Is the US headed towards a socialist government?

[kandrathe]

A status quo where the vast majority of people were vastly less free than today.

It is clear they knew it was wrong, even in 1776. The fact remains that they were unwilling to dissolve the fragile union newly forged, which inevitably resulted in a civil war. Even Britain had to be tricked out of supporting the slave trade.

Obviously, none of them. However, my point is that the history of the US has trended strongly from less liberty for all to more, not the other way around, as you seem to believe, or at least imply on a regular basis.

The Mormons never pursued their rights via the court system, so we'll never know. They were ostracized, and treated poorly by their neighbors, until they finally carved out their own niche in SLC. No one chased them, or exiled them.

By establishing a strong executive, with an army, a banking system, a public debt, and all the pragmatic trappings of real government, including the powers of taxation and regulation that you complain so loudly about. That is to say, he (and many others, of course) diverted the course of US government from a Jeffersonian experiment to the nation you see before you.

Even then, in the beginning, taxation was limited. It was the 16th amendment that was the largest fraud ever practiced upon any nation that doomed the citizens of the US into perpetual servitude. See the ruling of the US Supreme Court in the case of Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co., 157 US 429 (1895).

[Jester]

It is clear they knew it was wrong, even in 1776. The fact remains that they were unwilling to dissolve the fragile union newly forged, which inevitably resulted in a civil war.

And this is a perfectly fair interpretation. But don't try and sell me a line about the US having been more free two hundred years ago.

The Mormons never pursued their rights via the court system, so we'll never know. They were ostracized, and treated poorly by their neighbors, until they finally carved out their own niche in SLC. No one chased them, or exiled them.

That's not entirely accurate. There was military force involved. Whether that constitutes "exile" or being "chased" or not is a matter of interpretation.

It was the 16th amendment that was the largest fraud ever practiced upon any nation that doomed the citizens of the US into perpetual servitude. See the ruling of the US Supreme Court in the case of Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co., 157 US 429 (1895).

In addition to being stupendously exaggerated (The largest fraud? On any nation? Ever? Really? Perpetual servitude?), I'm really starting to wonder if you actually believe in the idea of democracy, or simply equate liberty directly with low taxes. This amendment, and every other, was passed by an *elected* congress, using authority explicitly granted to them under the Constitution of the United States. If any other *elected* congress chose to repeal that amendment, at any time since its passing, that would have been within their rights as well, and yet they have not.
I am also tickled by the dissent from Brown on that case:

The decision involves nothing less than the surrender of the taxing power to the moneyed class...Even the spectre of socialism is conjured up to frighten Congress from laying taxes upon the people in proportion to their ability to pay them.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

In addition to being stupendously exaggerated (The largest fraud? On any nation? Ever? Really? Perpetual servitude?), I'm really starting to wonder if you actually believe in the idea of democracy, or simply equate liberty directly with low taxes. This amendment, and every other, was passed by an *elected* congress, using authority explicitly granted to them under the Constitution of the United States. If any other *elected* congress chose to repeal that amendment, at any time since its passing, that would have been within their rights as well, and yet they have not. I am also tickled by the dissent from Brown on that case:

Not low taxes, but more the intrusion of the government into every aspect of peoples lives. It would not surprise me if part of the new New Deal included something like a way to cut down on unplanned pregnancy, and disease. Let's put a tax on the sex act. Make it illegal to not declare your intimacies.

[eppie]

so forgive me if I offended you with that statement.

I didn't get offended so you don't have to apologize. Discussion between people in different countries is usually more difficult alreadu, then add the fact that we do this on a forum.....misunderstanding is normal.


The freedom of naming your child whatever you want can not be called a 'first order right' (sorry for not using the correct english word) as are right of enough food and water, also not in the same order as freedom of expression, it is beyond that. And for me you are fine calling a child whatever you want, but naming somebody after a somebody that did such terrible things so recently just shows the parents are morons. And a normal moron would just change the name. or not mention it in the press when confronted, but these parents were even further away.

But we are just discussing some populist thing if the day and this case doesn't have anything to do with freedom.

Just like the heate debate in Holland about if women should be allowed to wear a burka. Nobody ever mentioned that in real life there are only 3 woemn that actually want to.

[kandrathe]

As long as there's still KFC buffets in the USofA, the smell of freedom is still pretty strong and tasty. The fact that this http://www.kfc.com/menu/bowls.asp even exists in America, should be a resounding answer.

