PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: asechrest on April 12, 2017, 07:18:29 AM
-
http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/family-planning-miracle-colorado-program-has-teen-births-and-abortions-drop-half-and
If we're going to spend OPM in this area, THIS should be the focus.
-
There is just a great big giant disconnect between the biological reality of our species and our economic and social systems. We have evolved to reach sexual maturity many many years before we are ready in today's modern world to raise and support children, at least in the first world. Age 14 for girls and 16 for males, is when mother nature insists you have sex, a drive only just behind breathing and finding food in urgency. The legal "age of consent" (18 or 21, varies by state?) is an artificial construct, as is any religious prohibitions against sex. Hence the persistent failure throughout history of attempts to restrain sex on legal or moral grounds. We are genetically programmed to begin sexual liaisons at age 14/16 because in the environment in which we evolved, this was ideal for the survival of the species.
We find ourselves now, after the rise of civilization, the success of agriculture in making possible great cities, countries and empires, with redistribution of labor and resources, then the industrial revolution and now advanced technology and cultural constraints against not only sex before 21, but WORK before 21, in a world where teens can no longer earn enough to support a family. And then we've even codified this by redefining the term "child" to mean not someone prepubescent, but someone under a quite arbitrary age many years older. (21 has nothing to do with physical maturity; it has everything to do with getting through primary education and a few years at a trade school or college.) "Child" labor laws, alcoholic beverage laws, minimum wage laws, and this cultural myth everyone must go to college, make it impossible for teens to have a child and support it themselves, thereby making this whole thing such a big "problem". It results in the creation of a time of limbo where a person is physically mature, has the working equipment and hormonal drives for procreation, but is expected to repress all of that for five, six or seven years of what nature intended as their most prime time of performance and enjoyment. Indeed, if one partner happens to be a few years older than the other, it becomes pedophilia (despite the fact that males - of any age - attracted to physically mature 14 year old girls are very different from a true pedophile, one who preys on unwilling physically immature small children.)
I'm not saying we are wrong to attempt to constrain with morality or law, sex in the teenager. We are not wrong to have developed civilization, education. and all the other factors above-mentioned that place us in this predicament. It is what it is and so we attempt to deal with the problem of parents too under-prepared to raise in today's world a baby they are physically capable of making. It would be nuts to go backwards to cave man days just to calibrate ourselves so that sexual maturity now equals income earning maturity. Perhaps in several hundred thousand years, if we don't go extinct, mother nature will adjust our sexual maturity upward to approach our intellectual and emotional maturity. In fact this is probably already underway, as our species' ancestors as well as the great apes attain sexual maturity at younger years than do we. As mankind's brain size grows, everything else tends to eventually adjust, such as the reduction in our teeth and jaw size.
As for whether we should use tax dollars to focus on more "convenient" forms of birth control such as the IUD, my position is the same as many other topics along those lines such as treatment programs for drug addicts. I am basically against using tax dollars for anything at all except defense of the nation and maintaining open commerce pathways. But social programs already being in place, if our choice is pay for an IUD or pay for an unwanted kid who will be on welfare popping out many more unwanted kids for generations to come, then yes, I would be for this program.
-
As fast as the state (and the democrats) stop buying votes by paying for the outcome of unintended pregnancies, with our tax dollars, those most affected by unintended pregnancy will begin to accept responsibility for their actions, instead of foisting it all on others and expecting to be taken care of, one way or another.
-
As fast as the state (and the democrats) stop buying votes by paying for the outcome of unintended pregnancies, with our tax dollars, those most affected by unintended pregnancy will begin to accept responsibility for their actions, instead of foisting it all on others and expecting to be taken care of, one way or another.
So what you are saying is the post WWII Utopia of LBJ, etc was just a scam to buy votes, grow government, and increase government dependency? So, when this all ratcheted up in 1964, then increased, year by year over the past 53 years, we have not yet won the War on Poverty, and the Great Society is not a reality, just humming along gracefully? What???
It's not a swamp, it's an OCEAN!
-
The best way to turn a poor person into a less poor person is to allow them to control there reproduction. We have the science to do that, we just don't seem to have the social willpower. Make long-term contraception more available and you'll cut down the abortion rate. It really is that simple. I know there are ideologically driven folks in this site that vehemently object to free anything from the government, and I get that. But widespread availability of contraception makes really good sense in OUR society. It made no sense in the society of two thousand years ago because girls married young. Not so anymore.
-
As with everything that taxpayers are bullied into providing free to those whose votes are depended upon - dependent democrats for you that refuse to understand truth - free birth control causes yet more inmature behavior by those to whom it is given.
Laziness is the inevitable result of largess.
-
The best way to turn a poor person into a less poor person is to allow them to control there reproduction. We have the science to do that, we just don't seem to have the social willpower. Make long-term contraception more available and you'll cut down the abortion rate. It really is that simple. I know there are ideologically driven folks in this site that vehemently object to free anything from the government, and I get that. But widespread availability of contraception makes really good sense in OUR society. It made no sense in the society of two thousand years ago because girls married young. Not so anymore.
