Can we talk about the progress of liberty without mentioning current politics?

[Ginevra]

With the strange way that current politics has taken shape, I see a lot of fear-mongering from both sides of the aisle. "If X wins the Presidency, ________________ will happen." The blank is filled in with something that generally amounts to a stripping of rights currently enjoyed. Regardless of the party, there is fear that this nominee would take away these rights or that nominee will take away those rights.

 

My take on this is that overall, this nation (the US) moves towards more liberty. It is rare that rights currently enjoyed are removed, and when it is attempted, it fails. (Prohibition, for example.) Am I wrong? I would like to have some intelligent discourse on this without dragging current nominees and party agendas into the discussion. Do you think there is any real possibility of a significant freedom currently enjoyed (or that has been enjoyed for decades) being reversed?

[Hyacinth]

I think we need to make sure we're all operating from the same definition of liberty before the conversation gets too involved. How would you define it, Quill?

[kirstenhill]

Here's an example of a freedom that has degraded over the years - copyrights used to actually expire in a semi-reasonable period of time with things entering the public domain. Over time, copyrights have gotten longer and longer. It seems likely that when the current round of material comes close to entering the public domain (I think we're getting pretty close again for that 1923ish material)...corporations will have the influence to make sure it never happens. :-(

[justasque]

I think people attribute more power to the office of POTUS than is really there. They forget that Congress is equally powerful and that the POTUS is limited in his(/her?) power. The "woe is us" cry is largely an overreaction. The POTUS is not a monarch or dictator.

 

I think that's a good point.  

There is the issue of SCOTUS nominations, though, which is a power that can change the way the court rules for a long time to come.

[JumpyTheFrog]

Here's an example of a freedom that has degraded over the years - copyrights used to actually expire in a semi-reasonable period of time with things entering the public domain. Over time, copyrights have gotten longer and longer.

Yes. When I look through my hymnal (published about a decade ago), everything written after the early 1920s is still under copyright. It's ridiculous. I think copyright should be much more limited. Likewise, I don't agree with patenting genes. Our patent system needs an overhaul as well.

[creekland]

It really depends upon what one calls "rights."

 

I know in hubby's field (Civil Engineering), there are far more restrictions now than there ever have been.  We profit from those (via his job), but so does our planet when we don't destroy it by what we build.  Is it a right to do whatever you want with your land even if it means significant erosion or pollution?

 

In my field (teaching) there are also more rules restricting teacher's freedoms.  Should we have the right to spank a student?  Should we have to have our detailed lesson plans in writing each week?  Should lessons have to conform to the federal standards or is local ok?  (Local around here was far less strict.)

 

Those are just a few examples.  I'll argue that losing rights is not always a bad thing.  And yes, it can make a difference who's in charge, but only if they have support for their ideas.

 

I don't see "the end" coming from any one election, but I can see why the last few have been polarized - and this upcoming one being so as well.

[EmseB]

Sure, but even those nominations have to be approved by Congress before they are allowed to sit on the bench. So, there's that balance of power again.

Yes, but when the rhetoric is couched as congress not doing their job if they block a nomination, then there's a basic misunderstanding of how the branches are supposed to work. Blocking a nomination to SCOTUS is just as much "doing their job" as approving one. Just as blocking legislation is also doing their job.

 

But people think that's not true.

[Guest]

I think we need to make sure we're all operating from the same definition of liberty before the conversation gets too involved. How would you define it, Quill?

Ah, well, I guess that is more difficult than I realized. I was thinking of personal freedom to go about as one desires; life, liberty, pursiut of happiness. In historical terms, say - womens' suffrage, the right to educate one's own children, the right to form relationships with other consenting adults as one wishes, the right to do with one's own body what one wishes...

[Amira]

I think people attribute more power to the office of POTUS than is really there. They forget that Congress is equally powerful and that the POTUS is limited in his(/her?) power. The "woe is us" cry is largely an overreaction. The POTUS is not a monarch or dictator.

 

I think this is very much true for almost every issue.  However, foreign policy is my number one issue so I am greatly concerned because the POTUS actually does have a lot of power in that area.  There are some checks, of course, but nothing like the checks and balances in domestic issues.  Even SCOTUS appointees have to be approved by the Senate and they've made it clear they're willing to not do that.

 

My lifestyle and my husband's job mean that a POTUS who radically changes US foreign policy can have a seriously detrimental effect on my everyday life.

