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

[Laurie4b]

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.

 

It's been done successfully. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783.html

 

Supreme Court okeedokeed it. 

[Ravin]

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.

 

Technically, the problem comes down to eminent domain being for public purpose not use. And economic development has been held to be a reasonable public purpose.

 

I think it's absolutely ridiculous, and far too subject to abuse. At the local level, I've seen it used to take a Chinese restaurant away from a local entrepreneur to hand the property over to a corporation to install a chain sushi bar. (This specific example was a former employer and friend of my DH).

[ChocolateReignRemix]

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.

 

Eminent domain is a concept from common law, and has been part of our legislative and judicial systems from the start.  However, property rights under our Constitution are better protected than under common law, as property should only be taken for commercial use and  compensation must be paid.

 

Many think that the issue behind Kelo v City of New London was that the property was being taken to be sold to a private party, but in reality this had already been done for generations (best example: railroads).  The real issue in Kelo was the definition of public use, and whether that could be expanded to include a "comprehensive redevelopment plan".

 

Over 40 states have legislation which is more restrictive than what is allowed in Kelo, so in reality the decision is fairly insignificant.  While many complain about eminent domain, without it we would not have our interstate highway system, much of our utility infrastructure, and our development as a nation would have been hampered as our rail system would have been less developed.

[Bluegoat]

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.

 

And it's tricky to define what is being protected too.  Is in the traditional knowledge that is being protected in this case, or the work to discover whether it is in fact valid (because some of it really isn't) or to refine the use, or whatever? 

 

I'm quite conservative (or liberal maybe I am not sure?) on this, I tend to not want to turn ideas into property and would probably be happier if many of our intellectual property rules were just binned.  I don't like the idea that peoples or ethnicities can own ideas or art forms or discoveries any more than individuals or corporations.  It just sounds like a great way to add another vector for asserting power over other cultural groups, aside from being IMO contradictory to the nature of ideas.

 

It is true that in the past ideas were lost as people tried to keep them secret.  I'm not sure if overall that caused more problems or loss than the system we have now.  At least in that model though if someone thought of an idea that worked the same way, independently, there was nothing stopping him from going ahead with it. 

 

I also wonder if changes might actually create a little distance between science proper and technological innovation - I am not sure that would be a bad thing as technology mainly to serve business interests seems to be very much in the driving seat of science now.  It might slow down innovation a little, but I am not sure that is a bad thing - so much is marketed to us and becomes part of the fabric of our lives before we see how it will really affect our lives.  Technology that is publicly funded for the public interest might then become more important at driving practical application.

[Bluegoat]

Technically, the problem comes down to eminent domain being for public purpose not use. And economic development has been held to be a reasonable public purpose.

 

I think it's absolutely ridiculous, and far too subject to abuse. At the local level, I've seen it used to take a Chinese restaurant away from a local entrepreneur to hand the property over to a corporation to install a chain sushi bar. (This specific example was a former employer and friend of my DH).

 

How is a sushi bar more in the public interest than a Chinese resteraunt?

[TranquilMind]

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?

 

Well, parental rights have been restricted a good deal. This is only a problem for the lawbreakers - those who would intentionally abuse their kids - and parental rights never were a problem for those who would not abuse them.    Schools have grown more into a nanny role, daring to think that they have an authoritative right to determine what goes on in the home, having usurped a  "third parent" role, but how can we be surprised at this when a potential candidate has literally stated that education is a non-family enterprise (we home schoolers beg to differ).    I'm sure we have all heard about the invasive questionnaires given to kids in the classroom about what goes on in their homes.   here.  Also Here. 

 

Stuff like this is "nunyabizness".

 

What Religion do you identify with?

•  Catholic
•  Muslim
•  Buddhist
•  Protestant (Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian etc.)
•  Jewish
•  Hindu
•  Atheist
•  Agnostic (Belief in something but unsure what)
•  Mormon
•  Christian Non-Denominational
•  Other

What is your living situation?

•  Both parents
•  Single Mother
•  Single Father
•  Legal Guardian/Relative
•  Split between parents
•  Parent and Step Parent
•  Other

What is you household income (in US dollars)?

