See, that's called facism. "Do what's necessary, and screw the law."

The states, and I mean Alabama, etc wouldn't have done diddly squat to prevent discrimination against blacks.

No government has any right to prevent privite discrimination against anyone. We've been over this.

Of course, today it would have been struck down and minorities would continue to have been discriminated in American restaurants and hotels.

You think that that law stopped discrimination by private institutions? Barry Goldwater said at the time, "You can't legistlate morality." Now liberals have twisted that phrase, as they're wont to do, but what he originally meant was that no matter how many laws you pass, you're not going to change peoples minds and hearts. Discrimination stopped when people decided it was wrong, and not a second before.

Under any circumstances, right or wrong, useful or no, the government STILL didn't have the authority to do what it did, and it was STILL violating the rights of property owners. Nothing changes those simple facts.

However, it must be understood that too weak of one is just as dangerous.

We got along quite well under the US constitution, before the New Deal came along. The only problem was mismanagement by the federal reserve, which caused the depression of the thirties. Bad laws will do that under any system. Seems like the optimum arrangement to me.

Both are working towards what they feel is best for the country.

Good. At least I'm not the only one with the murderous urge to toss my computer out a 9th storey window.

Yes, and the existance (or not) of those programs varies directly with how much power the government has over you.

Government programs? Infrastructure programs for cities? What about Airline Security? They are government programs, right?

Then they need to read more history books, because they should expect exactly that. The government WILL abuse its power, if given enough. This has been seen almost invariably throughout history.

Have you noticed that these authoritarian governments were formed by real nutcases rather than normal people? Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic. It's the person in power who causes these problems. Oh and by the way, if you say that Pinochet was a liberal, I'll smack you again.

There is no right to equal service, because implementing such a right would require violation of the right to private property. Again, the government gains more power over your lives, the power to violate your supposedly inviolable rights if it sees fit.

The right to equal service is enshrined in our Constitution (read OURS, not yours). Canada as a multicultural society will do everything in its power, not beyond, to make all services available to ANYONE, not a small elite group of people that you appear to cherish.

Good.

I said I'll accept your argument. I didn't say I was going to follow it.

Violating the rights of one group (namely, anyone with property) in order to make another group happy? And you claim this as a GOOD thing?

Say that to the middle-class black people turned away from renting a condo only because they are black. Oh, their rights were never violated.... right?

I suppose you equate Racism with the First Amendment, right?

They can be turned into such with minimal effort.

How can an institution dedicated to promoting human rights and an institution dedicated to providing equal access to health care be turned into Authoritarian institutions with LITTLE effort? Doing so is virtually impossible.

And while we're at it, the Military can be used to turn into authoritarian regimes with minimal effort. Look at the armies of Hitler, Milosevic and Pinochet (if you say Pinochet was a Liberal again, I'll smack you twice, and even harder).

The FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Military, Coast Guard, and the DEA are more likely to be converted into Authoritarian regimes than a Human Rights Commission and Medicare. They are the enforcers (Note, the CHRC NEVER enforces anything. If they do come across a violation, they go to the courts for a resolution).

We'll see about that next year. I'll tell you how it goes.

Good Luck. I expect you to post your grades next year. And please, share your essays with us ALONG with what your Political Science instructor says.

liberalism = larger, more powerful government -> authoritarianism

At least I'm not the only one with the murderous urge to toss my computer out a 9th story window.

"Why does my computer hate me, round six..."

Have you noticed that these authoritarian governments were formed by real nutcases rather than normal people? Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic. It's the person in power who causes these problems.

How 'bout Lenin? He was half-way sane. Yet the people gave him too much power, and look what happened to them. Millions dead as a direct result. You name people who formed governments. Sure, Mao formed the Chinese government, and Stalin helped form the Soviet, but they weren't running things forever. There were four other major Soviet premiers after Stalin, all just as opressive, if not as flat-out evil. Two Chinese presidents since Mao, same deal. The problem isn't the guy running things, it's the fact that he can do whatever he wants. Power corrupts.