[TechWife]

Here's an example of a freedom that has degraded over the years - copyrights used to actually expire in a semi-reasonable period of time with things entering the public domain. Over time, copyrights have gotten longer and longer. It seems likely that when the current round of material comes close to entering the public domain (I think we're getting pretty close again for that 1923ish material)...corporations will have the influence to make sure it never happens. :-(

 

Can you explain how you see this as a freedom? The purpose of a copyright is to make sure the author is both recognized and paid for their work. How is it an infringement on freedom to prevent someone from a) passing off another's work as their own and b)prevent someone from profiting from another's work? 

[JumpyTheFrog]

Can you explain how you see this as a freedom? The purpose of a copyright is to make sure the author is both recognized and paid for their work. How is it an infringement on freedom to prevent someone from a) passing off another's work as their own and b)prevent someone from profiting from another's work?

Someone who wrote a song in 1930 has been dead a long time.

[JumpyTheFrog]

If modern patent laws were around hundreds or thousands of years ago, everyone would have to license the right to use a wheel, printing press, or maybe even written langauage.

[TechWife]

Someone who wrote a song in 1930 has been dead a long time.

 

Does that mean a) they should no longer be recognized for the work b) their descendants shouldn't receive compensation? 

[TechWife]

If modern patent laws were around hundreds or thousands of years ago, everyone would have to license the right to use a wheel, printing press, or maybe even written langauage.

 

I don't see a problem with this. Recognizing people for their work and compensating them for it isn't an infringement on my liberty. I still have the choice of whether or not not use those tools, enjoy those songs, read that material, etc..

[JumpyTheFrog]

I think their work should still be attributed to them. But why do their descendents deserve money in perpetuity for it? Copyright used to be for a much shorter time period. I heard Disney got it changed, but I haven't verified that.

[poppy]

I think their work should still be attributed to them. But why do their descendents deserve money in perpetuity for it? Copyright used to be for a much shorter time period. I heard Disney got it changed, but I haven't verified that.

 

Yeah, not seeing how getting money generations later is "liberty" related.

[umsami]

Yes, but when the rhetoric is couched as congress not doing their job if they block a nomination, then there's a basic misunderstanding of how the branches are supposed to work. Blocking a nomination to SCOTUS is just as much "doing their job" as approving one. Just as blocking legislation is also doing their job.

 

But people think that's not true.

 

I'm not sure blocking is doing their job.  The Senate Judicial Committee should consider all nominations put forth by the President, hold hearings, etc.... put it to the full vote of the Senate.  Refusing to do even that is not doing their job IMHO.  Bork was not approved.  That's fine.  Not even holding a hearing? That's not doing their job.

Edited May 5, 2016 by umsami

[Bluegoat]

Can you explain how you see this as a freedom? The purpose of a copyright is to make sure the author is both recognized and paid for their work. How is it an infringement on freedom to prevent someone from a) passing off another's work as their own and b)prevent someone from profiting from another's work? 

 

It never becomes legal to pass off someone's work as your own.  Nor can you change someone's work while still claiming it is theirs.

 

But copyright law was always intended to run out over time, as are patents.  That is why they are limited.

 

There are two aspects to creative work or knowledge.  Part of that is the work of the individual, and as you say, the original conception was to allow the individual to recoup their effort, and to get benefit from it, without others scooping it up.  And a major reason for this on the grander scale is that people felt it would support innovation.

 

The other side though is that literature, art, ideas, ultimately enter the human community.  There are things which cannot, properly speaking, be owned.  And they confer power as well - someone who controls an important drug, for example, has a lot of power over others, and a lot of ability to make money.  So - that is the downside which can be very significant - it tends to solidify power and wealth differentials in society.

 

Most copyright periods - which differ depending on the type of media - were designed to be around the lifetime of the creator, or a little longer in some cases.  But they have been increasingly getting longer - mostly under corporate influence.  Controlling ideas is a big money maker for them. 

[JoJosMom]

I think we need to make sure we're all operating from the same definition of liberty before the conversation gets too involved. How would you define it, Quill?

 

 

Ah, well, I guess that is more difficult than I realized. I was thinking of personal freedom to go about as one desires; life, liberty, pursiut of happiness. In historical terms, say - womens' suffrage, the right to educate one's own children, the right to form relationships with other consenting adults as one wishes, the right to do with one's own body what one wishes...

 

I love your question, Quill, and this is a major topic of debate here at Rivendell Academy.  :001_smile: Thank you for posting.

