1) Government is of, by and for the people. People come before government, not the other way around.
2) Government's job is to protect and ensure the liberties and rights of the people who establish it, and contribute to it. All of the people. Not just a chosen few.
3) Equality before the government (not just the law) is an important, self-evident aspect of good government. That government governs best that actively works to eliminate barriers to equal treatment of individuals by the government, by organizations, or by other individuals; especially those based on class, race, religion, or gender. But also those based on a host of purely accidental conditions such as country of origin, sexual orientation, and others.
4) One of government's most noble charges is to protect minorities (on a variety of dimensions and definitions) from the deleterious effects of majority-rule. This is not a call to allow violations of our laws, but a call to ensure that the status quo is not treated as law for no other reason than that's the way "most people" want it. There should be good, valid reasons for laws, especially those that primarily deal with personal choices and the behavior of adults with their free consent.
5) I believe that liberalism is actually a call to personal responsibility. It is, in essence, a call to recognize that we sink or swim together and that failure to recognize the needs of others and failure to ensure that they have a fair shot at satisfying those needs is a failure of our entire system. That such situations are unjust and that we all bear responsibility for correcting them. This is not a call to excuse unlawful behavior, or laziness, and certainly not greed. It is a call to recognize that we have responsibilities for the shared resources that we individuallly use and a recognition that one person's use of a resource means, by definition, that that same resource is now less available to others who might also have need of it and who might make better (more equitable) use of it.
6) I believe that government can be large or small but that what really matters is that it be focussed on preserving the rights that its citizens hold dear and put, to some extent, into the government's hands for protection. Further, these rights are the equal province of all people, not just those born under the benevolent rule of the government in question, but to all people. That is, if we value a right it is because it is universal to all humans.
7) I believe that we can and should have one set of rules that govern the conduct of every member of our society, no matter their station, the power they weild, or the amount of money they control or possess. If anything, our leaders should be expected to adhere to the letter and the spirit of the law and the highest moral dictates without exception. And failing this, they should become eager to step aside and let other, more worthy, people lead.
8) I believe that we, as humans, have a responsibility to ensure that our just society includes safeguards so that ill-fortune does not result in destitution or loss of life. Illness, especially, should not be a factor in determining a person's economic situation. Likewise, when the economy shifts, the impact should not be born just by the affected workers, but should be a concern of the government and the citizens comprising that government to ensure at least a minimal standard of living.
9) I believe that to benefit from such a society, every person who is able should be a contributing member of that society. Ability can be measured many ways, but able in mind and body should be interpreted as broadly as possible so that every person who can perform any level of productive work is employed to do so and is guaranteed at least an income that exceeds some minimal threshold. Those who cannot contribute can elect to become dependents of the state -- of the remaining citizens, but this should not be viewed as a one-time, for all time decision. If a person can return to productive work, they should be encouraged to do so, and still retain the guarantee of solvency and a minimum level of subsistence regardless.
10) I believe that such a society can be formed and, because it is possible, it is our moral duty to seek it and foster its creation. That this is the true moral obligation of one person to all other people. That they be treated equally and that they are held accountable for their own actions, and not made to suffer for things out of their control.
This is the society I want to live in. America's ideals are, to me, pointing firmly in this direction. America does not live up to this standard. No country does. Some may be closer than we are. But none have as good a potential to make this happen, I think, because of the resources we have here in this country.
I realize that these statements may lack detail in spots. I'm not saying I can flesh them all out to result in practical programs or actions at this point. They're just statements that this "liberal" believes are the defining characteristics of what a good government and a just society would strive for.
Likewise, there are probably issues or statements left unsaid at the moment. I stopped because this is already too long. Thanks in advance for any ideas (pro or con -- really) that might help me refine my own thoughts on these matters.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:There should be good, valid reasons for laws, especially those that primarily deal with personal choices and the behavior of adults with their free consent.
Does this include freedom of contract between consenting adults?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, what about the recognition of change? I don't know if that lines up with your ideas, but it's certainly something that I consider to be an important part of a country and government; the ability to recognise, review and deal with changes in society.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure if this is already included by I would add
I believe that every society has resources, which by there nature, are or should be the common property of every citizen. (for example air). It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that these resources are managed for the maximum benefit of all and that they are not used to enrich a few at the expense of many.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I ask that not to be nitpicky, but because I could write most of that, and mean it every bit as much as you, and we're 9 points away form each other on the economic scale in that poll. And I know you place very different defintions than I on which "personal choices" are actually to be protected by the government.
quote:Does this include freedom of contract between consenting adults?
