NationStates Jolt Archive

Ahh I see. American Citizens should have a habeus corpus.
One of the problems is that what the president is proposing would take habeas corpus away from American citizens.

I think other people deserve habeas corpus as well. An honest Canadian or English man should not be treated like a terrorist. In fact, noone should be treated like a terrorist unless he/she is a terrorist. I don't think there is any point in limiting our ability to differentiate between offenders and innocents.

So I guess since this thread has gotten sort of off topic my point won't be addressed will it...:(

Ahh I see. American Citizens should have a habeus corpus.

"The Habeas Corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen, against everything which is not law, whatever shape it may assume." --Thomas Jefferson to A. H. Rowan, 1798.

It's not simply a matter of requiring consent of the governed in a democratic system. Many democracies constitutionally limit the power of the government on certain issues regardless of majority consent.
The whole point is this remains a negotiation between government and the people. The US constitution for instance does not legally bind Australia to come running to its defence. Or any other nation for that matter. If people who have the power to ignore the constitution choose to do it, no higher power has the authority to nay-say this.

In practice, noone could force a country to adopt these limits. Nevertheless, the reasoning behind these limits still stems from the moralistic problems that I expressed concerning absolute government authority. In effect, the founders of modern states put these limits into effect because they agreed with me on the moral pitfalls of authoritarianism.
The limits are meaningless outside the enforcement of them. There was a set of rules (which is all the US constitution for example is) in place in Afghanistan when the Teliban took over by force and threw said rules out the window. As another example take recent legislation in the US that subverts the constitution and the process of constitutional ammendment by effectively suspending habeous corpus. Makes the constitution look like a sad sentimental farce.

By 'as limited as possible' I imply that beyond a certain point it becomes impractical to limit government authority.
And what is that point? Is it measured by general principals and rules or is it measured by effect?

Noone has yet come up with a system that would function stably without the presence of at least some form of government. Until someone does, it is impossible to practically limit government authority beyond a certain point. It is possible, however, to have a very small government, and it is always a good idea to look for ways to make the government smaller, so long as you can avoid the practical shortcomings of a stateless society.
That's all very abstract. I wonder if you are working backwards, ie from principals to society rather than from preferred societal outcomes to principals that can help achieve the outcome.

One of the problems is that most people in government don't even try to provide moral justification for levying taxes. Without understanding where their taxing authority comes from in the moral sense, they cannot understand any moral limits that might exist to that authority.
In most cases, so far as I can tell, a strong personal sense of morality isnt why most people end up high-office. ;)

For example, if the moral authority to tax really does come from the fact that we use the government's money, then it would be illegitimate to levy property taxes. But the people who create and enforce the tax system don't give a crap either way. They just do it because they can, regardless of morality.

The moral justification doesnt come from there, no moral justification is needed. Imposition of taxes is a legal not a moral right. However, as I pointed out it wouldnt matter either way for property taxes because as the ultimate landlord, of course the landowner has every right to levy leaseholders, and the state is the ultimate landowner. This authority is the foundation of all authority of the state, it gives it the right to pass legislation and protect its borders with military force where necessary. Another words it is a necessity in the modern organisation of nation-states.

That's the exact problem I was expressing. There is no consideration of ethics here. The legal authority to tax is based on nothing more than might makes right.
The legal authority may be based on might is right, but that doesnt however exclude the possibility of ethical or moral justification.

As such, I don't think it is logical to expect that a large tax system will ever efficiently bring any sort of happiness to those who are forced to support it. Because of this, I would like to see taxes limited to what is necessary to make society function without chaos.
Who says that what is necessary to make society function without chaos isnt more tax? What exactly is chaos, how much 'absence of order' is measure by which you can determine the success of failure in averting chaos?
Remember the 'might' is the only means of achieving any rights. You can reject 'the might' that gives you any and every right you possess while still expecting to somehow mystically retain the rights that rely on might.

