Quote:Legislation is absolute, the power once created and given to the state is complete. In order to force participation between private parties they must have the legal authority to dictate interactions between private parties. Otherwise how can they rule what private parties do if they don't have the legal power?
When segregation was law, it was enforceable because the state assumed the power to tell private individuals how they are allowed to interact and how they are not (hence black and white bathrooms, black and white schools, black and white water fountains).
Morality, ethics, social acceptance they all change with time. Creating legislation on changing views of morality and ethics only accomplishes one thing, a large and more powerful state.
So why wasn't this argument valid when I brought it up in regards to restricting voting rights through a test?
Quote:So why wasn't this argument valid when I brought it up in regards to restricting voting rights through a test?
We just shifted topics, can you explain more, what did I say was invalid?
Creating a voting license is about protecting the process, I've made the argument several times in detail it is constitutional and IMO the responsible thing to do. When voting becomes a numbers game between team's you have a democracy not a republic and democracies never last.
Exactly!
The disconnect I see is 2 fold.
One, the misunderstanding of the place a business resides within the public sphere.
Two, the fact that some forget that the government is not an outside party, but the voice of the public.
Quote:We just shifted topics, can you explain more, what did I say was invalid?
Creating a voting license is about protecting the process, I've made the argument several times in detail it is constitutional and IMO the responsible thing to do. When voting becomes a numbers game between team's you have a democracy not a republic and democracies never last.
If you give the government the power to force a voting license, they can easily limit who can vote to who they want to be able to vote. You're putting that power in the governments hands, taking that power away can be difficult when they decide to use it in a way that's not to your liking.
Quote:We just shifted topics, can you explain more, what did I say was invalid?
Creating a voting license is about protecting the process, I've made the argument several times in detail it is constitutional and IMO the responsible thing to do. When voting becomes a numbers game between team's you have a democracy not a republic and democracies never last.
Wait, so protecting the process is legal and responsible but protecting people should be illegal and irresponsible?
Exactly! You can't fear the government in one space and then rail against it in another
It's not the government that is the problem... it's the corruption of it that has been occurring for the past 3 decades
Quote:If you give the government the power to force a voting license, they can easily limit who can vote to who they want to be able to vote. You're putting that power in the governments hands, taking that power away can be difficult when they decide to use it in a way that's not to your liking.
I'd only support a voting license that is open to everyone who wishes to participate, that's far different then giving government the authority to decide who participates. A voting license that simply requires participants to understand the electoral process and the branches of government.
Quote:Wait, so protecting the process is legal and responsible but protecting people should be illegal and irresponsible?
You're asking about the WHO I'm asking about the HOW. Of course protecting people is responsible, it's how it has to be done that I have an issue with. I believe in protecting life and property, I'm very up front about that. However you can not create a system where forced participation does not create a vehicle to oppress other individuals property. So the state must obtain from infringing on one's rights to grant another.
Quote:I'd only support a voting license that is open to everyone who wishes to participate, that's far different then giving government the authority to decide who participates. A voting license that simply requires participants to understand the electoral process and the branches of government.
You'd still have to pass the test. The test can easily be made to keep people they want to keep from voting from getting their license. You're assuming they'll keep to making the test about the electoral process and branches of government, and not add additional things that weed out voters that agree with their policy.
Quote:Exactly! You can't fear the government in one space and then rail against it in another
Quote:It's not the government that is the problem... it's the corruption of it that has been occurring for the past 3 decades
It was government that established Slavery
It was government that established internment camps during WW2
It was government that sanctioned segregation
The very establishment you wish to have protect you was the establishment that first oppressed you.
Quote:You'd still have to pass the test. The test can easily be made to keep people they want to keep from voting from getting their license. You're assuming they'll keep to making the test about the electoral process and branches of government, and not add additional things that weed out voters that agree with their policy.
Admittedly it is an issue that would require oversight, more details and individuals more knowledgeable then me. I argue for it on principle as a way to discourage the lazy voter (the 80% that didn't know the name of their state rep, 60% that couldn't name the three branches of government) these people are the greatest threat to our republic. Their susceptible to anything they have no knowledge or understanding of the system so they are able to participate unknowingly in destroying the system.
