"Religious Liberty" ?

[icehorse]

The principle I am using is the original constitution which says that the federal governments powers are few and fixed, whereas state powers are many and undefined.
Right now, because of the 16th &17th amendments, the Butler Case (which said the federal government was no longer fixed and restricted to its original 20 powers), the office of president which before had not the power to make laws, is now by executive orders all over the place is creating laws and the Judiciary is also making laws rather that protecting the constitution. With all these things going on, protections for liberty are all but gone and there is no limit to the run away government arrogating power to itself.
Hopefully with the convention of states we can put a stop to all this corruption beginning with repealing the 17th amendment. With the passing of that amendment, the powers of the states became limited and defined by the federal government which is the reverse of what it should be. Senators were to supposed to be assigned by state legislatures to protect the states and Representatives to the House were to be elected by popular vote to give citizens representation, thus providing a balance to federal power and keeping the federal government answerable to the people. By making Senators elected by popular vote, they become agents for the federal government rather than agents for the state.
Where should auto safety standards come from? The states, because that had not been a power specifically defined for the federal government. An even better choice would be to let competition in the market decide.
That's my opinion and my hope is that the convention of states will be able to rectify this mess.

Several ideas in this one post:

1 - your interpretation of the constitution
2 - associating the shifting of roles with a reduction in liberties
3 - corruption
4 - safety standards

Again, i'm gonna stick with safety standards for now. It strikes me that a key role of congress has always been to make commerce as smooth as possible. From that perspective, universal safety standards can be seen as making interstate commerce much more efficient. So, far from being an overreach, it strikes me that federal safety standards are a huge boon to interstate commerce.

Now, I'd acknowledge that the roles of government have shifted over the years, but isn't that capability built into the original system?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Why?



Some people agree with you. The police is private security for the government. You want to say it's different, but in practice it works the same. There is no public control over the police. There is government control. The government is still individuals in control.

Today if I am robbed I can call the police. If I were being assaulted I could call the police. If I am threatened I can call the police.

If the only source of security was private industries that work for those with money I don't have the ability to call up the security office and have them do this unless I wanted to pay them. Its not a service of the public.

You're trusting individual in the government to control the economy for you because you don't trust an individual who isn't in the government to control it. You want someone in the government to say how much you can produce, how much you can charge and who you can and can't sell your product to basically.

I don't think anyone should be able to control the economy. I was commenting on the anti-socialistic crowd mostly comprised of hardcore libertarians and tea party fanatics that equate "government" to "terrible" when that doesn't seem to be the case if the evidnce is presented. I am a capitalist as well as I said I am a business owner. Certain regulations need to happen and if the government could get its **** together and fix the tax code I think other than basic regulations such as minimum wage and legal limitations on what can be sold there shouldn't be a whole lot of say.

I don't advocate anything really, just trying to understand the "evil" folks see in capitalism or anti-socialism.

Anti-socialism is keeping the government out of economic control. I don't know that's necessarily a good idea but ok.

Folks don't trust people in the government to control the economy. You don't trust folks not in the government to control the economy. I just see it as you are still trusting somebody and the risks of placing that trust in somebody whether in the government or not remain the same.

Not necessarily. Unregulated capitalism and communism are both bad economically. However regulated capitalism with safety nets and a fair tax code seems ideal. The government should be able to "control" the economy. However they have the ability to make sure that the wealth concentration doesn't get to the point where there are a handful of people in the private sector that can either.

 

[ether-ore]

Several ideas in this one post:

1 - your interpretation of the constitution
2 - associating the shifting of roles with a reduction in liberties
3 - corruption
4 - safety standards

Again, i'm gonna stick with safety standards for now. It strikes me that a key role of congress has always been to make commerce as smooth as possible. From that perspective, universal safety standards can be seen as making interstate commerce much more efficient. So, far from being an overreach, it strikes me that federal safety standards are a huge boon to interstate commerce.

Now, I'd acknowledge that the roles of government have shifted over the years, but isn't that capability built into the original system?

