Sollie Citizen Rights Compared To USA Today ...

Dilandu wrote:P.S. By the way, maybe you should try the communists in charge for a while? They made a pretty good job of making Russia the second world superpower from the ruins, after all! Ask Castro for help, for example.

Don't you EVER joke about that, Dilandu. That bastard Castro the Elder turned my country into his personal fiefdom. Can you envision what it's like to live with 21 bucks per month?

Castro'ing a country is the surest way to send it down the drain in very short order. Just look at Venezuela, it's already well on its way.

peke wrote:

Dilandu wrote:P.S. By the way, maybe you should try the communists in charge for a while? They made a pretty good job of making Russia the second world superpower from the ruins, after all! Ask Castro for help, for example.

Don't you EVER joke about that, Dilandu. That bastard Castro the Elder turned my country into his personal fiefdom. Can you envision what it's like to live with 21 bucks per month?

Castro'ing a country is the surest way to send it down the drain in very short order. Just look at Venezuela, it's already well on its way.

While I do not disagree that Castroism (I refuse to call it Communism, Marx-Engles hypotheses were never tested under conditions that they envisioned--and have been proven pretty much invalid in those circumstances) was and remains an utter disaster for the Cuban economy and people, there was a reason he could come to power--and that was he was perceived as better than Batista and the Sugar Barons...and going back far enough, the Spanish.

The Cuban people have not been lucky in regards to their rulers. A pity, because there is much potential for both them and their island, IMHO.

Hutch wrote:While I do not disagree that Castroism (I refuse to call it Communism, Marx-Engles hypotheses were never tested under conditions that they envisioned--and have been proven pretty much invalid in those circumstances) was and remains an utter disaster for the Cuban economy and people, there was a reason he could come to power--and that was he was perceived as better than Batista and the Sugar Barons...and going back far enough, the Spanish.

The Cuban people have not been lucky in regards to their rulers. A pity, because there is much potential for both them and their island, IMHO.

Frankly, we've never been able to shake off the colonial mindset. Spain went out, and poof, in comes the US, more powerful than Spain, and very close to boot. Whatever they tell you in school about how Cuba was liberated by the US, dismiss it; we just ousted a master, and our "friend" wasted no time in taking its place. Just google "Platt amendment" and read a bit. And if you want a glimpse of the US total lack of regard for our struggles, go to http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1 ... ocuba.html

These things bred a bitter resentment against the US, and it's that resentment the Castros have rode for years to remain in power.

From Spaniard colony to US colony to Castro fiefdom... damn man, I feel like crying.

HB of CJ wrote:svenhauke raises a valid point. Perhaps only the presentation was a little bit rough. Maybe. It deserves a good response. Here goes. Perhaps the good old USA reached its principit (sp?) high water around the year 1900. We may have had our time in the sun?

This means times were the best overall then and since then things have been gettting politically, ethically, financialy (sp?) and morally worse. My opinions only.

Politically worse? Debatable, but maybe. Modern day politics is ridiculous, but people have a tendency to look at politics in the past through their Rose Colored Nostalgia Goggles.

Financially? Give the completely out of control acceleration of wealth inequality in the last 4-5 decades I'll give you that one.

But ETHICALLY and MORALLY???? You're going to give the advantage in the realm of ethics and morals to the age when women were denied the vote and racial minorities were still explicitly discriminated against and subjugated by law?

By what possible criteria?

Our Federal Government is out of control. We have a one party power block system. Who controls it?

I'm going to assume this is the "there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans they're all just dirty politicians" line of argument? There are of course massive differences between the two parties, for all the attempts of people to draw false equivalencies between them to stir or justify voter apathy. They may have some common flaws but that hardly makes them the same party.

Our rule of law has been corrupted.

Agreed to an extent... although not in the way you seem to be thinking.

