This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
Monday, February 21, 2022
No problem
Is insisting in human rights forcing our values on people in foreign countries? If so, I'm all for forcing my values on people in foreign countries. No problem.
I've been reading the correspondence between Jefferson and Madison on the idea of a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution (wonderful letters). Jefferson prevailed in convincing Madison to amend his Constitution. How often does that happen in politics today?
If forcing values means putting values into law, then we need some Jefferson like figure to convince the opposite side. Alas, there is probably no one like Jefferson today even as his legacy is being destroyed.
Is insisting in human rights forcing our values on people in foreign countries? If so, I'm all for forcing my values on people in foreign countries.
How do you propose forcing those declared rights onto them?
And given that Americans can't even agree on what constitutes a right, would you feel comfortable using that same strategy on conservatives in the United States?
Is insisting in human rights forcing our values on people in foreign countries? If so, I'm all for forcing my values on people in foreign countries.
So is Victor in favor of forcing the dictatorship in Canada in restoring the rights of: Freedom to protest? Freedom of the press to report on what the government is doing? The right of private property ownership? Due process?
Rarely. That's because both Jefferson and Madison favored limited government. The basic disagreement was that some thought the Bill of Rights could be used to imply that the federal government was only prohibited from making laws against the rights listed in the Bill, while the other side wanted these things explicitly mentioned so it would cause more difficulties for those wanting to the federal government to decide what liberties the citizens would have. Now one side wants unlimited government while the other still wants limited government.
Looks like it was good thing to include the Bill of Rights. It's been much harder for the socialists to strip us of them but not for lack of trying.
"...both Jefferson and Madison favored limited government."
I am on the side of Madison. Jefferson was a better writer and more persuasive. They both had great insight into human nature. I prefer James Madison's Constitution. But as you wrote, it was best to check the desire for power. In the year of our Lord 2022, I'm glad Jefferson prevailed.
Me too! Otherwise, we almost certainly would have lost our democracy and our freedoms under the last presidential administration. But fortunately, we dodged that bullet.
So did I. But just like in 2016, there was no real winner for me. Having Biden as president is a horrifying embarrassment, no matter who he won against.
Replace "horrifying" with "disappointment" and we're pretty much in agreement. I see Biden as pretty much an average president, like many in the latter half of the 19th Century. Who besides historians can name them all?
But not every president needs to be "great", and right now we maybe need an "average Joe" in there - especially after the train wreck that preceded him. A Gerald Ford or a Calvin Coolidge.
Let me ask this question. Should American businesses take advantage of sweatshop labor on the grounds that this is acceptable in that country, even though it is illegal in ours?
That's a tough question, Victor. In many countries, the choice is between working in a sweatshop or being unemployed. Now, what American businesses ought to do is insist on better working conditions for laborers abroad, and reward those suppliers who treat their workers fairly.
Jobs in California pay more than jobs in Kansas. Should we refuse to buy things made in KS on that basis. Who benefits from that? People in CA or people in KS?
The cost of living is (a lot) higher in California than it is in Kansas. Therefore it is both rational and just for salaries to be higher in California. Who benefits from that? Everyone.
When I worked for the federal government, we all got what was called "Locality Pay" (LC), which was a supplement to our base salary, based on where we worked. The highest LCs were for New York, San Francisco, and Hawaii. Washington was about in the middle. The lowest were for places like Kansas and Arkansas.
Maybe a better question is what human rights are at issue in this question:
Should American businesses take advantage of sweatshop labor on the grounds that this is acceptable in that country, even though it is illegal in ours?
Is it a question of the Law defending life, liberty or property?
Because it all evens out. Rent is higher in California than it is in Kansas, so a worker in California deserves a higher salary to meet that expense. If no one could afford to work in high rent districts, the entire country (including Kansas) would suffer. We are a society, not just a mass of individuals, and what hurts one of us, hurts us all.
"What human rights are at issue?"
None. It's a matter of justice and equity, not rights.
Is insisting in human rights forcing our values on people in foreign countries? If so, I'm all for forcing my values on people in foreign countries. No problem.