•  Less than 50,000
•  50,000-100,000
•  I00,000-150,000
•  150,000-250,000
•  More than 250,000
•  I have no idea

What is your sexual orientation?

•  Straight
•  Gay
•  Lesbian
•  Bisexual
•  Not sure
•  Other (transgender, asexual, pansexual, etc)

Parents’ Political Identification

•  Democrat
•  Republican
•  Libertarian
•  Independent
•  I have no idea
•  Other

Highest parent education level

•  Non High School Graduate
•  High School Graduate
•  Some College
•  College Graduate
•  Post College Degree (MD, PhD, Masters)
•  I do not know

Marijuana in Maryland should be

•  Legal for all uses/purposes
•  Legal for medicinal reasons only (prescribed by doctor/physician)
•  Not legal

I'd file suit and/or pull my kids immediately if they were compelled or pressured to answer anything like the above or this: https://www.indiana.edu/~iprc/docs/sample_survey_form.pdf  

 

The school's job is limited to academics, period.  If any particular issue arises with a particular child, such as violence or some obvious issue address that with the parents.  But there is absolutely no authority to issue invasive questions about drug or alcohol use/purchases or self harm or the neighborhood kids or how their families interact or their income.   Good Lord. 

 

In a thread in which offense apparently occurred, the mention was made of a kid that received a two day suspension by a teacher for merely stating in German class, during a Hitler discussion (who did kill homosexuals along with Jews and others he did not like), that he was a Christian and he thought homosexuality was wrong.  Just for uttering the belief, he was removed and suspended (later reversed). 

 

This is a frightening overreach in school authority. 

 

When your right to speak - absent words that would incite panic, like "Fire!" of course - is abridged, you have the beginning of a revolution (to borrow from Bernie).  I think we are seeing just how fed up Americans are in the current presidential race, as the numbers have been shocking everyone, and states that were sure to go one way went the other.  It isn't that people are convinced these particular candidates are the greatest thing; they have just had enough of the same old politics. 

 

Edited May 5, 2016 by TranquilMind

[Amy in NH]

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.

According to the U.S. Constitution that is how it supposed to work. The POTUS is doing the work of the people, who *elected* him. The Congress should do their job as well, which means a hearing. It doesn't mean they have to approve him, only give him a hearing.

[TranquilMind]

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.

 

It happens all the time, and it is appalling.  He who has the gold rules. 

 

[Paige]

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

 

Why would we be immune to that?

 

You're right- we aren't immune. Even if we fall, however, I believe that whatever takes over, barring some apocalyptic cause like alien invasion, zombie attacks, or some other huge disaster, will not succeed in establishing a more repressive government for long. We are too accustomed to "liberty" to be content without it. 

 

ETA: I know I could be wrong, but I'm deliberately choosing to believe this because it makes for a happier life for myself and those around me. I see no point in worrying about disastrous futures that seem unlikely at this point. Working for progress is the same as working against collapse, but I find it makes my daily outlook different if I focus on what I want for the future instead of what I could fear.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Paige

[Ravin]

How is a sushi bar more in the public interest than a Chinese resteraunt?

 

Exactly.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

nm

 

Edited May 6, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix
Snark is not discussion.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Exactly.

 

That case sounds quite bizarre as it doesn't even fit the Kelo parameters.

[Ravin]

Well, parental rights have been restricted a good deal. This is only a problem for the lawbreakers - those who would intentionally abuse their kids - and parental rights never were a problem for those who would not abuse them.    Schools have grown more into a nanny role, daring to think that they have an authoritative right to determine what goes on in the home, having usurped a  "third parent" role, but how can we be surprised at this when a potential candidate has literally stated that education is a non-family enterprise (we home schoolers beg to differ).    I'm sure we have all heard about the invasive questionnaires given to kids in the classroom about what goes on in their homes.   here.  Also Here. 

 

Stuff like this is "nunyabizness".

 

What Religion do you identify with?

•  Catholic
•  Muslim
•  Buddhist
•  Protestant (Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian etc.)
•  Jewish
•  Hindu
•  Atheist
•  Agnostic (Belief in something but unsure what)
•  Mormon
•  Christian Non-Denominational
•  Other

What is your living situation?