I don't think KFC.fr is a measure of freedom... Perhaps, it's even the opposite. You know... There was a day when Mom and Pop used to own a dinner, or a drive in, but now it's a strip mall with a Starbucks.

[kandrathe]

Just like the heate debate in Holland about if women should be allowed to wear a burka. Nobody ever mentioned that in real life there are only 3 women that actually want to.

They should offer up a choice to the highest Imam's in Holland, they will guarantee that women who choose to wear a burka are freely allowed, as long as also Dutch women who want to wear a string bikini are also freely allowed. Tolerance should be a two way street.

[Hammerskjold]

I don't think KFC.fr is a measure of freedom... Perhaps, it's even the opposite. You know... There was a day when Mom and Pop used to own a dinner, or a drive in, but now it's a strip mall with a Starbucks.

Yes, there used to be a lot more Mom&Pop business in N.America. Are all of them are straight out of Mayberry or Happy Days? Let's not get too much into nostalgia here. Rose coloured rear view mirrors can interfere with our hindsight.

Besides, it could be argued that the Colonel himself started out as a Mom&Pop operation.
http://www.kfc.com/about/secret.asp

The man had an idea, and made that idea real. He came out with a product, and people bought it. He invested in his business, and his business grew. Sounds like a capital idea to me.

And if his business grows because the demand supports it and if his success is based on the merit of his idea\product\service, isn't that what you've always been railing about? By Gads, in the name of 11 herbs and spices, I for one salute this Colonel!

[kandrathe]

Yes, there used to be a lot more. The man had an idea, and made that idea real. He came out with a product, and people bought it. He invested in his business, and his business grew. Sounds like a capital idea to me.

Col. Sanders sold out his operation in 1964 for $2 million. I'm just saying that the presence of eggs, does not automatically suggest there is a chicken around. The invasion of corporate franchises around the globe does not equate to a spread of freedom, unless freedom can be measured in kilograms of trans fats. Yum! molds itself into what works no matter how tyrannical the government under which it operates. So, yes, tyranny and capitalism do work well together, especially when the government has a sweet deal with the capitalists to share profits, siphon off natural resources, crush labor unions, and keep wages low. I'm not against Col. Sanders or even Yum! competing on a level playing field. As we both know, there is an unholy alliance between large corporations and elected officials. Freedom in my mind also involves much less back scratching, as in "If you fund my re-election, and I'll slip in some amendments to make your corporation (or labor union) prosper."

[Hammerskjold]

Look, as much as I share your contempt with some of the unsavoury practices of behemoth sized corporations and corrupt governments.

For some business, I actually agree that a serious look and revamp of the mom&pop model might actually be a more profitable way to go. For others, it can't work. Some aspects of it can, but there are real limitations. Most modern nations economies do have co-dependent relationships.

I'm not someone who believes globalization is a force of benign prosperity all the time, but most of the world's economy is now a global one whether we like it or not. It was already heading that way the moment someone put sails on a boat, it's just with modern technology the pace and scale has dramatically increased. And if you want your shift to a new info\skill based economy, globalization will probably be again part and parcel of that.

But getting back to topic, I don't see most corporations as outright evil. I do see them more as a-moral. I try to support Costco over Walmart when I can, because I like how they treat their employees over Walmart. It might be a drop in the ocean, but at least it's my drop. With enough of it, even the most tone deaf corporations might hear it.

Like KFC dropping trans fat oil.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...Id=6407183

Not that I buy the good Colonel's chicken everyday or anything, but it is possible to change a corporation's tune if you can speak in their language of the dollar.

As for the too cozy relationship between big money and government, I'm not quite cynical enough to believe all is lost. Hard money reforms (and more importantly the enforcement of it) IMO goes a long way towards correcting the system. Soft money is a dangerous loophole, but at least I see some signs that people do want to see that fixed too.

Anyhow, I'm bowing out since I got some studies and more laundry to do. But thanks for the reply, it's one of the clearer ones I've read lately.

[Chesspiece_face]

They should offer up a choice to the highest Imam's in Holland, they will guarantee that women who choose to wear a burka are freely allowed, as long as also Dutch women who want to wear a string bikini are also freely allowed. Tolerance should be a two way street.

Why Should I Respect These Oppressive Religions?

[kandrathe]

Why Should I Respect These Oppressive Religions?

Word.

[eppie]

Why Should I Respect These Oppressive Religions?

I don't respect any religion, and I don't respect the 'believing in' that people do. However, I can respect people that are religious based on other qualities or deeds or they way they live there live.
Of course as long as these religious people mind their own business.