I think that it is important to differentiate between rights as a practical concept and rights as a moral concept.
You mean between actual rights and 'a wish list of how we might want the world to be'? Unless it is enforced it is a sentiment, a wish, not a right. The word retains no meaning if things that are good and fair and just but dont actually occur are called rights. In that case all rights all exist, they just happen to not be enforced. If it's not enforced then it isnt a right, it might be something that should be a right, but it isnt.

In practice, whether one admitts it or not, might does make might. The only reason we get to experience most of the rights we have today is because a few powerful people 250 years ago thought that this is how the world should function.
If you want to deal with the real world you have to deal with the facts as they are not as it would be nice for them to be. Might is the reason the US is a democracy, the same is true of France, of England, of their colonies. The US had to be fought for and the might of victory is what forced other nations (particularly England) to recognise the rights of the US as a sovereign state. That's reality, it may be nice, but it's the truth about how the world works and what your rights ultimately rest on.

The moralistic sense of rights has nothing to do with the real world. I fully recognize that fact. When I say that "All rights are invested in individuals," it is a purely normative statement.
It's meaningless rhetoric. It's not true in the real world. The normative sense of a right is no help to you when the powers that be imprison you without just cause and do so with inpugnity. The moralistic sense of rights isnt a sense of rights, it's a wish about rights. Having nothing to do with the real world, the moralistic sense is utterly irrelevent to the real world. You dont come up with either truths about the real world or good solutions for acting in the real world by starting from principals and employing reasoning that has nothing to do with the real world.

I used the term mathematically to mean that any rights invested in groups should merely be a reflection of the rights of individuals.
I take it you mean should as in 'it would be pleasant if' rather than 'based on the application of logical reasoning to the facts' because in although it might be nice if things did work the way you describe, it is contrary to the processes by which rights are generated/created/produced.

For example, if individuals have the right to make agreements, then groups have the right to make agreements in the name of the individuals represented in those groups. I'm not entirely sure why I chose to use the word 'mathematically' describe this.
An individual only has the courtesy granted to them by those who choose to simply not treat the individual with contempt, until and unless there exists some force or entity that invests rights in the individual by virtue of acting to enforce rules of conduct that must be observed in any dealing with the individual. What stops your bigger neighbour from having no more than mere consideration for courtesy in mind when he or she chooses whether or not to simply take your property or violate your person is the consequences of breaching of your rights. Those rights dont stem from you because their enforcement is external to you. Without that enforcement that comes from the collective entity of the state, you dont have any rights other than what you can defend with physical force yourself. The physical force that the state has the authority to deploy is what causes your rights. That's not inherent to you or any individual, it is external and stems from the collective and is applied to the individual. You can wish it were the other way around and even prove that it would be nicer/better if it were, but since there is no current hope for such a circumstance to be acheived in the real world, insisting it actually is the other way around is about as useful as me insisting the hole in my tooth should repair itself.

Like I said earlier in this post, I know that noone has come up with a system that would create a functional society without some form of government. Nevertheless, I think it is reasonable to ask how much government is really necessary.
I think it's meaningless to ask without the context of 'this is the societal conditions we wish to achieve'.

As for property, there are some claims to property that would be completely unnatural and nonsensical. If an ante-bellum Southerner claimed to own slaves, he may be correct in the practical assertion of that statement, but morally he has no authority to claim such ownership. Or if I were to claim ownership over a section of Outter-Space. Considering that it is impossible to keep track of separate sections of outter-space, it is nonsensical to claim ownership of any of them.
Unnatural is meaningless in this sense to me. People owning stuff is either natural or no ownership is depending on your definition of natural. You seem to conflate immoral and unnatural. Murder and rape are both perfectly natural yet (in my opinion) completely immoral. Ownership is a perspective, an idea, it doesnt exist 'out there' independent of intent. It is a rationalisation. If you hold that rationalising, having ideas and intent etc are all natural activities for humans as are the products of such happenings then all ownership is natural. If you are in the 'artificial = not natural' camp then no ownership on the part of humans is natural.