I don't believe so. Thomas Jefferson wrote: "Let no more be said of the confidence in men but bind them down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Having experienced the abuse of power by a British king, the founding fathers were leery of granting too much power to a centralized government. George Washington wrote: "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
The federal government is out of the control of the people, is full of mischief and is becoming a fearful master.
People who lust for power cannot be trusted with it. You know the old saying about power corrupting and absolute power corrupting absolutely... well, it has happened.
The Senators we have, republicans as well as democrats are working to increase the power of government and to improve their own political careers without regard to its impact on the citizenry. If they were appointed by their state legislatures as was originally intended, they would have been yanked from their posts by their ears long ago for the arrogance they have demonstrated.
I suppose I can concede that auto safety could conceivably fall under the "promote the general welfare clause".
Anyway, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

 

[icehorse]

ether-ore,

Don't get me wrong, at the practical level I agree that our government is out of control and that a big-time reigning-in is long overdue.

That said, I'm interested in the underlying principles. My take is that any and all forms of government are complex, man-made machines, and like all complex machines they need fine-tuning, tweaking and adjusting.

As I said earlier, I think that western countries are socialist "to a degree". And I'd agree that the balance between state's power and federal power is out of balance "to some degree". But ultimately, I think the machine is best tuned with some degree of federal power and some degree of socialism.

So... what's interesting then is just how much? One example we could discuss is banking. I think we're stronger in the world if we have a unified banking system. But it's clear that if we let bankers work with no oversight we'll end up with corruption and abuses and income inequality and so on. So the solution isn't to put banking in charge of states, the solution is to create oversight for the people, and give that oversight mechanism some real teeth.

 

[RedDragon94]

I forced myself to watch the GOP debate, argh.

At one point Cruz stood up for “religious liberty”. While I’m not sure, I’m guessing he’s referring to situations in which a religious organization is taking exception to being forced to pay for coverages under Obama-care that it (the organization), doesn’t believe in. Things like contraception and abortions.

The Eternal Word TV Network (EWTN), is suing the government over this issue of “religious liberty”...

http://www.religiousliberties.org/faq.asp

Does the EWTN have a legal leg (or for that matter a moral leg), to stand on? (I hope not!)

I think that religion is only liberating when you can extend care and freedom to others whether or not you like what they do. That is the meaning of grace.

 

[RedDragon94]

You misrepresent what you refer to as the second example. It isn't an issue of refusing service across the board. It's about being asked to endorse something. Let us use the examples of those instances that have already in reality happened.

If a homosexual asks a photographer to take his or her picture and their homosexuality was never mentioned, then I see no problem. I think the photographer in question would have most likely taken their picture. But if they announce their homosexuality, making it an issue in the business transaction where the proprietor is being implicitly required to "endorse" a lifestyle he disagrees with (for whatever reason) by taking pictures of a same sex ceremony, I think he is within his rights to refuse because he is then being forced to violate his conscience.

In the second example; a baker will not likely refuse to bake a cake for anyone coming into their bakery, including homosexuals as long as no endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle is being made apparent. But as soon as the homosexuals want to try and force the objecting baker to violate their conscience by endorsing their lifestyle by baking a same sex wedding cake; then the conditions have changed and that conscientiously objecting baker has the right not to bake such an endorsement.

I have no doubt but that you may not see it that way, but I believe there are plenty of businesses out there that will accommodate the homosexual community. The only reason I can see for deliberately seeking out businesses that do not is to cause them problems and spitefully put them out of business if they can.

One other thing. You tried to group homosexuals with blacks, Muslims... etc. Being black isn't a lifestyle and Muslims do not accept homosexuality either.

But straight marriages are failing at a 50% rate the last time I checked, that's a sin too. We give preference to straight people all the time and we endorse their marriages knowing they are set up for failure.

 

[ether-ore]

But straight marriages are failing at a 50% rate the last time I checked, that's a sin too. We give preference to straight people all the time and we endorse their marriages knowing they are set up for failure.

To anticipate that a marriage might fail is not justification to refuse service when no question of conscience is involved.

 

[ether-ore]

ether-ore,

Don't get me wrong, at the practical level I agree that our government is out of control and that a big-time reigning-in is long overdue.

That said, I'm interested in the underlying principles. My take is that any and all forms of government are complex, man-made machines, and like all complex machines they need fine-tuning, tweaking and adjusting.

