That's the 1st time is saw this in writing and it looked funny because when I hear them say it on TV, it always sounds like some place in the desert...songsmith wrote:If Deem & Pass is so terrible, the conservatives in Congress wouldn't have used it 35 times in a year when they had a majority..--->JMSPStl wrote:If reason and civility is your hallmark, then the coffee party needs to grow a set and stand against what is happening in the health care debate.
Perhaps economic justice is a purely socialist or communist ideal, but social justice has been enacted through our judicial system with powers granted from the constitution that people on the right treat as though it were a Bible. The constitution did not promise economic egalitarism, but it did promise social egalitarism in that "...all men are created equal." Granted, people were not socially equal at the onset of America. It took Lincoln, a Republican nonetheless, to abolish Black slavery. While Title VII was not enacted in the constitution, its actualization was manifested through powers given by the constitution. To my knowledge, the reasoning behind the Civil Rights Act was not overtly contingent upon any conflict theory derived from Marx's writing, and if it were, it does not necessitate that it is communist in origin since it's not wholly economic in scope.PStl wrote:If someone would try to convince me that social and economical justice is not a communist ideal, I woould be willing to listen.
--->JMS Ya better stick to shrinkology Paul. The US Constitution makes no such remark...bassist_25 wrote:Perhaps economic justice is a purely socialist or communist ideal, but social justice has been enacted through our judicial system with powers granted from the constitution that people on the right treat as though it were a Bible. The constitution did not promise economic egalitarism, but it did promise social egalitarism in that "...all men are created equal."PStl wrote:If someone would try to convince me that social and economical justice is not a communist ideal, I woould be willing to listen.
No, the logic does not stand. The Declaration of Independence was a bitch-out and secession letter for King George. Aside from secession, it contains no governmental laws of any kind. It is also a "dead" document from a legal standpoint, as it was recognized and superceded by the Treaty of Paris 1783/1784.bassist_25 wrote:Ah damn it, another mix up between the constitution and Declaration of Independence. The logic still stands, though.
And only my Bachelor's is in psychology, and my background is in I/O, not clinical/counseling psychology.
I'd say that's all a moot point, though. Whether or not things like the Civil Rights Act, ADA, or Brown V. Board of Education were done within the purview of the U.S. Constitution does not mean that their aim to equalize social injustice is Communist in origin.lonewolf wrote:No, the logic does not stand. The Declaration of Independence was a bitch-out and secession letter for King George. Aside from secession, it contains no governmental laws of any kind. It is also a "dead" document from a legal standpoint, as it was recognized and superceded by the Treaty of Paris 1783/1784.bassist_25 wrote:Ah damn it, another mix up between the constitution and Declaration of Independence. The logic still stands, though.
And only my Bachelor's is in psychology, and my background is in I/O, not clinical/counseling psychology.
On the other hand, the US Constitution is a legal document that is comprised of the specific by-laws for the federal government of the United States. The Bill Of Rights is nothing more than a set of laws within the Constitution that limit the power of federal government by specifically prohibiting legislation that would abridge human rights.
The US Constitution is very specific about the scope of the federal government and the feds adhered to it until an underhanded extortion maneuver by the father of US socialism, Franklin Roosevelt. The "Revolution of 1937" resulted from a court ruling made under judicial duress that opened the floodgates for the "general welfare clause". This essentially granted Congress unlimited spending power--not legislative power, mind you--just spending power. This is probably the most significant judicial decision in US history, yet almost nobody has even heard of it. Here, read about it, especially the memoirs from the Justices that were involved:
http://constitutionalawareness.org/genwelf.html
Here's the really screwed up part: Congress can spend money on things like education, public assistance, healthcare, etc., but they are prohibited from making any laws governing these topics...they can only refuse funding for any state or other entity that doesn't do what they want. The exception to this is any legislation that passes the muster of interstate commerce, or some other specific enumerated power.
This is why most people born after 1945 have a distorted perception of the US Constitution.
Do you have the list of who is going to heaven and who to hell? When did you acquire this amazing ability? Does being a bleeding heart liberal qualify you for this ability?songsmith wrote: Beck cannot be described as a Christian, and as he sits right now, will not enter Heaven. .....he's got a coal-shovel waiting for him as his Great Reward. That makes me smile!
Oh, that's what you were getting at!bassist_25 wrote:I'd say that's all a moot point, though. Whether or not things like the Civil Rights Act, ADA, or Brown V. Board of Education were done within the purview of the U.S. Constitution does not mean that their aim to equalize social injustice is Communist in origin.
Then there may be a need to parse the definition of social stratification to be defined not in economic terms but on some other seemingly arbitrary criterion, such as skin color, age, gender, etc.lonewolf wrote:
Oh, that's what you were getting at!
The Constitution is all about protecting equal rights by allowing Congress (and the states) to enact "appropriate legislation"; however, social justice is no longer about equal rights...that's so 20th century...
"Social Justice" is now a code phrase for wealth redistribution. When used in that context, its origin is found in socialism, especially transitional socialism that is used as a stepping stone to marxist communism (Marx's theory). Wealth redistribution is not necessary in marxist communism because theoretically, all the wealth has already been redistributed.
Yeah, that worked real good, didn't it?
You can ponder that philosophy all you want, but in my book, there is no way to define something as abstract as social equality. Its hard enough to simply attain true equal treatment under the law, let alone some kind of monolithic social status for all.bassist_25 wrote:Of course, there is the philosophy that social equality can never be achieved without economic equality. However, in my view, there is a distinction between being economically equal in a classless society, as defined by Marx, and having the access to the necessary mechanisms of wealth creation.
I have already picked who I'm going to be controlled by...myself.JackANSI wrote:If either system were perfect, we'd probably be under it right now.
If I have to pick who I'm going to be controlled by, my first choice isn't going to be 'big business'.
...which is why such an idea has to be defined within an antipostivist critical theory framework rather than by some universally understood objective standard above and outside of oneself. It's qualitative and ultimately is relativistic.lonewolf wrote:You can ponder that philosophy all you want, but in my book, there is no way to define something as abstract as social equality.
There is always some sort of external locus of control in life, and I say that as someone who openly admits to being neurotic over trying to be in control of my own destiny at all times.lonewolf wrote:
I know I am in control. Within the context of not breaking the law or infringing on anybody else's rights, I do whatever I want, whenever I want and answer to nobody. Period.
Yeah...good luck on that Paul.bassist_25 wrote:...which is why such an idea has to be defined within an antipostivist critical theory framework rather than by some universally understood objective standard above and outside of oneself. It's qualitative and ultimately is relativistic.lonewolf wrote:You can ponder that philosophy all you want, but in my book, there is no way to define something as abstract as social equality.
That assumes that no choices you make influence others, and your choices effect no one else.lonewolf wrote:I know I am in control. Within the context of not breaking the law or infringing on anybody else's rights, I do whatever I want, whenever I want and answer to nobody. Period.JackANSI wrote:If you seriously think you're in control...
No, like the post says, that assumes only that I don't break the law or infringe on anybody else's rights. That is all I am obligated to do; however... I am very considerate of others and try to make choices that will only affect people in a positive manner.JackANSI wrote:That assumes that no choices you make influence others, and your choices effect no one else.lonewolf wrote:I know I am in control. Within the context of not breaking the law or infringing on anybody else's rights, I do whatever I want, whenever I want and answer to nobody. Period.JackANSI wrote:If you seriously think you're in control...
