|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 27, 2015 2:01:05 GMT
I like your story. (I am guessing that "1,700 milligrams" sounds like far more, to many people, than "1.7 grams" does. It is just a matter of advertising: A product, for instance, that may result in "up to" a certain amount usually will result in much less. But many people do not apparently notice the "up to" part, and focus merely upon the number cited.) I would imagine that your belief in the "disenfranchisement of the voters, predominantly black US citizens," is largely about voter-ID laws that you consider inapproppriate, but that I consider essential to our having fair elections. To claim that racism may not be "overt," but that it is racism nonetheless, because of "centuries of economic oppression of blacks," seems like a genuflection in the direction of social justice; and, of course, its handmaiden, Marxism.
Yes, there is "propagnada" in our criminal justice system in an effort to sway the jury and the last person the prosecutor, and sometimes the defense attorney, may want is someone that is a critical thinker. That's really a pity but it's because both sides try to sway the decision of the jury with BS as opposed to facts in many cases.
I would ask you to remember a fact. All of the Jim Crow voting laws in the South were rationalized based upon arguments relating to "fair" elections. No, I'm not just referring to voter ID laws that really don't make much sense because voter impersonation is statistically irrelevant to our electorial process. Never once in my lifetime has voter impersonation at the polls ever been cited in a challenge to election results. Not once. That is not to say that it doesn't occur but voter impersonation has been associated with absentee ballots where a spouse would vote in lieu of the registered voter often when the registered voted had passed away. Voter ID laws don't address absentee ballots where voter impersonation is typically occuring in the US. Americans may lie about a lot of things but they one thing they don't seem to lie about is who they are when they go to vote. There have been many other voting laws that also disenfranchise US citizens from voting as well. Elimination or reductions in allowing early voting happens to be one of those that has also been implemented in some states.
Karl Marx addressed social justice but it wasn't his brainchild. The concept of social justice has it's roots with Greek philosophers. Of course we can look at what it actually refers to.
Social Justice Law & Legal Definition
Social justice is justice that follows the principle that all individuals and groups are entitle to fair and impartial treatment. Social justice attempts to prevent human rights abuses. Social justice is based on notions of equality and equal opportunity in society. It focuses on the full and equal participation of all citizens in economic, social and political aspects of the nation. Social justice can also refer to advantages and disadvantages distributed in a society. Social justice derives its authority from the codes of morality in each culture and differs from culture to culture. United Nation’s objectives of social justice policies include social, economic and cultural rights, including right to an adequate standard of living; right to work and equal pay for equal work; right to education; and right of minorities to enjoy their own religion, language and culture.
definitions.uslegal.com/s/social-justice/
I have underlined the key definition of social justice as the balance can vary from culture to culture (as noted in the definition). By isolating the key definition (i.e. the underlined part) I'd ask you what specfically do you object to in that part of the definition?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 27, 2015 2:07:34 GMT
BTW - I've not read of any insurance company bailouts based upon Obamacare which was the original issue for this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 28, 2015 18:50:07 GMT
I like your story. (I am guessing that "1,700 milligrams" sounds like far more, to many people, than "1.7 grams" does. It is just a matter of advertising: A product, for instance, that may result in "up to" a certain amount usually will result in much less. But many people do not apparently notice the "up to" part, and focus merely upon the number cited.) I would imagine that your belief in the "disenfranchisement of the voters, predominantly black US citizens," is largely about voter-ID laws that you consider inapproppriate, but that I consider essential to our having fair elections. To claim that racism may not be "overt," but that it is racism nonetheless, because of "centuries of economic oppression of blacks," seems like a genuflection in the direction of social justice; and, of course, its handmaiden, Marxism.
Yes, there is "propagnada" in our criminal justice system in an effort to sway the jury and the last person the prosecutor, and sometimes the defense attorney, may want is someone that is a critical thinker. That's really a pity but it's because both sides try to sway the decision of the jury with BS as opposed to facts in many cases.
I would ask you to remember a fact. All of the Jim Crow voting laws in the South were rationalized based upon arguments relating to "fair" elections. No, I'm not just referring to voter ID laws that really don't make much sense because voter impersonation is statistically irrelevant to our electorial process. Never once in my lifetime has voter impersonation at the polls ever been cited in a challenge to election results. Not once. That is not to say that it doesn't occur but voter impersonation has been associated with absentee ballots where a spouse would vote in lieu of the registered voter often when the registered voted had passed away. Voter ID laws don't address absentee ballots where voter impersonation is typically occuring in the US. Americans may lie about a lot of things but they one thing they don't seem to lie about is who they are when they go to vote. There have been many other voting laws that also disenfranchise US citizens from voting as well. Elimination or reductions in allowing early voting happens to be one of those that has also been implemented in some states.