Birth control is already widely available from Planned Parenthood and other sources. If you're on birth control, you're actively trying to avoid a pregnancy, thus engaging in sex recreationally. Why should I pay for someone else's recreation?
The liberal Brookings' Institute cites three ways to avoid being poor throughout your life:
- Graduate high school
- Get a job
- Don't have a child out of wedlock
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/
-
Birth control is already widely available from Planned Parenthood and other sources. If you're on birth control, you're actively trying to avoid a pregnancy, thus engaging in sex recreationally. Why should I pay for someone else's recreation?
The liberal Brookings' Institute cites three ways to avoid being poor throughout your life:
- Graduate high school
- Get a job
- Don't have a child out of wedlock
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/
How about a compromise:
Don't defund Planned Parenthood, IF they get out of the abortion business, and step up their contraception and adoption efforts. The amount they now pay for an abortion could probably pay for a lot of long-term contraception. (Actually, I have no idea what Norplant or IUDs cost).
-
How about a compromise:
Don't defund Planned Parenthood, IF they get out of the abortion business, and step up their contraception and adoption efforts. The amount they now pay for an abortion could probably pay for a lot of long-term contraception. (Actually, I have no idea what Norplant or IUDs cost).
What's your justification for subsidizing someone else's recreational activities? Why should I, or any taxpayer, pay for someone else's birth control?
-
You're not going to make them more responsible by withholding birth control, and you're not going to make them less apathetic by providing it to them for free.
If the data shows an implantable device does prevent pregnancy, because they don't have to think to use it at the moment, where is the data showing these people end up less poor or becoming better citizens in the end? If they don't have the motivation, intelligence or impulse control to take a pill every day or use a condom, are they going to suddenly be able to get through college or run a successful business just because you prevented them from having a baby?
No, these people need a whole lot more than just free birth control. They need a whole life intervention, as explained in this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Hillbilly-Elegy-Memoir-Family-Culture/dp/0062300547
Focused personal mentoring from a caring individual, exposure and immersion in a culture other than the impoverished one that bred them. That's what brings people out of poverty, not government Band-Aides.
-
What's your justification for subsidizing someone else's recreational activities? Why should I, or any taxpayer, pay for someone else's birth control?
My justification is selfishness. Unwanted pregnancies, especially by poor single women propagate poverty and crime, which we all wind up paying for. It would be cheaper to pay to prevent it than to deal with it later. And like I said, it was a compromise. Of course, I realize that some people fail to comprehend the concept of compromise. And THAT is a shame.
-
My justification is selfishness. Unwanted pregnancies, especially by poor single women propagate poverty and crime, which we all wind up paying for. It would be cheaper to pay to prevent it than to deal with it later.
So because others can't make responsible decisions we should subsidize their poor behavior? No, thanks. At the federal level, I want Planned Parenthood defunded. If a state decides they want to provide birth control or other services then they are free to do so and if that's a deal breaker for me then I'm free to move to another state.
And like I said, it was a compromise. Of course, I realize that some people fail to comprehend the concept of compromise. And THAT is a shame.
Compromises are fine but not on something that isn't constitutional. I'm not going to compromise and agree to pay for someone else's recreational activity because they may end up pregnant if I don't.
-
If you're on birth control, you're actively trying to avoid a pregnancy, thus engaging in sex recreationally. Why should I pay for someone else's recreation?
Says you. Says me folks are engaging in something they've been programmed to do for the last several million years or so. I know you all think your 2000 year old book is more important, but I can assure you that Evolutionary instincts will win every time. We are programmed to reproduce with a will, and where there's a will, there's a way. The only thing that's ever been successful at preventing unwanted pregnancy is contraception.
Like I said, we have the science. What we don't have is the wisdom to use it.
-
Says you. Says me folks are engaging in something they've been programmed to do for the last several million years or so. I know you all think your 2000 year old book is more important, but I can assure you that Evolutionary instincts will win every time. We are programmed to reproduce with a will, and where there's a will, there's a way. The only thing that's ever been successful at preventing unwanted pregnancy is contraception.
Like I said, we have the science. What we don't have is the wisdom to use it.
So we have not evolved to the point we can use our brains to think of the consequences? We are programmed to do lots of things that may harm us, and we avoid them because we think. For me this is not a religious question, so much as an economic/government question. We need to stop incentivizing irresponsibility by making poor choices have consequences, or actually not incentivizing poor choices, and poor actions.
-
I'll say i again. It has never, ever, ever, worked, on a broad scale, to tell people to just not have sex. So let's stop dreaming of a Utopia where everyone is perfectly moral and all women hold an aspirin between their knees until the moment they are ready to conceive.
If you don't want to spend OPM on initiatives like I linked to, that's fine. And I hear your constitutional reasonings. But it does not change our reality. How do you want to address teen and unwanted pregnancies? Abstinence-only and religion-based education have poor track records. This Colorado initiative is showing real results, and I believe is saving the state significant money vs. the previous program.
-
Says you. Says me folks are engaging in something they've been programmed to do for the last several million years or so. I know you all think your 2000 year old book is more important, but I can assure you that Evolutionary instincts will win every time. We are programmed to reproduce with a will, and where there's a will, there's a way. The only thing that's ever been successful at preventing unwanted pregnancy is contraception.