There are too many Federal agencies who write regulatory regulations that nobody voted upon

That is how the government was designed from day 1, that is hardly a corruption. The United States was not founded as a direct democracy it was founded as a Republic. A *representative* democracy. You vote for the people who run the government, the people you voted for institute laws and regulations. If everyone had to vote on every law and regulation nothing would ever get done.

that have the force of law backed up by lethal force of arms.

Simply a function of how all governments work...

Some illegal Federal agencies even have their own court systems. The Tax People the IRS and a interior land agency the Department of the Interior even have their own courts and enforcment powers.

You appear to be playing fast and loose with the word "illegal". Legislation set those agencies and courts up. They are thus obviously not illegal.

Over one half of a persons income goes to some sort of tax.

1: No it doesn't. The average tax burden (including *all* taxes* not just income taxes) on US workers is like 1/3rd of pre-tax income.

2. So what if it was half?

We no longer have private property rights or ownership in the USA. The government controls it. This includes cars and private land.

That is simply a false statement.

You are required to Kow Tow, (bow or kneel) to government in every aspect of activities of daily living. Even to the point of where you can place your toilet bowl in the bathroom. Yep. Sad

Your car does not belong to you. You waived ownership when you licensed the car. The State owns it.

No... you own it. The fact that you have to license it to operate it out on the public streets does not magically deprive you of ownership of the vehicle.

If you do not pay your State or local property taxes, the state takes it from you.

So... it's horrible that people can't just get away with tax evasion? What is the complaint here exactly?

Our President can and has signed many death warrants. This is nothing new. Our first president did it also. The dark side of government. We are at fault because we do nothing about it.

Again, this seems to be more a general gripe at the fact that governments have authority than any specific complaint about the US government or it's "corruption".

Too many people vote. They also vote their own self interest.

Too. Many. People. Vote?

Sorry, trying to wrap my head around the mindset that could make that statement. Voter participation in the US is pretty lackluster, and you think too many people vote?

Are there specific people you think are voting too much? Too many people vote in ways you don't want them to? ("It's outrageous that my side loses elections!")?

Or do you just have a general philosophical objection to more than a small percentage of the population of the country making all the decisions about who gets to run the place?

There is a cure? Become politically involved and vote for good people.

Now I'm really confused, the cure for too many people voting is more people voting?

HB of CJ wrote:Too many people vote. They also vote their own self interest.

Perhaps all taxes should be voluntary with the right to vote being linked to payment of taxes (or having them paid by a family member/partner for you). Add a rider that anyone who claims benefits (as opposed to paychecks) from the Government is banned from paying taxes and you get voters who believe in the value of work and are willing to make the required financial sacrifice to attain the ability to guide the path of the country.

Of course, since this would mean that all those unable to find work would be unable to vote, the government would try to get as many people into work as possible in order to maximize the number of voters able to vote for them. Easiest way to do that? Red tape slashing.

Chances of that happening?
Well, it's so un-PC (people get rewarded for what they do as opposed to what they are) that chances range from "no way in hell" to "The sun will spontaneously turn into diamond and everyone will ascend into becoming energy beings in order to go back in time to set up the backstory of the Church of Scientology".

So... that would be a no.

Yeah, I have a tendency towards un-PC logic. In a bank that practiced positive discrimination, I insisted on having a white male member of staff oversee the transactions I needed as that was the only way I could be sure that I was getting someone promoted for ability rather than ethnic/gender-ratio box-ticking.

Michael Everett wrote:Perhaps all taxes should be voluntary with the right to vote being linked to payment of taxes (or having them paid by a family member/partner for you). Add a rider that anyone who claims benefits (as opposed to paychecks) from the Government is banned from paying taxes and you get voters who believe in the value of work and are willing to make the required financial sacrifice to attain the ability to guide the path of the country.

Of course, since this would mean that all those unable to find work would be unable to vote, the government would try to get as many people into work as possible in order to maximize the number of voters able to vote for them. Easiest way to do that? Red tape slashing.

This is really really stupid.