Name five good dictatorships anywhere on Earth right now. Absolute government power is bad, regardless of who's running it. The more power the government has, the more likely it becomes that that power will become absolute.

The right to equal service is enshrined in our Constitution

See, this is why I live here, and not in Canada. I LIKE to know that I'm not going to have my property confiscated, because my right to it is enshined. You don't have that guarentee, because your right to private property is not enshrined.

not a small elite group of people that you appear to cherish.

Excuse me?

Say that to the middle-class black people turned away from renting a condo only because they are black. Oh, their rights were never violated.... right?

Right.

I suppose you equate Racism with the First Amendment, right?

Well, let's see. Racism is a belief. Various ammendments say that the government can not discriminate against people based upon their beliefs. So, yeah, I do.

And while we're at it, the Military can be used to turn into authoritarian regimes with minimal effort.

Depends on the commanders, and the existing government structure. Civilian authority is paramount.

The FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Military, Coast Guard, and the DEA are more likely to be converted into Authoritarian regimes than a Human Rights Commission and Medicare.

The HRC and Medicare are symptoms of the "regime". The entities you listed would be the enforcers (well, not the CIA, since it's purely external, but the point remains). I'm not saying that the HRC IS the "regime". Simply that the existence of such a body is an indicator of the amount of power the government has over you.

How can an institution dedicated to promoting human rights and an institution dedicated to providing equal access to health care be turned into Authoritarian institutions with LITTLE effort?

Well, as above, the HRC is simply a symptom, not the "regime" itself. The point is, you've given your government the power to violate your right to property as it sees fit. That means that it already HAS the power to do pretty well anything it wants to you. It simply hasn't exercized it yet.

Private property is the guarantor of all your rights. You have no freedom of worship if the government owns your church building, nor freedom of press if the press is not yours.

Good Luck.

Thank you.

I expect you to post your grades next year. And please, share your essays with us ALONG with what your Political Science instructor says.

Fine. But larger does not mean pervasive (or do you mean invasive). Larger governments can be less invasive towards lifestyle. I fail to see how HRC, Medicare, and other government infrastructure programs are invasive.

See, this is why I live here, and not in Canada. I LIKE to know that I'm not going to have my property confiscated, because my right to it is enshined. You don't have that guarentee, because your right to private property is not enshrined.

I believe our Property is also enshrined, and Property is never confiscated in our constitution. I need to ask, are there property taxes in the States?

Speaking of which, doesn't your government expropriate land from others to build government buildings?

However, if you are providing a service, you are obligated to serve all citizens of society.

Ya know, I bet the issue of property is your biggest beef with the government......

Name five good dictatorships anywhere on Earth right now. Absolute government power is bad, regardless of who's running it. The more power the government has, the more likely it becomes that that power will become absolute.

1) Who said there was such thing as a good Dictatorship *gags First of Two*?
2) Absolute government IS bad.
3) I say again, larger government does not mean more power.

Well, as above, the HRC is simply a symptom, not the "regime" itself. The point is, you've given your government the power to violate your right to property as it sees fit.

Fine, so are the infrastructure programs, National Airline Security, NASA, etc. etc. etc.

Under the laws that brought out the HRC and Medicare, they are supposed to be arms-length agencies with minimal influence from government. Even the government does not escape the HRC if it is found to be participating in discrimination one way or the other. It has happened before.

I don't see how PERSONAL property is violated in this case. The HRC does not confiscate property if it finds you participated in discriminatory affairs. Under the law, the worst it can do is a monetary settlement that isn't even worth much (5-6 digit figure?). If you want more money, you'll have to pursue the matter yourself, WITHOUT the HRC's support.

Depends on the commanders, and the existing government structure. Civilian authority is paramount.

Same in the case of the HRC and Medicare.

Say that to the middle-class black people turned away from renting a condo only because they are black. Oh, their rights were never violated.... right?

Right.

Please explain.

It is clear that Canada's constitution allows all citizens access to all services (private or public), and no citizen shall be denied access due to discriminatory reasons. As for US's constitution? well.....

