Liberalism Vs Conservatism

[Ziggurat]

I disagree.

If one segment of the population is granted a whole slew of rights and privileges based on their ability to marry, and another group is arbitrarily -- or not arbitrarily, but on an extra-legal basis, such as religion -- denied these rights because they're denied marriage, then that's discrimination.

I used the term "equal protection" for a reason, and part of that reason is that it is not identical to "discrimination". Equal protection is constitutionally required. Discrimination is not constitutionally prohibited.

For example, the government discriminates based upon sex all the time, and nobody gives it a second thought. How? By having separate mens and womens bathrooms. That's discrimination. It is not, however, a denial of equal protection. The example you gave (denying services to minorities) is not only discrimination, it is ALSO a violation of equal protection, and that (not the discrimination aspect) is what makes it unconstitutional.

In the case of marriage, a case can be made that there is no violation of equal protection. You are indeed free to marry, regardless of your sequal orientation. There is discrimination involved (you can only marry someone of the opposite sex), but discrimination isn't by itself prohibited, and it applies to everyone regardless of their sexual orientation.

Gays have as much right to marry someone of the opposite sex as straights do, and straights are just as forbidden to marry people of the same sex as gays are. Sexual orientation is never used as a test for any aspect of current marriage law. From a legal standpoint, even the discrimination that occurs is being done on the basis of sex, NOT sexual orientation, and as I've already pointed out, discriminating on the basis of sex happens routinely without any equal protection violation. So gays are not, in fact, being prohibited from doing anything that straight people are not also prohibited from doing. They are free to engage in exactly the same behavior, with exactly the same privileges, as straight people.

Now, this may not be satisfying, and it may not be fair (it isn't), and it may not be the right thing to do, but none of those things are constitutional requirements.

 

[Admiral]

I'm not trying to debate either, but most of the time, it seems people talk of capitalism as the end, not the means. For example, what if societies who pay for 100% of college tuition (or passed classes) were better off because of the societal investment? How would things like that fit in?

As a libertarian, I thought I'd jump in at this point to say my opinion about how the free market addresses issues like this.

It's true that providing education to everyone is a VERY important goal for a society. However, the government actually doesn't do this as well as the free market itself does. You might not believe me, but there's an example I want you to consider.

Harvard College is often considered a prime example of an elitist, exclusive institution that helps only the upper class. However, did you know that Harvard's financial aid program is actually incredibly generous? Students with family incomes under $60,000 a year have their tuition COMPLETELY paid, and students with family incomes under $40,000 a year even get additional funds to pay for transportation, food, and other costs of college. This isn't just preening- well over a hundred students in the class of 2010 (I forget the exact number, but I could look it up if you want) took advantage of this program. The school also offers fairly extensive financial aid to other economic classes, and it is becoming more generous by the year. If you don't believe me, I can link to some sources.

What's my point? My point is that the reason Harvard's doing this ISN'T that the government's telling them to, it's that it is in their own interests as an institution (after all, every qualified student who can't go to Harvard because of financial concerns is one fewer qualified student that they get). What's more, Harvard receives extensive private donations that allow it to extend these policies. It doesn't need the govenment to give it grants when private citizens do it on their own.

This is only one example, but there is an abundance of evidence that private industry does better than public programs at nearly everything. Private science research outpaces public science research, private schools are more successful in general than public ones, and private charities accomplish far more than public programs (consider Habitat for Humanity or the Red Cross).

This is a complicated issue, but I just wanted to point out that the free market isn't just about corporations making money. It's the path towards great humanitarian developments in education, science, and in charity. You don't need the government to improve society- society tends to do it all by itself.

 

[Admiral]

For example, the government discriminates based upon sex all the time, and nobody gives it a second thought. How? By having separate mens and womens bathrooms. That's discrimination. It is not, however, a denial of equal protection.

Actually, no, it's not, simply because there are no laws behind seperate men and women's bathrooms. I challenge you to find me one state where it is against the law for a man to enter a women's room or vice versa (of course someone could be charged with sexual harrassment, but that has nothing to do with discrimination).

However, your next point is actually valid.

