|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 29, 2014 11:52:26 GMT
(1) Actually, I would not advocate that individuals should lack compassion. But I have no desire for collective action--action that is really not the result of "compassion," but the result of government coercion.
Oh, you are certainly correct as concerning the loss due to friction (as economists call it), whenever a financial transaction passes through different hands. (2) The Supreme Court has never declared that the 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark establishes that the only way to be regarded, correctly, as a natural-born citizen is to have been born within the parameters of the United States or its possessions. (3) Yes, anything may be used as "money" in a system of barter; but that is terribly inefficient, it seems to me. I have no desire to require gold as payment for anything, while eschwing ordinary cash. Do you? (4) Modern medical advancements make it possible for human fetuses--i.e. unborn children--to survive earlier outside the womb. And whereas viability is not identical to one's becoming recognizably human, this does, at least, tend to push back the time beyond which an abortion should not be performed, except in the so-called "hard cases." And I do not believe that the proscription of polygamy needs, necessarily, to be based upon biblical teachings. Polyandry--i.e. one wife who has many husbands--is exceedingly rare, by comparison. Polygamy seems to me like little more than an attempt by some men to exploit women. (6) Most illegals from Mexico probably could not afford that "additional cost" of flying into the US, under any circumstances. Your co-worker from Mexico, from more than 40 years ago, would surely have been able to come to the US legally under my own preference for a robust guest-worker program.
1. The "ecomony" is a result of the "collective" and I don't know of anyway to address the "collective" except by addressing it as a matter for the "collective" to deal with. You mention the coercion of government in collecting taxes but ignore the inherent coercion of capitalism that adversely effects the employment contract.
2. Always remember that Supteme Court decision are limited to addressing the case presented but can, and often do, address a much greater issue in the arguments presented to support the final ruling. In the US v Kim Wong Ark the Supreme Court, in it's arguments, established that a person "born in the United States" (not the territorial possessions of the United States) and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was a "natural born citizen" of the United States and this was not subject to statutory law. Statutory law cannot affect natural born citizenship in any manner, either by denying it (as in the specific case of Kim Wong Ark) or granting it because it is a "natural right" of the person.
So you are correct that the Supreme Court did not specifically address the granting of "natural born citizenship" based upon statutory law in the Kim Wong Ark decision but it did establish that statutory law cannot affect natural born citizenship in any manner. If statutory law cannot affect natural born citizenship in any manner then it cannot grant natural born citizenship. "
3. Yes, the history of "money" has evolved over time for any "common commodity to facilitate the barter system" to "government certified amounts of the common commodity" to "promissory notes for the common commodity" to "digital transactions of promissory notes" that we generally use today but all of it relates back to the commodity. The nature of "money" is, and has always been, the commodity used to facilitate the barter system.
4. Yes, medical advances have changed the point at which a fetus might be able to survive outside of the womb but it has not changed the fundamental issue of the "right to life of the person" which cannot impose an involuntary obligation upon another person. If a person (i.e. the doctor) is required to keep the premature baby alive then it has not attained the "inalienable right to life" yet. We keep the premature baby alive because of compassion and not based upon the established right to life of that baby. The "baby" has to be "independent" biologically before it becomes a "person" so it cannot be biologically dependent upon another person. This goes back to the simple proposition that a "baby has a right to eat" but it doesn't have a "right to be fed" although we do, because of compassion, require the legal voluntary guardian to feed the baby.
From an Inalienable Rights standpoint the "personhood" of the fetus can be argued for based upon "natural viability" but not on "medicaly viability" of the fetus because "medical viability" philosophically imposes an involuntary obligation.
Based upon common practices of polygamy today I won't disagree with your characterization that polygamy is predominately about men exploiting women although many women in polygamous relationships would disagree. We could also note that many common marriages today are also about men exploiting women as well. The Biblical teachings that the wife should be subordinate to the man propogate this and many men treat their wife as little more that property in America today. These facts don't provide a rational argument for the prohibition though. There are wonderful polygamous relationships in the United States today were there is no exploitation of anyone involved even though they can't be legally married. We can even note there are wonderful incestuous relationships as well even though they can't be legally married either.
The only criteria society should impose is "voluntary consent between adults" and then we should protect the Rights of those involved.