 

I think that Hyacinth's point is good.  From your answer, Quill, it appears that you are primarily referring to sexual liberties, with a small side of education. :tongue_smilie: I would agree with you that our sexual liberties have expanded.  I think the jury is still out with respect to education.  I disagree with your premise about expanding liberties in other areas.  Without getting into the merits (because I think we'd be treading too closely to crossing over line into political debate), just look into issues like the First Amendment/Free Speech ( Unlearning Liberty, by Greg Lukianoff is an excellent read, IMO), the decline of personal privacy/rise of surveillance, and the increasing militarization of the police.  Overall, I'd say we're trending on the side of losing fundamental liberties, not expanding them.

 

And that's all I'm going to say. ;)

[JumpyTheFrog]

the decline of personal privacy/rise of surveillance, and the increasing militarization of the police. Overall, I'd say we're trending on the side of losing fundamental liberties, not expanding them.

 

Yes. All the NSA spying and warrentless wiretapping are examples of this.

[TechWife]

 

Most copyright periods - which differ depending on the type of media - were designed to be around the lifetime of the creator, or a little longer in some cases.  But they have been increasingly getting longer - mostly under corporate influence.  Controlling ideas is a big money maker for them. 

 

Corporations hold a lot of the copyrights and patents. Do you think they shouldn't? It's something I've never thought about before. My husband's patents are in his name, but the rights are assigned to his employer because they were paying him to develop his ideas at the time. He receives a series of bonuses tied to patents and to his writing. He receives the profits from his published writing, but  not from "products' put into production. In his industry, the copyrights and patents actually outlive the usefulness of the information they protect because things move and change so rapidly. By that, I mean it's no longer useful to his company, nor to anyone else. By that, it wouldn't matter if the copyright/patent expired, but it also wouldn't make a bit of difference either way. 

[Pawz4me]

I'm not sure blocking is doing their job.  The Senate Justice Committee should consider all nominations put forth by the President, hold hearings, etc.... put it to the full vote of the Senate.  Refusing to do even that is not doing their job IMHO.  Bork was not approved.  That's fine.  Not even holding a hearing? That's not doing their job.

 

Well said.  "Doing their job" means holding a hearing and giving thoughtful consideration to a nominee.  Announcing that they will block a nominee before they even have any idea who that nominee will be -- total obstructionism (and pandering).

 

As far as the original question -- I think the politics of fear is very interesting.  I guess it's hard to quantify, but I'd be interested in any studies on how the rise of the 24/7 news cycle may have played a role in increasing it.

[Bluegoat]

I'm not sure blocking is doing their job.  The Senate Justice Committee should consider all nominations put forth by the President, hold hearings, etc.... put it to the full vote of the Senate.  Refusing to do even that is not doing their job IMHO.  Bork was not approved.  That's fine.  Not even holding a hearing? That's not doing their job.

 

I think the thing with this is, there is a difference between looking at a candidate and saying that this person is a bad person or incapable, or whatever, and simply blocking them for partisan reasons.

 

If the latter is what is going on, than it actually undermines the system so it can't work - as long as elements are opposed in government, nothing can get done.

 

Good governance in democratic systems is designed to require bi-partisan elements.  But increasingly partisan reasons are being seen as a reason to do things like veto candidates or good legislation.

 

A good example from my country is the commitees that work on legislation between readings.  They are meant to go over each bill and work to make them as good as possible.  They are always bi-partisan by design, and while different viewpoints have different views on how to do that, the goal is a good bill - it is in the house it may or may not be defeated.  Our last government however created a new practice of sending its MPs into committee specifically with the goal of blocking work on legislation they didn't like.

 

This was defended as democracy in action, when it was really the opposite - blocking the democratic process.

[Paige]

I have told my kids that every generation thinks things are terrible and we are doomed if some opposing side wins, but history usually shows that both sides were mostly made of decent people trying their best and neither would ruin the country. I think of Jefferson and Hamilton, Nixon and JFK, Jackson and JQ Adams...I'm not a fan of some of these people, but we survived them all and we survived their rivalries. I think that, for the most part, our country is diverse enough, large enough, and educated enough to prevent any one person from seriously overturning any of our freedoms. I believe in our system of checks and balances which does not give a president enough power on his or her own to make huge changes. I believe most people, and politicians are people, are trying to do their best to make the world a better place for themselves, their family, and the general population, but people disagree about how that is done. 