As I said earlier, I think that western countries are socialist "to a degree". And I'd agree that the balance between state's power and federal power is out of balance "to some degree". But ultimately, I think the machine is best tuned with some degree of federal power and some degree of socialism.

So... what's interesting then is just how much? One example we could discuss is banking. I think we're stronger in the world if we have a unified banking system. But it's clear that if we let bankers work with no oversight we'll end up with corruption and abuses and income inequality and so on. So the solution isn't to put banking in charge of states, the solution is to create oversight for the people, and give that oversight mechanism some real teeth.

Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution it states: The congress shall have power to coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin and fix the standard of weights and measures. Congress has abrogated that responsibility and given it over to that creature from Jekyll Island... the FED. Private bankers now run our economy for their benefit, not ours, and the Congress supports them in this travesty.

 

[RedDragon94]

To anticipate that a marriage might fail is not justification to refuse service when no question of conscience is involved.

But it has to do with conscience when you endorse a marriage that you see no hope in.

 

[ether-ore]

But it has to do with conscience when you endorse a marriage that you see no hope in.

<ether-ore just shakes his head>

 

[MysticSang'ha]

In my experience, as a pro-choice feminist who is also supportive of the Black Lives Matter movement, who is also bisexual and polyamorous... I operate my business in an area that is conservatively Christian, with pro-life billboards dotting the highway exiting to our road. Down the street, there is a building where the local chapter of Aryan Nation white supremacists reguarly convenes. The area loves to (in the local cafe) complain about how feminists have ruined the country.

Not to mention how many folks in the neighborhood (with whom I'm FB friends with) have made known how they feel about homosexuals.

Personally, I detest their ideologies. I personally think the hatred toward minorities and women and LGBTQ's in this area is atrocious.

But if they come to my business paying for my services, I'll serve them. No questions asked. It's called business and that's all it is. My personal ethics do not equate to my business ethics nor do they equate to my educational ethics when I teach at the local university. My personal ethics are my own.

I've served police officers families who hate movements that I'm active in. I've served and even handed out flyers for white supramcists who are looking to raise funds for memorial services for a death in their circle. I've given classes specifically for students who object to our dress code of leotards and tights for being "too revealing".

All these people personally would never be allowed in my house.

But my place of residence is not my business. I serve patrons looking for my services in my place of business. I don't bring my views into my business deals and they don't feel targeted by my bias.

I only refuse service to people who harass or bully me, my staff, our students, or family members in the business.

There. Pretty simple.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Individual control of property is the basis of capitalism. The right to control that property. If I own a building, if I own equipment, I have the right to decide who gets to use it and what it is used for. If you own a house and have a right to be secure in that ownership, that's capitalism.

In pure capitalism, security of ownership is a valuable good like any other, and the level of security you receive would depend on your ability to pay (either in money or other things of value) and your cost-benefit analysis of security relative to all the other needs and wants you have.

 

[Nakosis]

In pure capitalism, security of ownership is a valuable good like any other, and the level of security you receive would depend on your ability to pay (either in money or other things of value) and your cost-benefit analysis of security relative to all the other needs and wants you have.

That's not really different than what we have now is it? We've just delegated the authority of how much to pay to the government.

 

[Nakosis]

Today if I am robbed I can call the police. If I were being assaulted I could call the police. If I am threatened I can call the police.

If the only source of security was private industries that work for those with money I don't have the ability to call up the security office and have them do this unless I wanted to pay them. Its not a service of the public.

You are paying them. You/we also pay them to secure an area. We can do that regardless of the economic system we have in place.

I don't think anyone should be able to control the economy. I was commenting on the anti-socialistic crowd mostly comprised of hardcore libertarians and tea party fanatics that equate "government" to "terrible" when that doesn't seem to be the case if the evidnce is presented. I am a capitalist as well as I said I am a business owner. Certain regulations need to happen and if the government could get its **** together and fix the tax code I think other than basic regulations such as minimum wage and legal limitations on what can be sold there shouldn't be a whole lot of say.

As far as I can see the only difference between capitalism and socialism is how much we allow a governing body, to regulate our economics. Social programs, Government controlled services can be enacted by either system. Conservatives get mad at minimum wage, taxes and what the feel as excessive regulation on business. Granted religious folks have other issues, but that's religious folks.

