Quote :

"As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness. We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed. Among these are: The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education. All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being. America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens."

http://www.fdrheritage.org/bill_of_rights.htm

8/13/2012 11:59:20 AM

What no free unicorn rides?

8/13/2012 12:11:33 PM

Free mustache rides got left out too.

8/13/2012 12:13:05 PM

Yeah. Who needs all that shit when I got guns and ammo rights.

8/13/2012 12:19:08 PM

I demand free butter and guns!

8/13/2012 12:51:04 PM

nice find, pryderi!

8/13/2012 1:20:24 PM

Positive rights vs. negative rights. This is pretty basic, Animal Farm, grade level bullshit.


Try again junior.

8/13/2012 1:55:47 PM

"Oh, the world owes me a living. Deedle dardle doodle deedle dum.

8/13/2012 2:10:23 PM

dont forget the right to ignore all job offers deemed beneath you.

and also the right to destroy public property because its "cool."

and the right to disperse your own protest after an extremely short period of time because you got bored with it and then claim the government infiltrated and dismantled it from the inside.

and the ever important right to not wear shoes to class because that will get you taken seriously.

8/13/2012 2:10:51 PM

[Edited on August 13, 2012 at 2:12 PM. Reason : ]

8/13/2012 2:12:43 PM

Sounds like this can be summarized by:

The right to steal other people's money to pay for your own shit.

8/13/2012 2:15:28 PM

Every liberal's rabid hate for Paul Ryan stems from one quote:

Quote :

"RYAN: 'We promise equal opportunity, not equal outcomes'..."

Cue: every liberal diaper in the country filled.

8/13/2012 2:18:30 PM

Quote :

"Every liberal's rabid hate for Paul Ryan stems from one quote:"

Untrue. There are many things I dislike about him.

8/13/2012 2:26:14 PM

There are many things I dislike about him too.

8/13/2012 2:29:33 PM

So when are the states going to vote on amending the Constitution to include these rights?

Oh, never?

8/13/2012 2:35:04 PM

Quote :

""RYAN: 'We promise equal opportunity, not equal outcomes'...""

8/13/2012 2:47:29 PM

I mean, memes are cool and everything, but you could tell me exactly what you think it means so I don't throw a snarky reply your way and get called a troll.

Because that's all anyone does in this goddamn place.

8/13/2012 3:07:53 PM

Well, it might be better to introduce a case of unequal opportunity, and I think the most obvious example of opportunity is access to education:

A rich person's son goes to a very good school (Either a private one or a public one in a very rich township) as a result of his parents' wealth. He gets a good education because of small teacher-student ratios, up-to-date technology, access to summer programs, etc.

A poor person's son goes to a very shitty school, because the parents can't provide the cash for a private school and they can't afford a home in a better school district.

This doesn't guarantee that the rich kid will be smarter than the poor kid, the poor kid could be a savant and the rich kid could be retarded, but over a statistical average it definitely will. Over the average, the schools will gain corresponding reputations that will influence how they stand out on a college applications.

After all this, the two kids look into colleges. Already because of the prior things, the rich kid has an advantage over the poor kid, often without putting any additional work or effort in. Beyond that, let's just assume they both get accepted to a college. The poor kid has to choose between loans (a risk) or accruing scholarships to even entertain the idea of attending school, let alone a good one. The rich kid has no such risks or necessary effort (applying for scholarships), and probably has a strong application from his fancy school.

That's an example of unequal opportunity. The poor kid, for no fault of his own, has to engage in much more risk or much more effort just to access the same opportunity (a given college) as the rich kid.

To actually make those opportunities equal would require such a vast redistribution of wealth, or restructuring of public education, that both Republicans and Democrats would gawk. Actual equal opportunity, without even mentioning outcomes, is an extremely radical proposition that would be fundamentally different from the current setup. Right now in America, equal opportunity means "Everyone has at least a snowball's chance in Hell." and nothing more.