Let me ask this question. Should American businesses take advantage of sweatshop labor on the grounds that this is acceptable in that country, even though it is illegal in ours?
Exactly which human rights that you value would you be forcing on these countries. The Declaration says humans have the God given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In 2016 the NBA protested North Carolina passing a law which disregarded gender identity in the selection of bathrooms, which are divided according to sex. They pulled the All-Star game out of North Carolina as a result, costing the state millions of dollars. They are getting involved in political lobbying to influence issues of "racial justice".
They do billions of dollars in business with China, which basically has no LGBT rights and commits genocide against ethnic minorities.
We see that same thing all the time, where businesses make decisions locally to screw over individual states who pass legislation they don't like, but do business with foreign markets whose laws are far, far worse. Obviously it costs little for them to virtue signal in the States, but hit their pocketbook hard enough and those values fly out the window.
I don't see the corporate world as a source of virtue.
I don't see the corporate world as a source of virtue.
I think Victor's point is that the federal government should punish North Carolina and those "sweatshop" countries (he better not say China or it will be considered "anti-Asian").
That's why I asked him what he meant by forcing those values onto other countries, and how applicable that would also be to red states here. If it's simply a matter of a company not doing business with regimes that mistreat their citizens, he's not forcing his values on anyone because corporations don't care.
I increasingly just want to live on a mountain somewhere and be left alone.
You sound like some right-wing white supremacist with talk like that. Who do you think you are thinking you have some "right" to be left alone. Just like those Dominican Republican right-wingnuts.
I'm going to make a point again about confounding values with rights.
Is insisting in human rights forcing our values on people in foreign countries? If so, I'm all for forcing my values on people in foreign countries. No problem.
Talking about values is irrelevant in a discussion of morality. It's obvious that some people value evil rather than good. Talk of values rather than good and evil came into our lexicon as a result of the philosophy of moral relativism.
Compelling people to comply with sexual depravity and murder is evil whether anyone "values" those things or not.
Speaking about forcing one's values on a foreign country. Here are Putin's values:
(1) Russia is immediately ready to start negotiations after the Armed Forces of Ukraine lay down their arms. (2) The Ukraine must be demilitarized and declared neutral. (3) The Ukraine must be denazified. (4) Russia will no longer allow the Nazis to rule in Ukraine. Ever.
Lefties are all in against Nazis right? Is that why Biden told Putin to go ahead and invade?
But what do I know? The machinations of the Biden administration are like an orchestra conducted with the finest nuance and I'm only accustomed to Hee-Haw jug bands.
I'm worried about us being energy dependent on Russia but Biden is a step ahead by appointing a non-binary drag queen to a top level DOE job. Take that Putin!
Uh, bmiller, you do realize that the Ukrainian president is Jewish, right?
"Here are Putin's values"
Um, I think you meant to type "Here are Trump's values." After all, he's the one calling Putin, "smart, savvy, a genius" while referring to the Ukraine as though it was an attractive piece of real estate, instead of a country and a people.
"It's almost as if Putin is lying about his objectives."
44 comments:
I've been reading the correspondence between Jefferson and Madison on the idea of a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution (wonderful letters). Jefferson prevailed in convincing Madison to amend his Constitution. How often does that happen in politics today?
If forcing values means putting values into law, then we need some Jefferson like figure to convince the opposite side. Alas, there is probably no one like Jefferson today even as his legacy is being destroyed.
Is insisting in human rights forcing our values on people in foreign countries? If so, I'm all for forcing my values on people in foreign countries.
How do you propose forcing those declared rights onto them?
And given that Americans can't even agree on what constitutes a right, would you feel comfortable using that same strategy on conservatives in the United States?
Is insisting in human rights forcing our values on people in foreign countries? If so, I'm all for forcing my values on people in foreign countries.
So is Victor in favor of forcing the dictatorship in Canada in restoring the rights of:
Freedom to protest?
Freedom of the press to report on what the government is doing?
The right of private property ownership?
Due process?
I am dubious.
How often does that happen in politics today?