And in the western world it is christianity that minds the business of other people the most (no swearing, don't work on sunday, the government decides if you can have an abortion or euthenasia, sex on TV is evil but violence is fine, if your are not catholic you can forget getting a good job). Because of all these things, worrying about somebody wearing a burqa is the last thing on my mind. Although I absolutely disrespect somebody that does, it is her own business. I also agree however (contrary to some left wing people) that somebody that wears a burqa and can't find a job for that reason should not get unemployment money or welfare.

[Jester]

And in the western world it is christianity that minds the business of other people the most (no swearing, don't work on sunday, the government decides if you can have an abortion or euthenasia, sex on TV is evil but violence is fine, if your are not catholic you can forget getting a good job).

The Presidency of the United States isn't a good job?

-Jester

[eppie]

The Presidency of the United States isn't a good job?

-Jester

Sorry if I wasn't clear. This was a sum up of things going on in different christian countries.
I guess for a non christian it would be quite difficult to get the job though.

[kandrathe]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. This was a sum up of things going on in different Christian countries. I guess for a non Christian it would be quite difficult to get the job though.

In the US, at least in the larger cities, there is no overt discrimination based upon religion. I would imagine in a small town, people do know where and if you go to church, and might be able then to discriminate based on that knowledge. Mostly, people in the US don't discuss their personal views on religion or politics unless they are in a safe environment to do so. The work holidays cater to the majority population, but many businesses now give people "floating holidays" that they can take whenever they choose.

There are two aspects I respect about religions; 1) Discipline, 2) Beneficial Dogma. There is of course good and bad in both of these, however, on the whole I think these two things make religions a good thing for people. Religious discipline teaches people how to live peacefully, and to aspire to something greater than themselves. The useful and beneficial dogma's are wisdoms that are taught by the churches that are good for us, whether we know it or not. For example, I was unaware of the biologically beneficial effects of fasting. In many countries times of fasting were performed when food born illnesses were most common. Beyond that, fasting has been shown to promote life extension and disease preventive effects. Pete and I have had long discourse on this issue, but on the whole, I think it is a good thing for people to have societal structure that teaches them the "good" path, rather than rely on each person to be intellectual enough to discover their role in the society. Education is a good thing, but judging where most people are at intellectually, they still need a primer on "How to be a good and useful citizen".

As for faith in God, yes, that is a different thing altogether and can exist outside of a religion. People can be religious, and not have faith as well.

[eppie]

And what about your government telling you how to behave like a good citizen?

Forbidding the use of transfats in deep fryers is a good thing for your health right? That sort of thing.

I am very surprised about your post; basically you say people are on the average not too smart so let them be a tool.

More so different religions propose different things? Is all of it good for your health or for structure?

Religion tells us that men are better than women....at least that is what religious leaders have made us believe for centuries? Well in Afghanistan people would agree with you? They would say indeed, it brings structure to all those morons that think that men and women should have equal rights.

To me it seems that you agree because you agree with most aspects of (a certain) religion. Having in mind the sharia instead you would probably have a different opinion.

The religious rule of living your life better are just logical things that people knew. It is wrong to kill your neighbour.....well duhhh.

Another examples, those gangstarappers and their posses, are always highly religious.....but it doesn't seem to have helped them in being a good person.



Well these were many words just to say that I don't agree about religion giving people a 'good' structure in life.

[kandrathe]

And what about your government telling you how to behave like a good citizen?

I think you know where I stand on that. The less the better. The government interferes in our lives with direct or indirect taxation, laws, or regulation of behaviors. Certainly, some things like "don't kill anyone" are a good thing, but I disagree with the level of intrusion.

Forbidding the use of transfats in deep fryers is a good thing for your health right? That sort of thing.

I think Denis Leary said it best in Demolition Man.

I am very surprised about your post; basically you say people are on the average not too smart so let them be a tool.

Individually, if they choose, people can be smart, but en-mass people tend not to be smart and I still believe they need a path to follow.

More so different religions propose different things? Is all of it good for your health or for structure?

No. And, in eastern religious terms, enlightenment would be the ability to discern which "good" things are really good. You should not do things because you are told to do them, but only because you know them to be right.

Religion tells us that men are better than women....at least that is what religious leaders have made us believe for centuries? Well in Afghanistan people would agree with you? They would say indeed, it brings structure to all those morons that think that men and women should have equal rights.