Don't imagine that my concept of rights is that simple. Force isn't exclusively wrong. The initiation of force is wrong. In fact, in the ethics system that I am advocating, the definition of 'force initiation' necessarily depends on the definition of rights. It is an initiation of force to use another person's property without permission. It is not an initiation of force to defend your own property. In general, any invasion of another person's rights is an initiation of force.
I didnt imagine that you intended no force to ever occur, but rather that you seem to overlook the necessary implications of the capacity for anyone to have any rights originate in the force of 'a collective'. It's an easy set of implications to want to overlook because most people are actually quite decent sorts and prefer to think there is some means of organisation that doesnt come down to the right of might. Personally it's not a set of implications that fills me with joy either. However, it is a set of implications that have to be accounted for if the ability to conceive of pragmatic and applicable (to real life) solutions is not to be compromised.

This is the primary reason for keeping the government system. Even under fairly authoritative governments, there can be more individual rights than under chaos.
That is exactly the point actually. Chaos itself results usually results in a greater imposition on the freedom of a greater number of people than does the limitations of governance necessarily entails. But the entire notion of governance is based on territorial rights, those rights rest on might. The only way to secure any rights for the individual other than those they can personally and physically enforce for themselves is to vest authority in some might that is capable of enforcing such rights for the individuals concerned.

What the US does with regards to its domestic policy is clearly within the authority granted by sovereignty. What I am arguing is that the system of national sovereignty currently grants more power to governments than it should.
I think you must be misunderstanding how the process works. The rights more or less consist of other nations not imposing their authority, and are evidently contingent on the capacity to defend said rights militarily if necessary (note that the capacity to defend can be direct through one's own military or indirectly through cooperative relationships with other nation states). It's not a matter of either the state has the rights or individuals have them, it is a matter of the rights either not existing, being vested in the state or under the control of a foreign state. The rights of the sovereign nation refer to the conduct of other nations towards it, and this right is necessary for a nation to be able to run as a democracy.

The US shouldn't have the option of forcing its citizens to retain citizenship.
I dont know that it does have the right to force citizens to retain citizenship, can you clarify?

So the problem isn't that sovereignty will necessarily lead to unethical results, but rather that within the system of national sovereignty it is entirely permissible for a nation to hold unethical domestic policies.
The system of nation states is founded or based on ethics. It is the result of the harsh realities of the real world, and it is better than an absence of such a system and any other alternative system ever brought to my attention, which is why I dont hold out much hope of any improvement of it in the foreseeable future. If anything the erosions of these soveriegn rights effected under WTO treaties demonstrates that the individual's rights are not enhanced by a reduction in the rights of state vis-a-vis each other.

The fact is the rights of a soveriegn state is simply the right to not be interferred with by outside forces. This is a right that is necessary if for instance China isnt todictate the running of the US economy and Saudi Arabia isnt to try to force US women to wear a veil. It doesnt prevent citizens from negotiating for any particular rights within their nation-state's system of governance, it rather offers protection against outside entities dictating the extent and limits of their rights externally. In fact a restriction on the rights of states compromises the freedom of individuals by preventing them from negotiating with the state and forcing them to accept the determination of some 'outside entity' that isnt answerable to the citizens nor subject to their influence.

So far, no system of protecting rights has worked as well as government. But it's not simply enough to ask "Do we have more rights under this government than we would under no government at all?" We should ask "Do we have as many rights as possible under this government; is there a way to change the government that would yield more personal freedom?"
Again this is backwards. Reactionary opportunistic tinkering is no substitute for aim and goals. What are the societal results we want? Not freedom for freedom's sake because if freedom mattered simply for its own sake (rather than for the benefits that stem from freedom) chaos would be fine and dandy.
Instead of 'how can the government be made better' we need to look at society and ask 'what would better actually look like' instead of hoping that whatever it looks like is what happens if only we apply more principals the structure.