•  Both parents
•  Single Mother
•  Single Father
•  Legal Guardian/Relative
•  Split between parents
•  Parent and Step Parent
•  Other

What is you household income (in US dollars)?

•  Less than 50,000
•  50,000-100,000
•  I00,000-150,000
•  150,000-250,000
•  More than 250,000
•  I have no idea

What is your sexual orientation?

•  Straight
•  Gay
•  Lesbian
•  Bisexual
•  Not sure
•  Other (transgender, asexual, pansexual, etc)

Parents’ Political Identification

•  Democrat
•  Republican
•  Libertarian
•  Independent
•  I have no idea
•  Other

Highest parent education level

•  Non High School Graduate
•  High School Graduate
•  Some College
•  College Graduate
•  Post College Degree (MD, PhD, Masters)
•  I do not know

Marijuana in Maryland should be

•  Legal for all uses/purposes
•  Legal for medicinal reasons only (prescribed by doctor/physician)
•  Not legal

I'd file suit and/or pull my kids immediately if they were compelled or pressured to answer anything like the above or this: https://www.indiana.edu/~iprc/docs/sample_survey_form.pdf  

 

The school's job is limited to academics, period.  If any particular issue arises with a particular child, such as violence or some obvious issue address that with the parents.  But there is absolutely no authority to issue invasive questions about drug or alcohol use/purchases or self harm or the neighborhood kids or how their families interact or their income.   Good Lord. 

 

In a thread in which offense apparently occurred, the mention was made of a kid that received a two day suspension by a teacher for merely stating in German class, during a Hitler discussion (who did kill homosexuals along with Jews and others he did not like), that he was a Christian and he thought homosexuality was wrong.  Just for uttering the belief, he was removed and suspended (later reversed). 

 

This is a frightening overreach in school authority. 

 

When your right to speak - absent words that would incite panic, like "Fire!" of course - is abridged, you have the beginning of a revolution (to borrow from Bernie).  I think we are seeing just how fed up Americans are in the current presidential race, as the numbers have been shocking everyone, and states that were sure to go one way went the other.  It isn't that people are convinced these particular candidates are the greatest thing; they have just had enough of the same old politics. 

 

 

If such a survey is conducted without identifying individual student information (names, address, birthdates, etc.), then it's probably connected to legitimate statistical tracking purposes.  I don't really have a problem with that.

 

Those details don't need to be in my kid's individual file, for sure.

 

The case about suspension of the kid was of course overreach and pretty outrageous (I gave a more detailed opinion in another thread where it came up).

 

I disagree that "parents rights never were a problem for those who would not abuse them." Read some of the  parents' rights Supreme Court cases.

 

In Stanley v. Illinois , Wisconsin v. Yoder, etc. (I could go on and on), the issue was never that the parents had done anything actually wrong to their children, but that the state overreached.

 

I also think the trend in Constitutional law has been one towards more security for the rights of parents, not less, overall. The due process protections have been strengthened, though I for one would like to see them strengthened further.

[Ravin]

That case sounds quite bizarre as it doesn't even fit the Kelo parameters.

 

It was within the context of an economic development project in downtown Scottsdale, AZ. 

 

http://archive.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2009/03/01/20090301downtown0301vignettes.html

 

The issue is discussed at length here:

http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/AssetFactory.aspx?did=30717

[ktgrok]

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.

 

Holding a hearing, and then deciding not to confirm, would be doing their job. Refusing to hold the hearings is avoiding doing their job. 

[TranquilMind]

nm

 

But I would go public and fight publicly, had I been unwise enough to hand my kids over to that nonsense before teaching them to resist governmental indoctrination and invasiveness.   I understand it is almost impossible to sue the schools, because like vaccine makers, they have managed to obtain by various means pretty much complete immunity for any wrongdoing except for the most egregious, such as if a teacher opened fire on the students and he had a mental history past, or something like that. 

 

However, complaints can be filed at Family Policy Compliance Office of the U.S. Department of Education and held in some inconvenient location.   In the unlikely event that it is held responsible, federal funding could be cut off.  We all know this would never happen.  But there needs to be some way to curtail school invasiveness. 