In the case of marriage, a case can be made that there is no violation of equal protection. You are indeed free to marry, regardless of your sequal orientation. There is discrimination involved (you can only marry someone of the opposite sex), but discrimination isn't by itself prohibited, and it applies to everyone regardless of their sexual orientation.

Gays have as much right to marry someone of the opposite sex as straights do, and straights are just as forbidden to marry people of the same sex as gays are. Sexual orientation is never used as a test for any aspect of current marriage law. From a legal standpoint, even the discrimination that occurs is being done on the basis of sex, NOT sexual orientation, and as I've already pointed out, discriminating on the basis of sex happens routinely without any equal protection violation. So gays are not, in fact, being prohibited from doing anything that straight people are not also prohibited from doing. They are free to engage in exactly the same behavior, with exactly the same privileges, as straight people.

Now, this may not be satisfying, and it may not be fair (it isn't), and it may not be the right thing to do, but none of those things are constitutional requirements.

This is actually a completely true point. I fully support gay marriage, but it's not true that it discriminates against a particular group. There is a tendency among many, even skeptics, to accept arguments that support their position, even flawed arguments. However, we have to resist that impulse.

On the other hand, ziggurat, I'd like to list for you a few other laws, hailing from post-Reconstruction, that did not violate the constitution. Literacy tests and poll taxes as requirements for voting, which disfranchised blacks in the South. Grandfather clauses, which allowed poor whites to avoid the literacy tests and poll tax. These laws didn't actually discriminate based on race, but their goal was racist and exclusive. Restrictions on marriage, which are designed to exclude and designate second-class citizens, may not be strictly unconstitutional, but they are still against core democratic values.

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually, no, it's not, simply because there are no laws behind seperate men and women's bathrooms.

Fair enough. Other examples of discrimination based upon sex exist, such as restrictions on combat service in the military (though that is being scaled back, but not for constitutional reasons), or separation of men's and women's prisons.

 

[glsunder]

Admiral, I was in a hurry and didn't have a lot of time to explain my thought. I wasn't trying to argue for or against government funding for universities, or whatever. What you said was very well put and was good information, so don't think I'm disagreeing at all.

My question could be phased like this: in politics or economics, for either the left or the right, if you were proven wrong by empirical evidence, would you be able to change your view?

I don't think most people can. People are too emotionally attached to their political beliefs. Political science is an oxymoron. If scientific ideals dominated politics, I think the world would be a much better place. There are a couple of hundred countries in the world. That seems like a lot of test tubes to me.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't think most people can. People are too emotionally attached to their political beliefs. Political science is an oxymoron. If scientific ideals dominated politics, I think the world would be a much better place. There are a couple of hundred countries in the world. That seems like a lot of test tubes to me.

One of the difficulties in this regard, though, is that we don't all share the same values, and hence don't have the same priorities. In cases where values are shared, then it's possible to conclude that yes, one policy might be scientifically shown to work better at achieving the desired ends than another policy. But even if we could know for certain what the consequences of various policy options would be, there would still be disagreement, because we don't all want the same things, or place the same relative value on different things when tradeoffs need to be made. I'm all in favor of examining the consequences of policy in a dispassionate manner, but politics as a partisan and ideological battleground still wouldn't end even if we all did that.

 

[Admiral]

My question could be phased like this: in politics or economics, for either the left or the right, if you were proven wrong by empirical evidence, would you be able to change your view?

I don't think most people can. People are too emotionally attached to their political beliefs.

Actually, believe it or not, I was fiscally very liberal only a year or so ago, as I had been since I was little. Over the course of the last year, I argued with a number of my libertarian friends, read some Milton Friedman, and did a good solid amount of deep thinking, and am now a fervent libertarian. I simply discovered that there was a great deal of evidence and argument that I hadn't considered, and therefore altered my ideology accordingly.

Of course, not many people have experiences like this- political parties now resemble football teams more than they do regions of political thought. The teams periodically face each other and the winner's fans get bragging rights, the teams' fans make blanket negative statements about their opponents, team affiliations are passed down through family ties, and each individual sincerely believes his team to be better, and is positive that the evidence supports his belief. Of course, what is entertaining and exciting in sports is just tragic in a democracy.

My point is that the current political climate has far less to do with differing values than it does with psychology.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

(in response to penal colonies)
Why not? Surely the idea is just as valid as any other - you can't just make baseless statements like this one and expect to convince anyone. Go ahead. Tell me why my idea is a bad one.

