|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:47 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Yay!
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| My problem comes in the realm of human rights. An American citizen's fundamental rights should not depend on where he lives. We are Americans and Americans have the following rights: a, b, and c. |
Two questions: 1) Why do you assume that federalism is somehow incompatible with a constitutional republic? 2) Why do you only care about the 'fundamental rights' of those living in your secessionist states (maintaining the nation would allow citizens everywhere to have their rights defended by an appropriately limited central government)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good questions.
#1: I guess I would say that federalism sounds better in theory than practice.
I have no problem with federalism when different jurisdictions experiment with different ways to expand rights...a better way to fund educating citizens, a better and more efficient way to protect the vote, etc. However, historically, it has been used to restrict rights to vote/human rights, to play one state against another in a race to the bottom.
While there is a lot to be said for spreading power around so it is not concentrated, that also has a downside, as I just mentioned. States, rightly conceived, are nothing more than local administrative regions. They are not and never were sovereign, no matter how many times that word is used in national political party conventions. (Check the Constitution for the truth of that.)
#2: Are you serious?
I'll try to say this simply. Rights are rights. A right is something that all members of a polity have. Anything less is just a privilege. You either do or do not have a right to vote. Your current address should not matter. It is no skin off my nose if one state allows a 16-year-old the privilege of driving and another state says you have to wait until you are 17.
In short, I say the federal government is in charge of all rights; states are in charge of privileges and can vary as they see fit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
#1: I guess I would say that federalism sounds better in theory than practice.
I have no problem with federalism when different jurisdictions experiment with different ways to expand rights...a better way to fund educating citizens, a better and more efficient way to protect the vote, etc. However, historically, it has been used to restrict rights to vote/human rights, to play one state against another in a race to the bottom.
|
Give examples of when Federalism has been used to restrict rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
#1: I guess I would say that federalism sounds better in theory than practice.
I have no problem with federalism when different jurisdictions experiment with different ways to expand rights...a better way to fund educating citizens, a better and more efficient way to protect the vote, etc. However, historically, it has been used to restrict rights to vote/human rights, to play one state against another in a race to the bottom.
|
Give examples of when Federalism has been used to restrict rights. |
Or better yet, see if ya-ta has the intellectual honesty to list the numerous historical examples of when the central government has restricted our rights (including having previously defined black people as non-humans).
Of course we all know already that ya-ta hasn't a shred of such honesty; he would love to tell us how great and benevolent central authority is for "giving" us rights, but would never admit that the hand with the power to giveth can also take away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Give examples of when Federalism has been used to restrict rights. |
Jim Crow.
I'm reading an absolutely brilliant book (David Blight's 'Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory' 2001) about how memory has been manipulated to achieve political goals.
He mentions that in pre-Civil War years the Southern planters educated their kids with tutors at home. Some few churches set up a few other schools. There was no need for public schools. Sound familiar?
Call me a bleeding-heart liberal if you will, but I consider the education of all children to be a civil right...and the right not to lynched.
Again, we are one nation and therefore rights are the same for all of us; privileges can vary from state to state. I don't care.
To go back to the original idea of this thread, day by day it grows more clear that we have developed into two distinct conceptions of what it means to be Americans. For everyone's happiness, we should consider negotiating a peaceful separation before we are forced into a violent confrontation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| He mentions that in pre-Civil War years the Southern planters educated their kids with tutors at home. Some few churches set up a few other schools. There was no need for public schools. Sound familiar? |
 The world according to ya-ta boy... If you want to home school your children and not have them brainwashed in our deplorable public school system, then you must be a racist.
| Quote: |
| Call me a bleeding-heart liberal if you will, but I consider the education of all children to be a civil right...and the right not to lynched. |
Not being lynched is a right. Education is NOT a right, not by any working definition.
| Quote: |
| Again, we are one nation and therefore rights are the same for all of us; privileges can vary from state to state. I don't care. |
We are all individuals.
| Quote: |
| To go back to the original idea of this thread, day by day it grows more clear that we have developed into two distinct conceptions of what it means to be Americans. For everyone's happiness, we should consider negotiating a peaceful separation before we are forced into a violent confrontation. |
You're not interested in a peaceful separation. You're interested in forcing others to conform to your worldview. All your bleeding heart pretense is mere dressing, covering the hard-core, savage, bloody tyranny that you and your ilk actually stand for and espouse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The world according to ya-ta boy... If you want to home school your children and not have them brainwashed in our deplorable public school system, then you must be a racist.
Quote:
Call me a bleeding-heart liberal if you will, but I consider the education of all children to be a civil right...and the right not to lynched.
Not being lynched is a right. Education is NOT a right, not by any working definition. |
I see. A 'free' public education for all children no matter what class or race so they have an equal chance at success is unreasonable in a democracy, Um-hmmm.
Your knee-jerk anti-government neurosis is just a cover for permanent class superiority. Is it that you are afraid of having to compete based on your native talent? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I see. A 'free' public education for all children no matter what class or race so they have an equal chance at success is unreasonable in a democracy, Um-hmmm. |
I love how you quote the word 'free' there... (just goes to show that even you know, deep down, that such a notion is a total fallacy).
As for 'education', well that's a laugh. The public school system was invented in Prussia to take children from their parents and indoctrinate them with loyalty to the state. The US imported this exact same model, and it's still in use today and is one of the most disgusting institutions the world has ever seen. I will never put my children inside such a deplorable system. I will home school them (which is very practical, and they will actually have the opportunity to learn), but I'd rather they receive no formal 'education' at all than to send them to tax-funded indoctrination camps to practically nothing of value and be brainwashed by the government.
| Quote: |
| Your knee-jerk anti-government neurosis is just a cover for permanent class superiority. Is it that you are afraid of having to compete based on your native talent? |
Permanent class superiority? Where do you come up with this stuff  I'm middle class all the way. I have my own small business and I compete just fine with my native talent. It's the government that impedes my livelihood more than anything else. A bunch of bloodsucking ticks producing nothing of value, living off the labor of others, and sucking the lifeblood out of the middle class.
And that includes your phoney messiah, Obama, the guy who reads every lie he speaks from a teleprompter, and receives millions in contributions from Wall Street (top contributor: Goldman Sachs). The banks buy him and his cohort off with a few million dollars, and receive a return on investment in the trillions (like paying for some $2 crack wh0re).
In short, you're on here every day cheerleading for a no account politician whose administration has handed over trillions of dollars to megabanks, and you have the unmitigated gall to accuse me of advocating 'permanent class superiority'?
Last edited by visitorq on Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:58 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