Like I said, we have the science. What we don't have is the wisdom to use it.
No, not says me. Says the point of being on birth control. Aside from some other medical reasonings which are not the norm, you go on birth control to prevent pregnancies. How is that even in dispute?
I agree that we are programmed to have sex and reproduce and it's a biological function. But you still haven't answered the question as to why I should have to pay for your decisions?
-
I'll say i again. It has never, ever, ever, worked, on a broad scale, to tell people to just not have sex. So let's stop dreaming of a Utopia where everyone is perfectly moral and all women hold an aspirin between their knees until the moment they are ready to conceive.
Abstinence should continue to be taught as it is the only 100% way to prevent getting pregnant and avoiding other possibilities such as STI's. I'm aware of the reality that people are still going to have sex and for those there are other programs. I'm not suggesting it's a one size fits all solution.
If you don't want to spend OPM on initiatives like I linked to, that's fine. And I hear your constitutional reasonings. But it does not change our reality. How do you want to address teen and unwanted pregnancies? Abstinence-only and religion-based education have poor track records. This Colorado initiative is showing real results, and I believe is saving the state significant money vs. the previous program.
Then either pass a federal law that's in line with the Constitution, or amend the Constitution. Outside of that, there is no emotional or other argument you can make to justify why the federal government should be paying for this.
Again, at the state level they are more than welcome to do it and that's actually where it belongs anyway. Colorado knows their citizens better than the federal government does and what works in Colorado may not necessarily work in Delaware. I'm not against this program at the state level, I'm against the federal government trying to solve it. If Colorado is having success with reducing abortions and unwanted pregnancies, then all the better.
-
This post is about a state program. Not sure why you're taking federal. Glad you're on board with this one.
-
This post is about a state program. Not sure why you're taking federal. Glad you're on board with this one.
Are they getting Federal funding? Just asking.
-
This post is about a state program. Not sure why you're taking federal. Glad you're on board with this one.
Planned Parenthood (which was brought up through this post) is federally funded, and it shouldn't be. Just to be clear, I'm not necessarily on board with this program from Colorado. I'm on board with the fact that a state is doing this and not the federal government.
-
I agree that we are programmed to have sex and reproduce and it's a biological function. But you still haven't answered the question as to why I should have to pay for your decisions?
First, even the wisest among us can make a bad decision. Do you think it was a good decision for United to drag that guy off the airplane? Was it a good idea to turnt hat jet around because a guy was bitching about a $12 blanket? Just a couple examples.
Why do you have to pay? Because we don't like throwing kids out on the street to starve. Makes us feel bad about ourselves. You'll pay either way. It just that the contraceptive costs you way less than the kid.
-
First, even the wisest among us can make a bad decision. Do you think it was a good decision for United to drag that guy off the airplane? Was it a good idea to turnt hat jet around because a guy was bitching about a $12 blanket? Just a couple examples.
Why do you have to pay? Because we don't like throwing kids out on the street to starve. Makes us feel bad about ourselves. You'll pay either way. It just that the contraceptive costs you way less than the kid.
I'm still waiting for an answer as to where you get the authority (you in this case being the government) to tell me I have to pay for someone else's decisions. Telling me that I'll "pay either way" is not an argument that's going to work. It's not rooted in logic nor is it compelling. Subsidizing poor behavior is not responsible nor is it being an adult.
If you tried using an argument that a state should do this instead of the federal government, I might not agree with it but I'd be in total support of a state doing it if that's what they and their residents want.
-
Why do you have to pay? Because we don't like throwing kids out on the street to starve. Makes us feel bad about ourselves.
Classic liberal logic. "YOU have to pay to make US feel better about ourselves."
Here is you defining what is bad (throwing kids out on the street to starve), declaring it makes you feel bad, and then telling me I have to fork over the money. Or are you making the assumption that I too feel bad about throwing kids on the street to starve? And even if I did that I would think your solution is the best one? Maybe I don't. Maybe I don't care. Or MAYBE I care but I give my money to private charities, or even walk around the downtown streets handing out cash to homeless teens. It's really none of your business what my moral compass is; the reality here is you are justifying forcibly taking my money from me - the hours of my labor to earn it - and spending it as YOU see fit.
You'll pay either way. It just that the contraceptive costs you way less than the kid.
As I stated in this thread already. I'd be forced to agree with the program if it did prove effective, in lieu of supporting the welfare generations downstream. That doesn't make it right.
-
I still have not heard an explanation of why their entertainment (sex) should be paid for by the government, but mine (airplanes) should not. Sounds like unequal treatment under the law and a violation of the 14th Amendment.
-
I still have not heard an explanation of why their entertainment (sex) should be paid for by the government, but mine (airplanes) should not. Sounds like unequal treatment under the law and a violation of the 14th Amendment.
Maybe funding for birth control should be moved to the U.S. National Parks service?
I understand their budget already includes maintaining access to entertaining stuff - and some wild stuff already goes on.