[Edited on August 13, 2012 at 3:29 PM. Reason : .]

8/13/2012 3:25:40 PM

^^Are you a public school teacher?

[Edited on August 13, 2012 at 3:33 PM. Reason : ^^]

8/13/2012 3:27:21 PM

Does that matter? Are we only allowed to discuss matters relevant to our employment? That'd be great for keeping GeniusXBoy strictly in pizza-related threads but wont do much for discussion otherwise...

For the record, I'm not, but my brother is.

edit: ohh

[Edited on August 13, 2012 at 3:34 PM. Reason : .]

8/13/2012 3:28:54 PM

Not you

Yowilly

8/13/2012 3:33:22 PM

No, I am not a public school teacher.

8/13/2012 3:37:47 PM

Quote :

"A poor person's son goes to a very shitty school, because the parents can't provide the cash for a private school and they can't afford a home in a better school district. "

I agree. The Government Education System is the biggest cause of income inequality in this country and as such should be scrapped and replaced with a privatized voucher system.

[Edited on August 13, 2012 at 3:44 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/13/2012 3:44:35 PM

How would that work?

8/13/2012 3:45:10 PM

Are you asking how vouchers for education work?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_voucher#Europe

8/13/2012 3:55:10 PM

Aiming for equality of opportunity is just as bad as aiming for equality of outcome, honestly. A kid with well-adjusted and responsible parents will generally have an advantage over a kid with with shitty parents.

When you say that all people should have equal opportunities, there is an implication that some individual or group of individuals should enforce "equality". Someone has to take from the people that have "too much" and give to the people that don't have "enough". Unfortunately, no amount of giving and taking seems to solve problems that are, fundamentally, issues of morality and upbringing.

In a civilization where the state is assumed to be good and necessary, equal opportunity is a topic that has to be discussed. According to The Social Contract, which all of us (dead, living, and unborn) are apparently bound by, those acting on behalf of the government are allowed to commit murder, theft, and fraud. These violations will affect some groups more than others, just as taking a shotgun blast from 50 yards may impair the victim's left arm more than their right. While equal opportunity proponents would say we need a better shotgun that injures all organs equally, I would argue that we need to using shotguns against people.

[Edited on August 13, 2012 at 4:07 PM. Reason : ]

8/13/2012 4:05:10 PM

Quote :

"Well, it might be better to introduce a case of unequal opportunity, and I think the most obvious example of opportunity is access to education: A rich person's son goes to a very good school (Either a private one or a public one in a very rich township) as a result of his parents' wealth. He gets a good education because of small teacher-student ratios, up-to-date technology, access to summer programs, etc. A poor person's son goes to a very shitty school, because the parents can't provide the cash for a private school and they can't afford a home in a better school district. This doesn't guarantee that the rich kid will be smarter than the poor kid, the poor kid could be a savant and the rich kid could be retarded, but over a statistical average it definitely will. Over the average, the schools will gain corresponding reputations that will influence how they stand out on a college applications. After all this, the two kids look into colleges. Already because of the prior things, the rich kid has an advantage over the poor kid, often without putting any additional work or effort in. Beyond that, let's just assume they both get accepted to a college. The poor kid has to choose between loans (a risk) or accruing scholarships to even entertain the idea of attending school, let alone a good one. The rich kid has no such risks or necessary effort (applying for scholarships), and probably has a strong application from his fancy school. That's an example of unequal opportunity. The poor kid, for no fault of his own, has to engage in much more risk or much more effort just to access the same opportunity (a given college) as the rich kid. To actually make those opportunities equal would require such a vast redistribution of wealth, or restructuring of public education, that both Republicans and Democrats would gawk. Actual equal opportunity, without even mentioning outcomes, is an extremely radical proposition that would be fundamentally different from the current setup. Right now in America, equal opportunity means "Everyone has at least a snowball's chance in Hell." and nothing more. "

So fix the damn schools. Junior isn't going to be any better off because daddy can afford to buy bread instead of just rims now. Half the problem is broken education. The other half is broken parents (not broke parents, but shitty parents). Can't legislate or robin hood that problem out of existence.