Again, I wasn't exactly specific in my previous statement. What I mean is that a country clearly doesn't need very much taxation at all in order to provide enough protection for individual rights. Ten percent, or perhaps even lower, would probably suffice. The benefit to the economy with taxation lowered to that extent would be tremendous.
Nothing you've stated evidences that it would be enough, or even quite what it would 'cover'. Again I believe you are considing causes and wondering how tinkering with them might effect outcomes rather than considering a range of outcomes and attempting to identify and initiate the causes of the most preferred outcomes.

because its my money.

That's not actually true... is it?

Think about it.

I'm putting on my FlameMaster3000 and getting some popcorn for this one...

I'll join you. :)

Democrats CANNOT gain power.
They will turn us Socialist.
America has a socialist party and a capitalist party.
I vote Republican, I vote Capitalist.

Democrats refuse to acknowledge basic reasoning or historical fact.

Socialism is flawed.
It will weaken america.
Viva La Republica!!!

Anyway.
Someone misappraised the republican agenda.

Democrats like to tax and spend.
Republicans hate to tax, and are forced to spend.

Democrats are socialists? They will turn America socialist?

If that's a joke, then it's good. But if that was serious, that was dumb. Not just dumb, but just horribly stupid and sounds like it comes straight from idiot radio show hosts that say crazy dumb shit to get ratings.

I have counted one semi intelligent post on this entire thread. With that I will now leave, respond if you like, I won't read it. I would advise that people on both sides stop saying incredibly dumb things, its hard to respect you when you do.

ex) "Democrats are socialists"

Admittadly that one was kind of hillarious.

Your proof of this statement is where?


Ya lost me here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-Income_Housing_Tax_Credit

Just one of the American Governments choices to help your sorry ass.

Now you asked for proof, you got it. Now im asking that you show me that nations like Iran, India, Congo and algeria have similar housing deductions like that.

I have counted one semi intelligent post on this entire thread. With that I will now leave, respond if you like, I won't read it. I would advise that people on both sides stop saying incredibly dumb things, its hard to respect you when you do.

ex) "Democrats are socialists"

Admittadly that one was kind of hillarious.

on the off chance that you are actually reading this, which post was it?

just out of curiosity

One of the problems is that what the president is proposing would take habeas corpus away from American citizens.

I think other people deserve habeas corpus as well. An honest Canadian or English man should not be treated like a terrorist. In fact, noone should be treated like a terrorist unless he/she is a terrorist. I don't think there is any point in limiting our ability to differentiate between offenders and innocents.

"The Habeas Corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen, against everything which is not law, whatever shape it may assume." --Thomas Jefferson to A. H. Rowan, 1798.
the Military Commission act of 2006 does NOT remove Habeas Corpus from either US citizens, Foreign Nationals, or any Enemy Lawful Combatants.

the Military Commission act of 2006 does NOT remove Habeas Corpus from either US citizens, Foreign Nationals, or any Enemy Lawful Combatants.
No it allows them to go AROUND it if need be.

Who decides they're "Lawful?" the people trying to convict them?

So lets say.

"We really want to bust this Foreigner who's been speaking out about America but he's not breaking any laws."

*Pause*

"Well he's a terrorist now, so grab him, now go have fun boys."
*Sounds of Torture*
*Foreigner is never seen again*

Who decides they're "Lawful?" the people trying to convict them.

So lets say.

"We really want to bust this Foreigner who's been speaking out about America but that's not illegal."

*Jots down on a piece of paper*

"Well he's a terrorist now go have fun boys."
*Foreigner is never seen again*

I believe it's up to the Military General Staff... not Rumsfield nor the President.

and if that person is ONLY speaking out, and not Actively and physically acting out against America... then it's not an UNLawful Enemy Combatant. it's defined in the act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-Income_Housing_Tax_Credit

Just one of the American Governments choices to help your sorry ass.

Now you asked for proof, you got it. Now im asking that you show me that nations like Iran, India, Congo and algeria have similar housing deductions like that.
Ummm, how does the above prove what you posted earlier? That is about a tax break for Americans.

