quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: My argument is that the North was primarily interested in a) promoting a strong Federal government and enforcement of the commerce clause; and b) maintaining the continental hegemony that we have, as a nation, fought several wars to establish and protect. That some of the people who wanted the war cared about eliminating slavery is undeniable; that the war was necessary to end slavery is rather thin gruel, though, and certainly Lincoln would not have fought it if that were the only consideration. I'd argue that the South was far more concerned with traditional formulations of "freedom," especially as Dan in his quasi-libertarian approach would define it, but think it's a stretch to say that people fighting for the freedom to stop being American when America as a nation appeared to no longer respect what they considered freedoms were fighting to protect American freedoms (especially since they lost, and thus don't get the chance to define what "American freedoms" are).
Frankly, having read a lot of personal correspondence from the time, I think the Civil War was really about the hayseeds and the aristocracy not getting along with the professors and the merchants, and feeling like the only way to get those other guys to take them seriously and/or leave them alone was to shoot them.
Does anybody who thinks that tom doesn't know what he's talking about in terms of the civil war want to address this
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Also yeah mandatory service wouldn't fly here but plenty of countries have demonstrated that it can be an okay thing
I think it can have okay effects, but I don't think it's ethically acceptable.
This is sort of a matter of principle for me, the way some right-wingers think taxes amount to theft. The notion that your material property is yours, period, has always struck me as absurd for a host of reasons. But the notion that your time here on Earth is yours to use as you see fit seems entirely sensible. There should at least need to be overwhelming state interest to justify forcing you to take on activities you wouldn't otherwise pursue.
Dest, How do you feel about jury duty?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Dest, How do you feel about jury duty?
Yeah, good example.
For this particular duty, I would support finding a way to make it optional. (Not a huge fan of jury trials in the first place, actually.) But the overall point is well taken. There are going to be situations where the "right to one's own time" breaks down, because the state benefit is so great by comparison with the loss to the individual. If you witnessed a crime and the cops need to question you, you don't get to say "I'd just rather not spend the afternoon at the station."
Rights are like that, I guess. "Fire" in a crowded theater and so on.
But I maintain that in the case of compulsory service, the cost to the individual's autonomy is so ridiculously high that it would take a war of real self-defense or something similar to make it OK.
Jury duty is a few days or less. But suppose they ask for a year of service. What if you want to write a novel or start a family? Then they're getting in the way of your most fundamental life projects. What if one of your parents is sick and only has a year to live? Should you have to fill out forms and prove you need an exemption or something? That's a waste of your time right there, and then you need a whole system of bureaucrats to inspect the forms. And realistically, they can't make the right call every single time.
It makes me sick that governments have the right to do this to people in so many parts of the world.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to see a proposal to replace jury duty with an effective system that doesn't require compelled service from anyone, because jury duty sucks, but any system proposed has been terribly naive so far.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: My argument is that the North was primarily interested in a) promoting a strong Federal government and enforcement of the commerce clause; and b) maintaining the continental hegemony that we have, as a nation, fought several wars to establish and protect. That some of the people who wanted the war cared about eliminating slavery is undeniable; that the war was necessary to end slavery is rather thin gruel, though, and certainly Lincoln would not have fought it if that were the only consideration. I'd argue that the South was far more concerned with traditional formulations of "freedom," especially as Dan in his quasi-libertarian approach would define it, but think it's a stretch to say that people fighting for the freedom to stop being American when America as a nation appeared to no longer respect what they considered freedoms were fighting to protect American freedoms (especially since they lost, and thus don't get the chance to define what "American freedoms" are).
Frankly, having read a lot of personal correspondence from the time, I think the Civil War was really about the hayseeds and the aristocracy not getting along with the professors and the merchants, and feeling like the only way to get those other guys to take them seriously and/or leave them alone was to shoot them.