I read that as "contact" first time through. To which I answered "of course."
When I read it correctly, I realized I didn't know what you meant. Do you mean that two (or any number of) consenting adults can enter into any legally binding contract?
quote:When I read it correctly, I realized I didn't know what you meant. Do you mean that two (or any number of) consenting adults can enter into any legally binding contract?
Pretty much this. Allow reasonable fraud and unconscionability protections.
quote:Bob, what about the recognition of change? I don't know if that lines up with your ideas, but it's certainly something that I consider to be an important part of a country and government; the ability to recognise, review and deal with changes in society
Great question. I believe that a society that doesn't change is simply impossible. I think that the role of government is essentially neutral with respect to change. As a result, I think that government should not fight change without good reason. "Because we've always done it that way" is not a good reason to fight a change. This, to me, falls under the idea of protecting minorities from the deleterious effects of majority rule.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
I think I'd have to go along with that unless (until more likely) someone gives me a for-instance that just proves that I've left a gaping whole there.
Perhaps eventually I'd like to see a hierarchy of constitutional provisions that addresses these things, like the three laws of robotics or something.
The point being that I can imagine a host of truly victimless situations that should be outside the concerns of the government. So I think the "any contract between consenting adults" is a good rule. But then I have this vague notion that this rule might need to be tempered (even with hindsight) to control the baser applications of it to situations that eventually end up not being all that victimless afterall.
posted
Well, it would torpedo minimum wage laws, for instance. And it would allow companies to provide prescription benefits to employees without paying for birth control.
quote:I believe that liberalism is actually a call to personal responsibility. It is, in essence, a call to recognize that we sink or swim together and that failure to recognize the needs of others and failure to ensure that they have a fair shot at satisfying those needs is a failure of our entire system.
While I agree with the intent that seems to underlie the first statement, as that paragraph progresses, it begins to remind me of where liberalism has a tendency to go wrong — when personal choices are treated as a public responsibility.
I absolutely agree with you that we need safety nets, and limits to how far a person can fall (eg, bankruptcy, insurance, welfare, etc) ... but I also think that this idea can often be extended too far by people on the far left, to the point of actually removing personal responsibility from the equation for all failures and unwise choices, blaming nearly all unpleasant consequences on failures in the larger society, and attempting to eliminate not only the most destructive and irreversible consqeuences from personal choices, but ALL negative consequences altogether.
I don't think that people should be artificially liberated from their own poor judgment, or shortsighted behavior. The only effective ways for people and societies to overcome their weaknesses are (1) to experience the consequences and learn them firsthand, or (2) to absorb the wisdom of previous generations in the form of laws and customs. The third option of investing huge resources to remove the ill consequences of poor judgment is ultimately to the detriment of all of us. We don't get any better, and we're still out the cash.
Basically, I believe that in most cases, personal responsibility takes precedence over public responsibility.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Dagonee that this, although clearly very well thought out , is open to great interpretation, which is the problem, in my opinion, from which the American Constitution suffers.
It is easy to misinterpret what you mean.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I ask that not to be nitpicky, but because I could write most of that, and mean it every bit as much as you, and we're 9 points away form each other on the economic scale in that poll. And I know you place very different defintions than I on which "personal choices" are actually to be protected by the government.
Yeah...interesting isn't it. I think the principles are pretty good, but how to apply them is the tough part. It's where we go from the appointed Cabinet members to the professionals who must develop implementation plans, rules, laws, etc.
Maybe we if we had rubrics (like the 3 laws of robotics example) that layered our rules in such a way that we could at least agree that when principles are in conflict the higher order one applies first.
Or maybe that's not the problem.
Maybe it's that some people interpret the princple broadly and others want it to be narrowly applied.
Again, this needs to simmer.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If every voter did this once a year, I doubt we (all the voters) would agree with each other more, but I bet we'd be electing leaders who more closely represented what people (some people, at least) think. And I bet compromise would be much easier.
"I see. You're not trying to allow a bunch of people to live free off my money because they won't work."
"And you're not a heartless bastard who wants people to starve."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, it would torpedo minimum wage laws, for instance. And it would allow companies to provide prescription benefits to employees without paying for birth control.
Are you saying this because the individual could agree to work for a company under these conditions and the government would have no hand in it?
Maybe that's right. But I think it would also end up strengthening labor unions and collective bargaining because the essentially inequality between a loan worker and a giant corporation would be such that the workers would probably band together to get what they needed.