;D
Seriously though, I agree that Planned Parenthood shouldn't be getting any of our money by way of taxes.
-
My justification is selfishness. Unwanted pregnancies, especially by poor single women propagate poverty and crime, which we all wind up paying for. It would be cheaper to pay to prevent it than to deal with it later. And like I said, it was a compromise. Of course, I realize that some people fail to comprehend the concept of compromise. And THAT is a shame.
100% spot on. And by prevention being cheaper than the alternative, I suspect that gap is HUGE. I get the whole "in a perfect world everyone would be responsible" thing, but we've never lived in a perfect world.
-
The left has become the bastion of death. Leftists are so attached to power that the power to kill is their ultimate aphrodisiac and their glee at expanding the government right to kill and forcing people to pay for the killing gets them off every time.
What a sick political party.
-
Yeah, if we can get past the brain-dead ideologically driven Conservacrats who can't get past the "why should I have to pay?" part of the equation we could drive down teen pregnancy and abortion rates to never before seen lows. Like I said, we just don't seem to have the wisdom. Conservacrats claim to be the fiscally responsible ones, but heaven forbid it interfere with their Invisible-Man-in-the-Sky derived ideology.
-
Yeah, if we can get past the brain-dead ideologically driven Conservacrats who can't get past the "why should I have to pay?" part of the equation we could drive down teen pregnancy and abortion rates to never before seen lows. Like I said, we just don't seem to have the wisdom. Conservacrats claim to be the fiscally responsible ones, but heaven forbid it interfere with their Invisible-Man-in-the-Sky derived ideology.
It is possible some conservatives on this site are overlooking your point that you are trying to reduce or prevent the killing of babies by abortion. But you are also completely sidestepping their point about why should they pay for other people's services? It's got nothing to do with believing in an invisible man in the sky. And it really doesn't have anything to do with whether the service reduces abortions or not, their question is: Why should I have to pay for someone else's anything? And your response is to resort to name calling (brain-dead ideologically driven Conservacrats). You really don't have a good answer, do you? So far you've come up with: because it makes some people feel good, and because if you don't agree to it you are an evil brain dead conservative.
I have admitted that I would pay (grudgingly) if it prevents more welfare families down the road. But that doesn't solve the question of why should someone else be forced to pay? The truth is you cannot come up with a better answer because there is none. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul, plain and simple. Just admit you think some people know better why Paul needs more of Peter's money, and you are one of those who thinks you know better. That's the root of socialist redistribution right there, in total.
-
The truth is you cannot come up with a better answer because there is none.
That is exactly why I am for this type of program. I cannot come up with a better solution. I can only come up with excuses as to why we shouldn't do it. But that solves NOTHING.
-
That is exactly why I am for this type of program. I cannot come up with a better solution. I can only come up with excuses as to why we shouldn't do it. But that solves NOTHING.
But nobody has answered the questions of how do we pay for it or why it's acceptable to take money from me to pay for you (not you, specifically)? Steingar brushes this off as if it's not a big deal because he is likely willing to accept those costs. I, however, am not.
Again, if this is a state run program, then I support the idea that it's being run by a state, not necessarily the program itself (without knowing the details, anyway). At the federal level, you'll never convince me.
-
Again, if this is a state run program, then I support the idea that it's being run by a state, not necessarily the program itself (without knowing the details, anyway). At the federal level, you'll never convince me.
On that, we completely agree.
-
Yep. Why should we have to do a lot of things? Because we put on our big boy panties and suck it up for the greater good.
-
But nobody has answered the questions of how do we pay for it or why it's acceptable to take money from me to pay for you (not you, specifically)? Steingar brushes this off as if it's not a big deal because he is likely willing to accept those costs. I, however, am not.
Again, if this is a state run program, then I support the idea that it's being run by a state, not necessarily the program itself (without knowing the details, anyway). At the federal level, you'll never convince me.
It is not morally acceptable to take money from you to pay for it, nor is it legal, on a federal level. The Constitution spells this very clearly, the fact that our federal government has trashed the Constitution and overstepped it's bounds notwithstanding.
State level is completely different: we are all free to move from state to state. States retain the power to do what they want and if we don't like it we are free to leave. However we are not free to leave the country. Those of us born here cannot leave unless we are accepted into another country. We must get a visa or application for permanent residence or citizenship if we wish to move to another country. No such permission is required to move within the states. The founders understood this and it is one reason the Constitution is written to ensure maximum freedom of individual citizens.
So it can be legal for states to rob Peter to pay Paul, but the question remains, is it moral? This is where people have different opinions. I still hold that it usually is not. The reason is because individuals know best how to manage their own resources. Most of the time - in fact, the overwhelming majority of the time - these social programs are implemented without any real scientific proof of their effectiveness. They are usually based on an emotional reaction to a problem (we don't like to see kids thrown out on the street to starve) and someone agitates to get some "solution" in place that requires spending money, and then gets the taxing authority to get the money from everyone else.
There is virtually never an analysis of possible unintended consequences, and there is never consideration of the opportunity lost cost to the "contributor" (taxpayer) to these programs. And once in place, they are virtually impossible to dismantle. The only certainty is that a portion of the funds will be skimmed to pay salaries and retirement benefits to the administrative government employees involved and also, very often, a private company will profit from sales to this "free" program for the poor.