 

If you have ever read one of those abominable school clinic "consent" forms, you would know what I mean.  An attorney friend and I were reviewing it one day and laughing out loud at how ridiculously broad the "consent" is.  You basically consent in advance to whatever the school system wants to do with your kid - even take him to a mental facility - while on school grounds.  Um, no.  While one of mine was in a school with this inappropriate clinic structure, we declined to sign this form, and drove this child the Advil necessary once or twice, and another time and took this child to a doctor when illness occurred.   

 

The consent form permitted ridiculously invasive things, but did not affect the ability to call 911 and do whatever was necessary in an actual emergency, which is the only way a school should have any involvement in health care for your child.    Few parents realized this, and believed erroneously that they were required to give the clinic consent for their child to receive even emergency care. 

 

Anyway, out of that hellhole that is considered the "best Classical school in the city" now, thank God. 

 

Irrelevant to the issue at hand, but since you bothered to mention it, I responded. 

 

Edited May 6, 2016 by Susan Wise Bauer
Removed quote from deleted content.

[QueenCat]

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.

 

They aren't doing their job if they say ahead of time they'll block anyone a president nominates without considering the candidate for their own merits. But blocking a candidate is fine if they've actually spent time considering him/her.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

nm

 

Edited May 6, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix
Fight-picking.

[LucyStoner]

People thought doomsday was coming when John Adams was elected. Others thought doomsday was coming when Thomas Jefferson was elected. And on through the decades. People thought doomsday was coming with the election of Bill Clinton and others with the election of either George Bush.

 

People need to learn that politics are cyclical and that a candidate they abhor may suck but is probably not the end of the world.

[Pam in CT]

People thought doomsday was coming when John Adams was elected. Others thought doomsday was coming when Thomas Jefferson was elected. And on through the decades. People thought doomsday was coming with the election of Bill Clinton and others with the election of either George Bush.

 

People need to learn that politics are cyclical and that a candidate they abhor may suck but is probably not the end of the world.

 

 

... and also that, sometimes the other guy wins.  That's the system.  

 

In a nation with two parties about evenly balanced in terms of numbers, it's bound to happen just about half the time.  

.

[FaithManor]

...   Some days, the bear will eat you, some days you eat the bear.

Oh so true! LOL

[FaithManor]

I'd like to say the above to my parents, but since they take even the slightest political decision that does not go their way as proof positive that the apocalypse is about to commence, I just have to NOT bring up anything about this election cycle. Not a thing.

[TranquilMind]

nm

 

Edited May 6, 2016 by Susan Wise Bauer
Let it go.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

... and also that, sometimes the other guy wins. That's the system.

 

In a nation with two parties about evenly balanced in terms of numbers, it's bound to happen just about half the time. Some days, the bear will eat you, some days you eat the bear.

Or as my dear FIL used to say...it ain't no fun when the rabbit's got the gun.

[Guest]

I agree with Pam, per uze.

 

Individual human lives OFTEN miss out on the benefits of that long arc of history.

 

And many MANY countries have started going off the rails after one bad leader hits a string of bad circumstances. Our Congress and judiciary most definitely does not insulate us from that possibility.

 

We get a bad (objectively inept, corrupt, unjust whatever) president, and the rest of everything in the world goes along pretty much the same, A-OK? Fine. Maybe any old warm body will do.

 

We get a bad president and something somewhere goes the heck in a handbasket and they absolutely can not or will not rise to the occasion for the long-term benefit of the majority of our population?...... Hold onto yer butts.

[MSNative]

I think the most concerning threat to liberty comes from non-elected officials making regulations. Permits for lemonade stands are one of most glaring. But ofher regulations usually were implemented with good intentions but still do limit liberty. EPA wetland regulations and some of the endangered species rules are two that routinely get press.

Different localities also limit liberty. My friend lived in one town that strictly enforced their 'height of grass' rule and would fine you if your lawn was ever a half inch too long. I get the idea behind the rule- keeping front yards looking tidy. But this town takes it way too far.

Religious liberty is also an area that I think many would argue is being limited. I don't want to argue it. Just saying that it is another area where people feel their freedom is being curtailed.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Just because someone feels their liberty is being curtailed, doesn't mean it actually is.