You may not like the idea of living in Canada for this reason, but I do. I expect to walk into a West Indian Store to buy some spiced Chick Peas and not get harassed out of the store. And if I opened my own Chinese restaurant, I wouldn't care less about who comes in provided that they 1) eat, 2) pay for it, and 3) leave me a good tip.

[ October 13, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]

It is clear that Canada's constitution allows all citizens access to all services (private or public), and no citizen shall be denied access due to discriminatory reasons.

Which is totally contradictory to the concept of private property. The concept of private property, by definition, is that if I own something, I can do whatever I please with it, be that give it away, hoarde it, trade it for goods or services, or burn it. So long as I am not harming someone else, I can do whatever I please. And if that means chosing not to give money to certain persons in exchange for whatever good or service, even for an incredibly stupid reason, that's my right, too, by the definition of private property.

This anti-discrimination law impairs my right to do with my property what I please. It thereby takes control of that property away from me to a degree. Control IS ownership, regardless of what any papers might say. Therefore, a government that does not allow discrimination in private matters violates the private property rights of any involved party.

And before you ask, no, discrimination does not constitute harm. Harm is defined as injury to one's person, or damage to or impairment of the value of one's property. Discrimination does neither of these things.

I don't see how PERSONAL property is violated in this case. The HRC does not confiscate property if it finds you participated in discriminatory affairs.

Lack of control is effective confiscation, as above.

Ya know, I bet the issue of property is your biggest beef with the government...

Yup. Socialism, in its purest form, requires that the government own everything. Thus, no private property, thus no way to guarntee that you won't be opressed. Any government regulation on private property beyond its use to do direct harm is a step towards that failed system.

I fail to see how HRC, Medicare, and other government infrastructure programs are invasive.

HRC, or rather the constitutional clause that provides its authority, interferes with the rights of property owners to the free exercize of their property. Medicare simply leads to massive taxes, as well as (depending on the system) interfering with private practitioners. How much do you pay in taxes to cover your free health care? How much more money would you have, and therefore power to persue your own goals, if you didn't have to pay those taxes?

I need to ask, are there property taxes in the States?

On most local and some state levels. Why? ALL taxes are, strictly speaking, property confiscation, not just property taxes.

Speaking of which, doesn't your government expropriate land from others to build government buildings?

You mean steal? No. They buy it at full market value (or higher) and if they don't, large stinks occur. It's relatively rare that anyone doesn't agree to sell for the price they're offered. One example, though, is that some idiot three blocks down from me was offered probably twice what his house was worth for his land, so they could build a library there. He didn't sell, God only knows why. So they built the thing three blocks further away, in a flood plain. But they didn't steal his house, by any means.

However, if you are providing a service, you are obligated to serve all citizens of society.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
Name five good dictatorships anywhere on Earth right now. Absolute government power is bad, regardless of who's running it. The more power the government has, the more likely it becomes that that power will become absolute.

---

I can name one, Singapore
Lee Kwan Yew's strong armed tactics could be considered a dictatorship. The laws in Singapore are extremely harsh, but then crime-rate is extremely low. Furthermore, Lee helped raise the average income of the Singaporean from 200 dollars or so to nearly 30,000 dollars. That's one of the highest in the world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
This anti-discrimination law impairs my right to do with my property what I please. It thereby takes control of that property away from me to a degree. Control IS ownership, regardless of what any papers might say. Therefore, a government that does not allow discrimination in private matters violates the private property rights of any involved party.

---

Okay, let me ask you this. The government imposes regulations on businesses all the time. Health codes, etc. etc. etc. How is this different? Isn't the government impeding on your property rights to do with as you please?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
In the strict almost Jeffersonian sense of the Constitution, it was most definately an invasion of States rights. But of course, it was needed.

See, that's called facism. "Do what's necessary, and screw the law."