BTW, I don't have a sorry ass!! :p

I hate to break it to you, but it is alot worse in other nations. In most nations Housing accounts for most of Disposable Income... And you are complaining? Jeez you bring ignorance to the saying "American Pig"
And yeah, I am still lost in regards to your "American pig" reference.

the Military Commission act of 2006 does NOT remove Habeas Corpus from either US citizens, Foreign Nationals, or any Enemy Lawful Combatants.
Well that seems to run counter to this earlier preliminary report from the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (http://www.abanet.org/leadership/enemy_combatants.pdf#search=%22Habeas%20Corpus%20removed%20from%20Enemy%20Lawful%20Combatants%22)

Again it gets into who determines who is "lawful".

Bush got his immunity and gets to decide what is lawful. Just great!! :rolleyes:

Well that seems to run counter to this earlier preliminary report from the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (http://www.abanet.org/leadership/enemy_combatants.pdf#search=%22Habeas%20Corpus%20removed%20from%20Enemy%20Lawful%20Combatants%22)

Again it gets into who determines who is "lawful".

Bush got his immunity and gets to decide what is lawful. Just great!! :rolleyes:

gee what's that on the first page?
*The views expressed herein have not been approved by the House of Delegates
or the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association and, accordingly,
should not be construed as representing the policy of the American Bar
Association.
so it's not official.

second, it was written in 2002, where the term Alien Enemy Unlawful Combatant was not defined. if you read the terms now, you will find that it Lawful Combatants will be afforded every right, it's the Unlawful ones that wont.

and the Military Comission Act of 2006 defines what makes a Lawful combatant as well as an Unlawful combatant.

Skimming through your posted article, most of the concerns are answered in the Millitary Commission Act of 2006. concerning treatement and rights of both Lawful and Unlawful enemy combatants.

so basically this unoffical draft has points that has been met. (I will still read it tho.)

gee what's that on the first page?

so it's not official.

second, it was written in 2002, where the term Alien Enemy Unlawful Combatant was not defined. if you read the terms now, you will find that it Lawful Combatants will be afforded every right, it's the Unlawful ones that wont.

and the Military Comission Act of 2006 defines what makes a Lawful combatant as well as an Unlawful combatant.

Skimming through your posted article, most of the concerns are answered in the Millitary Commission Act of 2006. concerning treatement and rights of both Lawful and Unlawful enemy combatants.

so basically this unoffical draft has points that has been met. (I will still read it tho.)
In other words, it is just the same old bullshit recycled. The interesting thing is how can one prosecute "unlawful enemy combatants" for war crimes, if they are not deemed prisoners of war?

The fact remains that the US violated the sovereignity of Iraq. Does that mean that they get to say who is and who is not a "lawful combatant"? It is all bullshit as far as I can see.

Bush called it the war on terror, therefore all detainees are POWs. The US needs to quit slicing and dicing.

So if your considering voting democrat, please for the good of our country, don't.

What makes you think that you have any right to tell anyone who to (or not to) vote for?

In other words, it is just the same old bullshit recycled. The interesting thing is how can one prosecute "unlawful enemy combatants" for war crimes, if they are not deemed prisoners of war?

The fact remains that the US violated the sovereignity of Iraq. Does that mean that they get to say who is and who is not a "lawful combatant"? It is all bullshit as far as I can see.

Bush called it the war on terror, therefore all detainees are POWs. The US needs to quit slicing and dicing.
you didn't read the Military Commission Act of 2006 yet... have you?


actually, with this post, It shows me that you haven't read it.

What makes you think that you have any right to tell anyone who to (or not to) vote for?

people can SAY who to vote for, they just cannot FORCE you to vote for someone. ;)

Democrats are socialists? They will turn America socialist?

If that's a joke, then it's good. But if that was serious, that was dumb. Not just dumb, but just horribly stupid and sounds like it comes straight from idiot radio show hosts that say crazy dumb shit to get ratings.

The Democrats are not Socialists. I am a Socialist, but not a Democrat! And I highly doubt they are going to espouse Socialist Rhetoric, as that would not go over well with buisnesses, which is contrary to our Government's priorities. :rolleyes:

The President would be unable to advance his agenda because of rabid democrats, congress would be unable to advance its agenda due to presidental veto.
Sounds good to me.