I didn't make a baseless statement. I refrained from making any statement in response to yours.

Here's my response to your draconian dystopian "Convict Island" is a bad idea.

1. It's cruel and unusual punishment. A society is usually measured in part by how it treats it's prisoners. Do we want to be to par with N.Korea or Saudi Arabia who chop the heads off their criminals? I say no.
2. I'm against this and any death penalty for the same reason. Many people who are sentenced to prison are sentenced there and are innocent. Surely many innocent men and women would be sentenced to this "convict island" and end up dying there. That's wrong. Prison should be a "waiting" place where people can safely wait until they are either paroled or due to exonerating evidence freed.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

It's true that providing education to everyone is a VERY important goal for a society. However, the government actually doesn't do this as well as the free market itself does. You might not believe me, but there's an example I want you to consider.

Highly doubt it.

Harvard College is often considered a prime example of an elitist, exclusive institution that helps only the upper class. However, did you know that Harvard's financial aid program is actually incredibly generous? Students with family incomes under $60,000 a year have their tuition COMPLETELY paid, and students with family incomes under $40,000 a year even get additional funds to pay for transportation, food, and other costs of college. This isn't just preening- well over a hundred students in the class of 2010 (I forget the exact number, but I could look it up if you want) took advantage of this program. The school also offers fairly extensive financial aid to other economic classes, and it is becoming more generous by the year. If you don't believe me, I can link to some sources.

Do you have any sources proving that any Harvard sutudent with an income under 60,000 gets tuition paid in full by the school itself through private donations? I'm skeptical of this claim.

Moreover, Well over 100? Wow..Out of about 20,000 students? I think Harvard is one of the schools where the richest people attend. If only 100 out of 20,000 students get this specific financial aid for not being to afford that school then that's nowhere near enough. Do you know how many college going student's families make less than 40,000 a year? Way more than that.

Your system simply would not work for all schools across the board Harvard is an extreme example and in no way sets an example for the university system as a whole.

What's my point? My point is that the reason Harvard's doing this ISN'T that the government's telling them to, it's that it is in their own interests as an institution (after all, every qualified student who can't go to Harvard because of financial concerns is one fewer qualified student that they get). What's more, Harvard receives extensive private donations that allow it to extend these policies. It doesn't need the govenment to give it grants when private citizens do it on their own.

Not all schools are Harvard. Not all schools would be able to get as many private donations. You need to realize that most Public Universities get private donations along with student tuition and govt money and still come short.

This is only one example, but there is an abundance of evidence that private industry does better than public programs at nearly everything. Private science research outpaces public science research, private schools are more successful in general than public ones, and private charities accomplish far more than public programs (consider Habitat for Humanity or the Red Cross).

Do you have sources for this too?

Aren't most private charities international and most govt charities national? Wouldn't that explain how private charities do more?

In some cases purely capitalist Laissez-faire type economics works best. In other cases(like education or social welfare) govt funding works best. Sure, Govt funding can go along side private donations but there is no way our public school system could survive if all govt funding was cut. Pure and simple. It would die out in a few weeks. Nor could our welfare system(If you could call it that) last if all govt funding was cut.

This is a complicated issue, but I just wanted to point out that the free market isn't just about corporations making money. It's the path towards great humanitarian developments in education, science, and in charity. You don't need the government to improve society- society tends to do it all by itself.

Then why have govt at all?

 

[russingram]

If some cracker on a farm in Alachua County, FL wants to pull mushrooms out of the cows**t and eat them, it's none of the government's business.

Hey, I'm from Alachua County, Florida, and I resemble that remark!

 

[russingram]

Preach it brother, in principle, but I will ask: why the racial epithet in the first line? Farmer versus cracker strikes me as equally descriptive to your scenario, and more universally applicable since the cultural / racial make up of farmers is more extensive that your postulated sub group. Also less offensive, though the penchant for giving and receiving offense on this forum by muitiple participants (me included at times) is noted.

DR

actually, cracker isn't a racial epithet in Florida - it's more akin to calling someone from North Carolina a "tarheel", or someone from Ohio a "buckeye". The name came from the sound Florida cowboy's whips made as they cracked them against the palmetto bushes to herd cattle.

