World Politics

Page 440 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Ummmkay. Should be easy to prove most legal experts agree that Bork is effin' nuts.
Have you ever actually looked into what Bork believes? Like his belief that the constitutional protection of speech only applies to political speech and nothing else?

"Imagine a country governed under Bork's judicial philosophy. Calls for civil disobedience, the basis of the entire civil rights movement in the United States, could be punished. Publishing scientific theories or papers that the government objects to would have no constitutional protection whatsoever and the scientist could be imprisoned for offering an explanation that the government finds objectionable (Galileo, anyone?). There would be no right to publish any book or magazine, or give any speech that was not explicitly political. Bork's legal philosophy amounted to little more than a continual apology for authoritarian government and a dramatic limitation on the rights of conscience considered sacrosanct by Jefferson and Madison."

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2003/11/robert_bork_and_the_9th_amendm.php

Boy, I thought you conservatives would be very much against all of that?

But you're right re: my claim about "most legal experts", it was hyperbole. So I'll amend it to:

I'm pretty comfortable saying that most legal experts and most people who are familiar with his judicial philosophy probably think Bork is effin' nuts.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
Have you ever actually looked into what Bork believes? Like his belief that the constitutional protection of speech only applies to political speech and nothing else?

"Imagine a country governed under Bork's judicial philosophy. Calls for civil disobedience, the basis of the entire civil rights movement in the United States, could be punished. Publishing scientific theories or papers that the government objects to would have no constitutional protection whatsoever and the scientist could be imprisoned for offering an explanation that the government finds objectionable (Galileo, anyone?). There would be no right to publish any book or magazine, or give any speech that was not explicitly political. Bork's legal philosophy amounted to little more than a continual apology for authoritarian government and a dramatic limitation on the rights of conscience considered sacrosanct by Jefferson and Madison."

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2003/11/robert_bork_and_the_9th_amendm.php

Boy, I thought you conservatives would be very much against all of that?

But you're right re: my claim about "most legal experts", it was hyperbole. So I'll amend it to:

I'm pretty comfortable saying that most legal experts and most people who are familiar with his judicial philosophy probably think Bork is effin' nuts.
Have you ever actually looked into what Bork believes? Like his belief that the constitutional protection of speech only applies to political speech and nothing else?
Not and nothing else but , yes, there are limits to free speech. Yelling "FIRE" in a crowded movie house...

And while we are on the subject, if you really want to know when political discourse in this country took a dive you can look to Teddy Kennedy at the Bork confirmation. No doubt this is the moment when Uncle Teddy took Saul Alinsky seriously.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
Again, if health care and education are not rights, what are they?
You are not born with a right to education the same way you are born with a right to life.

When you say it's a right, what does that mean to you?
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
2
0
Scott SoCal said:
You are not born with a right to education the same way you are born with a right to life.

When you say it's a right, what does that mean to you?

Yeah well that is ONE of the demands that the preoccupied @wall street want. Education / college for free. Because they were forced to take out student loans that they do not want to pay for. :(
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
2
0
Amsterhammer said:
I wonder what Fox News and the rest of right thinking, conservative America would make of FDR in 2011?
Theyed be a callen him a socialist. But he was a good socialist not like this bad socialist we have called President Obama. Oh and btw that is President FDR.
 
Nov 30, 2010
797
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
You are not born with a right to education the same way you are born with a right to life.

When you say it's a right, what does that mean to you?
Echoes of PJ O'Rourke...

"It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights — the 'right' to education, the 'right' to health care, the 'right' to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery — hay and a barn for human cattle."
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
Yeah well that is ONE of the demands that the preoccupied @wall street want. Education / college for free. Because they were forced to take out student loans that they do not want to pay for. :(
meggadittoing much?
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
You are not born with a right to education the same way you are born with a right to life.
Why not? And who says so? And anyway, who says that you have a right to life to start with? How does one determine what constitutes what is and is not a "right" in the first place? Who gets to decide these things?