Karl Marx addressed social justice but it wasn't his brainchild. The concept of social justice has it's roots with Greek philosophers. Of course we can look at what it actually refers to.
Social Justice Law & Legal Definition
Social justice is justice that follows the principle that all individuals and groups are entitle to fair and impartial treatment. Social justice attempts to prevent human rights abuses. Social justice is based on notions of equality and equal opportunity in society. It focuses on the full and equal participation of all citizens in economic, social and political aspects of the nation. Social justice can also refer to advantages and disadvantages distributed in a society. Social justice derives its authority from the codes of morality in each culture and differs from culture to culture. United Nation’s objectives of social justice policies include social, economic and cultural rights, including right to an adequate standard of living; right to work and equal pay for equal work; right to education; and right of minorities to enjoy their own religion, language and culture.
definitions.uslegal.com/s/social-justice/
I have underlined the key definition of social justice as the balance can vary from culture to culture (as noted in the definition). By isolating the key definition (i.e. the underlined part) I'd ask you what specfically do you object to in that part of the definition?
The reference to the "prevent[ion] of human rights abuses" is very vague. ( What "abuses," exactly?) The assertion that "groups" are "entitle[d] to fair and impartial treatment" is also objectionable, since I emphatically do not believe in the general concept of "group rights." Only individuals have rights--not groups. (See the US Constitution.) The desire for "equality...in society" is surely a nod in the direction of egalitarianism. And I am no egalitarian. I believe in individual achievement, totally uninhibited by the state. And (although it is not a part of that which has been underlined) the UN's requirement of the "right to an adequate standard of living" is also very objectionable to me, as it tacitly declares that the state must enhance the welfare of its citizens, rather than just getting out of the way. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 29, 2015 14:11:57 GMT
Social Justice Law & Legal Definition
Social justice is justice that follows the principle that all individuals and groups are entitle to fair and impartial treatment. Social justice attempts to prevent human rights abuses. Social justice is based on notions of equality and equal opportunity in society. It focuses on the full and equal participation of all citizens in economic, social and political aspects of the nation. Social justice can also refer to advantages and disadvantages distributed in a society. Social justice derives its authority from the codes of morality in each culture and differs from culture to culture. United Nation’s objectives of social justice policies include social, economic and cultural rights, including right to an adequate standard of living; right to work and equal pay for equal work; right to education; and right of minorities to enjoy their own religion, language and culture.
definitions.uslegal.com/s/social-justice/
I have underlined the key definition of social justice as the balance can vary from culture to culture (as noted in the definition). By isolating the key definition (i.e. the underlined part) I'd ask you what specfically do you object to in that part of the definition?
The reference to the "prevent[ion] of human rights abuses" is very vague. ( What "abuses," exactly?) The assertion that "groups" are "entitle[d] to fair and impartial treatment" is also objectionable, since I emphatically do not believe in the general concept of "group rights." Only individuals have rights--not groups. (See the US Constitution.) The desire for "equality...in society" is surely a nod in the direction of egalitarianism. And I am no egalitarian. I believe in individual achievement, totally uninhibited by the state. And (although it is not a part of that which has been underlined) the UN's requirement of the "right to an adequate standard of living" is also very objectionable to me, as it tacitly declares that the state must enhance the welfare of its citizens, rather than just getting out of the way.
When you refer to "human rights abuses" you're referring to what Social Justice attempts to prevent and not what it attempts to achieve. We don't need to be concerned about what the definition of "human rights abuses" are because it is assumed that they will not exist by default if "Social Justice" achieves what it sets out to accomplish (i.e. Social justice is based on notions of equality and equal opportunity in society. It focuses on the full and equal participation of all citizens in economic, social and political aspects of the nation.)
The definition of "Social Justice" does refer to "groups" but only in the context of "all citizens" but I would go further to state "all persons" living under the authority of government. The only time a "group" is worthy of consideration is when the injustice is being perpetuated against a group as the "group" is comprised of many individuals all of which are being denied social justice. The violations are against the individual but we do "group" them because the violation is against all in the group. For example instead of referring to blacks being subjected to racial discrimination universally we could refer to roughly 40 million individual Americans (i.e. blacks) being discriminated against because of the color of their skin. Would that make you feel better about addressing it?
Remember the group "black" was created by the racists and that's why we use it today. If it wasn't for anti-black racial discrimination there would be no group identified as "black" or "African-American" to refer to. My father was Danish-American and my mother was English-American but we don't hear anything about those "groups" when it comes to social injustice because they're not discriminated against in the United States (because both are included in the WASP group that isn't discriminted against based upon skin color or religion).