[Reefgazer]

This is one of those battles that will need to be fought like homeschooling was fought - on a state-by-state level.  Old Dominion University was involved in having the city condemn property that was not even blighted so that they could take it for a football stadium and dorms.  One business fought back and won, and simultaneously, a law was put on the books that defines eminent domain very narrowly so that entities can't take the property unless it is a clear benefit for all.

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.

 

[Reefgazer]

Yes to the bolded.  It seemed few people ever read those consent forms and thought about what it meant.  I never signed those things; always sent them back unsigned and never caught any crap for it, either.

I didn't say it would be in a courtroom.  Unfortunately, they hold these hearings in inconvenient regional offices, to subdue the chance of pursuing wrongdoers.  

 

But I would go public and fight publicly, had I been unwise enough to hand my kids over to that nonsense before teaching them to resist governmental indoctrination and invasiveness.   I understand it is almost impossible to sue the schools, because like vaccine makers, they have managed to obtain by various means pretty much complete immunity for any wrongdoing except for the most egregious, such as if a teacher opened fire on the students and he had a mental history past, or something like that. 

 

However, complaints can be filed at Family Policy Compliance Office of the U.S. Department of Education and held in some inconvenient location.   In the unlikely event that it is held responsible, federal funding could be cut off.  We all know this would never happen.  But there needs to be some way to curtail school invasiveness. 

 

If you have ever read one of those abominable school clinic "consent" forms, you would know what I mean.  An attorney friend and I were reviewing it one day and laughing out loud at how ridiculously broad the "consent" is.  You basically consent in advance to whatever the school system wants to do with your kid - even take him to a mental facility - while on school grounds.  Um, no.  While one of mine was in a school with this inappropriate clinic structure, we declined to sign this form, and drove this child the Advil necessary once or twice, and another time and took this child to a doctor when illness occurred.   

 

The consent form permitted ridiculously invasive things, but did not affect the ability to call 911 and do whatever was necessary in an actual emergency, which is the only way a school should have any involvement in health care for your child.    Few parents realized this, and believed erroneously that they were required to give the clinic consent for their child to receive even emergency care. 

 

Anyway, out of that hellhole that is considered the "best Classical school in the city" now, thank God. 
 

Irrelevant to the issue at hand, but since you bothered to mention it, I responded. 
 

 

[TranquilMind]

Yes to the bolded.  It seemed few people ever read those consent forms and thought about what it meant.  I never signed those things; always sent them back unsigned and never caught any crap for it, either.

 

Yes.  We discovered this.  Almost no one had read them and realized what they were signing. 

This should be front page news, but the apathy and the unsupported belief that the nanny state has my/my child's best interest at heart is just overwhelming.

 

ETA:  typo correction

 

Edited May 5, 2016 by TranquilMind

[Ravin]

There's a really interesting article by Andrew Sullivan( on May 1) that concerns a statement from Plato's Republic. It would be excellent discussion for high schoolers here, IMO. " tyranny is probably established out of no other regime than democracy", I think. Anyway, he makes some astute observations. I won't link it for political rules here, but it's easy to google.

 

The hazards of the tyranny of the majority are why we have an independent judiciary and a Bill of Rights affixed to the constitution.

 

Fear of the hazards of the tyranny of the majority is also why the Senate wasn't originally directly elected by popular vote and why we have the Electoral College for electing the President.

 

Not to mention why originally most people weren't allowed to vote, only white male landowners.

[Guest]

I think the most concerning threat to liberty comes from non-elected officials making regulations. Permits for lemonade stands are one of most glaring. But ofher regulations usually were implemented with good intentions but still do limit liberty. EPA wetland regulations and some of the endangered species rules are two that routinely get press.

Different localities also limit liberty. My friend lived in one town that strictly enforced their 'height of grass' rule and would fine you if your lawn was ever a half inch too long. I get the idea behind the rule- keeping front yards looking tidy. But this town takes it way too far.

Religious liberty is also an area that I think many would argue is being limited. I don't want to argue it. Just saying that it is another area where people feel their freedom is being curtailed.

Sure, but local or HOA rules - meh, I don't care about that much because you don't buy a house there if you don't want people to brow-beat you about the grass. Most of the time, people who buy in a district like this want those rules because they value having everyone keep the appearance uniform and "normal"; they wouldn't want me as their neighbor, LOL, because I value personal freedom way more highly than everyone having perfect lawns.