Or, the other way to look at it is that companies could "cheat." If they knew the goverment would guarantee everyone a livable subsistance, they could offer to pay a pittance and let the country in general take up the slack.
I think it'd probably lead us toward socialized medicine and do away entirely with the idea of employer-sponsored health care plans.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Employer-sponsored health plans are the devil, anyway. Neither the customer nor the provider are at the negotiating table - it's an economics nightmare.
As to forcing people to band together, it would be an interesting side effect. Anti-trust laws were originally used against unions. I think corporations and individual employers would still have too much power.
Mainly, I want people to be aware that regulations like minimum wage laws infringe on the freedom of both parties in an employment agreement. Even if we decide this is warranted, bearing it in mind will help make sure we truly understand what we're doing.
I think I understand where you're coming from. I mean, my saying that this or that principle is not an excuse for laziness or what have you doesn't mean that there wouldn't be some built in tendency to add "issue" after "issue" to the list of reasons why this person or that one didn't have to contribute labor or money to the society.
On the issue of personal and distributed (global) responsibility, however, I think that everyone has the shared responsibility -- even those for whom the temptation is to shirk. Seriously, I think that a just society is one where it is every person's responsibility to care about every other person's well being and to therefor NOT use shared resources (including the society's wealth) in a selfish manner.
Selfish manner would include those who try to scam their way onto the public dole.
Those who truly need help should get it. Those who are gold-bricking should not.
I think the complexities though are worth further exploration. You raised the point about people who don't take personal responsibility for their actions. Examples leap to mind. The person who ends up seriously disabled after driving drunk and hitting a telephone pole. Should society be happy about having to support that person when they are clearly the cause of their own plight? If we help that person, doesn't that set an example for others to be just as heedless of the impact they have on society?
My answer to that kind of thing is that we have an obligation to each other that extends beyond the stupidity and lack of caring displayed by the individual. That does not mean that the person would not face consequences, but that they should be called upon to work up to their abilities. No free ride in that respect. If a person is capable of work, they should do it. And in return, we make sure they don't starve to death or end up on the street.
Now, suppose we have someone who basically borders on the criminal in their continued self-destructive behavior? Drug abusers are probably a good example. Do we pick them up and dust them off every time, in perpetuity? Or do we one day wash our hands of them and say "you killed yourself -- go die somewhere out of sight."
I think we STILL have a responsibility. I think we still help. I think we have to. And when they rehabilitate, they pay it back through whatever work they can perform.
And if they never rehabilitate, we still did the best we could to help them.
Compulsory attendance in rehabilitation programs is not at all outside the rules for what I see as fair and also helpful. I'd probably want this kind of thing handled through the courts, not some sort of social engineering thing. But a punishment that includes rehabilitation.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If every voter did this once a year, I doubt we (all the voters) would agree with each other more, but I bet we'd be electing leaders who more closely represented what people (some people, at least) think. And I bet compromise would be much easier.
"I see. You're not trying to allow a bunch of people to live free off my money because they won't work."
"And you're not a heartless bastard who wants people to starve."
In part this thread is my attempt to apologize for my other abuses in the Hatrackverse, wherein I was certainly guilty of baiting those who didn't see things my way.
Anyway, I think that was a very nice compliment that I wish I'd earned a long time ago. (assuming I'm earning it now, of course). Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think minimum wage laws are a poor way to accomplish universal minimum subsitence. It places the burden on employers at the very bottom of the jobs ladder and doesn't take into account things like whether that person is really working that job to make a living wage or is still a teen living at home with the folks, or whatever.
Some jobs truly are worth more to society than others in terms of financial remuneration.
I think the goal should be to ensure that every person has enough to avoid homelessness and privation. People will want more than subsistence (most of them, anyway) and will be willing to work for it. Willing to pursue educational opportunities to prepare themselves for it. And willing to exchange a chunk of their life (their time on earth) as an investment in their own future (and that of their kids).
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I love your heart. You are so caring, even for people who most would prefer to kick in the butt.
My question is...should it be the role of the government to try to break self-destructive (or social-destructive) people's patterns of behavior? Or is that role better suited to bodies of genuine caring, that have a passion for the work of helping those who would not help themselves? It is clear to me that not everyone has this capacity for caring and it could be downright abusive to send someone who wants to kick such people in the butt rather than send someone who says and believes "You're worth something even though you don't think you are. Please, let me help you see that."