[Edited on August 13, 2012 at 4:09 PM. Reason : .]

8/13/2012 4:09:02 PM

Didn't realize that the Swedes used a voucher system. Learn something new everyday. Funny how neither side points that out.

8/13/2012 4:10:48 PM

The libertarians sure do. They scream day and night "Why can't we enjoy at least the same freedoms as Europeans?!?"

8/13/2012 4:29:56 PM

I don't necessarily have a problem with a voucher system -- So long as private schools have to meet the same testing standards as public schools. I think a good example of a voucher going terribly wrong is Louisiana.

It's just unacceptable to me for my tax dollars to pay for some kid to learn that dinosaurs and humans were on the earth at the same time and mathematics are a divine gift from God or some other bullshit textbook written by Bob Jones "University"

8/13/2012 5:57:56 PM

I thought this was going to be about another shitty Nicolas Cage movie.

8/13/2012 6:06:05 PM

^^ As the argument goes, the money follows the kids. It isn't your money anymore.

To put it another way, better for 10% of students to receive educations you disagree with ideologically than for 100% to receive educations you disagree with ideologically. After-all, this is Louisiana, odds are not bad that the testing standards the government requires will be that dinosaurs and humans were on the earth at the same time.

This is why the government education system is so horrible. Democracy is not a search for truth.

[Edited on August 13, 2012 at 6:17 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/13/2012 6:16:25 PM

Democracy isn't a search for truth, but EDUCATION should be.

Why shouldn't private schools being funded by public funds be held to the same testing standards as public schools?

Goddammit, if my tax dollars are paying for someone's education they should be able to leave high school able to do simple algebra -- at private christian schools we have no idea.

Not to mention the shear oversight of public schools tends to push them toward a somewhat ideological center with checks on the crazies, see court cases like, in louisiana:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard

8/13/2012 6:37:21 PM

caveat: i have not read anything in this thread.

that said, you don't rate a 2nd Bill Of Rights until you start giving a fuck about the first Bill Of Rights.

8/13/2012 7:07:56 PM

^^ I missed it. What was your response to the fact that some jurisdictions currently require the teaching of creationism?

Seriously, I don't understand why people keep assuming that once the government is in charge of something the government will automatically agree with their position.

[Edited on August 13, 2012 at 8:03 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/13/2012 8:00:46 PM

^see the court case I posted. At the very least it requires an even handed approach to biology and creationism. All public schools atleast have to teach both sides of the issue. And these backward states are slowly becoming a thing of the past. They have to craft some pretty extensive legislation to get around that court case.

And I dont understand why you think private schools funded by public funds shouldn't be held to the same standards as public schools? Why should we funnel public funds to unaccountable private businesses?

8/13/2012 8:37:57 PM

Quote :

"And I dont understand why you think private schools funded by public funds shouldn't be held to the same standards as public schools? Why should we funnel public funds to unaccountable private businesses?"

First of all, public school standards are a joke and a disgrace. Let's not pretend that they mean something.

To address the latter question, private schools are not unaccountable. They're certainly held more accountable than public schools. Private schools actually have to perform; if the kids aren't getting quality education, the parents are more likely to pull them out. I had teachers in middle and high school that were completely unable to control the class and incompetent when it came to teaching their subject.

8/13/2012 8:44:31 PM

No, they aren't accountable to tax payers.


The bottom line is I don't want my tax dollars to fund the local Jesus camp in boomfuck.

8/13/2012 8:47:37 PM

Well, me either, but I also don't want them funding schools that are the laughing stock of the developed world.