[MSNative]

Sure, but local or HOA rules - meh, I don't care about that much because you don't buy a house there if you don't want people to brow-beat you about the grass. Most of the time, people who buy in a district like this want those rules because they value having everyone keep the appearance uniform and "normal"; they wouldn't want me as their neighbor, LOL, because I value personal freedom way more highly than everyone having perfect lawns.

My friend actually had purchased their house before the new rules were put in place. New city leaders, new regulations.

[MSNative]

I wonder why that's so difficult to understand? Their job is to hold meetings and hearings and then state their reasons for/against going forward. Doing absolutely nothing is not in their job description. I think there's a 8% approval rating for Congress. I'd say we have an illegitimate Congress.

Agree! How many years has Congress gone without passing a budget?

[Guest]

My friend actually had purchased their house before the new rules were put in place. New city leaders, new regulations.

Ah, I see. That would be crappy.

[TechWife]

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.

 

Why should a farm or other business or a home stay in a family for generations? Do the following generations "deserve" to ride on the coattails of the earliest land/business owners who took the risk? One could say that the following generations are still doing the work of maintaining the business/property, but that is not always true. For example,sibling group of four could inherit a hardware store. One sibling decides s/he wants to run the business. The other three are content to let him/her do so and to retain the profits of his endeavors. At some point, s/he decides to sell it. The business still belongs to all four siblings and the profit must be divided accordingly. I don't think that's a super unusual situation. 

 

Just asking by way of thinking this through. 

[Pam in CT]

There's a really interesting article by Andrew Sullivan( on May 1) that concerns a statement from Plato's Republic. It would be excellent discussion for high schoolers here, IMO. " tyranny is probably established out of no other regime than democracy", I think. Anyway, he makes some astute observations. I won't link it for political rules here, but it's easy to google.

 

Yeah, that was an eye-opening article.

[goldberry]

 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. 

 

I wondered about this myself, watching how the process played out.  When you have a case where the president making the nominations has a different ideology than those who have to approve the nomination, what stops them from just never approving anyone based on the fact that there is a difference in ideology?  

 

In a way it is set up so that those least interested in seeing the country actually keep functioning have more of the power.  Those actually concerned about seeing the country continue to run are the ones who have to compromise.  

 

Whoever is the bigger jack-ass is the one who will get their way. It seems that our current system would allow that to happen.  Why is that the case?

[Bluegoat]

I agree with Pam, per uze.

 

Individual human lives OFTEN miss out on the benefits of that long arc of history.

 

And many MANY countries have started going off the rails after one bad leader hits a string of bad circumstances. Our Congress and judiciary most definitely does not insulate us from that possibility.

 

We get a bad (objectively inept, corrupt, unjust whatever) president, and the rest of everything in the world goes along pretty much the same, A-OK? Fine. Maybe any old warm body will do.

 

We get a bad president and something somewhere goes the heck in a handbasket and they absolutely can not or will not rise to the occasion for the long-term benefit of the majority of our population?...... Hold onto yer butts.

 

THis.

 

And also - there is a difference to my mind between a single bad leader, and a trend to see only bad leaders getting elected, or only corrupt people interested in going into politics. 

 

And even worse when the institutions of government start to become degraded, or stop functioning the way they were meant to.  That can happen both due to human influence or sometimes just to a change in circumstances, but it can so easily spiral into a government that simply cannot govern effectively without some major change in institutional form.  If that doesn't happen, then you can get a total failure.

 

So - yes, people often complain that things used to be better and maybe we can take that with a grain of salt.  But history really is chock full of failed states, and often there are people who see and predict it before it happens, and people just say they are moaning about nothing.

[FaithManor]

I wondered about this myself, watching how the process played out.  When you have a case where the president making the nominations has a different ideology than those who have to approve the nomination, what stops them from just never approving anyone based on the fact that there is a difference in ideology?  

 

In a way it is set up so that those least interested in seeing the country actually keep functioning have more of the power.  Those actually concerned about seeing the country continue to run are the ones who have to compromise.  