Does anybody who thinks that tom doesn't know what he's talking about in terms of the civil war want to address this
Well, it's not that I think Tom doesn't know what he's talking about re: the civil war. It's just that I don't see how he jumps from this description into saying that the war had nothing to do with ensuring or protecting American freedoms. It doesn't follow, and he didn't provide an explanation for why it might.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, how do you break down the statement "I don't think the Civil War was about American freedom at all. In fact, I'd make the argument that each side was fighting to deprive the other side of a freedom they cared about."
which is, essentially, true. the split was guaranteed by buchanan and the details go on forever but in essence it all comes down to the commerce clause and a bunch of traditionalists balking about commerce regulation. slavery was gonna vanish from america anyway, pretty not too long after, but buchanan's ineptitude all but guaranteed a violent schism over it and all the related federal strife at the time.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Complete freedom is anarchy, and that isn't anything I would care to experience.
I think it was about values, and priorities. Both sides cared about some freedoms, and not every southerner who fought for the South was a slave owner, or in favor of slavery. However, even if it wasn't originally about slavery, slavery WAS tied to both the economic side of the issues AND the issues of freedom and what it was to be an American, so it DID lead to the war, even if the war wasn't started to free the slaves.
Robert E. Lee is a perfect example of a southern man who disagreed with slavery, and who would have preferred to fight for the North, but who felt he could not turn his back on his home state. Hell, his wife and daughter started groups to free slaves and relocate them.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I remember correctly, Lincoln was of the opinion that slavery would die at the hand of the industrial revolution and only signed the emancipation proclamation as a political/war effort to polarize the conflict and preempt the state rights side of the issue.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Well, how do you break down the statement "I don't think the Civil War was about American freedom at all. In fact, I'd make the argument that each side was fighting to deprive the other side of a freedom they cared about."
I think that the second half of that statement ("In fact, I'd make the argument that each side was fighting to deprive the other side of a freedom they cared about.") is a fine, albeit necessarily simplistic, summation of the conflict.
What I can't figure out is how anyone could read that half of the statement and think it in any way argues for the first half. I think it, very straightforwardly, does the opposite.
If the primary motivator for each side was to deprive the other side of a freedom they cared about... then A) it's a conflict that is definitionally about freedom, and more specifically B) The secondary objective of each side would necessarily be to defend the freedom that is being attacked by the other side.
What's the argument against my explanation of Tom's statement? What am I missing?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: If the primary motivator for each side was to deprive the other side of a freedom they cared about... then A) it's a conflict that is definitionally about freedom, and more specifically B) The secondary objective of each side would necessarily be to defend the freedom that is being attacked by the other side.
What's the argument against my explanation of Tom's statement? What am I missing?
If I could guess:
You are arguing that it is a conflict that is definitionally about freedom, Tom probably agrees, but it depends on what Tom meant when he was talking about it not being about "American freedom." How you define what is specifically an American freedom.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When talking about the Civil War, it's fine to boil things down to the commerce clause and such, but in doing so doesn't anyone have to ask: what was the commerce one side wanted to engage in, and the other wished to restrict and/or prohibit? The question of abolition throughout the nation for generations had done away with any real possibility of regarding human slavery as just another form of commerce, even in the South where on paper that's what it was.
So sure, saying it boils down to the commerce clause is true, but not true in the same way had the South been angry and fearful at potential limitations and eventual abolition of the trade in, say, locomotives of a certain power or horses of a certain breed.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'd like to see a proposal to replace jury duty with an effective system that doesn't require compelled service from anyone, because jury duty sucks, but any system proposed has been terribly naive so far.
I'd like a system in which a voter is informed that they have a high likelihood of being called and retained within a specific timeframe. Say 6 months, starting in one year. Then draw from those so informed. And allow this window to be delayed up to one year.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Currently, where I live (Cali) they don't even pull jury duty from registered voters...they pull from car registration.
I've been sent three or four separate notices over the years, but apparently if you just throw them away they leave you alone.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: they don't even pull jury duty from registered voters...they pull from car registration.
They use both.
