So let's take away equality in the work place, racial equality, and corporate accountability to equality.
I like those things, personally. I enjoy the fact that my female boss is one of the best bosses I've every had. I also enjoy the fact that one of my female employees is one of the best employees on my team. I also enjoy the fact that 2 of my employees are black. Now, I would not get any enjoyment out of this if equality was never a problem: it would seem irrelevant. However, since this type of setup would be almost unheard of before the 70s, it's amazing especially if you consider their job requires things like degrees and IT Certifications. I would not be able to enjoy those if if equality had existed in the first place. Hopefully, our grandchildren will not have to even consider why a black person should or should not work for a company (or a female).
Before you decry too much egalitarianism, the ultimate egalitarian society makes fetuses equal to top atheist professors: that should make you happy.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Jan 9th, 2012 at 01:56 AM
Uh, yes. The Civil Rights Act was a gross expansion of federal power and should never have been passed. If a business wants to pay women half as much as men, they should be able to because that is their right. But even if the people decide that they want egalitarian horseshit, they can pass it on the state level, not the federal level.
__________________ Ask me about my "obvious and unpleasant agenda of hatred."
I don't understand why you would tolerate a state violating what you consider to be people's rights. Surely the rights of the people should be inviolate even to a state government. Otherwise they hardly seem worth calling rights.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
You see, while I do hold those social elements (the ones you quoted) to be virtuous pursuits for any business, they should be enforced by the business owners and the voting "buyers": not the government.
The forced "play nicely together" rules from the federal government are not kosher by my respect for personal liberty. It sounds no differently than the state controlled path to pure communism that Marxists toted as the way of social perfection.
"We'll force people to have to be socially cooperative."
So, obviously, I would prefer people do this on their own and not have the government force them. Some viewed the legislation as temporary until society integrated beyond the need for such petty laws (some...like one of my old Poli Sci professors). A temporary necessity to the path of social perfection. Marxism...indeed.
Again, bet you didn't expect me to say that, did you?
No, I didn't expect that, but I hope your political science professor gets raped by a pack of n*ggers for her idiocy. I'm assuming that she was a woman because of the stupidity of the opinion, but if he was a man, I still hope he gets raped.
__________________ Ask me about my "obvious and unpleasant agenda of hatred."
I just can't see how you're okay with this government you envision where that states have unlimited power over their citizens. Your beloved slippery slope argument should come into play.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
I imagine he would defer to the constitution about what specifically the states have power over...
Maybe I am confusing the American constitution with the Canadian one, how specific are the divisions of powers within it? Ours is fairly explicit, I sort of just assumed yours was too (though, it makes sense thinking about it that yours wouldn't be as specific, given it was written some 200 years before ours.... In which case, ya, it would seem pretty arbitrary...)
Zeal: Maybe this would be better in the strict constitutionalism thread, but like, would you say states have the ability to revoke things like mobility and association rights? Like, could a state restrict the formation of political parties? Could it stop its own citizens from leaving?
Toted works as well because it seems like "to carry" would work in what I'm saying, as well...but that's NOT what I meant to type.
It was a he. And he was definitely a democrat but had libertarian leanings. Naturally, one could conclude that such a person would find legislation like that temporarily necessary but favored the "personal choice" in the long run. This is why I can never call myself a "libertarian": they are too naive at times. Any idiot knows that as soon as a law gets passed, it most likely will not be repealed.
Temporary my ass.
This is correct.
There are certain "unalienable" rights that the constitution affords her people. These are the areas upon which states upon would not be able to create laws. This is where interpretation has come in and we have gotten some VERY wack interpretations or stretchings of the application of the "necessary and proper" (elastic) clause.
This thing pisses a former KMC member off, but I can't resist.
To answer on behalf of Zeal (because we are similar in our political beliefs), the "pursuit of happiness" would include mobility rights.
While not explicitly in the constitution (it was in the Declaration of Independence(DoI)), the phrase "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", the US Supreme Court can use this (elastically) to apply to cases upon which they rule. This is deemed a ruling of "original intent". The DoI is used partially as the "spirit of original intent" and the pursuit of happiness can include mobility.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Jan 10th, 2012 at 02:07 AM
KMC Community Forums
Jan 8th, 2012 03:20 PM