6. You'd be surprised at what the "illegal from Mexico" could afford to do and it is irrelevant to the fact that it would require all 50 states to impose draconian immigration restrictions and they would effectively only be as good as the least restrictive laws by any state. If Utah, for example, was the only state to not have any immigration restrictions then logically an immigrant wanting to live and work in the United States would find the means to enter the United States through Utah because it makes them a "legal immigrant" anywhere in the United States.
A robust "guest worker plan" would allow any immigrant to legally work indefinately at any job in the United States and, based upon uniform laws of naturalization, would also provide them with a pathway to citizenship.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 29, 2014 23:44:25 GMT
(1) Actually, I would not advocate that individuals should lack compassion. But I have no desire for collective action--action that is really not the result of "compassion," but the result of government coercion.
Oh, you are certainly correct as concerning the loss due to friction (as economists call it), whenever a financial transaction passes through different hands. (2) The Supreme Court has never declared that the 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark establishes that the only way to be regarded, correctly, as a natural-born citizen is to have been born within the parameters of the United States or its possessions. (3) Yes, anything may be used as "money" in a system of barter; but that is terribly inefficient, it seems to me. I have no desire to require gold as payment for anything, while eschwing ordinary cash. Do you? (4) Modern medical advancements make it possible for human fetuses--i.e. unborn children--to survive earlier outside the womb. And whereas viability is not identical to one's becoming recognizably human, this does, at least, tend to push back the time beyond which an abortion should not be performed, except in the so-called "hard cases." And I do not believe that the proscription of polygamy needs, necessarily, to be based upon biblical teachings. Polyandry--i.e. one wife who has many husbands--is exceedingly rare, by comparison. Polygamy seems to me like little more than an attempt by some men to exploit women. (6) Most illegals from Mexico probably could not afford that "additional cost" of flying into the US, under any circumstances. Your co-worker from Mexico, from more than 40 years ago, would surely have been able to come to the US legally under my own preference for a robust guest-worker program.
1. The "ecomony" is a result of the "collective" and I don't know of anyway to address the "collective" except by addressing it as a matter for the "collective" to deal with. You mention the coercion of government in collecting taxes but ignore the inherent coercion of capitalism that adversely effects the employment contract.
2. Always remember that Supteme Court decision are limited to addressing the case presented but can, and often do, address a much greater issue in the arguments presented to support the final ruling. In the US v Kim Wong Ark the Supreme Court, in it's arguments, established that a person "born in the United States" (not the territorial possessions of the United States) and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was a "natural born citizen" of the United States and this was not subject to statutory law. Statutory law cannot affect natural born citizenship in any manner, either by denying it (as in the specific case of Kim Wong Ark) or granting it because it is a "natural right" of the person.
So you are correct that the Supreme Court did not specifically address the granting of "natural born citizenship" based upon statutory law in the Kim Wong Ark decision but it did establish that statutory law cannot affect natural born citizenship in any manner. If statutory law cannot affect natural born citizenship in any manner then it cannot grant natural born citizenship. "
3. Yes, the history of "money" has evolved over time for any "common commodity to facilitate the barter system" to "government certified amounts of the common commodity" to "promissory notes for the common commodity" to "digital transactions of promissory notes" that we generally use today but all of it relates back to the commodity. The nature of "money" is, and has always been, the commodity used to facilitate the barter system.
4. Yes, medical advances have changed the point at which a fetus might be able to survive outside of the womb but it has not changed the fundamental issue of the "right to life of the person" which cannot impose an involuntary obligation upon another person. If a person (i.e. the doctor) is required to keep the premature baby alive then it has not attained the "inalienable right to life" yet. We keep the premature baby alive because of compassion and not based upon the established right to life of that baby. The "baby" has to be "independent" biologically before it becomes a "person" so it cannot be biologically dependent upon another person. This goes back to the simple proposition that a "baby has a right to eat" but it doesn't have a "right to be fed" although we do, because of compassion, require the legal voluntary guardian to feed the baby.
From an Inalienable Rights standpoint the "personhood" of the fetus can be argued for based upon "natural viability" but not on "medicaly viability" of the fetus because "medical viability" philosophically imposes an involuntary obligation.
