advocate "providing equality"...Americans should believe in equal "opportunity".

Mister D
07-18-2014, 08:05 AM
No American should advocate "providing equality"...Americans should believe in equal "opportunity".

They are both fictions.

1751_Texan
07-18-2014, 08:34 AM
Problem is equal outcome is but a step away from equal opportunity especially if that opportunity is seen as an entitlement, as something society or government owes you. By it might be argued everyone needs equal education or some need a leg up so they have the same opportunity. This, for example, is from the Whitehouse: Expanding Opportunity for All: Ensuring Equal Pay for Women and Promoting the Women’s Economic Agenda (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/08/fact-sheet-expanding-opportunity-all-ensuring-equal-pay-women-and-promot).http://clashdaily.com/2014/02/equal-opportunity-immoral-wrong/


That is incorrect. The call for equal opportunity has be framed as a call for equaal outcome. The government and some groups have called for and worked for equality, but that has not one thing to do with the belief of opportunity.

Opportunity is niether Immoral or Wrong. Opprtunity is not an entitlement.

Chris
07-18-2014, 08:47 AM
http://clashdaily.com/2014/02/equal-opportunity-immoral-wrong/


That is incorrect. The call for equal opportunity has be framed as a call for equaal outcome. The government and some groups have called for and worked for equality, but that has not one thing to do with the belief of opportunity.

Opportunity is niether Immoral or Wrong. Opprtunity is not an entitlement.

It shouldn't be, I agree. It should mean government doesn't get in the way of pursuit of happiness. But as you can see from the Whitehouse announcement, progressives are interested in creating opportunity. That is antithetical to the original equity meaning of "all men are created equal" in that it treats some special at the expense of others.

1751_Texan
07-18-2014, 10:10 AM
Here's the thing about equality, the original classical liberal meaning of it, when the Declaration was written, and you have to remember this was a time when kings held they have divine rights--had to do with equality before the law, that is everyone, from king to servant was supposed to be subject to the same law. It did not mean equal outcome or even equal opportunity. It meant no one was above the law. It was originally religious, part of, I believe, Judaic law, thus the notion "all men are created equal."

As for "the Right of the People to alter or to abolish" their government, let's do it.

Just because the concept of opportunity for all was not expressed directly in law does not mean it does not exist.

The concept of opportunity stems for the document...from the consitution itself. It doesn't matter if the founding fathers expressed it, or wanted it, or even understood it.

We do.

It is what we have developed as our culture over our 230 year ride...the concept of fair play. You cut the cake in half, and I choose which side I want. Fair play.

Chris
07-18-2014, 10:13 AM
Just because the concept of opportunity for all was not expressed directly in law does not mean it does not exist.

The concept of opportunity stems for the document...from the consitution itself. It doesn't matter if the founding father expresed it, or wanted it, or even understood it.

We do.

It is what we have developed as our culture over our 230 ride...the concept of fair play. You cut the cake in half, and I choose which side I want first. Fair play.


I didn't say the concept doesn't exist, certainly it does. What I'm getting at is there's no justification for it, in fact, in treating some special at the expense of others, it is unjust.

Historically, it's a fairly recent concept: See How obama is turning liberalism into an instrument of coercion (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/28846-How-obama-is-turning-liberalism-into-an-instrument-of-coercion).

Where do you see the concept in the Declaration or the Constitution?

Mister D
07-18-2014, 10:21 AM
Aside from the injustice any such leveling would entail my primary objection is that it's a waste of time. It's not possible to achieve. It never could be.

Chris
07-18-2014, 10:35 AM
Right, we are what we are, with different skills, abilities, values, what have you. You can't make different people the same.

Mister D
07-18-2014, 10:41 AM
Right, we are what we are, with different skills, abilities, values, what have you. You can't make different people the same.

We are also are born in different circumstances. Someone born into a lower middle class family is simply not going to have the same opportunities as someone born into a wealthy family. That's reality. That's not a cap on one's possibilities in life but rather an acknowledgement that those two individuals are not starting out equally. That's just nonsense and no amount of feel good social engineering, preferences etc will change that.

Bottom line: equality in every respect is an elusive goal.

Chris
07-18-2014, 10:58 AM
We are also are born in different circumstances. Someone born into a lower middle class family is simply not going to have the same opportunities as someone born into a wealthy family. That's reality. That's not a cap on one's possibilities in life but rather an acknowledgement that those two individuals are not starting out equally. That's just nonsense and no amount of feel good social engineering, preferences etc will change that.

Bottom line: equality in every respect is an elusive goal.

Ah, yes, the socio-cultural aspects of it too.