So who benefits? The government employees, the private industry making the product, and sometimes the disadvantaged recipients of the benefit. (I say sometimes because in many cases they don't, in fact, their situation is actually made worse), and supposedly "society in general". This last is the run-to argument of the left when questioned about these programs. But the tangible benefits to we the taxpayer are dubious and hard to document, because very often they don't exist. But it can be documented who suffers from these programs. The taxpayer funding them. I cannot buy myself a new pair of hearing aids because I had to fork over a couple thousand extra in taxes this year.
The great majority of taxpayers are not the filthy rich, but are middle class like myself, and taxes actually physically impact and hurt my life. The amount I have given in taxes over my lifetime would have been enough to fund my nursing home, but because I did not have it to invest, I now must rely on long term care insurance or government benefits, the very governments that removed my ability to self insure in the first place.
So all these many programs being funded to redistribute money from the average middle class to the poor, they have NOT lifted the poor out of poverty, indeed things are worse than ever, and they HAVE severely reduced the middle class prosperity and quality of life.
Taken in total this is fact. So forgive me if I am not enthusiastic about any more leftist schemes to improve society in general.
-
Yep. Why should we have to do a lot of things? Because we put on our big boy panties and suck it up for the greater good.
Your post crossed mine but it could not have been more relevant. You illustrate exactly my point. The "greater good" as YOU see it, and if we don't agree with you then you criticize us dismissively (we are being childish and need big boy panties), when we are the very people hurt by excessive taxation. The arrogance and contempt of the left knows no bounds.
-
Your post crossed mine but it could not have been more relevant. You illustrate exactly my point. The "greater good" as YOU see it, and if we don't agree with you then you criticize us dismissively (we are being childish and need big boy panties), when we are the very people hurt by excessive taxation. The arrogance and contempt of the left knows no bounds.
That's an awfully big leap. My point is a simple truth. Sometimes what is most "fair" for an individual is not the best choice for a society. For example, it's most fair for me if I keep every cent of the money I earn. I "should not have to" pay any taxes.
So in the context of this thread, if it is determined that implementing a system like Colorado's in my own state SAVES me significant tax dollars, I'll likely be in favor of it, all other things considered.
PS - This "we" you're talking about is also me.
-
That's an awfully big leap. My point is a simple truth. Sometimes what is most "fair" for an individual is not the best choice for a society. For example, it's most fair for me if I keep every cent of the money I earn. I "should not have to" pay any taxes.
So in the context of this thread, if it is determined that implementing a system like Colorado's in my own state SAVES me significant tax dollars, I'll likely be in favor of it, all other things considered.
PS - This "we" you're talking about is also me.
That triggered the answer I was looking for about why "we" should pay for this.
Assume it costs a 100 units of money to run a State and 10 of those units of money go to poverty programs. Now, if the State can invest 1 unit of money to reduce that 10 to 5, then it now costs only 96 units of money to run the state, saving "us" 4 units.
1. I agree this should be done on a State level instead of the Federal level, EXCEPT that the Federal government also spends money on those "poverty" programs, so anything to reduce that would be good. Eliminating those programs from the Federal level and moving them to the States would be preferable.
2. I also don't include the fact that if the State does save 4 units of money, odds are great they will spend it on some other project, because they never give money back to the taxpayer.
-
Anytime the government gets involved, and administers programs to "help" situations like these they end up spending way more money than the problem would cost in the first place. Look at the "war on poverty", and the "great society". We've spent TRILLIONS, and made the problems WORSE!!! It is all about government growth, and power using issues like this to do it.
-
Personal responsibility be damned, someone else needs to pay for my mistake.
-
Yep. Why should we have to do a lot of things? Because we put on our big boy panties and suck it up for the greater good.
If you saw the checks that I have to write to various government entities every quarter you wouldn't want to pay for lazy bastards either
-
Yep. Why should we have to do a lot of things? Because we put on our big boy panties and suck it up for the greater good.
Who defines the greater good? You? Only 537 people in Washington? Universal auto insurance would prevent a lot of loss claims when an illegal immigrant with no insurance slams into my car. Certainly that helps the greater good. And of course paying for that hose bag law student who testified before Congress that I should pay for her $4k of birth control certainly think that her recreational sex is part of the common good. I disagree. And so did a lot of people, which is why Trump got elected, and Dems lost seats in the legislative branch.
Keep it up.
-
... for the greater good.
Define good.
Did you ever stop to understand that your good is not everyone's good? In fact your good very well may be someone else's evil. Rather than accomplishing the greater good, you may be accomplisging the greater evil and promoting misery at the same time.
This is where I find fault with progressivism. You are so caught up in yourself that you cannot comprehend that your ideas are not universal.
-
Progressive good = killing babies.
-
Define good.
Did you ever stop to understand that your good is not everyone's good? In fact your good very well may be someone else's evil. Rather than accomplishing the greater good, you may be accomplisging the greater evil and promoting misery at the same time.