 

So, I am not fearful about the future. I think it will all work out and we will continue progressing and more people will enjoy success, fewer people will be oppressed, and we will stumble along doing our best as we have before. There may be setbacks and corrections that seem scary at first, but I am hopeful for the future no matter who is president. I realize that may be idealistic, but I'm more comfortable erring on that side. I also realize that while "we" survived some terrible political choices, not everyone did. Individually and personally, the decisions of politicians can destroy lives even if the country survives, so optimism should not lead to complacency. I want my kids to fight for the rights of others and themselves with urgency and passion while holding onto a sense of optimism for the future no matter how the fight seems to be going at the time. Their/our efforts may only pay off several generations from now. 

[kirstenhill]

It never becomes legal to pass off someone's work as your own. Nor can you change someone's work while still claiming it is theirs.

 

But copyright law was always intended to run out over time, as are patents. That is why they are limited.

 

There are two aspects to creative work or knowledge. Part of that is the work of the individual, and as you say, the original conception was to allow the individual to recoup their effort, and to get benefit from it, without others scooping it up. And a major reason for this on the grander scale is that people felt it would support innovation.

 

The other side though is that literature, art, ideas, ultimately enter the human community. There are things which cannot, properly speaking, be owned. And they confer power as well - someone who controls an important drug, for example, has a lot of power over others, and a lot of ability to make money. So - that is the downside which can be very significant - it tends to solidify power and wealth differentials in society.

 

Most copyright periods - which differ depending on the type of media - were designed to be around the lifetime of the creator, or a little longer in some cases. But they have been increasingly getting longer - mostly under corporate influence. Controlling ideas is a big money maker for them.

This. I think the expiration of copyrights in a reasonable period of time benefits freedom of creativity. I think most well-beyond-the-lifetime-of-the-creator copyrights benefit large media corporations more than individuals. Edited May 5, 2016 by kirstenhill

[Guest]

I think people attribute more power to the office of POTUS than is really there. They forget that Congress is equally powerful and that the POTUS is limited in his(/her?) power. The "woe is us" cry is largely an overreaction. The POTUS is not a monarch or dictator.

Well, right, this is what I mean. I don't see the possibility of certain things happening because the tide has turned against come things to too great of a degree. So, to try and use an example that seems absurd, I don't think it would ever be possible for a current President to send all people of African descent to Africa, KWIM? Or re-institute human slavery as legal.

[Amy in NH]

I doubt it. There is a certain presidential candidate who has stated openly his hatred of minorities who would lead a group in power in the legislature to take basic human rights from people. I find that to be very concerning. As I have heard these people spout such rhetoric with my own ears, I don't consider this threat to be merely fear-mongering from their opposition.

[Bluegoat]

Corporations hold a lot of the copyrights and patents. Do you think they shouldn't? It's something I've never thought about before. My husband's patents are in his name, but the rights are assigned to his employer because they were paying him to develop his ideas at the time. He receives a series of bonuses tied to patents and to his writing. He receives the profits from his published writing, but  not from "products' put into production. In his industry, the copyrights and patents actually outlive the usefulness of the information they protect because things move and change so rapidly. By that, I mean it's no longer useful to his company, nor to anyone else. By that, it wouldn't matter if the copyright/patent expired, but it also wouldn't make a bit of difference either way. 

 

I don't know that I would say corporations should not hold them.  I think there need to be other kinds of limits on corporations that might affect that indirectly, but it probably doesn't matter so much if it is individuals or corporations.

 

The problem is the extention of the lifespan of the patents and copyrights.  Think, for example, about things like generic drugs - they exist only because the patent has run out.

 

How long should it be before we consider that an idea is somehow in the public domain? (This always reminds me of people who get their knickers in a twist over book or tv spoilers in articles or discussions.  Yes - if you are reading a book like LOTR, or even seeing the movie, do not expect people to keep the plot and ending a secret in discussions.  The book has gne beyond individuals and is now part of culture.)  Should we still be paying the descendants of the guy who invented the wheel, or the windmill, for the privilege of using those technologies?  Or any time we sing a song that is hundreds of years old?

 

There are even some problems with the claim that it increases production of ideas.  For one thing, it has become common for companies to prevent the use of competing technologies by buying the patents.  And even in businesses like music, I think it is a question how copyright legislation has really affected the quality and output.  People did produce lots of good music before such laws existed, though they may not have made a living off of it.  Now that having a catalogue of music to your name is a way to make a living, there seems to be a lot of bad stuff around clogging up the companies that market the stuff.  (If you've ever looked at religious music publishing houses you can see this.  They make a lot more money out of Haugen than Palestrina, so guess which they push.) 

