Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The '60s gave rise to the liberal Boomers who have consistently voted to shit up America ever since they were born. The '60s were a decade that can go **** itself.
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.
So let's take away equality in the work place, racial equality, and corporate accountability to equality.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
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.
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.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
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.
I agree 100%.
Didn't expect that, did you?
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? 🙂
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
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.
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?
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.
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?
Originally posted by dadudemonIt sounds no differently than the state controlled path to pure communism that Marxists toted as the way of social perfection.
FUUUUUUUUUU!
*touted
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.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
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.
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.
Originally posted by inimalist
I imagine he would defer to the constitution about what specifically the states have power over...
This is correct. 🙂
Originally posted by inimalist
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...)
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.
Originally posted by inimalist
[b]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? [/B]
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.
Originally posted by dadudemonmmm
"Within this perspective there is no assumption of linear sexual development and no real childhood, only an externally imposed definition."Man, this is what I have been saying for years. I can certainly say that I was fully prepared (intellectually and socially) at a much younger age than 18 for sexual activity: maybe even as far back as 8. I know of at least one other person who feels the same way and she put that age around 8 or 9. Some people just grasp social situations better than others and it is definitely not linear for everyone.
That's as far as I would take that, however. I cannot speak for all children and the extreme majority would not know what sex or sex related interactions are at 8 years old. This falls under the same age limit as voting, getting a driver's license, and so forth. The vast majority of the time, the person is not intellectually or socially developed enough to warrant setting the age limit to something too young. So we set age limits on those things fully knowing that there are tons of exceptions...but "catch most of them".
What about a test? That would be difficult to establish. Someone smarter than me (in psychology) would need to tell me if a test would be an appropriate measure of determining if a child is mature enough (intellectually and socially) to do anything sexual. I proposed such things in the past to prevent ANYONE from having sexual activity (because I'm a fascist a**hole who subscribes to eugenics... apparently) unless they passed such a test and the obvious consequence of such a test would be minors passing it.
Edit - I am NOT advocating shit like NAMBLA or pedophilia. I am only saying that it is highly possible that "sexuality" is not necessarily determined by some arbitrary age (which the US thinks should be 18) but is a varied experience for everyone. Some are never mature enough. Some are mature quite a bit sooner than 18 (I am not talking "sexually", explicitly, but that could count as well).