Well, we do, collectively. There is no such thing as "rights" - they're human-constructed abstractions. We made them up. We invented the entire concept out of whole cloth. They can encompass anything we - society - want them to; they can mean anything we want them to mean. The "right" to education is just as artificial as is the "right" to life or the "right" to free speech, and vice versa. They don't have any meaning other than that which we give to them, and they're entirely dependent on prevailing cultural and societal attitudes and mores.

Some countries have decided that other societal components, like health care and education, constitute "rights", ie you have as much "right" to access to health care or an education as you do the "right" to free speech. And it's not out of a sense of altruism or social justice, but because it provides benefits to society as a whole.

And if one really wanted to get picky, none of these "rights" exist in isolation anyway - isn't the "right" to access to health care just an extension of the "right" to life, since the latter is generally dependent on the former?
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
2
0
VeloCity said:
Why not? And who says so? And anyway, who says that you have a right to life to start with? How does one determine what constitutes what is and is not a "right" in the first place? Who gets to decide these things?

Well, we do, collectively. There is no such thing as "rights" - they're human-constructed abstractions. We made them up. We invented the entire concept out of whole cloth. They can encompass anything we - society - want them to; they can mean anything we want them to mean. The "right" to education is just as artificial as is the "right" to life or the "right" to free speech, and vice versa. They don't have any meaning other than that which we give to them, and they're entirely dependent on prevailing cultural and societal attitudes and mores.

Some countries have decided that other societal components, like health care and education, constitute "rights", ie you have as much "right" to access to health care or an education as you do the "right" to free speech. And it's not out of a sense of altruism or social justice, but because it provides benefits to society as a whole.

And if one really wanted to get picky, none of these "rights" exist in isolation anyway - isn't the "right" to access to health care just an extension of the "right" to life, since the latter is generally dependent on the former?
Let them have free college education. Maybe we can make the University of Phoenix a government controlled educational benefit. Or use the current Community College system that is free already for most students. Just roll them up into a government controlled system.
 
I'm not from Europe, but I'm pretty sure that a lot of education there is paid for in the form of civil (or military) service. And if this country gave that as an option, one you could opt out of, I'd support it. That is, you agree to civil/military service for a couple of years, taxpayers will pay for your bachelors degree up to $X at the college of your choice.

There is no doubt that school loans have become some sort of cash cow scam in some ways. Students getting MBA's today are finding out the six-figure debt they incurred gets them a job shredding paperwork for $9 an hour under a glass ceiling - if they can get that.

I always thought it was interesting the way the conservatives were actually pro-birth, but not pro-life when you think about it. They don't care how rotten of life or little opportunities children seem to have, but insist they are born anyway at all costs, even in cases of rape and incest. Baffling to me one could be so passionate about one, and so coldly against the other.

As to Robert Bork, the last philosopher Mortimer Adler wrote an interesting view on Bork's SC confirmation hearing, and why he was ultimately against the confirmation (despite sitting on the University of Chicago Board of Scholars with him) but also on the errors the Senate Justice Committee made in their judgment. This link comes from a left-leaning site, but Adler's article was not written for it, and it would be a mistake to paint Adler as a political liberal, as anyone who has read his writing would attest. Very well written, analytical article.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
2
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I'm not from Europe, but I'm pretty sure that a lot of education there is paid for in the form of civil (or military) service. And if this country gave that as an option, one you could opt out of, I'd support it. That is, you agree to civil/military service for a couple of years, taxpayers will pay for your bachelors degree up to $X at the college of your choice.

There is no doubt that school loans have become some sort of cash cow scam in some ways. Students getting MBA's today are finding out the six-figure debt they incurred gets them a job shredding paperwork for $9 an hour under a glass ceiling - if they can get that.

I always thought it was interesting the way the conservatives were actually pro-birth, but not pro-life when you think about it. They don't care how rotten of life or little opportunities children seem to have, but insist they are born anyway at all costs, even in cases of rape and incest. Baffling to me one could be so passionate about one, and so coldly against the other.

