Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Where is all this divisiveness headed?

A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.

Re: Where is all this divisiveness headed?

Unread postby Newfie » Wed 26 Sep 2018, 06:41:45

“All persons BORN...”

I hear your reasoning and agree that the likely strongest possible outcome, in this day and age, would be to elreturn the issue to the states.

I also believe that many, many folks do not understand that. I’m guessing that most folks believe the SCOUTS has the authority to make laws, and could ban outright.

That is the crux of the furvor against Kavanaugh, abortions will become illegal. It is a winner take all, the USA will cease to exist ( or be reborn) moment...over hyped, inflated.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13234
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Where is all this divisiveness headed?

Unread postby evilgenius » Wed 26 Sep 2018, 10:13:49

I think issues like abortion are about the politics of fear. Whether it's guns, as Kaiser brought up, abortion, or something else the politics of fear brings people into whatever camp sides with them on a particular issue. You get this strange thing where a person interprets the world in terms of their being told "no" over something they consider sacrosanct. Oddly, even when the side that agrees with them over that issue imposes a list of rules over other things, those people will often refer to the side that befriends them as representing freedom. It's obviously that way with abortion and guns. If a person agrees with the philosophy attempting to curtail abortion, then they are pretty much required to accept the structures which place and keep the rich in power, when they may be struggling to succeed. They have to accept a hierarchy, and their place in it. They actually lose opportunity. If a person is in favor of gun control, they have to accept a philosophy that promotes equality of outcome over equality of opportunity. They lose the opportunity to achieve based upon their own merit, and have to settle for what is given to them. These people's dreams of success often dovetail into dreams related to artistic expression as a means to show their worth rather than economic success because that sort of success is anathema to equality of outcome. There isn't a lot of room for give and take on either side. These positions are both formed over issues which can't be won! The result is that it becomes very easy to scare up support, by appealing to those who are always afraid that their pet issue is in danger.

It used to be ok to keep this up. Today, we may be facing a world where there is actually critical mass developing, perhaps on both sides. To tilt permanently either way would ruin our democracy. I like the fact that the me too movement has arisen because it has succeeded in bringing us back to personal responsibility. It's forcing people to engage with each other over an issue that is common in both groups. There are all kinds of other issues just like that one which we need to face as well, like the things sustaining the drug epidemic. Hopefully, they'll help us see each other as people again, as we work them out.
User avatar
evilgenius
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2687
Joined: Tue 06 Dec 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Stopped at the border.

Re: Where is all this divisiveness headed?

Unread postby asg70 » Wed 26 Sep 2018, 10:33:05

Newfie wrote:Doe the SCOTUS have the authority to outlaw abortion?


One need only look to Citizen's United to see how the Supreme court can effectively legislate from the bench.

Newfie wrote:this is a matter of returning the issue to the states for local determination? At worst.


Note that state rights were responsible for perpetuating slavery and afterwards instituted Jim Crow.

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2876
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: Where is all this divisiveness headed?

Unread postby Cog » Wed 26 Sep 2018, 13:57:05

The citizens united case reestablished that corporations, non-profits, and the like have free speech rights. While they can not directly contribute to campaigns, they can buy advertising that favors one candidate over another. Corporations have personhood and that has been well established precedent since the 1800's. As such they have free speech rights.

The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

That is not legislating from the bench. That is protecting the first amendment rights of groups or associations of citizens to engage in political debate. The reason we have a Supreme Court to begin with, is to protect those enumerated rights in the Constitution from legislation which would be contrary to it.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12769
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Where is all this divisiveness headed?

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 26 Sep 2018, 14:19:04

asg70 wrote: Citizen's United...


Do Unions like the NEA or the Teamsters or the Machinists have the right to engage in poltical activity?

I'd say Yes. And so does the US Constitution.

Citizens United upheld the right of Unions and other organizations to engage in political activity.

If you disagree, then please explain why Citizens United is wrong about unions being allowed to participate in politics

Cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 22762
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Where is all this divisiveness headed?