This absolutely nails it. The truth is that good and evil are hardly absolute (bear with me Christian conservatives) but rather everyone has his own opinion. The real truth is that there are many layers of truth underlying - well just about anything. Whether a thing is good or evil depends on your perspective. Dropping atomic bombs on Japan in 1945 can be seen as very evil, if you are on the ground witnessing the aftermath. But they may have been very good, when you calculate the lives saved by terminating the war before ground invasion was necessary.
Likewise, from the perspective of a fetus, or anyone who believes all human life sacred, abortion is evil. This looks like a no brainer - an innocent babe, how could anyone think this is good? Well some people argue that legalized abortion indeed promotes the general good (reduction in crime):
http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/
So here we see even abortion can be seen as good or evil depending on the observer and the perspective.
This can be applied to just about anything in life. This is why my personal philosophy is that attempts to control the behavior of others by force (government) should be minimized, because no one has the ultimate handle on what is good and what is evil, but the greatest prosperity and happiness is achieved when individuals have maximum freedom to live their lives as they see fit. No, I do not mean anarchy. Part of living your life as you see fit means the right to join groups that have severe constraints on behavior, such as a religion, or a city with ordinances controlling your neighbor's behavior. This is the genius of our Republic; we are free to move about and live with groups of like minded individuals.
And this is why RvW needs to be overturned. The centralized government has no business ordering states to legalize abortion, but neither should they order it to be illegal. The feds should stay completely out of all matters except those specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Almost all matters are better dealt with on local levels because conditions vary widely among different groups of people.
This is where I find fault with progressivism. You are so caught up in yourself that you cannot comprehend that your ideas are not universal.
Conservatives can suffer from the same. But the difference is that conservatives, generally, understand the rule of law. When people disagree what is right and wrong, you go to the law of the land to settle things, and in this country, the law limits the federal government from interfering in most matters. Progressives on the other hand, tend to wish away the rule of law, and undertake machinations to impose their beliefs on everyone else, through a strong central government.
Progressives do seem to have a blind spot when it comes to imagining that they could be wrong. Take climate change for another example. Progressives are so convinced that their opinions are right, despite not comprehending facts about geological periods, planetary motions, etc. (which make clear that global warming - if true - is very unlikely to be caused by man but rather is a natural phenomenon), that they believe it is their divine mission to implement drastic policy controlling everyone's behavior despite dire consequences. They always attempt to impose maximum controls on the maximum number of people through the most broad government forces. The U.S. government is no longer sufficient; they are attempting global control over things like how much carbon we cough out, whether or not we may own guns, whether we may maintain a border on our own country, etc.
To be fair, conservatives too attempt to use the Federal government to control everyone in the country, for example, proposals to declare marriage between a man and a woman. Here again, it is not the role of the feds to promote or deny gay marriage; they should stay completely out of it. Who may use what bathroom? The founders are spinning in their graves that our highest government is even wasting time on this when it needs to be defending our borders and going after terrorists. The biggest and most important role of the Federal government is edged out and downplayed by all this other nonsense that should be squarely decided at State level.
But though conservatives too do this, I find it to be on matters not dangerous to the survival of the nation, an irritant, whereas progressives do it on matters most critical to our survival. The economy, energy, military, national security, individual financial security - these are all destroyed by progressive meddling at the federal level, because progressives have the belief that they alone grasp how the world works - and cannot see how they might be wrong, despite history's evidence. This makes progressives far more dangerous than conservatives.
-
Define good.
Did you ever stop to understand that your good is not everyone's good? In fact your good very well may be someone else's evil. Rather than accomplishing the greater good, you may be accomplisging the greater evil and promoting misery at the same time.
This is where I find fault with progressivism. You are so caught up in yourself that you cannot comprehend that your ideas are not universal.
Your writing style is like nails on a chalkboard. It's condescending with a healthy dose of holier-than-thou. You also appear to be an investor in the Jump to Conclusions Mat from Office Space.
I know that all of you are familiar with US federal and state governance. And therefore all of you understand how "the greater good" is decided.
-
If you saw the checks that I have to write to various government entities every quarter you wouldn't want to pay for lazy bastards either
You think I don't?
-
Rush: you conveniently ignored my response to you.
http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=2058.msg36666#msg36666
-
That's an awfully big leap. My point is a simple truth. Sometimes what is most "fair" for an individual is not the best choice for a society. For example, it's most fair for me if I keep every cent of the money I earn. I "should not have to" pay any taxes.
Nobody wants to pay taxes but at least the Constitution mentions taxes can be raised.
Who decides what is most "fair" for a society? The voters rejected Prop 8 in California which would've made gay marriage in the state illegal but the California Supreme Court said otherwise. The voters decided they didn't want to allow it in their state and a court went against the will of the majority of the people. How is that "fair"?
So in the context of this thread, if it is determined that implementing a system like Colorado's in my own state SAVES me significant tax dollars, I'll likely be in favor of it, all other things considered.
PS - This "we" you're talking about is also me.
I see nothing wrong with this as long as it stays at the state level.
-
Nobody wants to pay taxes but at least the Constitution mentions taxes can be raised.
