03 Feb 13
Originally posted by whodey"Also, I think this type of distrust is a new phenomenon in the US. Never before has distrust been so high."
The youth of the country don't think this way. They think just the opposite. For them, Big Brother is cool.
Do you think it will carry over into their adult lives or will life experience reshape them as it seems to have the adults of the country?
Also, I think this type of distrust is a new phenomenon in the US. Never before has distrust been so high ...[text shortened]... s, in a "free" society, can propoganda continue to succeed in reshaping the next generation?
Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington held similar views.
03 Feb 13
Originally posted by JS357Any time rights have to have a prefix: womens, gay, name an ethnicity, etc. we are no longer speaking of civil rights, but of special privilege.
I think youthful idealism tends toward the liberal side (after perhaps a foray into Ayn Randism) so we should not read too much into the current crop of youth tending to support a liberal government.
The report indicates some distrust concerning rights and some distrust concerning government competence/honesty/corruption. These kinds of distrust are not new ...[text shortened]... being threatened by government too. Gay rights, women's right to choose, invasion of privacy.
03 Feb 13
Originally posted by JS357The left/right and even conservative/liberal dichotomies seem lost and useless today. They are useful only to demagogues of the political classes, and I think you are correct that the distrust is promoted by both parties, hoping that people will distrust one more than the other, and not decipher that both are leading to the same endgame.
In the 60's the young radicals were mostly on the left (and/or were depicted as such by the rightist establishment). Now, the left is the establishment. (Some on the left would say it's center-left.) But then and now, the young were to the left more than the right. That's what I meant.
Personally I think distrust of government is being promoted by the parti ...[text shortened]... les of reasons to distrust, to look back to, today, compared with the early post WWII period.
It was very similar in the Progressive era beginning with T. Roosevelt (R) and continuing with W. Wilson (D) whose policies and ideas differed precious little.
As to reasons to distrust, they aren't new. Power seeking Presidents have led us into war again and again. Wilson wanted into WWI, and FDR wanted into WWII. Since then Presidents have sought out wars, and a senior adviser to President Clinton shortly after 9/11 lamented that Clinton had no such opportunity during his relatively peaceful years, if we ignore bombing the crap out of Baghdad.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
03 Feb 13
Originally posted by normbenignThat's an interesting perspective which forces attention to whether the members of "prefix" groups are seeking special privilege. For example are gays seeking special privilege to marry or to serve openly in the armed forces? Were women seeking special privilege to vote?
Any time rights have to have a prefix: womens, gay, name an ethnicity, etc. we are no longer speaking of civil rights, but of special privilege.
What this thinking precipitates is discussion of which larger group they belong in. There was a time when Africans were considered property, not human or persons, in terms of constitutional rights. Do they belong to the group that does have those rights, or are they seeking special treatment over the horses and hens?
03 Feb 13
Originally posted by JS357The correct approach if a group is being excluded from proper rights, the best examples are africans being excluded from "human" rights, and women from voting rights, also a "human" right.
That's an interesting perspective which forces attention to whether the members of "prefix" groups are seeking special privilege. For example are gays seeking special privilege to marry or to serve openly in the armed forces? Were women seeking special privilege to vote?
What this thinking precipitates is discussion of which larger group they belong in. The ...[text shortened]... that does have those rights, or are they seeking special treatment over the horses and hens?
No special privilege was granted, in either case, but the limitations on that group were removed.
That leaves gays, and the question of whether they are denied a "human" right by not being included in marriage, or open military service.
Marriage if it is a "human" right, has a particular definition, and by choosing another life course that right isn't abridged. Military service, I find hard to identify as a right of any kind. Some would call it a duty, but it has always been restricted by age, gender, physical fitness, a host of specific requirements for service.
So, I'll stick with my proposition that civil rights ought not be prefixed by any particular description, but apply to all humans alike.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
03 Feb 13
2 edits
Originally posted by normbenignMany things ought not be. When the exercise of certain human rights is denied to people who share a common characteristic, and there is a movement against that denial, then those people, their opponents, the media, and historians will tend to use a prefix that identifies the movement. I am sure you agree that this in itself is not a rational basis for rejecting the demands of those people to have their alleged human rights respected.
The correct approach if a group is being excluded from proper rights, the best examples are africans being excluded from "human" rights, and women from voting rights, also a "human" right.
No special privilege was granted, in either case, but the limitations on that group were removed.
That leaves gays, and the question of whether they are denied a ts ought not be prefixed by any particular description, but apply to all humans alike.
Thus we get the women's suffrage movement and the civil rights movement, the latter generally reserved to describe the movement that culminated in the civil rights acts of the 1960s. Using those prefixes does not diminish (or enhance) the legitimacy of the movement. What needs to be looked at are the allegations and demands.
I won't go astray into the rights movements for gay marriage or open military service.
03 Feb 13
Originally posted by JS357Ultimately, what good thing that came out of the civil rights movement, and the suffrage movement were the removal of special privilege, not the few cases where privileges were added to the aggrieved group. New special privileges, simply spread out inequality and discrimination so that now it is felt by a wider range of people.
Many things ought not be. When the exercise of certain human rights is denied to people who share a common characteristic, and there is a movement against that denial, then those people, their opponents, the media, and historians will tend to use a prefix that identifies the movement. I am sure you agree that this in itself is not a rational basis for rejectin ...[text shortened]... nds.
I won't go astray into the rights movements for gay marriage or open military service.
For example, affirmative action, while seemingly justified hasn't really levelled any playing field. It created a new special privilege, instead of removing entirely the old one. Often the beneficiaries of it were others not involved in the original problem.
Welfare whether for urban poor or rural poor has proved ineffective at combating poverty. It can be argued that it may have increased poverty while creating other problems not even anticipated when it was being advocated.
03 Feb 13
Originally posted by normbenignCivil Rights means the government is being used to take away the private rights of one group in favor of another group.
Any time rights have to have a prefix: womens, gay, name an ethnicity, etc. we are no longer speaking of civil rights, but of special privilege.
If Civil Rights were properly enforced, they would only apply to the government.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
03 Feb 13
Originally posted by normbenignI am talking about voting rights. We are on different tacks.
Ultimately, what good thing that came out of the civil rights movement, and the suffrage movement were the removal of special privilege, not the few cases where privileges were added to the aggrieved group. New special privileges, simply spread out inequality and discrimination so that now it is felt by a wider range of people.
For example, affirmative ...[text shortened]... creased poverty while creating other problems not even anticipated when it was being advocated.
The recognition of african americans and women as having the right to vote was not the granting of a privilege. Other measures like affirmative action were considered to be remedial and the extra degree of privilege granted in them was considered to be needed to bring things to balance. Reasonable people can disagree about both the principle involved and about the efficacy of the measures taken. I see no need to discuss that here.
04 Feb 13
Originally posted by JS357No we are on the same track. I agree that elimination of a discrimination against an aggrieved group is altogether proper, as exemplified by women's suffrage. Same for voting rights for former slaves. No new right was created, but the limitations were removed, so that now we term the whole package as voting rights not women's or blacks rights.
I am talking about voting rights. We are on different tacks.
The recognition of african americans and women as having the right to vote was not the granting of a privilege. Other measures like affirmative action were considered to be remedial and the extra degree of privilege granted in them was considered to be needed to bring things to balance. Reasonable ...[text shortened]... iple involved and about the efficacy of the measures taken. I see no need to discuss that here.
The issue that I am getting at is that these clear reductions of special privilege differ from creating special privileges for allegedly aggrieved groups, either past or present.
The difference is quite bright line, but advocates of special privilege wish to blur the lines, to favor whatever special group right they propose.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
04 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignI am still on your statement "Any time rights have to have a prefix: womens, gay, name an ethnicity, etc. we are no longer speaking of civil rights, but of special privilege."
No we are on the same track. I agree that elimination of a discrimination against an aggrieved group is altogether proper, as exemplified by women's suffrage. Same for voting rights for former slaves. No new right was created, but the limitations were removed, so that now we term the whole package as voting rights not women's or blacks rights.
The i ...[text shortened]... special privilege wish to blur the lines, to favor whatever special group right they propose.
When rights have been withheld on the basis of a characteristic and the people having that characteristic protest and form a "movement" to get to practice that right, it is common for the media, the movement, and others to use "[prefix] rights" to talk about the issue. Rights are rights even if they are given a prefix. Otherwise the person who affixes the prefix has magical powers to invalidate a claim for rights by simply saying the prefix applies. So we should be discussing whether something is a right or a privilege, not whether it has a prefix.
04 Feb 13
Originally posted by JS357Rights are protections from the federal government. Those are actual rights. Rights that demand certain actions from people who function in the private world is simply using the government to force others to behave as you want them to behave. This is evil and an incorrect use of the government.
I am still on your statement "Any time rights have to have a prefix: womens, gay, name an ethnicity, etc. we are no longer speaking of civil rights, but of special privilege."
When rights have been withheld on the basis of a characteristic and the people having that characteristic protest and form a "movement" to get to practice that right, it is common for ...[text shortened]... ld be discussing whether something is a right or a privilege, not whether it has a prefix.
04 Feb 13
Originally posted by whodeyDon't trust the government? Well... The American government is not perfect by any standard, but I think it's one of the better governments around, and I feel the same about America's justice system.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/poll-53-of-americans-feel-the-government-is-a-threat-to-their-rights-and-freedoms/
According to a new Pew poll, about 53% of Americans now say that they don't believe government does the right thing the majority of the time.
Breaking this down further regarding those who distrust government:
Republicans: 70%
Democrat ...[text shortened]... nce the future generation that will replace them seems to embrace Big Brother with open arms?
04 Feb 13
Originally posted by johnnylongwoody"They introduced austerity measures have have hurt us very badly."
Who was it who said all political careers end in failure?
It doesn't really matter who is in the parliament or who is in the government.
All politicians are regarded as narcissistic power hungry money grabbing
con artists who couldn't lie in bed straight never mind talk straight.
In February 2011 we here in Ireland got rid of the worst gove ...[text shortened]... themselves have not suffered. Our Prime Minister ( Taoiseach )
is on more money than Obama.
You're telling this to the biggest austerity supporter in the world. This guy masturbates to austerity.