What the UN states is irrelevant to the concept and definition of "Social Justice" which is why I excluded it from consideration.
So once again, ignoring what Social Justice attempts to prevent and addressing the fact that is based upon the individual and not a group then what objections do you have to what Social Justice seeks to achieve. Focus on these two lines:
"Social justice is based on notions of equality and equal opportunity in society. It focuses on the full and equal participation of all citizens in economic, social and political aspects of the nation."
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 2, 2015 19:08:19 GMT
The reference to the "prevent[ion] of human rights abuses" is very vague. ( What "abuses," exactly?) The assertion that "groups" are "entitle[d] to fair and impartial treatment" is also objectionable, since I emphatically do not believe in the general concept of "group rights." Only individuals have rights--not groups. (See the US Constitution.) The desire for "equality...in society" is surely a nod in the direction of egalitarianism. And I am no egalitarian. I believe in individual achievement, totally uninhibited by the state. And (although it is not a part of that which has been underlined) the UN's requirement of the "right to an adequate standard of living" is also very objectionable to me, as it tacitly declares that the state must enhance the welfare of its citizens, rather than just getting out of the way.
When you refer to "human rights abuses" you're referring to what Social Justice attempts to prevent and not what it attempts to achieve. We don't need to be concerned about what the definition of "human rights abuses" are because it is assumed that they will not exist by default if "Social Justice" achieves what it sets out to accomplish (i.e. Social justice is based on notions of equality and equal opportunity in society. It focuses on the full and equal participation of all citizens in economic, social and political aspects of the nation.)
The definition of "Social Justice" does refer to "groups" but only in the context of "all citizens" but I would go further to state "all persons" living under the authority of government. The only time a "group" is worthy of consideration is when the injustice is being perpetuated against a group as the "group" is comprised of many individuals all of which are being denied social justice. The violations are against the individual but we do "group" them because the violation is against all in the group. For example instead of referring to blacks being subjected to racial discrimination universally we could refer to roughly 40 million individual Americans (i.e. blacks) being discriminated against because of the color of their skin. Would that make you feel better about addressing it?
Remember the group "black" was created by the racists and that's why we use it today. If it wasn't for anti-black racial discrimination there would be no group identified as "black" or "African-American" to refer to. My father was Danish-American and my mother was English-American but we don't hear anything about those "groups" when it comes to social injustice because they're not discriminated against in the United States (because both are included in the WASP group that isn't discriminted against based upon skin color or religion).
What the UN states is irrelevant to the concept and definition of "Social Justice" which is why I excluded it from consideration.
So once again, ignoring what Social Justice attempts to prevent and addressing the fact that is based upon the individual and not a group then what objections do you have to what Social Justice seeks to achieve. Focus on these two lines:
"Social justice is based on notions of equality and equal opportunity in society. It focuses on the full and equal participation of all citizens in economic, social and political aspects of the nation."
I strenuously object to the implicit view that "all citizens" are automatically subject to the whims of society; and that some concept of "social justice," therefore, must ride to the rescue. The fundamental problem with pre-civil-rights-era America was not the racist attitudes that abounded then--they were deeply deplorable; but they also should not have been a concern of the state--but rather, the Jim Crow laws of the day. (Yes, those laws arose from those attitudes; but that is really not the point. It was never the proper function of government to attempt to root out the bad attitudes--but merely to change the laws, so that all Americans were treated equally.) You are correct in noting that the terms, "Danish-American" and "English-American," are not often used, as "African-American" is. And I would imagine that this is for precisely the reason that you have cited: i.e. that there is no history of discrimination, in America, against Danish-Americans or English-Americans. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 3, 2015 15:28:22 GMT
I strenuously object to the implicit view that "all citizens" are automatically subject to the whims of society; and that some concept of "social justice," therefore, must ride to the rescue. The fundamental problem with pre-civil-rights-era America was not the racist attitudes that abounded then--they were deeply deplorable; but they also should not have been a concern of the state--but rather, the Jim Crow laws of the day. (Yes, those laws arose from those attitudes; but that is really not the point. It was never the proper function of government to attempt to root out the bad attitudes--but merely to change the laws, so that all Americans were treated equally.) You are correct in noting that the terms, "Danish-American" and "English-American," are not often used, as "African-American" is. And I would imagine that this is for precisely the reason that you have cited: i.e. that there is no history of discrimination, in America, against Danish-Americans or English-Americans.