I on the other hand wouldn't mind a real socialist system. If I could trust the people in charge. There'd be no taxes really. The government would be in the business of making a profit. Everyone would work for the government and the government would distribute profits, hopefully in a fair manner. Everything would be own by and provided by the government. The only problem is the idea that their'd be to motivation to excel. I don't think that is necessarily true, at least for me it wouldn't be.

Not necessarily. Unregulated capitalism and communism are both bad economically. However regulated capitalism with safety nets and a fair tax code seems ideal. The government should be able to "control" the economy. However they have the ability to make sure that the wealth concentration doesn't get to the point where there are a handful of people in the private sector that can either.

Ok, but we do have a hybrid system in place. The government tries to control economics through interests rates, bailouts, minimum wage and business regulation. My point really is that the problem of either system is corruption, not necessarily the "system". Honest folks could work with any system. Even this hybrid system we have.

Honest folks = good. Capitalism/Socialism kind of neutral.

The more pertinent issue is there ain't enough honest people around.

 

[Koldo]

Well it depends on the rules they decide on. In this case it was illegal to reside in the woods on public land.

Yep, no difference. It depends on whoever is in charge to allow it or not. The governing body or the individual who owns the property.

Indeed. In other words, neither Capitalism nor Socialism would automatically protect your choice of living in the woods.

 

[Nakosis]

Indeed. In other words, neither Capitalism nor Socialism would automatically protect your choice of living in the woods.

Unless of course I owned the woods.

Capitalism is good for rich folks. It protects their wealth. Yeah I could see if a person hated rich folks they'd want a socialist system.

 

[Koldo]

The pure form of capitalism would be a separation of government and economy. It doesn't prevent government from imposing any form of tax aside from taxes for the purpose of economic reform.

You can't have any sort of welfare state in pure Capitalism. It is simply not compatible.

Political reasons. Not enough resources, not follow the rules. For what ever reasons the governing body decides. You are still trusting people, individuals in the governing body to make these decisions. You choose to give someone else power to control your life. They just happen to be in the government so you feel safer about it for some reason. Because the government controls the economy they'll make sure everyone works. Maybe they will, maybe they won't.

If business controls the economy, why wouldn't they make sure everyone is provided work? Some reason you think it is gong to be different if we call that business government instead. I don't know why it'd be necessarily different.

Sorry, I'm not trying to just be argumentative here, it's just the way I see it.

You trust government to control the economy or you trust business to control it. It's still people I don't know and have no particular reason to trust. I trust myself more basically whether I was in business or government. I don't know why you'd trust me though.

Your employer is not merely giving you money as a form of charity. It is giving you money because your job is making him gain more money in some way.
Why would a Socialist government refuse to provide you with a job when that entails more resources being granted to the nation ?

 

[Koldo]

Unless of course I owned the woods.

Capitalism is good for rich folks. It protects their wealth. Yeah I could see if a person hated rich folks they'd want a socialist system.

But for folks that don't own the woods, the choice of living in the woods is not accessible to them. Meaning that Capitalism doesn't protect your choice.

I don't hate rich folks. I only care just as much about everyone else.

 

[Nakosis]

You can't have any sort of welfare state in pure Capitalism. It is simply not compatible.

IMO capitalism is purely about economics. I don't see where welfare is necessarily about economics. So a government which chooses to enact a welfare system, I don't see were this violates any of the principles of capitalism.

Your employer is not merely giving you money as a form of charity. It is giving you money because your job is making him gain more money in some way.
Why would a Socialist government refuse to provide you with a job when that entails more resources being granted to the nation ?

Do you think socialism is some form of charity? Socialism just transfer the interests of making a profit from the individual to the governing body. It takes economic control out of the hands of the individual. If the governing body wants to provide jobs for everyone, it can certainly do so. I just don't see were it's implied it has to.

It would be a problem in capitalism to have the government provide jobs for everyone, that's true I think. It would have too much of a contrived impact on the economy.

However individuals can be as interested in charity as any government. Nothing prevents a capitalist from trying to provide jobs for folks. Being a capitalist doesn't mean they lack compassion.

Compassion dictates charity, not economic systems.

 

[Nakosis]

I don't hate rich folks. I only care just as much about everyone else.

That's compassion not socialism.