In this scheme, the government has no incentive to provide jobs for more people. In fact, it has every incentive to remove people not voting for it from the voting pool, and by reducing the franchise, you have given it the power to do so.

(Conversely, you have given the power to enfrachise and disenfrachise voters to a government agency like the IRS, are you really going to say that that's a safe decision?)

You're not "un-PC". You are a typical conservative who doesn't want the wrong people to vote.

Chances of that happening?
Well, it's so un-PC (people get rewarded for what they do as opposed to what they are) that chances range from "no way in hell" to "The sun will spontaneously turn into diamond and everyone will ascend into becoming energy beings in order to go back in time to set up the backstory of the Church of Scientology".

So... that would be a no.

Because it would be stupid. Because if you create a class of citizen that is subject to all laws, but does not have a voice in their creation, you're no longer a democracy.

Yeah, I have a tendency towards un-PC logic. In a bank that practiced positive discrimination, I insisted on having a white male member of staff oversee the transactions I needed as that was the only way I could be sure that I was getting someone promoted for ability rather than ethnic/gender-ratio box-ticking.

Because gender and skin color are such reliable indicators of ability. This goes both ways; being male or being white doesn't mean you're doing a good job any more than being anything else. Your insistence on getting a white male to service you says more about you than it does about the skills of the staff involved.

The E wrote:If you create a class of citizen that is subject to all laws, but does not have a voice in their creation, you're no longer a democracy.

[Sarcasm] Hey everybody! Ancient Greece wasn't actually a democratic society despite formalizing the concept and using it in their government! After all, they had women, slaves and workers who couldn't vote due to the land-requirements, so they weren't a democracy! [/sarcasm]
No. It may be a limited democracy, but a democracy it still is.
E, by your standards, America wasn't a democracy until after the Civil War due to having slaves who couldn't vote... in fact, with all the illegal immigrants there, America would not actually count as democracy now by that standard.

The E wrote:Because gender and skin color are such reliable indicators of ability. This goes both ways; being male or being white doesn't mean you're doing a good job any more than being anything else. Your insistence on getting a white male to service you says more about you than it does about the skills of the staff involved.

Gender and skin color have nothing to do with skill in most jobs (gender may have a partial link with jobs that require specific physical attributes such as brute strength).
The point I was making (and which you seemed to have missed) was that any attempt to promote people based on ethnicity/gender rather than ability to do the job will inevitably result in at least a large minority of people who are promoted being actively promoted into jobs they are incapable of doing as a matter of procedure.

This happened in America. After it was pointed out that the higher ranks of police were almost invariably white, the American cops did what was effectively a mass-promotion of cops from ethnic minorities to meet the required percentages. This led almost immediately to the cops in question realizing that their promotions came about not because they were earned, but because they were simply to allow boxes to be ticked.

You may have noticed that in Hollywood films made in the eighties and nineties, black police sergeants were depicted as either super-competent or incompetent. This echoed the situation at the time where the newly-promoted cops either allowed their irritation at being promoted purely for their skin color to lead them to slacking off, or decided that since they had been promoted, they would prove to everyone that they were capable of doing their jobs and effectively self-trained themselves to a higher level than their colleagues.

This is why I am opposed to any attempt to promote someone on the basis of positive discrimination. In anything other than the shortest term, it does not work out on the macro scale.
Positive Discrimination is racism at its most pernicious as it declares that those from ethnic backgrounds are incapable of working to the same level as the majority of the population and should therefore be given advantages to help them progress despite their inherent inferiority.
Would you like to be promoted simply to fill an ethnic ratio requirement rather than because they believe that you can do the job?
Would anyone?

Michael Everett wrote:E, by your standards, America wasn't a democracy until after the Civil War due to having slaves who couldn't vote... in fact, with all the illegal immigrants there, America would not actually count as democracy now by that standard.

You know what illegal immigrants, by definition, are not? Citizens of the country they live in.

I would have thought that was obvious.