Unread postby evilgenius » Thu 27 Sep 2018, 11:08:53

When viewed from the perspective of history, it's very easy to see how both labor unions and corporations ought to receive personhood. They each have distinct voices which, by their natures, speak for what could be either a person or group of like minded people. They are each a conduit for the expression of people who might have trouble expressing themselves, for whatever reason. In the union's case it is because a worker by themselves may not achieve the clout they require to get what they want or need. In the corporation's case it is because the capital resources of a single individual might not be enough to overcome the obstacles to achieving success. Insofar as that success is absolutely necessary for the other to even exist, or there would be no employment, not as a foil, even those who want to see only unions get status should rethink their position. They are both required for the scalability under modern capitalism to succeed. There are obvious limitations implied in both of these structures in terms of scope, but they definitely speak for people. Therefore, they ought to gain consideration as persons.

I can see a problem that has developed with corporations as the scale has reached new heights over the previous decades, however. What does it mean to "return value to shareholders?" Does every shareholder think alike when it comes to what they want out of owning a corporation? Isn't there a hustle going on? It's kind of lame to expect those who would like their point of view to be expressed in the operations of a company to accept that their only option is to sell their shares if they don't agree with what is going on. In the age of broader stock ownership, where there are many disinterested owners, this is even more of a problem. The perceived method of voting for members of the board doesn't work as well today as it used to. You might expect pension funds especially, but maybe also mutual funds to stand in the gap for those who want something else other than blatant stock price increase at the expense of derived income, but they trade as often as anybody else. How many companies do you see in tech, as a big for instance, that operate under a growth model when the growth phase of their existence was arguably over years ago? One could say that there is a tyranny of the majority taking place, but it may actually be a tyranny of the minority masquerading as a tyranny of the majority, as companies are run in the interests of the few. Mostly, those few are in management. They don't have to be, but when you look at how this works out it is typically management that pushes returning value to shareholders as a mode of operation. And, since management these days is enriched primarily through stock options, the situation is self-reinforcing.

This situation is particularly relevant when it comes to the relationship between labor and management. Here, I mean management as truly representing the standard operation of a company, not extracted from shareholder oversight. Years ago I had the opportunity to work on a particular Labor Day. I was working in a payroll department. I soon discovered that while I didn't have Labor Day off, just about the entirety of the management structure of the company did. It was a big company. I couldn't do the problem solving aspect of my job that day. Don't worry, there was plenty of brute force data entry work that still needed doing, so my boss was essentially justified in not letting us have the day off. The point of this is that there is a sense of fairness coming from what brought Labor Day about, which was engendered even within those who worked as managers. That sense of fairness entitled them to a day off for Labor Day. That sense of fairness straddled the us vs. them arrangement that labor and management used to squabble under, and which gave us Labor Day. That same sort of transference can be said to take place in the attitudes of stockholders. If that voice is silenced, and the one which applauds only real or potential stock price growth drowns it out, then where is the suggestion for restraint going to come from in the activities of a corporation? It isn't just the lack of worker's wages increasing where one sees this either. It shows up in whether companies operate in their own long term interests or not. The folly of the dictates of the youth, who don't have any experience with the long term consequences of their money making schemes winning out over those who may have ordered a more cautious approach, was displayed quite well in the recent crash, I dare say! This issue speaks directly to that of free speech, if you will, when it comes to whether companies speak as they ought, for the money going into election campaigns is almost all sent there with one message in mind, and that one is probably not the one held within the sense of fairness.
User avatar
evilgenius
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2687
Joined: Tue 06 Dec 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Stopped at the border.

Re: Where is all this divisiveness headed?

Unread postby Newfie » Sun 24 Feb 2019, 15:57:22

Interesting article about reported hate crimes. Seems a lot of them are fake.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 950146002/
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13234
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Where is all this divisiveness headed?

Unread postby Cog » Sun 24 Feb 2019, 17:00:42

Two of the latest examples of fake hate crimes were Jussie Smallett and the Covington Catholic boys mentioned in your article.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12769
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Previous

Return to North America Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dissident and 7 guests