It appears that you've overlooked the very reason for government in the United States. Our government was not created to protect us from the violations of our rights by goverment but instead to protect us from the violations of our rights by others in society.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
The Jim Crow laws of the South were merely a manifestation of the anti-black racism and it was the racism in society that caused the violations of the rights of the blacks in the South (and throughout the virtually all of the United States today).
The very foundation and primary purpose of government is based upon establishing social justice as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Our government exists expressly to prevent the violations of our Inalienable Rights by other individuals in society and that is exactly what social justice is all about.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 4, 2015 20:03:25 GMT
I strenuously object to the implicit view that "all citizens" are automatically subject to the whims of society; and that some concept of "social justice," therefore, must ride to the rescue. The fundamental problem with pre-civil-rights-era America was not the racist attitudes that abounded then--they were deeply deplorable; but they also should not have been a concern of the state--but rather, the Jim Crow laws of the day. (Yes, those laws arose from those attitudes; but that is really not the point. It was never the proper function of government to attempt to root out the bad attitudes--but merely to change the laws, so that all Americans were treated equally.) You are correct in noting that the terms, "Danish-American" and "English-American," are not often used, as "African-American" is. And I would imagine that this is for precisely the reason that you have cited: i.e. that there is no history of discrimination, in America, against Danish-Americans or English-Americans.
It appears that you've overlooked the very reason for government in the United States. Our government was not created to protect us from the violations of our rights by goverment but instead to protect us from the violations of our rights by others in society.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
The Jim Crow laws of the South were merely a manifestation of the anti-black racism and it was the racism in society that caused the violations of the rights of the blacks in the South (and throughout the virtually all of the United States today).
The very foundation and primary purpose of government is based upon establishing social justice as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Our government exists expressly to prevent the violations of our Inalienable Rights by other individuals in society and that is exactly what social justice is all about.
I have not "overlooked" anything. (And I am far more fearful of our government than I am of society in general.) Government is a necessary evil--nothing more and nothing less--since, without any government (in other words, under anarchy), chaos would prevail. But government is not inherently a good thing--in fact, it is really a bad thing--but it remains better than the alternative. (On this matter, I agree with Thomas Jefferson--or, some attribute the quote to Henry David Thoreau--that "[t]hat government is best which governs least.") By the way, even if I really believed that it is the proper function of government to try to change attitudes--and I do not!--it would simply be impossible, as a practical matter, for government to change those attitudes. They may indeed change, over time, for other reasons--but not because of government hectoring. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 5, 2015 14:49:24 GMT
I have not "overlooked" anything. (And I am far more fearful of our government than I am of society in general.) Government is a necessary evil--nothing more and nothing less--since, without any government (in other words, under anarchy), chaos would prevail. But government is not inherently a good thing--in fact, it is really a bad thing--but it remains better than the alternative. (On this matter, I agree with Thomas Jefferson--or, some attribute the quote to Henry David Thoreau--that "[t]hat government is best which governs least.") By the way, even if I really believed that it is the proper function of government to try to change attitudes--and I do not!--it would simply be impossible, as a practical matter, for government to change those attitudes. They may indeed change, over time, for other reasons--but not because of government hectoring.
The quotation that "government is a necessary evil" highlights the fact that "society is a worse evil" without any government.
Yes, government is best when it governs least except when it doesn't restrain or mitigate the evil of society. A government that fails to restrain or mitigate the evils of society is not the best government.
For example we require environmental regulation because there are those in society that historically violated the rights of the people of America to a clean environment. It would be far better if individuals didn't destroy the environment because we wouldn't require environmental regulation but history has proven the regulation by government is necessary. The argument is also valid that we require even greater environmental regulation because there are enterprised today that pollute when the technology exists to prevent the pollution. The pollution of the land, water, and air is a violation of the "rights of the people" and while there can be an economic necessity for limited pollution based upon compelling arguments there are no compelling arguments for unnecessary pollution that can be prevented by "off-the-shelf" technology.
It is absolutely true that the government cannot pragmatically change the attitudes of the people but it can mitigate the negative effects of those attitudes. The mitigation of the violations of the rights of the person, when those violations cannot be prevented, is virtually as important as the prevention. If the government can't "prevent the fire from starting" then at least the government can "put out the fire" when it happens. Government has both a responsibility to try and "prevent the fire" as well as to "extinquish the fire" when it can't prevent it.