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree with Dagonee that this, although clearly very well thought out [Smile] , is open to great interpretation, which is the problem, in my opinion, from which the American Constitution suffers.
It is easy to misinterpret what you mean.
It's not really that well thought out. I typed it up in the 10 minutes before I posted it. It condenses thoughts that have been percolating, but it's not some major manifesto...yet!
I think one of the strengths of the Constitution, and the Bible, and other texts I take to provide guiding principles, is that they have a built in flexibility. THere is room for emphasis and interpretation so that the flawed wisdom of today does not automatically make the documents obsolete to future generations.
It is the responsibility of each generation to imbibe and transmute the lessons of the past, including those things that we cherish and hope not to change or tamper with.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really have anything particularly constructive to add at this time, but I would like to say that, in view of the all the conservative vs. liberal threads going on right now, this thread gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling. Unity makes me want to give everyone a big ol' hug.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't think that people should be artificially liberated from their own poor judgment, or shortsighted behavior. The only effective ways for people and societies to overcome their weaknesses are (1) to experience the consequences and learn them firsthand, or (2) to absorb the wisdom of previous generations in the form of laws and customs. The third option of investing huge resources to remove the ill consequences of poor judgment is ultimately to the detriment of all of us. We don't get any better, and we're still out the cash.
That is yet another example of vague speech. It sounds right, but depending on how it's applied, I'd have a problem with it. I'm probably one of those people.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nods* Employer health plans are one of the most economically awful aspects of our nation (and there are some doozies out there).
Health care, basically due to pre existing conditions, is one place where a little government regulation can help to create a free market.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kayla, to my way of thinking any one of us, at any time, might be "one of those people." Some through accidental means (including illness -- mental or physical) and some as a consequence of their own actions or inaction. I don't think we have a good way of getting at the issue of apportioning out personal responsibility in every case. And thus we don't have a good way of denying people assistance based on what they did or did not do to/for themselves.
IMHO, we should help. Expect something back, but help nonetheless.
Nobody gets a free ride, I think. There are obligations in taking society's help just as there are obligations in using shared resources.
In my view, we are all obligated to each other. All the time.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu...I'm not clear on that last bit. Maybe it's that I'm not thinking of the free market aspects of it, but I sort of secretly suspect that the only long-term solution is a national healthcare system with open access to anyone who needs it. Show up at the doctor's office or hospital and you get taken care of. period.
I'm not sure what a free market solution will do for us (I've been in our current type of health insurance "climate" my whole life and experienced HMOs, PPOs, school-based health plans, and the best that collective bargaining could wrangle. If government regulated it more, or less, it's still the same old pig, just with a different shade of lipstick.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think one of the strengths of the Constitution, and the Bible, and other texts I take to provide guiding principles, is that they have a built in flexibility
There is a fine line between flexibility and ambiguity.
Also, I know that the American system of government isn't great for ease-of-amendments, so flexibility in the constitution is perhaps a necessity under the system under which this manifesto (or whatever you're going to call it) exists. The easier amendments are to implement, the more specific the constitution must be.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:My question is...should it be the role of the government to try to break self-destructive (or social-destructive) people's patterns of behavior? Or is that role better suited to bodies of genuine caring, that have a passion for the work of helping those who would not help themselves? It is clear to me that not everyone has this capacity for caring and it could be downright abusive to send someone who wants to kick such people in the butt rather than send someone who says and believes "You're worth something even though you don't think you are. Please, let me help you see that."
Good point. I don't really see anything wrong with government being free to identify care providers that do a better job (more effective and more cost-effective) and paying them to take these tasks on. I think we as a society benefit from the attempt to rehabilitate our weakest members, even those that are self-destructive and even destructive of others. I don't care how we accomplish that as long as we do.
I would like to see performance-based decision making on things like this. I think our penal system, for example, is measured on the wrong things. It should be measured on long-term successful reintegration of offenders into society. At least that should be one of the measures. If our punishments do nothing but keep the person from repeating the offense for the duration of the time they're incarcerated, then it's an expensive housing project as far as I'm concerned.
Suppose punishment reduces recidivism. Then it's a bit better than just a "time out."
What if punishment plus rehabilitation not only reduces recidivism but a certain percentage of the offenders actually reach a level of productive contributors to society. That's better yet!
We should be constantly striving to spend our money where it will do the most good for society.