Based upon common practices of polygamy today I won't disagree with your characterization that polygamy is predominately about men exploiting women although many women in polygamous relationships would disagree. We could also note that many common marriages today are also about men exploiting women as well. The Biblical teachings that the wife should be subordinate to the man propogate this and many men treat their wife as little more that property in America today. These facts don't provide a rational argument for the prohibition though. There are wonderful polygamous relationships in the United States today were there is no exploitation of anyone involved even though they can't be legally married. We can even note there are wonderful incestuous relationships as well even though they can't be legally married either.
The only criteria society should impose is "voluntary consent between adults" and then we should protect the Rights of those involved.
6. You'd be surprised at what the "illegal from Mexico" could afford to do and it is irrelevant to the fact that it would require all 50 states to impose draconian immigration restrictions and they would effectively only be as good as the least restrictive laws by any state. If Utah, for example, was the only state to not have any immigration restrictions then logically an immigrant wanting to live and work in the United States would find the means to enter the United States through Utah because it makes them a "legal immigrant" anywhere in the United States.
A robust "guest worker plan" would allow any immigrant to legally work indefinately at any job in the United States and, based upon uniform laws of naturalization, would also provide them with a pathway to citizenship.
(1) You may assert--quite correctly--that "the economy," in a macro sense, is, indeed, "a result of the 'collective.'" But we are dealing with individuals here, and their own (individual) economic fortunes. In any case, even the macroeconomy is emphatically not the product of government action (as it was, for instance, in the former Soviet Union--where it did not function especially well). (2) Where did United States vs. Wong Kim Ark (1898) ever declare that "statutory law cannot affect natural born citizenship in any manner"--even by "granting it"? (3) I agree that the history of money "has evolved over time," as you have noted. (4) I do not believe that the killing of an innocent--some would characterize it as murder--is an appropriate response to the desire to be free of the "involuntary obligation" of continuing a pregnancy for a few more weeks or months. Yes, some "common marriages today" are indeed about "men exploiting women" (I don't know if I would describe it as "many"), and some are based upon women exploiting men. But that is not the ideal. And it is, I believe, the exception--not the rule, as with polygamy. I do, however, agree with your (apparent) implication that marriage should be about the union of two equals--not about the "subordination" of one person to the other. (The biblical model, in this regard, was based upon a system that is no longer relevant; a system in which girls were considered a burden upon the family, as they could not do much physical labor, as was required at the time; therefore, they needed to be "married off" quickly, with the families of those brides offering outright bribes in some societies--euphemistically known as "dowries.") (6) If I would indeed "be surprised" at just how much illegals from Mexico could pay, if necessary, to come to the US, why is it that so many of these illegals come here impoverished, after having crossed treacherous (and deadly!) terrain, on their way? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 30, 2014 1:50:45 GMT
(1) You may assert--quite correctly--that "the economy," in a macro sense, is, indeed, "a result of the 'collective.'" But we are dealing with individuals here, and their own (individual) economic fortunes. In any case, even the macroeconomy is emphatically not the product of government action (as it was, for instance, in the former Soviet Union--where it did not function especially well). (2) Where did United States vs. Wong Kim Ark (1898) ever declare that "statutory law cannot affect natural born citizenship in any manner"--even by "granting it"? (3) I agree that the history of money "has evolved over time," as you have noted. (4) I do not believe that the killing of an innocent--some would characterize it as murder--is an appropriate response to the desire to be free of the "involuntary obligation" of continuing a pregnancy for a few more weeks or months. Yes, some "common marriages today" are indeed about "men exploiting women" (I don't know if I would describe it as "many"), and some are based upon women exploiting men. But that is not the ideal. And it is, I believe, the exception--not the rule, as with polygamy. I do, however, agree with your (apparent) implication that marriage should be about the union of two equals--not about the "subordination" of one person to the other. (The biblical model, in this regard, was based upon a system that is no longer relevant; a system in which girls were considered a burden upon the family, as they could not do much physical labor, as was required at the time; therefore, they needed to be "married off" quickly, with the families of those brides offering outright bribes in some societies--euphemistically known as "dowries.") (6) If I would indeed "be surprised" at just how much illegals from Mexico could pay, if necessary, to come to the US, why is it that so many of these illegals come here impoverished, after having crossed treacherous (and deadly!) terrain, on their way?
1. Free market capitalism is based upon the "market" and the market is collective and not individual in nature. It is the result of all transactions and not an individual transaction.