The "prevention and mitigation" of the violations of the Rights of the Person are both the responsibility of the "government that governs least and which governs best" in the above post. If it fails to do either to the best of it's ability then it's not the "best government" for the people.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 6, 2015 19:03:00 GMT
I have not "overlooked" anything. (And I am far more fearful of our government than I am of society in general.) Government is a necessary evil--nothing more and nothing less--since, without any government (in other words, under anarchy), chaos would prevail. But government is not inherently a good thing--in fact, it is really a bad thing--but it remains better than the alternative. (On this matter, I agree with Thomas Jefferson--or, some attribute the quote to Henry David Thoreau--that "[t]hat government is best which governs least.") By the way, even if I really believed that it is the proper function of government to try to change attitudes--and I do not!--it would simply be impossible, as a practical matter, for government to change those attitudes. They may indeed change, over time, for other reasons--but not because of government hectoring.
The quotation that "government is a necessary evil" highlights the fact that "society is a worse evil" without any government.
Yes, government is best when it governs least except when it doesn't restrain or mitigate the evil of society. A government that fails to restrain or mitigate the evils of society is not the best government.
For example we require environmental regulation because there are those in society that historically violated the rights of the people of America to a clean environment. It would be far better if individuals didn't destroy the environment because we wouldn't require environmental regulation but history has proven the regulation by government is necessary. The argument is also valid that we require even greater environmental regulation because there are enterprised today that pollute when the technology exists to prevent the pollution. The pollution of the land, water, and air is a violation of the "rights of the people" and while there can be an economic necessity for limited pollution based upon compelling arguments there are no compelling arguments for unnecessary pollution that can be prevented by "off-the-shelf" technology.
It is absolutely true that the government cannot pragmatically change the attitudes of the people but it can mitigate the negative effects of those attitudes. The mitigation of the violations of the rights of the person, when those violations cannot be prevented, is virtually as important as the prevention. If the government can't "prevent the fire from starting" then at least the government can "put out the fire" when it happens. Government has both a responsibility to try and "prevent the fire" as well as to "extinquish the fire" when it can't prevent it.
The "prevention and mitigation" of the violations of the Rights of the Person are both the responsibility of the "government that governs least and which governs best" in the above post. If it fails to do either to the best of it's ability then it's not the "best government" for the people.
Yes, I agree that government should "mitigate the negative effects of [racist] attitudes." That is what the civil-rights legislation of the 1960s was all about. And I wholeheartedly support legislation that bans discrimination based upon race. I suppose it "would be far better" if all people were morally and ethically perfect; but, of course, we know that this is not the case, and never shall be. I oppose the core concept of The High Regulation Society, regardless of the fact that humans are morally and ethically imperfect creatures. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 7, 2015 16:41:09 GMT
Yes, I agree that government should "mitigate the negative effects of [racist] attitudes." That is what the civil-rights legislation of the 1960s was all about. And I wholeheartedly support legislation that bans discrimination based upon race. I suppose it "would be far better" if all people were morally and ethically perfect; but, of course, we know that this is not the case, and never shall be. I oppose the core concept of The High Regulation Society, regardless of the fact that humans are morally and ethically imperfect creatures.
I just had a "jaw-dropping" moment in reading your first statement. Are you aware of the far-reaching impact this has? "Mitigating the violations of the inalienable rights of the person" by society with government interventionism has very far reaching effect that goes far beyond considerations of race. Much of my political ideology is based upon "mitigation" where the government is incapable of preventing violations of the rights of the person.
Yes, in a perfect world people wouldn't violate the rights of others but we live in a far from perfect world. I'm not an advocate for a "High Regulation Society" but the necessity for "Minimum Regulation" is predicated based upon the actions of those in society that violate the rights of others. The fewer violations the fewer regulations required to address and/or to mitigate the effects of the violations.
Are you sure you really support government's role to mitigate the actions of people that violate the rights of others? If you do then I will quote you on it in the future when I present an argument because most of my support for government action is based upon this.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 9, 2015 19:00:34 GMT
Yes, I agree that government should "mitigate the negative effects of [racist] attitudes." That is what the civil-rights legislation of the 1960s was all about. And I wholeheartedly support legislation that bans discrimination based upon race. I suppose it "would be far better" if all people were morally and ethically perfect; but, of course, we know that this is not the case, and never shall be. I oppose the core concept of The High Regulation Society, regardless of the fact that humans are morally and ethically imperfect creatures.
I just had a "jaw-dropping" moment in reading your first statement. Are you aware of the far-reaching impact this has? "Mitigating the violations of the inalienable rights of the person" by society with government interventionism has very far reaching effect that goes far beyond considerations of race. Much of my political ideology is based upon "mitigation" where the government is incapable of preventing violations of the rights of the person.