To be honest, there isn't.
Here is the only real diffrence between the two parties.
Democrats like to restrict your freedom economically
Republicans like to restrict your freedom socially

Not really, you can find dozens of examples Democrats of restricting freedom socially, and let's face it, only the rich are economically free in America.

Hey I work for my money, he can do the same. It's not the government's place to take my money and give it to people like him, it's not charity, and it's not right. Now keep in mind I do give to the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and the Charlotte Diosce. However I do that under my own choice, which is what should be done.
Your ideals are unrealistic, and have been tried. They're guaranteed to produce mass poverty. You are pro-suffering, and that is wrong.

Yea, but it also hurts the economy,
Not at all, the provision of welfare, minimum wages and public transport, which all consume tax money, improve the economy by providing people with purchasing power and new markets in housing.

What makes you think that you have any right to tell anyone who to (or not to) vote for?

I'm not telling, I'm asking.

and giving money to people who don't have it and desparately need it is restricting freedoms how?

it seems to me that a man with no money is not economically free, because he is unable to purchase anything.

We should want people to give out of the good of their heart and not because they're forced to.

Your ideals are unrealistic, and have been tried. They're guaranteed to produce mass poverty. You are pro-suffering, and that is wrong.




You sicken me. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean you call them pro-suffering. If he was pro-suffering, why would he donate in the first place.

Also, show me how there is mass poverty in the United States, and I'll show you that we're the wealthiest nation on Earth. Our poor usually have more money than the middle class of many other nations.

We should want people to give out of the good of their heart and not because they're forced to.

If that's the way it worked, there would be no poor.

You sicken me. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean you call them pro-suffering. If he was pro-suffering, why would he donate in the first place.

Also, show me how there is mass poverty in the United States, and I'll show you that we're the wealthiest nation on Earth. Our poor usually have more money than the middle class of many other nations.

hell, they usually have more than the wealthy in a lot of countries.

If that's the way it worked, there would be no poor.

Note I said should. There will always be poor people, no matter what.

Also, show me how there is mass poverty in the United States, and I'll show you that we're the wealthiest nation on Earth. Our poor usually have more money than the middle class of many other nations.

You completely ignore the part where it costs more to live here.

You completely ignore the part where it costs more to live here.

However, compare what the poor people here have to those of other nations.

However, compare what the poor people here have to those of other nations.

Tuberculosis?

Tuberculosis?

NOOOOO!

Name brand boxes to live in... big chain store shopping carts... food so pumped with perservatives that they will practially last... well untill they eat it... [jk] :D :D :D :D

The Democrats shouldn't gain power because the only good Congress is a 50-50 one.

To be honest, there isn't.

Here is the only real diffrence between the two parties.

Democrats like to restrict your freedom economically

Republicans like to restrict your freedom socially

Democrats like to tax and spend

Republican like to borrow and spend.

That's basically it there.

That is why we need a new party!

That, and Republicans blame the country's problems on terrorists, Muslims, and liberals, whereas the Democrats blame the country's problems on Republicans and Christians and whine and cry about how they want to move to Canada.

By the way, I'm not voting this year, I'm only 14 :(

Hey Pancake! Glad to see you're still here. :)

Hey Pancake! Glad to see you're still here. :)

I've been busy with marching band. And geometry :mad:.

But it's glad to be here... :D

on the off chance that you are actually reading this, which post was it?

just out of curiosity

Probably the one I quoted, from the first page, which someone said Democrats are socialist. A very funny statement indeed.

Why Democrats must not gain power in Nov


Satan ?

That, and Republicans blame the country's problems on terrorists, Muslims, and liberals, whereas the Democrats blame the country's problems on Republicans and Christians and whine and cry about how they want to move to Canada.

By the way, I'm not voting this year, I'm only 14 :(

The major difference being that a lot of thoes percieved problems actualy are being caused by republicans(being they are in power) ... and a silly vocal minority of christians