Who decides what is most "fair" for a society? The voters rejected Prop 8 in California which would've made gay marriage in the state illegal but the California Supreme Court said otherwise. The voters decided they didn't want to allow it in their state and a court went against the will of the majority of the people. How is that "fair"?
I see nothing wrong with this as long as it stays at the state level.
At risk of sounding pedantic, it's fair because that's how our government is set up. After great trial and tribulation, courts may overrule voters. This is a feature, not a bug, in the same way that we are a representative republic and not a pure democracy, by design.
-
At risk of sounding pedantic, it's fair because that's how our government is set up. After great trial and tribulation, courts may overrule voters. This is a feature, not a bug, in the same way that we are a representative republic and not a pure democracy, by design.
Haven't been able to find the clause in the Constitution that says courts may overrule voters, con you point me to it? BTW, have you heard of jury nullification?
-
Haven't been able to find the clause in the Constitution that says courts may overrule voters, con you point me to it?
Judicial review is a recognized implied power derived from Article III. This is fortunate. The framers recognized that the will of the majority is not always right and proper. Judicial review is part of that recognition.
-
Judicial review is a recognized implied power derived from Article III. This is fortunate. The framers recognized that the will of the majority is not always right and proper. Judicial review is part of that recognition.
Correct, at the federal level. Prop 8 was a state issue (proper under the 10th Amendment). I'm not familiar with the California constitution, however you are mixing state and federal authorities.
-
I know that all of you are familiar with US federal and state governance. And therefore all of you understand how "the greater good" is decided.
So insult + non-answer. Please correct what is wrong in my statements below. Please do not just state that they are wrong because that helps no one, it just makes you a contrarian.
I did not ask you how the greater "good" is formed, I asked you how YOU define good - are you able and will you give an actual answer? I believe you dodged the question because your real answer would be unacceptable to most people and cause you to lose support for your agenda. You just make it easier for us to recruit people away from you when you're afraid to answer it because we get to fill in the blanks and then our story is the only one told. If we're going to come together in government for common betterment, shouldn't we clearly agree on what betterment entails, limit it to the areas where we agree on and know when we're crossing the line?
Here, let me show you what an answer looks like.
For me, good is defined in terms of freedom of beliefs, speech and actions, very similar to why our country was founded in the first place. Our government should never intrude on people's lives because every intrusion reduces the amount of good. There are some cases where we commonly agree to limit freedom for cases of physical harm, but it should never go beyond that. Regrettably, we frequently have messed this up to the point that far too often we produce evil instead of good.
Mine is largely a libertarian philosophy, something that I associate with freedom. In most political spectrums, I have commonly seen progressive arranged as an opposite to libertarian. So what is the opposite of freedom and why is it so difficult to convince people that it is better? I mean everyone wants better, so why do progressives encounter so much resistance?
-
So insult + non-answer. Please correct what is wrong in my statements below. Please do not just state that they are wrong because that helps no one, it just makes you a contrarian.
I did not ask you how the greater "good" is formed, I asked you how YOU define good - are you able and will you give an actual answer? I believe you dodged the question because your real answer would be unacceptable to most people and cause you to lose support for your agenda. You just make it easier for us to recruit people away from you when you're afraid to answer it because we get to fill in the blanks and then our story is the only one told. If we're going to come together in government for common betterment, shouldn't we clearly agree on what betterment entails, limit it to the areas where we agree on and know when we're crossing the line?
Here, let me show you what an answer looks like.
For me, good is defined in terms of freedom of beliefs, speech and actions, very similar to why our country was founded in the first place. Our government should never intrude on people's lives because every intrusion reduces the amount of good. There are some cases where we commonly agree to limit freedom for cases of physical harm, but it should never go beyond that. Regrettably, we frequently have messed this up to the point that far too often we produce evil instead of good.
Mine is largely a libertarian philosophy, something that I associate with freedom. In most political spectrums, I have commonly seen progressive arranged as an opposite to libertarian. So what is the opposite of freedom and why is it so difficult to convince people that it is better? I mean everyone wants better, so why do progressives encounter so much resistance?
Let me get this straight. You make a lovely assumption that I want to impose my definition of "good" on everyone else, then you belittle me for it. Next, you demand I give my definition of good, despite the fact that you've made it clear my personal definition should not be imposed on the rest of you. Then you go on to give your own personal definition of good, after which I'm terribly inclined to simply copy and paste your previous response to me. Did you ever stop to think that your good is not everyone's good?
My answer stands. We define "greater good" collectively, as a governed people, under the laws of our united states, by the processes set forth by the founding fathers and those that followed.
-
What our resident liberals are supporting is usin g the courts to circumvent democracy just like the communist who founded the ACLU was promoting and the current crop of low information liberaLS ARE EMBRACING.
-
Correct, at the federal level. Prop 8 was a state issue (proper under the 10th Amendment). I'm not familiar with the California constitution, however you are mixing state and federal authorities.
Negative. Cases re: Prop 8 were heard in federal district court, federal court of appeals, and the federal supreme court. The federal courts have judicial review powers over states in matters of constitutionality for which they have jurisdiction and a case has been brought.