Yes, in a perfect world people wouldn't violate the rights of others but we live in a far from perfect world. I'm not an advocate for a "High Regulation Society" but the necessity for "Minimum Regulation" is predicated based upon the actions of those in society that violate the rights of others. The fewer violations the fewer regulations required to address and/or to mitigate the effects of the violations.
Are you sure you really support government's role to mitigate the actions of people that violate the rights of others? If you do then I will quote you on it in the future when I present an argument because most of my support for government action is based upon this.
Presumably, we do not agree as to the proper definition of "Minimum Regulation." (But very few people on the left actually admit to a desire for an enormous amount of regulation.) I am not sure what you mean, exactly, by the phrase, "government's role to mitigate the actions of people that violate the rights of others." I certainly support the laws that were passed in the 1960s to put an end to racial discrimination. And what do you mean, exactly, by the statement that much of your political ideology "is based upon 'mitigation' where the government is incapable of preventing violations of the rights of the person"? Is affirmative action an example of this? If not, then what, exactly, is? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 10, 2015 14:51:41 GMT
Presumably, we do not agree as to the proper definition of "Minimum Regulation." (But very few people on the left actually admit to a desire for an enormous amount of regulation.) I am not sure what you mean, exactly, by the phrase, "government's role to mitigate the actions of people that violate the rights of others." I certainly support the laws that were passed in the 1960s to put an end to racial discrimination. And what do you mean, exactly, by the statement that much of your political ideology "is based upon 'mitigation' where the government is incapable of preventing violations of the rights of the person"? Is affirmative action an example of this? If not, then what, exactly, is?
While I don't have your definition of "minimum regulation" I can provide a quick shot at my definition. From my perspective the "minimum regulation" required is that which is necessary to address and mitigate the negligent or intentional violations of the rights of the person. The vast majority of our laws address this.
Criminal laws that address murder, rape, assault and battery, robbery, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter all fall within this category while victimless crime laws such as the drug prohibition and anti-prostitution laws fall outside of this category.
OSHA regulations that seek to prevent and/or mitigate the unnessasary endangerment of the employee, either due to employer negligence or intent, that have been created based upon industry standards for safety, are necessary "minimum regulation" required.
Environmental standards that address the destruction of the environment and ecology, either due to employer negligence or intent, are also necessary "minimal" regulation" required.
Anti-trust laws where enterprise would use nefarious means to exploit the people economically are also necessary "minimal regulation" required.
That is not to imply that every law or regulation in the above categories is justifiable but the vast majority are. It also doesn't imply that there are enough laws and regulations in the above categories to prevent and/or mitigate the violations of the "rights of the people" but the criteria is what's most important.
I also find it interesting because you state that you supported the civil rights legislation of the 1960's but you don't support laws today that are intended to make those laws enforceable. For example the Equal Pay Act establishes a principle but history has shown that the criteria necessary for enforcement (i.e. the ability to bring a successful lawsuit) is grossly inadequate. When we establish a law that relies on individuals bringing a lawsuit for enforcement we must provide the legal criteria where they can establish their case but that criteria is lacking in the vast majority of cases where "equal pay" does not exist. The criteria today is fundamentally that an employer must self-incriminate themselves by documention estblishing that they intentionally discriminated. Of course it is very unlikely that an employer is going to actually write down that a person is denied equal pay because of their race or gender because they know better than to self-incriminate themselves. That would be like expecting a person that commits murder to write down that they committed murder under the advice of their attorney. Not likely to happen in either case.
So while you supported the civil rights laws of the 1960's I have to ask why you oppose the legislation necessary to make those laws enforceable.
Affirmative Action is clearly an issue of dispute but one fact related to it is clear. There has never been any statistical evidence of discrimination against whites, specifically white men, in the United States. The allegations that it creates anti-white (male) discrimination are contradicted by the fact that there is no statistical evidence of discrimination against whites or white men in the United States. Anecdotal cases notwithstanding Affirmative Action does not result in anti-white discrimination in the United States because that discrimination does not exist based upon statistical analysis. Also regardless of anecdotal cases anti-minority and anti-women discrimination does exist based upon statistical analysis.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 11, 2015 19:58:24 GMT
Presumably, we do not agree as to the proper definition of "Minimum Regulation." (But very few people on the left actually admit to a desire for an enormous amount of regulation.) I am not sure what you mean, exactly, by the phrase, "government's role to mitigate the actions of people that violate the rights of others." I certainly support the laws that were passed in the 1960s to put an end to racial discrimination. And what do you mean, exactly, by the statement that much of your political ideology "is based upon 'mitigation' where the government is incapable of preventing violations of the rights of the person"? Is affirmative action an example of this? If not, then what, exactly, is?