 

[Darth Rotor]

actually, cracker isn't a racial epithet in Florida - it's more akin to calling someone from North Carolina a "tarheel", or someone from Ohio a "buckeye". The name came from the sound Florida cowboy's whips made as they cracked them against the palmetto bushes to herd cattle.

Right, there is only that connotation to the term. There is a lovely bridge I'd like to offer you for sale, in Brooklyn.

DR

 

[Piggy]

I used the term "equal protection" for a reason, and part of that reason is that it is not identical to "discrimination".

Sorry if my word choice threw you. I was referring to "discrimination against" (lack of equal protection) not "discrimination among" (discernment of difference).

IEqual protection is constitutionally required. Discrimination is not constitutionally prohibited.

n the case of marriage, a case can be made that there is no violation of equal protection. You are indeed free to marry, regardless of your sequal orientation. There is discrimination involved (you can only marry someone of the opposite sex), but discrimination isn't by itself prohibited, and it applies to everyone regardless of their sexual orientation.

Gays have as much right to marry someone of the opposite sex as straights do, and straights are just as forbidden to marry people of the same sex as gays are.

What a load of crap.

In effect, straights are not prohibited from marrying any consenting adult whom they might reasonably choose, but gays are.

 

[Piggy]

Right, there is only that connotation to the term. There is a lovely bridge I'd like to offer you for sale, in Brooklyn.

Darth, who's saying that's the only interpretation?

For my part, I already apologized if anyone was offended.

And I'm not going to stop using the term. Now you know about that meaning, hopefully you'll recognize it in context from here out.

 

[Piggy]

Hey, I'm from Alachua County, Florida, and I resemble that remark!

Howdy! I'd ask you to say hello to all my buddies down at the Purple Porpoise, but they closed it.

I wish I'd found out about it in time to buy the sign. (But what I really wanted was Kelly's portrait in fish-form off the wall by the Purple Mullet.)

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

CBVAN, Should I take your lack of a response to my rebuttal to your "drugs should be legalized" post as an acceptance that most drugs should be decriminalized?

 

[russingram]

Right, there is only that connotation to the term. There is a lovely bridge I'd like to offer you for sale, in Brooklyn.

DR

see this website:

http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~fcc/main/what's_a_cracker.htm

Just like a lot of people are proud to be called rednecks, a lot of people in Florida are proud to be called crackers, regardless of the fact that there are people that use the word in a negative way. I think the two usages developed independently of each other.

 

[russingram]

Howdy! I'd ask you to say hello to all my buddies down at the Purple Porpoise, but they closed it.

I wish I'd found out about it in time to buy the sign. (But what I really wanted was Kelly's portrait in fish-form off the wall by the Purple Mullet.)

yeah, they closed about the time I moved back, after 20 years away, so I never had the pleasure.

 

[Piggy]

yeah, they closed about the time I moved back, after 20 years away, so I never had the pleasure.

It was a fine establishment, with an interesting mix of local color, nostalgiacs, and college fodder. I'm a panhandle boy myself. Grew up in Georgia, then moved back to Florida (central, this time) for much of the 80s and 90s.

In other words... I'm a cracker.

 

[CBVan]

Here's my response to your draconian dystopian "Convict Island" is a bad idea.

1. It's cruel and unusual punishment. A society is usually measured in part by how it treats it's prisoners. Do we want to be to par with N.Korea or Saudi Arabia who chop the heads off their criminals? I say no.
2. I'm against this and any death penalty for the same reason. Many people who are sentenced to prison are sentenced there and are innocent. Surely many innocent men and women would be sentenced to this "convict island" and end up dying there. That's wrong. Prison should be a "waiting" place where people can safely wait until they are either paroled or due to exonerating evidence freed.

You've certainly given me some food for thought, but my point is this: At what point does the benefits of keeping a dangerous, violent criminal under close watch get outweighed by the detriment of risk of escape and harm to innocents?
I did not mean to imply that all criminals would be sent - that's just immoral, I agree. I'm talking about serial rapists, serial murderers. The really dangerous people.
Evidence also must be concrete and not circumstantial for any conviction. Appeals must be allowed.
My 2 cents.