Rarely. That's because both Jefferson and Madison favored limited government. The basic disagreement was that some thought the Bill of Rights could be used to imply that the federal government was only prohibited from making laws against the rights listed in the Bill, while the other side wanted these things explicitly mentioned so it would cause more difficulties for those wanting to the federal government to decide what liberties the citizens would have. Now one side wants unlimited government while the other still wants limited government.
Looks like it was good thing to include the Bill of Rights. It's been much harder for the socialists to strip us of them but not for lack of trying.
The reasons why black-face Hitler needed to suspend rights in Canada.
We can't allow this type of stuff to go on unpunished!
Some were enraged by the bouncy castles. Personally it was the disco dancing that chaps my hide.
"...both Jefferson and Madison favored limited government."
I am on the side of Madison. Jefferson was a better writer and more persuasive. They both had great insight into human nature. I prefer James Madison's Constitution. But as you wrote, it was best to check the desire for power. In the year of our Lord 2022, I'm glad Jefferson prevailed.
"I'm glad Jefferson prevailed."
Me too! Otherwise, we almost certainly would have lost our democracy and our freedoms under the last presidential administration. But fortunately, we dodged that bullet.
That mask must be on too tight. I keep reminding you that Hillary was never president.
"I keep reminding you that Hillary was never president."
To our great sorrow.
To our great sorrow.
I celebrated with great joy.
As did I upon Trump's defeat in 2020.
As did I upon Trump's defeat in 2020.
So did I. But just like in 2016, there was no real winner for me. Having Biden as president is a horrifying embarrassment, no matter who he won against.
There are at least 2 presidents glad that Biden made it to the Oval office.
Carter and Obama now don't have to worry about which of them will be remembered as the worst president ever.
Replace "horrifying" with "disappointment" and we're pretty much in agreement. I see Biden as pretty much an average president, like many in the latter half of the 19th Century. Who besides historians can name them all?
But not every president needs to be "great", and right now we maybe need an "average Joe" in there - especially after the train wreck that preceded him. A Gerald Ford or a Calvin Coolidge.
What horrifies you about Biden?
"the worst president ever"
The 5 worst American presidents ever (in no particular order):
Andrew Johnson
James Buchanan
Donald Trump
Woodrow Wilson
George W. Bush
Odd. Neither of the people bmiller named is on the list.
Let me ask this question. Should American businesses take advantage of sweatshop labor on the grounds that this is acceptable in that country, even though it is illegal in ours?
That's a tough question, Victor. In many countries, the choice is between working in a sweatshop or being unemployed. Now, what American businesses ought to do is insist on better working conditions for laborers abroad, and reward those suppliers who treat their workers fairly.
Why even talk about different countries?
Jobs in California pay more than jobs in Kansas. Should we refuse to buy things made in KS on that basis. Who benefits from that? People in CA or people in KS?
The cost of living is (a lot) higher in California than it is in Kansas. Therefore it is both rational and just for salaries to be higher in California. Who benefits from that? Everyone.
When I worked for the federal government, we all got what was called "Locality Pay" (LC), which was a supplement to our base salary, based on where we worked. The highest LCs were for New York, San Francisco, and Hawaii. Washington was about in the middle. The lowest were for places like Kansas and Arkansas.
Who benefits from that? Everyone.
Why does everyone benefit from it?
Maybe a better question is what human rights are at issue in this question:
Should American businesses take advantage of sweatshop labor on the grounds that this is acceptable in that country, even though it is illegal in ours?
Is it a question of the Law defending life, liberty or property?
"Why does everyone benefit from it?"
Because it all evens out. Rent is higher in California than it is in Kansas, so a worker in California deserves a higher salary to meet that expense. If no one could afford to work in high rent districts, the entire country (including Kansas) would suffer. We are a society, not just a mass of individuals, and what hurts one of us, hurts us all.
"What human rights are at issue?"
None. It's a matter of justice and equity, not rights.
Why should rent be higher in California?
"What human rights are at issue?"
None. It's a matter of justice and equity, not rights.
So in your mind justice is a separate issue from rights?
You don't know? If not, you have no business discussing economics.
"So in your mind justice is a separate issue from rights?"
They are apples and oranges.
Guess I'll wait to see if Victor will comment.