 

Copyright was really intended to help individuals get a fair shake at getting a return on their time and effort and expenses, but it has significantly contributed to making  production business rather than idea driven.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Bluegoat

[Bluegoat]

I have told my kids that every generation thinks things are terrible and we are doomed if some opposing side wins, but history usually shows that both sides were mostly made of decent people trying their best and neither would ruin the country. I think of Jefferson and Hamilton, Nixon and JFK, Jackson and JQ Adams...I'm not a fan of some of these people, but we survived them all and we survived their rivalries. I think that, for the most part, our country is diverse enough, large enough, and educated enough to prevent any one person from seriously overturning any of our freedoms. I believe in our system of checks and balances which does not give a president enough power on his or her own to make huge changes. I believe most people, and politicians are people, are trying to do their best to make the world a better place for themselves, their family, and the general population, but people disagree about how that is done. 

 

So, I am not fearful about the future. I think it will all work out and we will continue progressing and more people will enjoy success, fewer people will be oppressed, and we will stumble along doing our best as we have before. There may be setbacks and corrections that seem scary at first, but I am hopeful for the future no matter who is president. I realize that may be idealistic, but I'm more comfortable erring on that side. I also realize that while "we" survived some terrible political choices, not everyone did. Individually and personally, the decisions of politicians can destroy lives even if the country survives, so optimism should not lead to complacency. I want my kids to fight for the rights of others and themselves with urgency and passion while holding onto a sense of optimism for the future no matter how the fight seems to be going at the time. Their/our efforts may only pay off several generations from now. 

 

On the other hand, political systems collaps and empires fall, often from the weight of internal problems.

 

Why would we be immune to that?

[Guest]

I love your question, Quill, and this is a major topic of debate here at Rivendell Academy. :001_smile: Thank you for posting.

 

I think that Hyacinth's point is good. From your answer, Quill, it appears that you are primarily referring to sexual liberties, with a small side of education. :tongue_smilie: I would agree with you that our sexual liberties have expanded. I think the jury is still out with respect to education. I disagree with your premise about expanding liberties in other areas. Without getting into the merits (because I think we'd be treading too closely to crossing over line into political debate), just look into issues like the First Amendment/Free Speech ( Unlearning Liberty, by Greg Lukianoff is an excellent read, IMO), the decline of personal privacy/rise of surveillance, and the increasing militarization of the police. Overall, I'd say we're trending on the side of losing fundamental liberties, not expanding them.

 

And that's all I'm going to say. ;)

I'm actually thinking more large-scale than this, but it is difficult to not spell out any particular thing without it obviously being attached to a particular party. :)

 

Basically, I see Fb posts that say, for EITHER party, "If (opposing party) wins, these things will happen! You won't be able to carry on life as you currently are because (that opposing party) will strip these rights!" I think this is fear-mongering and not a rational reason to vote for either candidate.

[Ravin]

Here's an example of a freedom that has degraded over the years - copyrights used to actually expire in a semi-reasonable period of time with things entering the public domain. Over time, copyrights have gotten longer and longer. It seems likely that when the current round of material comes close to entering the public domain (I think we're getting pretty close again for that 1923ish material)...corporations will have the influence to make sure it never happens. :-(

 

I don't think this is necessarily interpreted as losing freedom. Copyright is a property right, and the right to property is an important civil right in the U.S.--foundational, really. 

 

The issue, perhaps, isn't so much copyright, as corporations and how they are structured and imbued with rights. That said, property rights are necessary for corporations, including intellectual property rights. So it really comes down to why a given intellectual property right exists. Copyright exists basically so no one but the holder of the copyright can duplicate the copyrighted material for profit.

[Ravin]

Yes. When I look through my hymnal (published about a decade ago), everything written after the early 1920s is still under copyright. It's ridiculous. I think copyright should be much more limited. Likewise, I don't agree with patenting genes. Our patent system needs an overhaul as well.

 

The patenting genes thing has already been tossed out, at least for human genes. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/07/12/you-cant-patent-human-genes-so-why-are-genetic-testing-companies-getting-sued/ 

[Bluegoat]

I'm actually thinking more large-scale than this, but it is difficult to not spell out any particular thing without it obviously being attached to a particular party. :)

 

Basically, I see Fb posts that say, for EITHER party, "If (opposing party) wins, these things will happen! You won't be able to carry on life as you currently are because (that opposing party) will strip these rights!" I think this is fear-mongering and not a rational reason to vote for either candidate.

 

Generally speaking that stuff is just BS value-politics.

 

I think the big difficulty though is in itself it creates a problem.  People believe it and it begins to actually dominate the political and policy making world.  So you get actual political leaders running around acting on this stuff.  Or they see it for what it is and disengage from the political process.