While I don't have your definition of "minimum regulation" I can provide a quick shot at my definition. From my perspective the "minimum regulation" required is that which is necessary to address and mitigate the negligent or intentional violations of the rights of the person. The vast majority of our laws address this.
Criminal laws that address murder, rape, assault and battery, robbery, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter all fall within this category while victimless crime laws such as the drug prohibition and anti-prostitution laws fall outside of this category.
OSHA regulations that seek to prevent and/or mitigate the unnessasary endangerment of the employee, either due to employer negligence or intent, that have been created based upon industry standards for safety, are necessary "minimum regulation" required.
Environmental standards that address the destruction of the environment and ecology, either due to employer negligence or intent, are also necessary "minimal" regulation" required.
Anti-trust laws where enterprise would use nefarious means to exploit the people economically are also necessary "minimal regulation" required.
That is not to imply that every law or regulation in the above categories is justifiable but the vast majority are. It also doesn't imply that there are enough laws and regulations in the above categories to prevent and/or mitigate the violations of the "rights of the people" but the criteria is what's most important.
I also find it interesting because you state that you supported the civil rights legislation of the 1960's but you don't support laws today that are intended to make those laws enforceable. For example the Equal Pay Act establishes a principle but history has shown that the criteria necessary for enforcement (i.e. the ability to bring a successful lawsuit) is grossly inadequate. When we establish a law that relies on individuals bringing a lawsuit for enforcement we must provide the legal criteria where they can establish their case but that criteria is lacking in the vast majority of cases where "equal pay" does not exist. The criteria today is fundamentally that an employer must self-incriminate themselves by documention estblishing that they intentionally discriminated. Of course it is very unlikely that an employer is going to actually write down that a person is denied equal pay because of their race or gender because they know better than to self-incriminate themselves. That would be like expecting a person that commits murder to write down that they committed murder under the advice of their attorney. Not likely to happen in either case.
So while you supported the civil rights laws of the 1960's I have to ask why you oppose the legislation necessary to make those laws enforceable.
Affirmative Action is clearly an issue of dispute but one fact related to it is clear. There has never been any statistical evidence of discrimination against whites, specifically white men, in the United States. The allegations that it creates anti-white (male) discrimination are contradicted by the fact that there is no statistical evidence of discrimination against whites or white men in the United States. Anecdotal cases notwithstanding Affirmative Action does not result in anti-white discrimination in the United States because that discrimination does not exist based upon statistical analysis. Also regardless of anecdotal cases anti-minority and anti-women discrimination does exist based upon statistical analysis.
Your "statistical analysis," presumably, is based upon averages. But specific individuals may indeed be harmed by affirmative-action policies. (If, for instance, a marginally qualified black person is hired, while a better qualified white person is turned away, the latter has been harmed through the practice of reverse discrimination--even if the "averages" show something else, entirely.) And are you saying that those who drafted the landmark civil-rights legislation in the 1960s simply did not understand that the laws they were creating would be "unenforceable" unless employers were to cooperate by "self-incriminat[ing]"? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 12, 2015 16:17:39 GMT
Your "statistical analysis," presumably, is based upon averages. But specific individuals may indeed be harmed by affirmative-action policies. (If, for instance, a marginally qualified black person is hired, while a better qualified white person is turned away, the latter has been harmed through the practice of reverse discrimination--even if the "averages" show something else, entirely.) And are you saying that those who drafted the landmark civil-rights legislation in the 1960s simply did not understand that the laws they were creating would be "unenforceable" unless employers were to cooperate by "self-incriminat[ing]"?
Are you harmed if a person that is only marginally qualified for a mortgage is sold a home that you wanted to buy even though you have far more income? You are not disparaged at all because you can simply go and purchase another home. On the flip side of is person is routinely denied the ability to purchase a home regardless of their qualifications because of racial discrimination then they are harmed.
Of course those "whites" that are denied a college admission (not a part of federal affirmative action) or denied a job by a government contractor (or subcontractor) are also "marginally qualified" based upon the AA guidelines. A white person with significantly superior qualifications is never denied employment based upon AA. And even for these "marginally qualifed" whites they can always obtain a job and "Company B" if "Company A" denies them employment due to AA because whites are not discriminated against in employment. Statistically the equally qualified black person denied employment based upon racial discrimination cannot obtain employment at either "Company A" or "Company B" and that causes them harm.
You perhaps need to be reminded that the Federal AA guidelines do not create quotas nor do they require federal contractors to employ minorities.
The Federal AA guidelines only require federal contractors to have policies and procedures in place designed to eliminate racial preferences in hiring, compensation and promotion related to employment. There are no AA requirements for the employer to choose a lesser qualified person over a more qualified person. There are certainly cases where private and government entities misrepresent the AA guidelines in their policies and procedures.