 

Whoever is the bigger jack-ass is the one who will get their way. It seems that our current system would allow that to happen.  Why is that the case?

You might be surprised to know that this has already happened. While the public would take unkindly to such a thing going on with the supreme court due to the media sensation it would create, keeping the situation ever present in the public mind, there are federal judge positions - appointments - that have gone YEARS without being filled.

 

While the huffpost is not always known for accuracy, this article is pretty spot on with facts.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/10/obama-judicial-nominees_n_7042996.html

[justasque]

 

In a thread in which offense apparently occurred, the mention was made of a kid that received a two day suspension by a teacher for merely stating in German class, during a Hitler discussion (who did kill homosexuals along with Jews and others he did not like), that he was a Christian and he thought homosexuality was wrong.  Just for uttering the belief, he was removed and suspended (later reversed). 

 

 

So the system worked the way it should have, when someone's constitutional rights are infringed upon, showing us that legally, public school kids CAN express that they are Christian and think homosexuality is wrong.

[Bluegoat]

I think the most concerning threat to liberty comes from non-elected officials making regulations. Permits for lemonade stands are one of most glaring. But ofher regulations usually were implemented with good intentions but still do limit liberty. EPA wetland regulations and some of the endangered species rules are two that routinely get press.

Different localities also limit liberty. My friend lived in one town that strictly enforced their 'height of grass' rule and would fine you if your lawn was ever a half inch too long. I get the idea behind the rule- keeping front yards looking tidy. But this town takes it way too far.

Religious liberty is also an area that I think many would argue is being limited. I don't want to argue it. Just saying that it is another area where people feel their freedom is being curtailed.

 

I don't think I would differentiate here between elected and non-elected.  Elected officials can make inappropriate and over-reaching decsions as well, and often they have a particular temptation to do so if it will play to populist feelings.

[Bluegoat]

Sure, but local or HOA rules - meh, I don't care about that much because you don't buy a house there if you don't want people to brow-beat you about the grass. Most of the time, people who buy in a district like this want those rules because they value having everyone keep the appearance uniform and "normal"; they wouldn't want me as their neighbor, LOL, because I value personal freedom way more highly than everyone having perfect lawns.

 

I don't know.  If a town did this, people would complain, but you can make the same argument.

 

If we really have the right to live where we want, so far as we aren't actually really anti-social and making others miserable or unsafe, to what extent can we demand that our neighbours live a certain way? 

 

There have in various places been laws passed saying that HOAs are not allowed to restrict certain things, like demanding lawns where water is an issue, or banning clothes lines.  To me the fact that there is a need to pass laws like that suggests those groups are over-stepping in a more general way.

[goldberry]

You might be surprised to know that this has already happened. 

 

I'm sure it has, it is, and it will continue.  My question is why is it allowed?  How can there not be some kind of limit on how long a position can be left unfilled before it begins to impact the functioning of the country?  That seems like a no-brainer.

[mamiof5]

Just because someone feels their liberty is being curtailed, doesn't mean it actually is.

It goes both ways? Just because a group of folks thinks that someone else's rights are not being curtailed it doesn't necessarily mean that they are not.

[SporkUK]

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.

 

It would be more absurd to me if a President could stop either of those.

 

The forced removal of US citizens of certain backgrounds has happened, repeatedly. People of Central and South American heritage - or look enough as one - have been a repeated popular target. 

 

Also, in the US, human slavery is legal as long as it is a punishment for a crime under the 13th amendment. This is likely the bigger concern for most because it already has an industry aggressively pushing to expand and laws to back it up that have continously expanded to fit the target. The corporate power is my biggest concern even with expansion of technology meaning expansion of COINTELPRO and similar programmes, they all now feed into corporate prisons and their prison industries. 

 

The history of liberties taken away in the criminal justice system in the US, and the decline of several industries, can arguably follow the expansion of the prison industry. The US has gotten to a point where prison businesses are suing states for not sending enough people to prison, not to passing laws that will being in more prisoners, and so on. The expansion of this has been continuous for decades that it has become a machine that appears very hard to stop. Add on several states where convictions, even just certain ones, takes away voting rights for life and it makes it easier to destroy liberties down the road. 