---

Okay, here's the thing. As you can see, it is an invasion in the Jeffersonian strict construction/conservative way. BUT of course that is not the only way to look at it. That's the thing about law. Its so difficult to take an extreme and stick with it, because someone always has another view that has its own merits. It may not be wrong. I mean look at Marshall. He is perhaps one of the most celebrated men in US history. He established a strong judicial branch and enhanced the power of the federal government. Does that make him a fascist? It is his basic ideas of a strong central government, which he establishes in part by allowing a broad defination of interstate commerce in Gibbons v. Ogden. "Liberals" as you call it would trace their ideas of a strong congress to Marshall. Is he simply wrong? Why is he so admired then?

quote:

---

See, this is why I live here, and not in Canada.

---

quote:

---

Well, let's see. Racism is a belief. Various ammendments say that the government can not discriminate against people based upon their beliefs.

---

So, that justifies it all, doesn't it? Let's see...

1). Government may not discriminate
2). Freedom of speech, freedom of religion

In other words, that makes you a racist too. You fully support the government and its laws, thus you condone the continued existence of racism. Never mind that black people are brutally slaughtered, as long as it's in the almighty constitution, you support it. Short-sighted and egotistical.

[ October 14, 2001: Message edited by: IDIC ]

How does that follow? Remember, "I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." How is this such a difficult concept to grasp? I do NOT condone racism, but neither will I allow any attempts to eliminate it by any government, because a) that's impossible, because you can't legislate morality, and b) the attempt would, by nature, lead to the creation of thought police. Thus it would not achieve its stated goal, but would affect the rest of us. Read: BAD IDEA.

Never mind that black people are brutally slaughtered

Excuse me? Brutally slaughtered?

Oh, you're talking about that guy that was dragged to death a few years back. Name one law that could possibly have prevented that, please. THEN you might have a point, but not a second before.

So, that justifies it all, doesn't it? Let's see...

1). Government may not discriminate
2). Freedom of speech, freedom of religion

In other words, that makes you a racist too.

That's a total non sequitor. Complete gibberish.

Again, this is why I like Canadian liberals (yes, by my definition, so let's not get into that again): they can express their thoughts rationally, and without resorting to unfounded personal attacks.

USS:

Lee Kwan Yew's strong armed tactics could be considered a dictatorship. The laws in Singapore are extremely harsh, but then crime-rate is extremely low. Furthermore, Lee helped raise the average income of the Singaporean from 200 dollars or so to nearly 30,000 dollars.

Oh, yes, of course. The average quality of life went up in the USSR and China after their respective revolutions, too, but that doesn't make up for the tens of millions dead. It's also important HOW the changes were made.

Okay, let me ask you this. The government imposes regulations on businesses all the time. Health codes, etc. etc. etc. How is this different?

It isn't. The federal government doesn't have that right, either, nor can it issue a minimum wage. See, that's what we have unions for: to negotiate good wages and working conditions as a PRIVATE MATTER between employer and employee. It's none of the government's business, so long as a contract isn't violated.

"Liberals" as you call it would trace their ideas of a strong congress to Marshall. Is he simply wrong? Why is he so admired then?

Why is FDR so admired? JFK's an even better example: the man did exactly NOTHING of legislative value during his term except cut taxes, and yet he's still dearly loved, and people like Bill Clinton base entire careers on emulating him. (Which might explain why Clinton ALSO did nothing, but that's a different topic. )

Anyway, your answer: probably because people simply don't know any better.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
[QB} Lee Kwan Yew's strong armed tactics could be considered a dictatorship. The laws in Singapore are extremely harsh, but then crime-rate is extremely low. Furthermore, Lee helped raise the average income of the Singaporean from 200 dollars or so to nearly 30,000 dollars.

Oh, yes, of course. The average quality of life went up in the USSR and China after their respective revolutions, too, but that doesn't make up for the tens of millions dead. It's also important HOW the changes were made.
{QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:

Okay, let me ask you this. The government imposes regulations on businesses all the time. Health codes, etc. etc. etc. How is this different?

It isn't. The federal government doesn't have that right, either, nor can it issue a minimum wage. See, that's what we have unions for: to negotiate good wages and working conditions as a PRIVATE MATTER between employer and employee. It's none of the government's business, so long as a contract isn't violated.

---

quote:

---

"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

---