2. Once agian you need to take the time to read and understand the arguments presented by the Supreme Court in the US v Kim Wong Ark but also understand that the ruling only addressed one law that denied Kim Wong Ark his "natural right of citizenship" and that is all the Court's ruling (not precedent) addressed. The entire Court's argument is based upon what is and what is not "natural born citizenship" although it's ruling only addressed the single statutory law. The US government does not define the Inalienable Rights of the Person through enumeration (ref 9th Amendment) and "natural born citizen" refers to the "natural" and not "statutory" right of citizenship. Can you explain so many ignore the word "natural" in the term "natural born citizen" as used in Article II. If the authors of the Constitution wanted to include "statutory citizenship" they would have said so.
3. Yes but even today "lawful money" is still a commodity (gold, silver, and copper, with platinum recently added) under the US Constitution and US statutory law.
4. Murder is the violation of the Right to Life of the Person so personhood is imparative to the issue.
Marriage, from the government's perspective and interest, is a personal/financial partnership and should be governed under the "Law of Contract for Partnerships" which is non-discriminatory and protects the Rights of the Person involved in the partnership. Anyone that can legally enter into a partnership should be allowed to marry whoever and how many others are willing to enter into the partnership just like in business and the government should only be concerned with protecting their rights.
6. Thousand of "illegal" immigrants end up impoverished when they enter the United States because they spend thousands of dollars paying "coyotes" to get them to and across the border into the United States. Everytime you read the story of a van load of illegals being busted they spent thousands of dollars to be in that van. Those tranportation costs are not being offered free of charge.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 30, 2014 23:28:36 GMT
(1) You may assert--quite correctly--that "the economy," in a macro sense, is, indeed, "a result of the 'collective.'" But we are dealing with individuals here, and their own (individual) economic fortunes. In any case, even the macroeconomy is emphatically not the product of government action (as it was, for instance, in the former Soviet Union--where it did not function especially well). (2) Where did United States vs. Wong Kim Ark (1898) ever declare that "statutory law cannot affect natural born citizenship in any manner"--even by "granting it"? (3) I agree that the history of money "has evolved over time," as you have noted. (4) I do not believe that the killing of an innocent--some would characterize it as murder--is an appropriate response to the desire to be free of the "involuntary obligation" of continuing a pregnancy for a few more weeks or months. Yes, some "common marriages today" are indeed about "men exploiting women" (I don't know if I would describe it as "many"), and some are based upon women exploiting men. But that is not the ideal. And it is, I believe, the exception--not the rule, as with polygamy. I do, however, agree with your (apparent) implication that marriage should be about the union of two equals--not about the "subordination" of one person to the other. (The biblical model, in this regard, was based upon a system that is no longer relevant; a system in which girls were considered a burden upon the family, as they could not do much physical labor, as was required at the time; therefore, they needed to be "married off" quickly, with the families of those brides offering outright bribes in some societies--euphemistically known as "dowries.") (6) If I would indeed "be surprised" at just how much illegals from Mexico could pay, if necessary, to come to the US, why is it that so many of these illegals come here impoverished, after having crossed treacherous (and deadly!) terrain, on their way?
1. Free market capitalism is based upon the "market" and the market is collective and not individual in nature. It is the result of all transactions and not an individual transaction.
2. Once agian you need to take the time to read and understand the arguments presented by the Supreme Court in the US v Kim Wong Ark but also understand that the ruling only addressed one law that denied Kim Wong Ark his "natural right of citizenship" and that is all the Court's ruling (not precedent) addressed. The entire Court's argument is based upon what is and what is not "natural born citizenship" although it's ruling only addressed the single statutory law. The US government does not define the Inalienable Rights of the Person through enumeration (ref 9th Amendment) and "natural born citizen" refers to the "natural" and not "statutory" right of citizenship. Can you explain so many ignore the word "natural" in the term "natural born citizen" as used in Article II. If the authors of the Constitution wanted to include "statutory citizenship" they would have said so.
3. Yes but even today "lawful money" is still a commodity (gold, silver, and copper, with platinum recently added) under the US Constitution and US statutory law.
4. Murder is the violation of the Right to Life of the Person so personhood is imparative to the issue.
Marriage, from the government's perspective and interest, is a personal/financial partnership and should be governed under the "Law of Contract for Partnerships" which is non-discriminatory and protects the Rights of the Person involved in the partnership. Anyone that can legally enter into a partnership should be allowed to marry whoever and how many others are willing to enter into the partnership just like in business and the government should only be concerned with protecting their rights.