 

What you get is a polarized population that can't come to some compromise or common vision of the good on anything.

 

In a way it becomes self-fulfilling.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I'm actually thinking more large-scale than this, but it is difficult to not spell out any particular thing without it obviously being attached to a particular party. :)

 

Basically, I see Fb posts that say, for EITHER party, "If (opposing party) wins, these things will happen! You won't be able to carry on life as you currently are because (that opposing party) will strip these rights!" I think this is fear-mongering and not a rational reason to vote for either candidate.

 

I really just chalk this up to fear mongering, empty promises, and nonsense rhetoric that happens during every election.  Which is very annoying because I can't even stand to listen to most of it. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Did you hear that short interview on NPR this morning with Pat B?  Good grief.  Just come out and say it dude. You are a despicable white supremacist. Go get yourself a sheet for your head.  But I love how he tiptoed around just saying so.  As if what he was saying was some important fact. 

 

 

 

 

[Bluegoat]

I don't think this is necessarily interpreted as losing freedom. Copyright is a property right, and the right to property is an important civil right in the U.S.--foundational, really. 

 

The issue, perhaps, isn't so much copyright, as corporations and how they are structured and imbued with rights. That said, property rights are necessary for corporations, including intellectual property rights. So it really comes down to why a given intellectual property right exists. Copyright exists basically so no one but the holder of the copyright can duplicate the copyrighted material for profit.

 

Yes, I think the real question is whether an idea can be property.

 

If you invent a widget, and I invent a widget, both based on our knowledge of mechanical principles, how is it that you "own" that idea?

 

Even when we talk about how ideas move around in society, it is not really much like property.  Can someone own a natural law, or the consequences, or logical application, of it?

 

I think the limits reflect that ideas really aren't property, they are a different order of thing.  We allow people to treat them as property in a limited way for practical reasons.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Did you hear that short interview on NPR this morning with Pat B?  Good grief.  Just come out and say it dude. You are a despicable white supremacist. Go get yourself a sheet for your head.  But I love how he tiptoed around just saying so.  As if what he was saying was some important fact. 

 

And you could feel the interviewer trying her damnedest not to start chewing on something.

[Amira]

And you could feel the interviewer trying her damnedest not to start chewing on something.

 

I listened to it right before reading your post.  I guess we'll have to listen to racist and xenophobic rhetoric masquerading as politics for the next six months, if not longer.

[FaithManor]

It really depends upon what one calls "rights."

 

I know in hubby's field (Civil Engineering), there are far more restrictions now than there ever have been.  We profit from those (via his job), but so does our planet when we don't destroy it by what we build.  Is it a right to do whatever you want with your land even if it means significant erosion or pollution?

 

In my field (teaching) there are also more rules restricting teacher's freedoms.  Should we have the right to spank a student?  Should we have to have our detailed lesson plans in writing each week?  Should lessons have to conform to the federal standards or is local ok?  (Local around here was far less strict.)

 

Those are just a few examples.  I'll argue that losing rights is not always a bad thing.  And yes, it can make a difference who's in charge, but only if they have support for their ideas.

 

I don't see "the end" coming from any one election, but I can see why the last few have been polarized - and this upcoming one being so as well.

I agree with this.

 

In terms of individual rights, liberty only extends so far as yourself. Your right to action a,b,c, cannot infringe upon the rights of others. Finding this balance of individual liberty vs. community liberty is sometimes very difficult, and certainly we make mistakes all the time, but the benefit is actually in the struggle to define and choose. However, a great portion of our society is very afraid it seems of the struggle, status quo being preferred no matter the consequences to others. I see this a lot locally. One example is that of the township board that needed to have a property condemned for the good of all. It was a SERIOUS public health threat, and yet time and time again the residents went crazy on the township board for even suggesting it because "so and so has a right to live like that", and they'd rather THAT right be maintained than deal with the fact that the sheer number of rats on that property - among other hazards - may give them the right to The Plague, Hanta Virus, and any number of other things not to mention the fire hazards that would affect residents around his property. It took two years to get the job done, and there were two very bad injuries on his property - one to the official who attempted to serve the owner with papers - and meanwhile some meth dealers took up residence in one of the shacks on the place which was a very dangerous situation.

 

I don't look at every "loss of rights" as a bad thing. More of a move towards civilization sometimes.

 

The other side of that coin is the very scary aspect of some legislative acts such as The Patriot Act which has allowed the NSA 

:seeya: (waving HI just in case, LOL) to collect personal communication data on Americans without due process. That is NOT good.