And failing to respond to a jury summons in the state of California can get you a fine of $1500.
Aren't you the primary caretaker of children under the age of 5? You should be able to request to be excused.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Aren't you the primary caretaker of children under the age of 5? You should be able to request to be excused.
Yup, but since just ignoring the notice and tossing it in the gar-barge has been so successful in the past, why bother making more work for those poor over worked bureaucrats by requesting to be excused?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We get hours for jury duty so I really can't complain too much. And my boss does generous travel time. We also have to be able to testify in court so jury duty is folded into court hours. If I ever have to testify, some very very bad stuff will have to have gone down but it is still a requirement.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Currently, where I live (Cali)
Ugh, really, why do you insist on this nomenclature? It's ugly. It's like if you lived in New York and said you lived in "The Big Apple."
quote: I've been sent three or four separate notices over the years, but apparently if you just throw them away they leave you alone.
Incidentally, this is a crime. Not one you're likely to be charged with, but a crime nevertheless.
They leave you alone because the burden of proof is on them to prove that you ever received the notices. I have been called 3 times in 4 years (not by car registration- I don't have a car), and have had my parents send back the notices explaining that I am abroad. At least so far, they have made no indication that I will be compelled to appear in this circumstance, even though I remain registered as a voter in my county.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Currently, where I live (Cali)
Ugh, really, why do you insist on this nomenclature? It's ugly. It's like if you lived in New York and said you lived in "The Big Apple."
Because it annoys rivka, but now that I know it rubs you the wrong way too ill make sure to use it more.
quote: I've been sent three or four separate notices over the years, but apparently if you just throw them away they leave you alone.
quote: Incidentally, this is a crime. Not one you're likely to be charged with, but a crime nevertheless.
And so is holding hands in public in LA county...it's not my fault that there are stupid laws on the books that are unenforceable. I also hold hands with my wife when we are in LA.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd like a system in which a voter is informed that they have a high likelihood of being called and retained within a specific timeframe. Say 6 months, starting in one year. Then draw from those so informed. And allow this window to be delayed up to one year.
Such a thing has the sound of being possible, though I've no idea how workable such a system would really be.
Gotta love Americans, though: our courts are so screwed up with bureaucracy and red tape! But then 'jury duty?! Outrage!'
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: If I remember correctly, Lincoln was of the opinion that slavery would die at the hand of the industrial revolution and only signed the emancipation proclamation as a political/war effort to polarize the conflict and preempt the state rights side of the issue.
It was also to kill any chances of Britain and France recognizing the CSA as they geopolitically wouldn't have mind a split American continent.
IP: Logged |
posted
I actually thought some of the dumb laws made sense. Like refusing someone water in the desert is different than in other places. And the cactus cutting prohibition has its place.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked the big banner at the top, about big government and so on. When most of these sorts of laws, and there are thousands of them that are rarely relevant much less problematic, stem from the smallest portions of government-local.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I actually thought some of the dumb laws made sense.
Agreed. I am also skeptical of any claims sites like that one make without citations. Links may not be feasible, for older laws. But the year the law was passed, where it can be found on the books, etc.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I simply didn't sign the registration form, as it's a contract, though you can be legally punished for not signing it, but if you do sign it you give the government the right to draft you or arrest you otherwise.
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reported the last post. I don't think a gold metal detector has anything to do with avoiding the draft or jury duty.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: I simply didn't sign the registration form, as it's a contract, though you can be legally punished for not signing it, but if you do sign it you give the government the right to draft you or arrest you otherwise.
posted
Just remember not to put license plates on your car either. As its a contract, if you do sign it you give the government the right to give you a speeding ticket otherwise.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: I simply didn't sign the registration form, as it's a contract, though you can be legally punished for not signing it, but if you do sign it you give the government the right to draft you or arrest you otherwise.
Wow. You need some guidance in your life.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Just remember not to put license plates on your car either. As its a contract, if you do sign it you give the government the right to give you a speeding ticket otherwise.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