-
Negative. Cases re: Prop 8 were heard in federal district court, federal court of appeals, and the federal supreme court. The federal courts have judicial review powers over states in matters of constitutionality for which they have jurisdiction and a case has been brought.
You're referring to the Obergefell case at the SCOTUS. The case I'm referring to was Hollingsworth v. Perry. You are correct that it was heard at the federal district court level. The federal appeals courts nor the SCOTUS had any reason to rule on this because it's a state issue. The federal courts are there to interpret constitutional issues, not re-write laws they don't like. Prop 8 was a purely state issue.
-
You're referring to the Obergefell case at the SCOTUS. The case I'm referring to was Hollingsworth v. Perry. You are correct that it was heard at the federal district court level. The federal appeals courts nor the SCOTUS had any reason to rule on this because it's a state issue. The federal courts are there to interpret constitutional issues, not re-write laws they don't like. Prop 8 was a purely state issue.
I'm not sure what you're saying. Hollingsworth v. Perry included a federal appeals case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollingsworth_v._Perry#Court_of_Appeals) and a Supreme Court case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollingsworth_v._Perry#U.S._Supreme_Court). Though the latter ruled lack of standing. The entire series of cases was brought against Prop 8 on Constitutional grounds, thus the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
I hope you'll agree this is a good thing, actually. It helps prevent the people or politicians of your state from, for example, completely banning guns or voting away the right of free speech.
-
I'm not sure what you're saying. Hollingsworth v. Perry included a federal appeals case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollingsworth_v._Perry#Court_of_Appeals) and a Supreme Court case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollingsworth_v._Perry#U.S._Supreme_Court). Though the latter ruled lack of standing. The entire series of cases was brought against Prop 8 on Constitutional grounds, thus the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
I hope you'll agree this is a good thing, actually. It helps prevent the people or politicians of your state from, for example, completely banning guns or voting away the right of free speech.
It wasn't until Chicago v. McDonald that the 2nd Amendment became incorporated into the rest of the Constitution. As an example of what I'm talking about, note that the 1st Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law...".
I don't agree that the federal courts had standing to rule on gay marriage because marriage at all, let alone gay marriage, is not in the Constitution. That's why we have the 10th Amendment. The founders recognized that what worked in one state may not necessarily work in another.
-
Let me get this straight. You make a lovely assumption that I want to impose my definition of "good" on everyone else, then you belittle me for it. Next, you demand I give my definition of good, despite the fact that you've made it clear my personal definition should not be imposed on the rest of you. Then you go on to give your own personal definition of good, after which I'm terribly inclined to simply copy and paste your previous response to me. Did you ever stop to think that your good is not everyone's good?
My answer stands. We define "greater good" collectively, as a governed people, under the laws of our united states, by the processes set forth by the founding fathers and those that followed.
I wanted to know your definition of good. I gave you my answer, you have not replied in kind.
I know that my definition is not yours. You mistake this discussion for me trying to force ideas on you because that is how I see you relating to others. I am looking for common ground, if you're not interested, just stop replying.
-
Regardless of how one defines "good", is there a difference between "common good" and "personal good"? Does one trump the other? Can there be a balance?
-
Regardless of how one defines "good", is there a difference between "common good" and "personal good"? Does one trump the other? Can there be a balance?
Balance is the key, and the big problem is that government has USED the "public good", and the "greater good" as an excuse to grow uncontrollably. It is often difficult to make an argument against something when government claims it is "for the children", or "greater good/common good". Many people typically only hear the first sentence, then don't think of the unintended consequences that occur when giving money, and power over to government to "solve" societal problems. Glaring examples are Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Healthcare Insurance (Obamacare).
-
If Government truly had the ability to take as much as they wanted from its citizens, at what point would they think they had enough?
-
If Government truly had the ability to take as much as they wanted from its citizens, at what point would they think they had enough?
They wouldn't. See Venezuela.
-
They wouldn't. See Venezuela.
I am somewhat surprised we haven't seen a coup, or uprising in Venezuela yet as things are very bad there. Of course our media doesn't report so much on the failure of communism in places like Venezuela, and Cuba. The Hollywood, and media types are too busy idolizing Che Guevera, Castro, and Chavez. If their murderous, corrupt practices, and ideology was put on display, their little Utopian Bubble would be burst.
If these places were such utopias of Rainbows, and Unicorns why do so many people want to get out?
-
I am somewhat surprised we haven't seen a coup, or uprising in Venezuela yet as things are very bad there. Of course our media doesn't report so much on the failure of communism in places like Venezuela, and Cuba. The Hollywood, and media types are too busy idolizing Che Guevera, Castro, and Chavez. If their murderous, corrupt practices, and ideology was put on display, their little Utopian Bubble would be burst.
If these places were such utopias of Rainbows, and Unicorns why do so many people want to get out?
The LA Times had an article yesterday discussing the Venezuelan opposition leader:
http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-venezuela-capriles-2017-story.html
Venezuela has the opportunity to be prosperous and self-sustaining with all of their oil and potential for tourism. This is what a true socialist government looks like.