Gender and skin color have nothing to do with skill in most jobs (gender may have a partial link with jobs that require specific physical attributes such as brute strength).
The point I was making (and which you seemed to have missed) was that any attempt to promote people based on ethnicity/gender rather than ability to do the job will inevitably result in at least a large minority of people who are promoted being actively promoted into jobs they are incapable of doing as a matter of procedure.

I don't give a fuck what procedures any place I do business with uses to hire or promote its employees. It's none of my business. Anyone I deal with, I am first going to deal with them on the assumption that they're there because they're good at their job. If that assumption turns out to be false, then there are procedures in place to deal with that, but none of those procedures (at least in my opinion) allow me to specify that the person serving me be of a specific gender or skin color.

You, on the other hand, seem to request that you are served by a white male not because that person is more able than the one assigned to do the job, but only because you suspect that said person must have been promoted exclusively because he or she fulfills other criteria.

Now, in your bank example there? Let me give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you requested a different person to deal with because the person initially assigned to you was incompetent. How did you know you'd be better served by a white male? Not just any other employee at that bank, but specifically a white male?

Michael Everett wrote:Yeah, I have a tendency towards un-PC logic. In a bank that practiced positive discrimination, I insisted on having a white male member of staff oversee the transactions I needed as that was the only way I could be sure that I was getting someone promoted for ability rather than ethnic/gender-ratio box-ticking.

How do you know that white male was promoted for ability rather than because of nepotism? That issue isn't specific to white males, but it's a counterexample to your supposed "positive discrimination".

Wow, such fury.
Must have hit a nerve.

And yet I note there has been no rebuttal for my Greek and America historical non-democratic status due to slave-ownership.
Interesting that...
Oh yes indeed, very interesting...

The E wrote:If you create a class of citizen that is subject to all laws, but does not have a voice in their creation, you're no longer a democracy.

I agree. Let's run with this.
Due to the implementation of slavery (citizens without any freedoms), America was therefore not a democracy until 1865, although I will allow for the Northern States being a limited democracy from 1861 due to the southern (slavery supporting) states breaking away from them at that point.
African-American males were only given the right to vote in 1870. Women legally got the right to vote via the 19th amendment in 1920, although the last state (Mississipi) finally ratified it in 1984.
I guess that this means America has been a full (as opposed to limited) democracy for 31 years.
England has been a limited democracy from 1834 when it officially abolished slavery in its empire (although certain company-owned outposts retained the use of slaves until they were absorbed into the Empire in 1843), giving a timeframe of 181 years (or 172 depending on how one measures it).
With regards to female voters, women over 30 (admittedly with some property requirements at the time) had the vote by 1918, the age didn't drop to 21 (same age as men) until 1928. Coupled with the slave-emancipation, this means that the UK has been a full democracy for 87 years.

Starsaber wrote:How do you know that white male was promoted for ability rather than because of nepotism? That issue isn't specific to white males, but it's a counterexample to your supposed "positive discrimination".

[joke] Really? That was you in the bank? Well, good to know. You did a good job and I thank you for it. [/joke]
No, seriously, any company that actively promotes and boasts about positive discrimination is harming itself. The key word here is discrimination. Promoting someone purely for their skin color or gender is racist and/or sexist as they are not being promoted because of what they've done/can do but rather because it ticks boxes for the PR department. The Manageress of the bank in question was proud to declare that the primary factor in promotion was the so-called Positive Discrimination, so the chance of nepotism getting a look in? Pretty darn low...
As I said before (albeit in different words), positive discrimination disadvantages certain portions of the workforce by a significant degree, therefore if they get promoted anyway over those that PD favors, they must be darned good. Think ladders.
[metaphor] The crane of Positive Discrimination means person A starts halfway up and only has to climb ten rungs while person B starts at ground level and has to climb twenty. If Person B wins anyway, they are probably much faster than person A.[/metaphor]
Apply this to business.
Or don't.
I can't force you to see things my way, nor will I try.
After all, "A man convinced against his will/Is of his own opinion still"