The Equal Pay Act made assumptions related to the viability of success in pay discrimination lawsuits but did not anticipate how difficult it would be to establish discriminatory pay practices. That is only something that can be established after many thousands of cases are heard by the courts and historically we've learned that we needed additional criteria to provide a foundation for these lawsuits to be successful.
Here's something we can perhaps agree upon. When the government addresses a problem it should start out with a minimalistic approach as opposed to slamming it with a sledgehammer sort of like addressing the destruction of a brick wall. Start with a little hammer and if that doesn't knock down the wall get a bigger hammer. We don't want to start with a bulldozer that destroys the whole neighborhood but we do want to eventually destroy the wall. If the original Equal Pay Law of 1963 doesn't eliminate discriminatory pay practices because the "legal foundation" wasn't strong enough then we need to increase the "legal foundation" for the lawsuits.
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 addressed a known problem that we needed to "sneak up" on to prevent "government over-reach" in the intitial law. While there have been some improvements based upon the initial law the evidence reflects that we need to expand the foundation for it to further reduce pay discrimination in America. It's time to get a slightly bigger hammer.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 16, 2015 19:12:26 GMT
Your "statistical analysis," presumably, is based upon averages. But specific individuals may indeed be harmed by affirmative-action policies. (If, for instance, a marginally qualified black person is hired, while a better qualified white person is turned away, the latter has been harmed through the practice of reverse discrimination--even if the "averages" show something else, entirely.) And are you saying that those who drafted the landmark civil-rights legislation in the 1960s simply did not understand that the laws they were creating would be "unenforceable" unless employers were to cooperate by "self-incriminat[ing]"?
Are you harmed if a person that is only marginally qualified for a mortgage is sold a home that you wanted to buy even though you have far more income? You are not disparaged at all because you can simply go and purchase another home. On the flip side of is person is routinely denied the ability to purchase a home regardless of their qualifications because of racial discrimination then they are harmed.
Of course those "whites" that are denied a college admission (not a part of federal affirmative action) or denied a job by a government contractor (or subcontractor) are also "marginally qualified" based upon the AA guidelines. A white person with significantly superior qualifications is never denied employment based upon AA. And even for these "marginally qualifed" whites they can always obtain a job and "Company B" if "Company A" denies them employment due to AA because whites are not discriminated against in employment. Statistically the equally qualified black person denied employment based upon racial discrimination cannot obtain employment at either "Company A" or "Company B" and that causes them harm.
You perhaps need to be reminded that the Federal AA guidelines do not create quotas nor do they require federal contractors to employ minorities.
The Federal AA guidelines only require federal contractors to have policies and procedures in place designed to eliminate racial preferences in hiring, compensation and promotion related to employment. There are no AA requirements for the employer to choose a lesser qualified person over a more qualified person. There are certainly cases where private and government entities misrepresent the AA guidelines in their policies and procedures.
The Equal Pay Act made assumptions related to the viability of success in pay discrimination lawsuits but did not anticipate how difficult it would be to establish discriminatory pay practices. That is only something that can be established after many thousands of cases are heard by the courts and historically we've learned that we needed additional criteria to provide a foundation for these lawsuits to be successful.
Here's something we can perhaps agree upon. When the government addresses a problem it should start out with a minimalistic approach as opposed to slamming it with a sledgehammer sort of like addressing the destruction of a brick wall. Start with a little hammer and if that doesn't knock down the wall get a bigger hammer. We don't want to start with a bulldozer that destroys the whole neighborhood but we do want to eventually destroy the wall. If the original Equal Pay Law of 1963 doesn't eliminate discriminatory pay practices because the "legal foundation" wasn't strong enough then we need to increase the "legal foundation" for the lawsuits.
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 addressed a known problem that we needed to "sneak up" on to prevent "government over-reach" in the intitial law. While there have been some improvements based upon the initial law the evidence reflects that we need to expand the foundation for it to further reduce pay discrimination in America. It's time to get a slightly bigger hammer.
What is your evidence, exactly, that there is widespread "pay discrimination in America" today? Perhaps federal guidelines for affirmative action contain no requirements for "the employer to choose a lesser qualified person over a more qualified one"; but that is often the net result, since many employers will bend over backwards to comply with the law, in order to avoid being sued. Your lack of any sympathy for "marginally qualified whites," when compared with "equally qualified blacks," is really very telling. Why, you have declared that the former can easily obtain employment elsewhere; so, no big deal, really, if they are denied employment at "Company A." |
|