 

It is definitely a discussion worth having, and of course everyone focus's on POTUS but the reality is if that is your big concern and your options are limited, then congress and judges races should be your top priority because that is where the checks and balances are IF the system is working properly. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Putting deep thinkers with passion for human rights into congressional and judicial office would go a long way to checking the power of POTUS.

[EmseB]

Well said. "Doing their job" means holding a hearing and giving thoughtful consideration to a nominee. Announcing that they will block a nominee before they even have any idea who that nominee will be -- total obstructionism (and pandering).

 

I simply disagree. I vote for a congressman to block things I'm opposed to as much as present their own ideas. There are people I would like obstructed from joining the supreme court. There are bills which I'd never like to leave committee. I know this is true of pretty much everyone, because the rhetoric changes on a dime depending on who's nominee or bill it is. I can thoughtfully consider someone (read about them, look at their past work) and say that I'm glad they aren't getting a hearing.

 

The idea that the congress must do the president's bidding in this way means the president would have authority over them to set their agenda. That isn't how it works.

Edited May 5, 2016 by JodiSue

[Bluegoat]

I simply disagree. I vote for a congressman to block things I'm opposed to as much as present their own ideas. There are people I would like obstructed from joining the supreme court. There are bills which I'd never like to leave committee. I know this is true of pretty much everyone, because the rhetoric changes on a dime depending on who's nominee or bill it is. I can thoughtfully consider someone (read about them, look at their past work) and say that I'm glad they aren't getting a hearing.

 

The idea that the congress must do the president's bidding in this way means the president would have authority over them to set their agenda. That isn't how it works.

 

What do you think would happen to the process of appointments if that is how it was done?

 

It would simply be a matter of stacking candidates and the partisan group with the most would win.

 

It's pretty much what Plato said was the reason democracy would always be a failure.

[umsami]

I simply disagree. I vote for a congressman to block things I'm opposed to as much as present their own ideas. There are people I would like obstructed from joining the supreme court. There are bills which I'd never like to leave committee. I know this is true of pretty much everyone, because the rhetoric changes on a dime depending on who's nominee or bill it is. I can thoughtfully consider someone (read about them, look at their past work) and say that I'm glad they aren't getting a hearing.

 

The idea that the congress must do the president's bidding in this way means the president would have authority over them to set their agenda. That isn't how it works.

 

But you say you'd like certain things to never leave committee. Having the Senate Judicial Committee actually evaluate a candidate is what should happen.  Refusing to even evaluate somebody is a problem.  The Senate Judiciary Committee can choose to tell the Senate that they do not recommend this person.  That's their right.  That's still doing their job.

 

If a majority of the United States population elected the President....and this person (who actually happened to specialize in Constitutional Law) nominates a well qualified person (yes, Merrick Garland is qualified...he's been on the DC Appelate court for almost 20 years)... then that person deserves a hearing.  Sometimes things come out about a candidate and they are withdrawn.  But to not even get a hearing is atypical.  Especially as it means that the Supreme Court will be without a justice for almost a year. 

 

The GOP is setting a bad precedent.  Whose to stop the Senate from saying they won't consider any nominations for two years before an election or three or even four if they don't like the potential nominee.  If Justice Scalia had died in September or October, I could maybe see this stance.  But in the February prior to an election year? Nope.

[Laurie4b]

People used to have more property rights. Now eminent domain can be used by a government to favor one private entity over another. 

 

 

Edited May 5, 2016 by Laurie4b

[Bluegoat]

People used to have more property rights. Now eminent domain can be used by a government to favor one private entity over another. 

 

I think when we talk about the erosion of rights, a lot of it relates to increased power for those kinds of "private entities." 

[umsami]

People used to have more property rights. Now eminent domain can be used by a government to favor one private entity over another. 

 

I thought eminent domain involved the government buying/acquiring private property for public use?

[Pam in CT]

Great topic, Quill.

 

At 50,000 feet, I do believe that the moral arc of the universe is long but bends towards justice etc; and that commensurate with that truth, the big picture narrative of US history is the slow expansion of "rights" towards previously disenfranchised and marginalized people.

 

But.

 

First, at the 10,000 foot view, there are fits and starts within the overall rights expansion trend line.  It's pretty uncontroversial to discern, from our current position on the historical timeline, that, say, the Fugitive Slave Act and Dred Scott decision were "fits" that unequivocally moved the "rights" bar backward, legislatively and judiciarily.  Time will tell, but I personally believe that the 2013 SCOTUS decision dismantling key enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act will similarly be seen, by history with its eyes on us, as enabling fundamental voting rights to be taken away.  So there's a bit of two steps forward-one step back dance, within the overall march.