As to Robert Bork, the last philosopher Mortimer Adler wrote an interesting view on Bork's SC confirmation hearing, and why he was ultimately against the confirmation (despite sitting on the University of Chicago Board of Scholars with him) but also on the errors the Senate Justice Committee made in their judgment. This link comes from a left-leaning site, but Adler's article was not written for it, and it would be a mistake to paint Adler as a political liberal, as anyone who has read his writing would attest. Very well written, analytical article.
Maybe a certain amount of college education for free is the way. No doubt it will ever be put before me in an election rather just crammed in on a bill with 300 other items makes it a moot point.
The current function of the GI bill covers for a small portion of college after you get out of your government contract. It is inadequate in my opinion.
For me to go for a social system of any type the current government needs to make an effort to get the place in order and control the nonsense.
 
Sep 13, 2010
546
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
Yeah well that is ONE of the demands that the preoccupied @wall street want. Education / college for free. Because they were forced to take out student loans that they do not want to pay for. :(
Shouldn't they be protesting their schools for ripping them off then?
 
Sep 13, 2010
546
0
0
VeloCity said:
Why not? And who says so? And anyway, who says that you have a right to life to start with? How does one determine what constitutes what is and is not a "right" in the first place? Who gets to decide these things?

Well, we do, collectively. There is no such thing as "rights" - they're human-constructed abstractions. We made them up. We invented the entire concept out of whole cloth. They can encompass anything we - society - want them to; they can mean anything we want them to mean. The "right" to education is just as artificial as is the "right" to life or the "right" to free speech, and vice versa. They don't have any meaning other than that which we give to them, and they're entirely dependent on prevailing cultural and societal attitudes and mores.

Some countries have decided that other societal components, like health care and education, constitute "rights", ie you have as much "right" to access to health care or an education as you do the "right" to free speech. And it's not out of a sense of altruism or social justice, but because it provides benefits to society as a whole.

And if one really wanted to get picky, none of these "rights" exist in isolation anyway - isn't the "right" to access to health care just an extension of the "right" to life, since the latter is generally dependent on the former?
Conversely, if there's no right to life, there most definitely is no right to health. If you're questioning the right to life which has always been understood to be the most basic, then why not question any right? Who said that there should be freedom of speech? Why would it be wrong to change that? How about liberty or democracy in general? After all, Hitler got to power because of "prevailing cultural and societal attitudes and mores" so why was it wrong? If you don't believe in objective rights, then you must also not believe in objective wrongs.
 
Sep 13, 2010
546
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I'm not from Europe, but I'm pretty sure that a lot of education there is paid for in the form of civil (or military) service. And if this country gave that as an option, one you could opt out of, I'd support it. That is, you agree to civil/military service for a couple of years, taxpayers will pay for your bachelors degree up to $X at the college of your choice.

There is no doubt that school loans have become some sort of cash cow scam in some ways. Students getting MBA's today are finding out the six-figure debt they incurred gets them a job shredding paperwork for $9 an hour under a glass ceiling - if they can get that.

I always thought it was interesting the way the conservatives were actually pro-birth, but not pro-life when you think about it. They don't care how rotten of life or little opportunities children seem to have, but insist they are born anyway at all costs, even in cases of rape and incest. Baffling to me one could be so passionate about one, and so coldly against the other.

As to Robert Bork, the last philosopher Mortimer Adler wrote an interesting view on Bork's SC confirmation hearing, and why he was ultimately against the confirmation (despite sitting on the University of Chicago Board of Scholars with him) but also on the errors the Senate Justice Committee made in their judgment. This link comes from a left-leaning site, but Adler's article was not written for it, and it would be a mistake to paint Adler as a political liberal, as anyone who has read his writing would attest. Very well written, analytical article.
This often-quoted line may hold the answer:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

We conservatives believe in the right to life, and the right to only PURSUE happiness. Progressives seem to believe the opposite - a right to a HAPPY life or NONE at all. I find that truly astounding in the light that over 200 years ago this was considered to be self-evident as in needing no explanation. Progress? Hardly.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
Well, we do, collectively. There is no such thing as "rights" - they're human-constructed abstractions. We made them up.
And this is why you are a great fit in the world of science.