6. Thousand of "illegal" immigrants end up impoverished when they enter the United States because they spend thousands of dollars paying "coyotes" to get them to and across the border into the United States. Everytime you read the story of a van load of illegals being busted they spent thousands of dollars to be in that van. Those tranportation costs are not being offered free of charge.
(1) Yes, the market is, indeed, "collective" in the sense of its being comprised of many individuals. But these individuals are not in collusion with each other. In fact, most do not even know each other. They may even live on opposite sides of the country, or even in different countries. So the free market is really a collection of individuals, rather than a single-minded entity. (2) There is really no such classification as "statutory" citizenship. All citizens of the US are either natural-born citizens or--alternatively-- naturalized citizens. (3) I am not really sure where we might differ here. (4) Even if you do not consider it murder, the killing of an unborn child is exactly that: the killing of a an unborn child. How might that be justified as an appropriate response to the temporary limitations imposed by pregnancy (for a few more weeks or a few more months)? (6) Yes, many illegals do, indeed, come to America (over some very treacherous land!) with the assistance of "coyotes"--whose services are far from free. Sometimes the price may not even be measured in dollars (or pesos), but in human lives; some of which are lost in the process. But even those who arrive in the US, safely, are very seldom wealthy. They probably did not merely withdraw the thousands of dollars necessary from their respective Emergency Funds at the bank; it is much more probable that they scrimped and saved assiduoualy for a very long while, in order to come up with the requisite money. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 31, 2014 10:36:10 GMT
(1) Yes, the market is, indeed, "collective" in the sense of its being comprised of many individuals. But these individuals are not in collusion with each other. In fact, most do not even know each other. They may even live on opposite sides of the country, or even in different countries. So the free market is really a collection of individuals, rather than a single-minded entity. (2) There is really no such classification as "statutory" citizenship. All citizens of the US are either natural-born citizens or--alternatively-- naturalized citizens. (3) I am not really sure where we might differ here. (4) Even if you do not consider it murder, the killing of an unborn child is exactly that: the killing of a an unborn child. How might that be justified as an appropriate response to the temporary limitations imposed by pregnancy (for a few more weeks or a few more months)? (6) Yes, many illegals do, indeed, come to America (over some very treacherous land!) with the assistance of "coyotes"--whose services are far from free. Sometimes the price may not even be measured in dollars (or pesos), but in human lives; some of which are lost in the process. But even those who arrive in the US, safely, are very seldom wealthy. They probably did not merely withdraw the thousands of dollars necessary from their respective Emergency Funds at the bank; it is much more probable that they scrimped and saved assiduoualy for a very long while, in order to come up with the requisite money.
1. The individual employer, in hiring, uses the "collective market forces" as a form of coercion related to employment. The unemployed without financial resourses cannot afford to refuse employment, period, and the employers take full advantage of that fact based upon Caplitalism (which is the collective) as a form of coercion to force a person to work for less than it costs for the person to survive. The individual (owner) uses the collective even if they're unaware of it.
We can note that "coercion" in a contract voids the contract but, of course, the individual cannot file a lawsuit based upon the inherent coercion of capitalism.
In any case market capitalism is based upon the collective, not the individual, and to address it's failures it can only logically be addressed by the collective.
2. Anyone that obtains their citizenship under Title 8 is a "statutory" citizen and all individuals that obtain their citizenship under the provisions of Title 8 are "naturalized" citizens based upon the power of Congress to create uniform laws of naturalization. Only individuals born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are "natural born citizens" as their citizenship is NOT established by statutory law (Title 8).
3. We can apparently drop this one as we did with "5" before.
4. A child is a person but the preborn are not persons. As I've noted I'm sympathetic to changing "personhood" to include the fetus at natural viability but that is a matter of individual opinion and it would not alter the basic decision from Roe v Wade. The term "child in the womb" was a slang expression (i.e. scientists would refer to the fetus) created by anti-abortionists to imply that which is not true under the US Constitution without any fundamental meaning. The Constitution does not refer to the "child" and the word has no meaning from a Constitutional perspective.
6. Yes, millions of "illegal" immigrants skrimped and save up every peso in order to pay the costs of illegally coming to the United States and they arrive here without any money...... and it costs them one hell of a lot more than simply purchasing airfare from Mexico City to Denver.
|
|