You need to look at the origin of the Koran and understand why it was made, and the same is true with many Judeo-Christian texts. Often the selection of which parts are included or excluded, the phrasing of the text, and the interpretation derived from them are twisted to fit a particular world view. There is much evidence, for example, that women held positions of prominence in the early Christian church. It was only later, after Christianity became more main stream that women were disallowed from leadership. The battle continues in many Christian sects today between the views of Egalitarianism versus Complementarianism.

To me it seems that you agree because you agree with most aspects of (a certain) religion. Having in mind the sharia instead you would probably have a different opinion.

I disagree with the aspects of Christianity when it interferes with a persons individual liberties. In other words, if something is not harmful to others we should be allowed to engage in "sin" freely. The government should not force me to be without sins (other than to prevent me from harming others). It is the same opinion I hold about "giving", in that, the government should not force me to be charitable.

The religious rule of living your life better are just logical things that people knew. It is wrong to kill your neighbour.....well duhhh.

Right, but I think the founders of America had moved beyond the simple "10 Commandments" and were well versed in English Common Law, and Lockian Natural Law concepts as well. I believe the British and American systems of justice are based on a philosophical foundation deeper than merely a Judeo-Christian theology.

Another examples, those gangstarappers and their posses, are always highly religious.....but it doesn't seem to have helped them in being a good person.

Don't be swayed by the spectacle of any one particular example. Give anyone tremendous amounts of money, power and fame overnight, and they too are bound to be a loose cannon. Also, the camera loves the extraordinary, and eschews the mundane. You never hear about the humble simple people (e.g. LL Cool J, Russell Simmons), who don't drive their BMW's over the paparazzi or punch them in the face.

Well these were many words just to say that I don't agree about religion giving people a 'good' structure in life.

I respect your opinion. It certainly has its flaws, but I would guess for many aimless people it's better than nothing.

[Jester]

Don't be swayed by the spectacle of any one particular example.

This is extraordinarily good advice. In the same vein, do you have any evidence that religious people, as a group, are any more peaceful, less violent, or what have you, than equivalent irreligious people? Or do you assume that to be true?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

This is extraordinarily good advice. In the same vein, do you have any evidence that religious people, as a group, are any more peaceful, less violent, or what have you, than equivalent irreligious people? Or do you assume that to be true?

-Jester

Indirectly. U of Iowa Study -- Teens who attend religious services do better in school, study shows "Overall, teens that attended services regularly demonstrated more positive educational outcomes in three areas: they had higher GPAs, a lower dropout rate, and greater school attachment (defined as the degree to which students feel like a part of the school and feel happy to be a part of it). Religious-service attendance had the same effect across all major denominations, the study showed."

Since educational achievement and community involvement are also a factor in crime, I would say indirectly that one could extrapolate that "religiousness" will reduce crime. Then again, it could also be extrapolated that other moral means (4H, Boy Scouts, Athletics) would also be means to connect individuals to their communities. It would be nice to have a similar study that shows crime rates related to church attendance, but so far I can't find one that you would consider to be unbiased.

Certainly when religion is used to justify violence in political struggle (e.g. Latin America, the Middle East, or Northern Ireland) then it becomes evil. And, conversely, religion is used as a reason to persecute a minority population (e.g. Sudan, Iraq, or USSR), then again, if it weren't religion it would be something else (i.e. us vs them). In this way, religion is just another demographic point of difference by which some people hate on others.

[Jester]

Certainly when religion is used to justify violence in political struggle (e.g. Latin America, the Middle East, or Northern Ireland) then it becomes evil. And, conversely, religion is used as a reason to persecute a minority population (e.g. Sudan, Iraq, or USSR), then again, if it weren't religion it would be something else (i.e. us vs them). In this way, religion is just another demographic point of difference by which some people hate on others.

How sure are you that religion is just a substitute for other "us vs. them" issues, and not a separate instigating factor over and above race, politics, nationality, etc...? Both the historical record and current events are full of some pretty brutal violence that appears, at least at face value, to be over religion.

As for the Iowa paper, I'd be interested to read it when it gets published. I suspect that almost all these effects wash out when you control properly for all the other variables, and for the impact of similar social groupings which are not religious. I certainly can't be sure of that, but it is perhaps indicative that the importance of religion to the teens themselves seems to have little impact. That suggests that it is not the doctrine or belief that is having the effect (or that teens have very poor self-awareness, which would shock nobody.)

I suspect what that is about, and probably what the paper is driving at, given her interests, is social capital. People who are well-connected, social people, with similarly connected families do slightly better at almost everything than those who are not, ceteris paribus. Church is a way of making those connections, whereas there is no similar associative group for the irreligious.

-Jester