8/13/2012 8:49:42 PM

Quote :

"Aiming for equality of opportunity is just as bad as aiming for equality of outcome, honestly. A kid with well-adjusted and responsible parents will generally have an advantage over a kid with with shitty parents."

This is what it comes down to. But honestly, don't you want to encourage people to invest in their kids? It's the same discussion with the gift/inheritance tax. We could take the progressive position to the extreme, where children's success is actually decoupled from how their parents did, but people won't agree with that. It's unnatural. Imagine a world where you can have children, but then you're obligated to randomly swap with another couple. People just wouldn't see the meaning in that, and the nature of ownership of the responsibility would change. But then again, the exact problem we're talking about is the fact that we have a huge difference in the investment parents find reasonable in their kid's upbringing. The uncomfortable reality is that evolution eventually dictates that you'll have to murder some fraction of society. Whether that fraction is the rich of the poor doesn't matter. It's just not a stable system, and it's been swinging out of stability ever since we reached the post-WWII "stability".

Just thought I'd throw out the neo-social Darwinism on page 1.

[Edited on August 13, 2012 at 8:54 PM. Reason : ]

8/13/2012 8:53:14 PM

Nevermind

I don't even care. I hate TSB and you self-righteous fucks who think you have any idea what you're talking about. I can't believe I even looked in here.

[Edited on August 13, 2012 at 9:39 PM. Reason : ]

8/13/2012 9:34:02 PM

d357r0y3r and mrfrog should just admit they want America returned to this:

(unless what they meant is that actually attaining full equality of those types, with the necessary coercion entailed in the final equalization, is a bad idea, rather than just trying to get closer to it because we're still too far)

8/13/2012 10:08:49 PM

Quote :

"The uncomfortable reality is that evolution eventually dictates that you'll have to murder some fraction of society."

Murder...or let die? There's a clear difference. There's even more of a difference between "let die" and "not actively prevent from dying by giving resources to".

A theory of human evolution helps me understand the "natural" human experience. There are individuals, families, communities, and relatively recently, nation-states. People, for whatever reason, feel more empathy and obligation towards those closest to them. Family comes first. Then friends, then neighbors, and then way down the list, some dude living in Timbuktu. This has little to do with physical proximity; it has to do with our perceived sense of "closeness". For instance, I suspect you'd be far more upset by a nearby neighbor's (that you only met once, in passing) death to cancer than by the news that a Chinese factory worker was killed in some gruesome way.

Bad people have a lot of success when they can manipulate this sense of closeness. If people can be made to feel some obligation towards people they have nothing to do with, all sorts of crazy shit can be justified.

[Edited on August 13, 2012 at 10:24 PM. Reason : ]

8/13/2012 10:23:44 PM

Quote :

"The uncomfortable reality is that evolution eventually dictates that you'll have to murder some fraction of society."

It dictates no such thing. We are human, our level of intellect rules out the need to adapt to any environment. So evolution is dead to us. True, self selection still rules, so we could start genetic manipulation and aborting genetic defects, but even the least-fit human is more than capable of surviving and breeding in current industrial society.

Intelligence is a cultural trait, not a genetic trait. Humans now evolve by changing culture, not genes.

8/14/2012 2:32:21 AM

Quote :

"For instance, I suspect you'd be far more upset by a nearby neighbor's (that you only met once, in passing) death to cancer than by the news that a Chinese factory worker was killed in some gruesome way."

nope

you ever done a psychedelic?

[Edited on August 14, 2012 at 3:24 AM. Reason : ^what he says is good]

8/14/2012 3:23:45 AM

Quote :

"Nevermind I don't even care. I hate TSB and you self-righteous fucks who think you have any idea what you're talking about. I can't believe I even looked in here."

Coward. You don't even have the guts to express, much less defend your stupid ass opinions. Back to watching American idol!

I think destroyer is right. Let's all rip up the social contract that binds us all together. Things will be much better off once everyone stops worrying about each other. I for one, cannot wait to find out which feudal lord will rise among the pretenders in order to tie me to my land.