 

Second, at maybe 30,000 feet, some rights are in tension with other rights.  That's always been true and still is.  The upstream business' right to contain costs and maximize profits by -- say -- dumping waste, can be in tension with the downstream neighbor not to have his business' irrigation water contaminated.  The local voters' rights to establish zoning in keeping with their values can be in tension with businesses' rights to build parking lots or put up signage as they please.  The customer's right to be served in a public accommodation can be in tension with the business owner's right to serve whom they wish.  Some student's right to exercise their religion by praying publicly can be in tension with other students' right to be free from having religion imposed upon them.  Parents' rights to homeschool / discipline / make medical decisions as they see fit can be in tension with children's rights to get an adequate education / be free from abuse / get access to appropriate treatment.  The right of inventors to be fairly compensated can be in tension with other business' right to utilize available information and technologies.  And on and on and nauseatingly on...

 

A great deal of public policy necessarily is about balancing rights, which very often can be in tension.

 

 

 

My greatest worry right now is around polarization -- that words like "compromise" and "moderation" have become nearly as damning as "fascist" and "socialist" once were.  Where BLOCKING conversation and efforts to work across the aisle is seen as praiseworthy.  

 

When we get to that point, rights WILL erode, in unpredictable and uncontrollable ways, because once we lose the sense that there's an "us" that cuts across our different divides, we make ourselves vulnerable to demagogues who will be only too happy to suspend them.

 

 

[Laurie4b]

I thought eminent domain involved the government buying/acquiring private property for public use?

 

That's what it used to involve: governments exercising eminent domain because a new road was needed or something that would benefit the whole community.

 

 Now, a city can say, "Oh this super store, hotel, shopping center, etc will bring in a lot of tax revenue" and take grandma's farm through eminent domain. The super store, hotel, etc. will be built by a private profit-making party on grandma's land. The only "public use" is higher taxes. It's a win-win for the developers. They get the land they want and they make profits off it, and they pay taxes just like they would anywhere. The government gets more tax $$. Grandma is the only loser if she happened to want to stay on her land.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Laurie4b

[Guest]

I thought eminent domain involved the government buying/acquiring private property for public use?

That is the idea behind it, but private entities attempt to use if for their own benefit, say for example, if a big resort didn't like that Jane Doe has an ugly little house right where the big resort owner wants to put parking lots. Just for example. I don't know if/how often private entities have been able to succeed; I have only heard of attempts, not successes.

[Pam in CT]

That is the idea behind it, but private entities attempt to use if for their own benefit, say for example, if a big resort didn't like that Jane Doe has an ugly little house right where the big resort owner wants to put parking lots. Just for example. I don't know if/how often private entities have been able to succeed; I have only heard of attempts, not successes.

 

Kelo v. New London.  Again, time will tell, but a case could be made that this decision represents an erosion of (individual) property rights in favor of (larger business) rights and tax authority objectives.

[Ravin]

Yes, I think the real question is whether an idea can be property.

 

If you invent a widget, and I invent a widget, both based on our knowledge of mechanical principles, how is it that you "own" that idea?

 

Even when we talk about how ideas move around in society, it is not really much like property.  Can someone own a natural law, or the consequences, or logical application, of it?

 

I think the limits reflect that ideas really aren't property, they are a different order of thing.  We allow people to treat them as property in a limited way for practical reasons.

 

This can also be turned on its head to question why some kinds of ideas are given the protection of property while others aren't--sometimes it's about who had the idea and who wants to make money off of the idea. For example, indigenous knowledge about plants and animals has often been credited to the First World scientist who "discovered" that information or idea by learning it from the indigenous people, rather than to the indigenous people themselves. Or, indigenous knowledge and what is valued in an indigenous knowledge system (often understood in religious terms such as sacred land/places) is completely disregarded in favor of the oil company that wants to tear up their land to get at resources valued by modern industrial society.

 

 

There is a two sided coin to intellectual property--there are quite a few ideas people had in earlier eras which died because they were held as secrets by a guild or priesthood rather than disseminated and shared. Scientific progress relies on dissemination and sharing while also giving credit where credit is due. Capitalism and the competition between nation-states rely on controlling information and knowledge. The tension between the two is where intellectual property laws, and the ongoing debate and change around them, spring up.