 

The progress of liberty has gone back and forth throughout history and has never been linear - and has never smoothly worked for everyone. I think the idea that it is continuously moving forward is a dangerous myth that only helps to hide continuous injustice. 

[Bluegoat]

I wondered about this myself, watching how the process played out.  When you have a case where the president making the nominations has a different ideology than those who have to approve the nomination, what stops them from just never approving anyone based on the fact that there is a difference in ideology?  

 

In a way it is set up so that those least interested in seeing the country actually keep functioning have more of the power.  Those actually concerned about seeing the country continue to run are the ones who have to compromise.  

 

Whoever is the bigger jack-ass is the one who will get their way. It seems that our current system would allow that to happen.  Why is that the case?

 

Arguably it is a flaw in the way it is set up.  I read an interesting book last year, and one of the things it pointed out is that the American system has some significant flaws like this, which is a major reason some there aren't really any other countries that have adopted quite the same structure

 

I think in a way it is a limitation of setting up a complicated institution from scratch and making that structure very difficult to change.  What are the chances that the people who framed the system got it right, without over-looking something or miscalculating?  And there is no way they could look to the future and anticipate every change that might make their system less effective or cause a problem.

 

But it is difficult to make a change to a constitution, and maybe especially difficult if the system  or some other factor is causing a problem with governance.

 

I've tended to come to the conclusion that less set out, more flexible systems have a real advantage.

[Pam in CT]

re long run effects of stonewalling in a system in which the Presidency and the Congress are often not the same party:

 

I wondered about this myself, watching how the process played out.  When you have a case where the president making the nominations has a different ideology than those who have to approve the nomination, what stops them from just never approving anyone based on the fact that there is a difference in ideology?

 

In a way it is set up so that those least interested in seeing the country actually keep functioning have more of the power.  Those actually concerned about seeing the country continue to run are the ones who have to compromise.  

 

Whoever is the bigger jack-ass is the one who will get their way. It seems that our current system would allow that to happen.  Why is that the case?

 

Right.  Because two of the perfectly likely electoral possibilities come November is that once again (like now), the Presidency is held by one party and the Senate majority by the other.  And -- whichever party has which -- there's a real argument that the Senate -- whichever party holds the majority -- could (some posters here seem to be arguing should?) stonewall the *new* President's nomination.  

 

If the SCOTUS seat can stay vacant without even a hearing for over a year, why not two years (until the Senate might flip again?) or four (until another shot at the different party-President?)  Under the stonewallers-are-doing-their-job argument, shouldn't ANY Senate majority of the opposite-to-the-President party ALWAY stonewall ANY SCOTUS candidate?

 

And that leaves us....

 

 

 

(FTR, I actually think Roberts is doing everything in his power NOT to go down in the history books as the Chief whose tenure is mostly known for a slew of hung decisions that don't set precedent and have all to be re-heard.  A side of him seems to be emerging that I wouldn't have guessed was there.  This may well go down as his finest hour.  Still it's hard to watch the sausage being made.)

[MSNative]

I don't think I would differentiate here between elected and non-elected. Elected officials can make inappropriate and over-reaching decsions as well, and often they have a particular temptation to do so if it will play to populist feelings.

True. At least with elected officials voters can vote them out of office. Not so with the non-elected regulators. Some do get appointed and will be replaced with the new elected official. But many are not appointed or elected. Its much harder to check that power.

[mamiof5]

I'm not sure we can say it's something that will definitely happen in the next 4 years, 8 years or however long someone is in power. But yes, I definitely think it could happen, if not during their presidency, then in the future (as a direct or indirect result of their actions). A politician can impact their country (or state, city etc) in a positive, or a negative way. They can strengthen the country, or weaken it. A bad government can definitely result in the loss of liberty, even if the consequences are not even experienced during their time in office. Many countries have declined due to bad government (Venezuela has been in my mind lately after a recent thread here, it's so sad). Anyway, I know the US is so much bigger (and hopefully stronger) than many countries out there...but that doesn't mean we are immune to the consequences of a bad government. As they say, " Rome wasn't built in one day"...but, Rome didn't decline in one day either. Very interesting discussion, but yeah, hard to keep it in so "general terms" without getting to close to politics. So...that's all I'm saying :)