Quote:Admittedly it is an issue that would require oversight, more details and individuals more knowledgeable then me. I argue for it on principle as a way to discourage the lazy voter (the 80% that didn't know the name of their state rep, 60% that couldn't name the three branches of government) these people are the greatest threat to our republic. Their susceptible to anything they have no knowledge or understanding of the system so they are able to participate unknowingly in destroying the system.
I see no problem not being able to name your state rep. I don't even know who my state rep is. They're not names you hear often to be honest. After the election you only really hear from them again if they do something crazy, or when it's time for re-election. And many of them run unopposed, so you barely hear about them then either. If anything we should try to ensure that our citizens try to learn the branches of government, and their rights. It's why I'm shocked many high schools don't require a class on government. I'm glad that ours does.
Quote:I see no problem not being able to name your state rep. I don't even know who my state rep is. They're not names you hear often to be honest. After the election you only really hear from them again if they do something crazy, or when it's time for re-election. And many of them run unopposed, so you barely hear about them then either. If anything we should try to ensure that our citizens try to learn the branches of government, and their rights. It's why I'm shocked many high schools don't require a class on government. I'm glad that ours does.
Really they don't require a class on government? It's been a while but I'm almost positive I had to take a government class in high school. The one class I remember the most was a law studies class in high school I had one of those teachers that just made the subject amazing to study, he would let us argue in the class I loved it! surprise right?
Quote:Really they don't require a class on government? It's been a while but I'm almost positive I had to take a government class in high school. The one class I remember the most was a law studies class in high school I had one of those teachers that just made the subject amazing to study, he would let us argue in the class I loved it! surprise right?
Most of us did. I was born in Tallahassee and moved to Montgomery County, MD when I was 13. We had to take government in HS and I believe the kids still do, but keep in mind that I graduated in 1992. We even had to pass the Citizenship Test to graduate.
Quote:Really they don't require a class on government? It's been a while but I'm almost positive I had to take a government class in high school. The one class I remember the most was a law studies class in high school I had one of those teachers that just made the subject amazing to study, he would let us argue in the class I loved it! surprise right?
A lot of places don't require it. I know many people who never took a government class in high school. It's required in some places. My wife teaches the subject, and she's very passionate on how it should become part of the core curriculum everywhere. I do agree it would be better for more people to know how our government works.
Quote:A lot of places don't require it. I know many people who never took a government class in high school. It's required in some places. My wife teaches the subject, and she's very passionate on how it should become part of the core curriculum everywhere. I do agree it would be better for more people to know how our government works.
That's the only point I try to make with the whole voting license argument. Really it's a no wonder where in a mess when most of the voting populace could name more American Idol contestants than Presidents.
They no more about Apple's 3 products than the 3 Branches of Government.
Quote:That would all be detailed in any contracts signed to build the road in the first place. It' the same as when waste companies are contracted by the city to collect the trash. There's details on what happens if the waste company goes out of business, fails to do their end of the contract ect...
Then it's State-owned? Otherwise, how do you FORCE people to come to terms in a contract that shouldn't have any outside influences?
Quote:It was government that established Slavery
It was government that established internment camps during WW2
It was government that sanctioned segregation
The very establishment you wish to have protect you was the establishment that first oppressed you.
I hear ya... but it was also government that corrected those issues as well!
Is a democratic republic a perfect form of government? No. But it's probably the best form of government to have. It allows the majority to make decisions and not be tyranized by the one or the few...
Again, it's not our government that is the problem, it's the corruption of it.
You don't throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak
Quote:Then it's State-owned? Otherwise, how do you FORCE people to come to terms in a contract that shouldn't have any outside influences?
A contract doesn't make it state owned, you asked what would happen in default the answer is the same thing that happens every day when a party defaults on a contract the action is predetermined based upon the agreed terms in a contract.
Quote:I hear ya... but it was also government that corrected those issues as well!
Is a democratic republic a perfect form of government? No. But it's probably the best form of government to have. It allows the majority to make decisions and not be tyranized by the one or the few...
Again, it's not our government that is the problem, it's the corruption of it.
You don't throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak
I argue it's the size of government that is the problem. No entity as big as our government can avoid corruption.