Victor,
Is insisting in human rights forcing our values on people in foreign countries? If so, I'm all for forcing my values on people in foreign countries. No problem.
Let me ask this question. Should American businesses take advantage of sweatshop labor on the grounds that this is acceptable in that country, even though it is illegal in ours?
Exactly which human rights that you value would you be forcing on these countries. The Declaration says humans have the God given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In 2016 the NBA protested North Carolina passing a law which disregarded gender identity in the selection of bathrooms, which are divided according to sex. They pulled the All-Star game out of North Carolina as a result, costing the state millions of dollars. They are getting involved in political lobbying to influence issues of "racial justice".
They do billions of dollars in business with China, which basically has no LGBT rights and commits genocide against ethnic minorities.
We see that same thing all the time, where businesses make decisions locally to screw over individual states who pass legislation they don't like, but do business with foreign markets whose laws are far, far worse. Obviously it costs little for them to virtue signal in the States, but hit their pocketbook hard enough and those values fly out the window.
I don't see the corporate world as a source of virtue.
I don't see the corporate world as a source of virtue.
I think Victor's point is that the federal government should punish North Carolina and those "sweatshop" countries (he better not say China or it will be considered "anti-Asian").
Sort of like sanctions. You can't do business with sanctioned entities.
That's why I asked him what he meant by forcing those values onto other countries, and how applicable that would also be to red states here. If it's simply a matter of a company not doing business with regimes that mistreat their citizens, he's not forcing his values on anyone because corporations don't care.
Agreed
Looks like Victor's crowd is forcing their values on the Dominican Republic. No rights. Just values.
I increasingly just want to live on a mountain somewhere and be left alone.
I increasingly just want to live on a mountain somewhere and be left alone.
You sound like some right-wing white supremacist with talk like that. Who do you think you are thinking you have some "right" to be left alone. Just like those Dominican Republican right-wingnuts.
I'm going to make a point again about confounding values with rights.
Is insisting in human rights forcing our values on people in foreign countries? If so, I'm all for forcing my values on people in foreign countries. No problem.
Talking about values is irrelevant in a discussion of morality. It's obvious that some people value evil rather than good. Talk of values rather than good and evil came into our lexicon as a result of the philosophy of moral relativism.
Compelling people to comply with sexual depravity and murder is evil whether anyone "values" those things or not.
Speaking about forcing one's values on a foreign country.
Here are Putin's values:
(1) Russia is immediately ready to start negotiations after the Armed Forces of Ukraine lay down their arms.
(2) The Ukraine must be demilitarized and declared neutral.
(3) The Ukraine must be denazified.
(4) Russia will no longer allow the Nazis to rule in Ukraine. Ever.
Lefties are all in against Nazis right? Is that why Biden told Putin to go ahead and invade?
But what do I know? The machinations of the Biden administration are like an orchestra conducted with the finest nuance and I'm only accustomed to Hee-Haw jug bands.
I'm worried about us being energy dependent on Russia but Biden is a step ahead by appointing
a non-binary drag queen to a top level DOE job. Take that Putin!
bmiller,
(3) The Ukraine must be denazified.
(4) Russia will no longer allow the Nazis to rule in Ukraine. Ever.
Out of 450 representatives, the Ukranian Duma has 1 Nazi-equivalent.
It's almost as if Putin is lying about his objectives.
"The Ukraine must be denazified."
Uh, bmiller, you do realize that the Ukrainian president is Jewish, right?
"Here are Putin's values"
Um, I think you meant to type "Here are Trump's values." After all, he's the one calling Putin, "smart, savvy, a genius" while referring to the Ukraine as though it was an attractive piece of real estate, instead of a country and a people.
"It's almost as if Putin is lying about his objectives."
Good one, One Brow. D'ya think?
Maybe Putin is referring to Biden as the Nazi that is ruling over Ukraine.
No one would ever lie about other people being Nazis would they? That's just unbelievable!
Putin is merely forcing his "values" on the Ukraine. Humans have a right not to be ruled by Nazis don't they?
Also, it's my understanding that the Ukrainians who are defending their nation are white. So by definition they are white nationalists.
Post a Comment