Some rights, I believe, are not man-made or man-granted.
 
kielbasa said:
Conversely, if there's no right to life, there most definitely is no right to health. If you're questioning the right to life which has always been understood to be the most basic, then why not question any right? Who said that there should be freedom of speech? Why would it be wrong to change that? How about liberty or democracy in general? After all, Hitler got to power because of "prevailing cultural and societal attitudes and mores" so why was it wrong? If you don't believe in objective rights, then you must also not believe in objective wrongs.
I think you are confusing natural right with a contemporary religious (and political) ideology. The "right to life" is an ideology promoted by religious fundamentalists, who exchange a "civil" attainment for what in reality is motivated by their beliefs in the intrinsic sacredness of the human spices.

If anything, in a civil society, a right to life is encompassed within a concept of each having a right to not have one's life extinguished by anyone else (or to have one's freedom infringed upon by the exercise of another's for that matter); however to turn ones religious beliefs, as the fundamentalists do, into a means of suppression of free will is merely repulsive. There is thus a difference to having the "right to live" post quem, which appears to respect the natural order, from having a "right to life", which really has no meaning and at times even trounces upon every other human "right" as well as the natural order. It is thus up to the state to distinguish between these two and to respect the individual's decision on how he or she chooses to face their own inevitable mortality under what they regard as intollerable circumstances (within the limits of a reasonable doubt). Also because if someone freely chooses to take their own life, there is nothing the state or the religious institutions can do to prevent it. Of course we aren't talking about suicides, but neither in this sense do Hitler or the Nazi crimes have anything to do with this issue. For there needs to be a balance between what the state says, and what in any case the majority of humanity since time immemorial has said, about objective right and wrong, and the inevitable subjective cases for which it is more important to respect an individual's will than the legal, religious or cultural dogmas. It's a tough job, though it the homework of modern democracy. Precisely because of all the scientific advancements, which have been as benficial in some cases as they have distorted the natural order, for which often egoism holds free reign and not the actual suffering patient whose own body is transformed into publicity and propaganda for one's ideology and religious beliefs, in others.

All this business about the terminally ill hooked up to every machine that science can invent just to remain "alive" at whatever costs, even when such an existence goes contrary to their own will or those able to make reasoned decisions on their behalf, simply to make the bigots satisfied in their belief in being guided by a so-called higher principle is cruel and insane.

There is nothing respecting of the natural process in that and if the Almighty were to take recourse to simple human technology as a means to prolong His will, then I'd say what deity is that?

In many civilizations, moreover, throughout history a "right to die" was considered just as sacrosanct as a right to live and even more noble than an ignominious existence.

A right to have access to healthcare is, therefore, something of a quite different nature and arrises from the rather enlightened principle that collective taxation must be spent by government on collective wellbeing.

It is a right constructed, yes, by a principle that is, however, the fruit of the same Enlightenment philosophy that gave us democracy and the right to a fair trial. And what have all the gargantuan sums created by this market economy produced, if those who can't afford private health insurance have to wait for charity or worse, be turned away by the system?

Finally, if this were not the case, then what is meant by "progress" in the historical, social and anthropological senses? What have we learned, therefore, in the Western tradition from the teachings of luminaries from Socrates forward? Is it a system in which government allows the rich and the strong to take all the spoils, while the poor and weak just have to fend for themselves? Is this what is meant by human progress? And, please, let's leave individual responsibility out of it. Because no society has ever created conditions in which each member is outfitted with those tools necessary to live up to his or her "responsibility." Collective taxation within the democratic state was supposed to, in this sense, pick up the slack (not in so far as some were slackers, but due to the mere existence of poverty or incapacity). If not then what is taxation for anyway? Paying down the debt caused by the excesses of financial capitalism and the military?
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Never had the right to VOTE.

Jeffrey Glenn Miller; age 20; 265 ft (81 m) shot through the mouth; killed instantly

Allison B. Krause; age 19; 343 ft (105 m) fatal left chest wound; died later that day

William Knox Schroeder; age 19; 382 ft (116 m) fatal chest wound; died almost an hour later in a hospital while undergoing surgery

Sandra Lee Scheuer; age 20; 390 ft (120 m) fatal neck wound; died a few minutes later from loss of blood
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS