Thread: The world I would love to live in.

Originally Posted by honedright

An example would be nice. Otherwise your statement here could mean anything. Who's claiming a right to property? And what property? What other human beings are you referring to?

Really? I thought I pointed it - it's written in the original US Constitution, and it was discussed at length at the adoption, as I do not doubt you are well aware. Here it is verbatim with emphasis:

which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons

And the lengths to which for example a big-name founding fathers went to defend his right to use his slaves even in the states where it was illegal with the argument that he's there only for the job - those are also well documented.

Originally Posted by honedright

Abuse and exploitation does have a long historical precedent, but what evidence can you provide that modern society has moved away from it. How are you defining "Abuse"? "Exploitation"? "Modern society"? What do you mean by "Moved away from it"?

Well the above mentioned text was repealed after a bloody war in which the side that won happened to be on the progressive (read it as advancing, i.e. moving forward, hate to say it but it seems I have to) side of history. It's still illegal to own people, it is also illegal to rape them (it wasn't if they were your property, slaves or wife), it is illegal to kill them. Reading of the laws pertaining to slaves is very illuminating about 'abuse' and 'exploitation'.

Originally Posted by honedright

Putting words in your mouth? Or calling you out for making a false argument? And then you make another false argument, appeal to pity. Yes, maybe we are done, since you seem unwilling to have an honest discussion.

Nope just I didn't think I have to chew your food either, and you don't strike me as a person who would defend slavery, or say pedophilia (another well established ancient practice, which is fallen out of fashion), so I don't understand what is the argument you are making here?
Instead of looking up at the paragraph I explicitly pointed you to you stated that I am rejecting "ideas merely because of age, and regardless of merit" which I didn't do at all. That is indeed putting words in my mouth.

..........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lfk-JTdQ_0I

Originally Posted by gugi

Really? I thought I pointed it - it's written in the original US Constitution, and it was discussed at length at the adoption, as I do not doubt you are well aware. Here it is verbatim with emphasis:

And the lengths to which for example a big-name founding fathers went to defend his right to use his slaves even in the states where it was illegal with the argument that he's there only for the job - those are also well documented.


Well the above mentioned text was repealed after a bloody war in which the side that won happened to be on the progressive (read it as advancing, i.e. moving forward, hate to say it but it seems I have to) side of history. It's still illegal to own people, it is also illegal to rape them (it wasn't if they were your property, slaves or wife), it is illegal to kill them. Reading of the laws pertaining to slaves is very illuminating about 'abuse' and 'exploitation'.



Nope just I didn't think I have to chew your food either, and you don't strike me as a person who would defend slavery, or say pedophilia (another well established ancient practice, which is fallen out of fashion), so I don't understand what is the argument you are making here?
Instead of looking up at the paragraph I explicitly pointed you to you stated that I am rejecting "ideas merely because of age, and regardless of merit" which I didn't do at all. That is indeed putting words in my mouth.

Why the false assumptions and misleading statements? Chew my food for me? Defend slavery and pedophilia? Must you be so petty? And you did make an argument suggesting arrogance should those of the 18th century expect future generations to adopt 18th century rules. You did not specify what rules. Just because you also mentioned a paragraph from the Constitution as part of your post, it doesn't follow that said paragraph had anything to do with the mentioned rules. Just another example of the false logic you seem fond of using in your arguments.

And I thought the slavery issue in America was resolved over 150 years ago. Why are you letting it bother you today? If that is the only part of the Constitution that bothers you, you have nothing to worry about.

Gugi, I don't expect to change your mind, and you know you won't change mine. I was hoping to have a civil conversation with you where we could at least defend our positions, and agree to disagree. But you seem to me to be more interested in winning arguments rather than debating ideas.

Originally Posted by honedright

And I thought the slavery issue in America was resolved over 150 years ago. Why are you letting it bother you today? If that is the only part of the Constitution that bothers you, you have nothing to worry about.

It was an example of a pretty big part that it was dead wrong about. In response to your implication that whatever isn't in the constitution is "small details".
The slavery issue doesn't bother me, what bothers me is rewriting of history without regards to facts. I am also bothered by repeated accusations of false logic and false assumptions, without explaining what is false. But at this point I believe it is the result of you misunderstanding my posts - as evidence to it I would point the 'putting words in my mouth' I noted above.
With this level of communication breakdown I don't see a debate as feasible.

One thing I have always found ironic is the fantsy world of star trek. A world created by the west depicting a utopian society, which shows communism in all its idilic glory.

Funny isn't it that quite often even ideas with the best intentions at heart can be twisted by the minority, and the majority suffer because of it.

Unfortunately we all currently reside within an unsustainable existence. As a global civilization we're not taking any steps toward solving issues (overpopulation, pollution, nourishment etc.) that may keep us from extinction. This knowledge leads to fear which leads to strengthening our tribal nature along belief system lines (freedoms, etc.) ensuring our mutual demise. Without a fundamental change to the framework under which this world's population organizes itself none of the ideals stated above will ever become a true reality. Of course if the scope of your personal goals are narrowly focused to you and your surrounding area within your lifespan then you may be able survive quite comfortably. If you're hoping for a long term sustainable existence for all of the world's generations to come then major change needs to happen. Including the very definition of freedom and how we apply it's ideals.

In a perfect world everyone would have Wade & Butcher For Barber's Use straight razors with original horn scales. I just don't see this happening with the current political climate.

Originally Posted by gugi

It was an example of a pretty big part that it was dead wrong about. In response to your implication that whatever isn't in the constitution is "small details".
The slavery issue doesn't bother me, what bothers me is rewriting of history without regards to facts. I am also bothered by repeated accusations of false logic and false assumptions, without explaining what is false. But at this point I believe it is the result of you misunderstanding my posts - as evidence to it I would point the 'putting words in my mouth' I noted above.
With this level of communication breakdown I don't see a debate as feasible.

Your opening above is a good example of a false argument. You state "...it was dead wrong." That is a false argument because you are stating an opinion as if it were a fact without any evidence or support for your argument. You are also applying your modern view of "morality" to the past without stating facts as to why they were "dead wrong." An appeal to pathos argument regarding slavery is false because you are just confusing the argument with emotion in place of fact.

So exactly what was, according to you, "dead wrong"? Slavery? Slavery has been practiced by humans for millennia in many cultures and societies across the globe. Not just in America. Are you passing judgement on all societies that practiced slavery throughout history? Or just America?

As to the United States Constitution, do you disagree with the idea that a person who was not free (slave) didn't count as a full person in regards to a vote for representation (the 3/5's clause you mentioned)?

Do imprisoned individuals/ felons have similar voting restrictions today?

Should a person who's rights have been legally restricted have full legal privilege?

Was slavery legal during the 18th century?

Are there any legal practices today that could also be considered immoral? What about policies/ laws that allow the taking of property from one person and giving that property to another without equal compensation (redistribution)?

Historically, how did one become a slave legally? Any similarities to today's penal system?

What part of history are you saying was rewritten without regard to facts?

Originally Posted by honedright

Your opening above is a good example of a false argument. You state "...it was dead wrong." That is a false argument because you are stating an opinion as if it were a fact without any evidence or support for your argument. You are also applying your modern view of "morality" to the past without stating facts as to why they were "dead wrong." An appeal to pathos argument regarding slavery is false because you are just confusing the argument with emotion in place of fact.

That's much better.

Originally Posted by honedright

So exactly what was, according to you, "dead wrong"? Slavery? Slavery has been practiced by humans for millennia in many cultures and societies across the globe. Not just in America. Are you passing judgement on all societies that practiced slavery throughout history? Or just America?

Here's why the constitution was 'dead wrong'. The founding document for USA is the Declaration of Independence with the famous second paragraph:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

I can not imagine a bigger affront to this than the practice of slavery. Well, I just managed to - genocide, but there is no sanction for it in the US Constitution, even though it was a standard policy of the early US governments.

Originally Posted by honedright

As to the United States Constitution, do you disagree with the idea that a person who was not free (slave) didn't count as a full person in regards to a vote for representation (the 3/5's clause you mentioned)?

Such a person couldn't and didn't vote and they were considered 'property'. Thomas Jefferson thought it was not fair that southern states be taxed

according to their numbers and their wealth conjunctly, while the northern would be taxed on numbers only

And yes, I disagree with the idea that a person who can't vote should count in voting.

Originally Posted by honedright

Do imprisoned individuals/ felons have similar voting restrictions today?
....
Historically, how did one become a slave legally? Any similarities to today's penal system?

I see the analogy you are trying to make but I don't see the similarities you see. The criminals who were imported in US were not enslaved, they were indentured, which was a problem because they weren't interested in continuing the arrangement once they didn't have to. When children are born in prison they don't get to serve a life sentence because of this.
Obviously owning you and all of your children and being able to do anything I want with you including killing you if you do not do as I say is far more profitable proposition than having to provide you room and board for a period in exchange for your labor. Seems to me that redistribution of wealth under the threat of violence and death.

Originally Posted by honedright

Are there any legal practices today that could also be considered immoral? What about policies/ laws that allow the taking of property from one person and giving that property to another without equal compensation (redistribution)?

Certainly. But it seems that morality can change depending largely on whether a person is a beneficiary or contributor in a particular transaction. I see plenty of examples of this in these threads, say people crying for small government but not the part that pays their salary, that part of the government is always essential and not nearly as big as it ought to be.

Originally Posted by gugi

That's much better.


Here's why the constitution was 'dead wrong'. The founding document for USA is the Declaration of Independence with the famous second paragraph:

I can not imagine a bigger affront to this than the practice of slavery. Well, I just managed to - genocide, but there is no sanction for it in the US Constitution, even though it was a standard policy of the early US governments.

First you have to consider why a person may have been enslaved. There were legitimate and illegitimate reasons for enslavement. The Romans would enslave some, if not all, of those people they conquered, and they conquered a lot of people. In that case, slavery was considered a natural consequence of war or conquest. Other persons may have been enslaved as a punitive measure committing crime, also considered appropriate. But those enslaved would still retain all of their natural rights, per the Constitution, even though those rights could be legally infringed upon as a part of their punishment. Not much different from our current penal system where convicts loose their exercise of freedom, and may be forced into labor against their will for less than fair wages or possibly no pay at all, and may even loose their lives as a consequence for certain felonies.

Is it possible that some people were caught up in the slave trade for illegitimate reasons and just for profit? I imagine that could have been possible and probably happened.

But I still see nothing that the Constitution or the founding fathers got "dead wrong." To the contrary, I think the founders were acutely aware of the problem with slavery, which was legal at the time and had been for centuries, and were doing their best to compromise the problem while at the same time create a new and independent country and system of government. Had the founders tried to outright make slavery illegal, the United States may have never happened.

Also, let's not forget that genocide was practiced by European governments - such as Spain and Germany and reportedly continues to be practiced on the African continent today. I'm not aware of any any US policy for genocide. Please provide evidence.

Originally Posted by gugi

Such a person couldn't and didn't vote and they were considered 'property'. Thomas Jefferson thought it was not fair that southern states be taxed

And yes, I disagree with the idea that a person who can't vote should count in voting.

First consider why the person "can't vote." Should a person with no stake in the game (a prisoner or slave for instance) have the same voting privileges as a fully vested member? Do you also disagree with the SRP policy prohibiting non-members from participating, and voting in polls, in the members only "The Conversation" threads? According to your statement above, you should.

Originally Posted by gugi

I see the analogy you are trying to make but I don't see the similarities you see. The criminals who were imported in US were not enslaved, they were indentured, which was a problem because they weren't interested in continuing the arrangement once they didn't have to. When children are born in prison they don't get to serve a life sentence because of this.
Obviously owning you and all of your children and being able to do anything I want with you including killing you if you do not do as I say is far more profitable proposition than having to provide you room and board for a period in exchange for your labor. Seems to me that redistribution of wealth under the threat of violence and death.

Not all slaves were enslaved as a result of criminal behavior and enslavement wasn't the only option to punish criminals. Many slaves were captured as prisoners of war during battles. This was considered a valid, and legitimate reason for enslavement throughout history. Manumission, freeing of slaves, was common practice.

What happens to a child born to an unwed woman without family serving a sentence in prison? Probably becomes a ward of the state until child is age of consent.

Originally Posted by gugi

Certainly. But it seems that morality can change depending largely on whether a person is a beneficiary or contributor in a particular transaction. I see plenty of examples of this in these threads, say people crying for small government but not the part that pays their salary, that part of the government is always essential and not nearly as big as it ought to be.

Some people seem honestly confused regarding legitimate tax and illegitimate tax. The Constitution authorizes Congress to tax for certain common authorized services (Title 1, sec 8) things such as national defense and postal roads. These are services that we all want our government to provide, and we all gladly pay for. It is the same for state and local taxes/ services such as fire and police. We all want those common service and have no issue paying for them.

Since about the time just before 1920, the federal government started imposing taxes that violate the Constitutions original intent in giving Congress the power to tax. This is what I think most people are, or should be, upset about. It is one thing for taxpayers to pay a tax for a common service of which they all benefit. It's completely another issue when taxpayers are forced under fear of penalty, to pay a tax for a service that is delivered to others who may have paid little to nothing.