No, but seriously. You are so radical in your ideology as to renounce a key principle to modern free society? Are you fucking insane? The social contract was a central idea to the very creation and founding values of the American way of life. How can you possibly support an originalist interpretation of the constitution without understanding how much the founding fathers valued it? Ridiculous.

[Edited on August 14, 2012 at 4:23 AM. Reason : ]

8/14/2012 4:15:28 AM

I'm glad destroyer (and Lonesnark probably) at least admit they are not pro-equal-opportunity, and understand that it would actually mean a large degree of ongoing redistribution.

Some conservatives love to say they're pro-equal-opportunity, but usually just so they can follow it up with "but not equal results!" Actually ask them to define opportunity, and they usually end up just defining it as being synonymous with rights. As we all know, conservatives only support negative liberties, and actual equal opportunity necessarily involves bestowing positive liberties.

All that's left is to somehow make sense of this opposition to equal opportunity in relation to their belief in meritocracy.

[Edited on August 14, 2012 at 9:21 AM. Reason : .]

8/14/2012 9:18:12 AM

Hearing propertarians whining about social contracts they didn't sign is fucking hilarious.

8/14/2012 9:22:55 AM

Quote :

"nope you ever done a psychedelic?"

I haven't taken anything that has permanently altered the greater sense of closeness and obligation I feel towards friends and family in comparison to perfect strangers on the other side of the world.

Quote :

"I think destroyer is right. Let's all rip up the social contract that binds us all together. Things will be much better off once everyone stops worrying about each other. I for one, cannot wait to find out which feudal lord will rise among the pretenders in order to tie me to my land. "

Our humanity binds us together, not some theory developed centuries ago. Social contract theory is a tool used by rulers. Contracts are only valid if they are agreed to by all parties. The "conditions" of the social contract will be applied to all people in a given territorial area whether they agree or not. It's indisputable: assigning obligations to those that have not even been born - obligations which often involve considerable hardship and sacrifice - is not moral or acceptable. It is a way to live better today at the expense of others.

What's with the hyperbole, though? You know I'm not interested in having "everyone stop worrying about each other". The entire point of my previous post was to highlight the primary importance of family and friends in dealing with problems inherent to society, with communities coming next. I'm suggesting that society operate from the bottom up.

Quote :

"No, but seriously. You are so radical in your ideology as to renounce a key principle to modern free society? Are you fucking insane? The social contract was a central idea to the very creation and founding values of the American way of life. How can you possibly support an originalist interpretation of the constitution without understanding how much the founding fathers valued it? Ridiculous. "

I don't support the Constitution at all. I think it would have been great if it actually prevented the U.S. from becoming what it is. The goal of the founders was to create the smallest, most restricted government in history. That government is now the largest and most dangerous state that has ever existed. We're not going to to "get back" to the Constitution. If it it was useful, we wouldn't be where we are today.

Quote :

"All that's left is to somehow make sense of this opposition to equal opportunity in relation to their belief in meritocracy. "

In order to do that, you'll have to stop skimming over the part where I say I'm opposed to individuals using force to establish "equality". The market rewards merit to some degree, but I'm not interested creating or participating in a system where some arbitrary amount of resources is stolen and then distributed to workers based on how well someone says they did their job. The workers might be doing a great job, but if other people aren't willing to trade resources for that good or service the workers are helping provide, why should they continue?

[Edited on August 14, 2012 at 10:18 AM. Reason : ]

8/14/2012 10:09:10 AM

What an interesting diversion. What, 5% of what the government does goes towards equality of either opportunity or outcome while the rest robs the nation to feed the ruling class.

How about we stop arguing about transfers in the name of equality once we get the government to stop throwing so much effort into producing inequality.

[Edited on August 14, 2012 at 10:20 AM. Reason : .,.]

8/14/2012 10:20:30 AM