Ultimately, if a person cannot be rehabilitated, then they may need to be permanently removed from free contact with the rest of us. But I think we have an obligation to ourselves as well as to the "offendor" to at least try to find better ways to deal with law breaking and self-destruction than we have now.
It makes less sense if we spend all that money and simply can't find a way to help these folks be better citizens. Then I'm at a loss. Do we throw up our hands and say "well, we tried" and toss them in prison until they either die or are otherwise no longer able to commit their particular crime?
I don't have a good enough answer on this one to satisfy myself, really. I just want us to do more and to do more BECAUSE we recognize that it's in our own best interest AND in the interest of the person we're helping.
quote:There is a fine line between flexibility and ambiguity.
All too true.
quote:Also, I know that the American system of government isn't great for ease-of-amendments, so flexibility in the constitution is perhaps a necessity under the system under which this manifesto (or whatever you're going to call it) exists. The easier amendments are to implement, the more specific the constitution must be.
I like manifesto. It sounds so sinister!
That's an interesting point that I'd never really thought of before. That there might be a desireable inverse relationship between specificity and malleability.
Makes sense though. If things are more specific, they become much harder to change because more of the changes are going to be clearly contradictory of what the original "intent" was. If things are vague or operating on multiple levels, we feel much more free to impose our own point of view and idiosyncratic interpretations upon them.
I think that people should be artificially lifted from poor judgment and short sighted behavior. Then again, I think that prison time is an artificial punishment for poor judgment and short-sighted behavior.
How do you account for those people who through morally arbitrary reasons, are allowed to thrive with so so judgment and so so vision?
Sinking and swimming together doesn't mean sinking or swimming based on your good judgment or my friends parents at Haliburton. It doesn't mean sinking or swimming together except on mondays, wednesdays, and fridays, it's a commitment we have to each other in virtue of no other reason than we happen to be here together.
posted
If we're getting into rights I want to bring up the Right to Vote and the fact that it does not actually explicitly exist in the American Constitution.
From Section 2, Clause 1:
quote: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States
Please note that this demonstrates the sort of ambiguity that causes issues. "The people" is a foggy way of saying things and thus caused many people to be denied of the vote.
Hence, four amendments were added:
quote: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
and
quote: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
and
quote: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
and
quote: The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.
But, as long as the right to vote is abridged along any lines other than these the right to vote is not guaranteed explicity. This is a flaw of ambiguity. Although it is assumed that US citizens do have a right to vote (since they practically invented it), they do not technically have the Bill-given-Right.
There should be a statement in every constitution that "all citizens of Blah have the right to vote" and then any abridgements should then be added (i.e. except those who are presently in prison etc).
posted
Bob -- a national health care system, properly implemented, would be much closer to a beneficial free market than what we have now; the market for insurers would be removed, true (actually, they would still be around, but greatly changed), but the far more important market for doctors would be opened up (as generally we prefer better doctors over better insurers).
What I mean is that if you allow health insurers to discriminate in their acceptance based on disability, then you've effectively removed the consumer's free market. Only if artificial controls are implemented by some sort of insurance grouping can one approach a fairly free market.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I agree. I'd love to work. I've been looking for something, and I'd think it would be great if the government had some type of work I could do instead of giving me money to do nothing. It frustrates the heck out of me. I'd think there would be something I could do for the government for the check they send me every month. I'm at least as useful as the congress people, and I could do data entry. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kayla, do you think that there is a healthy number of "you"s out there? If so, there could be some sort of on-line program to learn something worth learning and eventually teach something worth teaching for the good of the US.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
I have a very good friend who could work most of the time, but every once in awhile has a completely NON-dangerous but debilitating psychotic break. She would love to work. She is, in fact, a marvelous artist who could certainly earn money with her talent. But she is actively barred from doing so because every dime she earns is counted against what the government will give her in disability. If she demonstrated the ability to earn a living wage in January, she'd be off disability by February. If she suffered an episode in May, she'd have no assistance whatsoever and would be on the street.
It's a dumb system. The way this works now, she can never afford to go off disability because she might really need it again someday.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami, from the numbers I've seeen, there appears to be about 600,000 people with agoraphobia in any given month (changing from month-to-month as people get better or new people appear.) I don't know how many have the co-morbidities I do, but it's probably pretty high.
I'd say 600,000 is probably a pretty acurate number. And trust me, if there is information out there about how to do anything to feel useful, I've missed it. And I'm usually pretty good at finding information.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
, is open to great interpretation, which is the problem, in my opinion, from which the American Constitution suffers. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
