"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
You have some serious cognitive dissonance. How exactly does health care not become a right if people have a right to life? Perhaps you should ponder the concepts behind the quotes. While you are there, please note that the statement explicity holds that women are inferior (minorities implicitly), that it is an assertion, requires the existence of a Creator (no evidence, appeal to authority). In other words, it leaves a lot to be desired.
"If, however, you believe that a RIGHT can be secured by the TAKING from another, then I suggest that you lock your kidneys up, because someone's right to LIFE might require them to TAKE your kidney, regardless of how you feel about it. If you can demand of me to give to another to secure a "right", then society has the same ability to do the same thing to you in ways that is most unpleasant."
Strawman much? Be very careful of any open flames. And you had better be a pacifist. Because if you are not, then you support precisely what you are strawmaning against.
"It cost money to produce, people to work for it, technology and skills to enhance it."
One of the failings of libertarianism is the idea that somehow money is more important that liberty and life.
"The War on Drugs is a result of Wickard v Fillburn [wikipedia.org] and more recently Gonzales v Raich [wikipedia.org]."
No it isn't. The war on drugs was underway well before those decisions. They certainly helped.
"The health care bill is distinguished because it requires people to buy something."
Sorry, no, thanks for playing. As others have noted, there is car insurance. Or property taxes (of various kinds). There are the FICA taxes if you work. The only possible difference is one of scale. And you don't have to buy anything if you don't want to. The tax will be cheaper. And you could probably make the case that you shouldn't be charged for going to a public hospital ER....(somebody will)
"You might find that a surprising proportion of them support abuse of the commerce clause when it's used to hurt drug users, but are against a similar overreach when it's used to help the poor."
Exactly.
More concisely: Small government = government I like. Big government = government I don't like.
"Hence the growing popularity of the tea party movement."
Anyone who thinks that the most or even the majority of the tea party wants smaller government is some combination of stupid, ignorant, lying and/or bullshitting. The tea party is populism. And not a nice form. When they say smaller government, they really mean less government of the type I don't like. Just like most people. Remember that they voted socially conservative fiscally irresponsible Republican.
"Umm actually, the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways disagrees with you, as it was built for military purposes and thus is well within the constitutional bounds of government."
Actually President Madison disagrees with you. He vetoed a bill from Congress funding interstate roads citing the need for a Constitutional amendment. He thought it was a good idea but felt he didn't have the authority. I'd say he was an authority on strict interpretation of the US Constitution.
The things you cite were all built under the idea of an expansive commerce and general welfare clause. They aren't consistent with strict interpretation of the US Constitution. Though the idea of a strict interpretation wasn't universal even in Madison's era (hence the road bill).
What is the big difference? If the only difference is one of scale, then that is a pretty weak argument. Why can't the government force you to buy insurance? How is that different from a specific tax in practice? And that is what we actually have here, a tax. One that is waived if you show proof of insurance. Which happens to be free if you are low income.
So what is the problem? I mean there doesn't seem to be the same outcry about the assassination of US citizens, warrantless wiretaps, 4th amendment violations, war crimes, etc. So why the outcry about something that clearly falls within established case law and actually helps society? I just don't get it.
"You can't buy health insurance across state lines because the Federal government specifically prevents it."
That is simply false. A lie. I was insured for years by out of state insurance companies. It is true that individual STATES have requirements that companies must meet in order to provide coverage in a state. But any company that meets those requirements is free to sell insurance in any state.
"People can already get free health care by going to emergency rooms (BTDT)."
Another lie. It is not free. Someone pays for the care. Either the insured or the taxpayers. And you simply cannot get some care at the ED. Like transplants. See Arizona.
But I see you have the libertarian attitude of "fuck you, I've got mine".
"So, now if your young and healthy you will be compelled to buy a product you may not use for many years subsidizing everyone else."
Do you not understand the concept of insurance? Are you really that fucking stupid? And no one is required to buy insurance. That's the whole fucking point of the tax penalty.
"Hopefully one day we will get a Supreme Court ruling to curtain the Commerce clause."
"Your constitutional amendment would have to be championed by the people over the objections of the government, as there is no desire in the executive or legislative branch of government to see the constitution interpreted in a way that restricts the power of the government."
It would also have to be championed over the objections of most of the people. This is what most "strict constructionists" or whatever they call themselves currently seem to forget. There never was one interpretation of the document, it was a compromise to begin with. And if the founders and writers didn't agree on the interpretation there is no reason to expect us to agree 200 plus years later. People like their governments to do stuff for them. The same clause that allows Congress to do objectionable things also allows it to do many of the nice things.
The problem is that you don't understand the term. An ad hominem attack is dismissing a persons argument by name calling. Calling someone a name is not an ad hominem attack. There is a difference between your argument sucks because you are an asshole and your argument sucks because of x and you are an asshole.
Now you might argue poisoning the well or some other attack....
"The question is why someone with demonstrated behavioral problems still had a secret clearance."
Why people thought this statement was insightful is beyond me. He had it because he needed it for his job. The same reason the military doesn't discharge gay people who are deployed. They need them for unit cohesion. Once they aren't deployed....
Fighting in the military isn't exactly considered a negative. The same impulses that cause you to hit an officer make you willing to kill another human being. They just try to channel it in the correct direction.
"Of course we've gotten more data from the unmanned missions because *that's the only thing that's been there*."
That's the fucking point. It's also the only thing that has a realistic chance of going there in my lifetime. Which people don't seem to want to understand or accept.
I have no doubt that a human could do a massive amount of science on Mars. It would also cost a massive amount of money that we aren't going to spend. As a geologist I would love to see it happen. I also know it is the definition of luxury.
But the scale issue rarely matters. Either you communicated or you didn't. Either it affected the outcome or it didn't. If anything, the scale issue makes it MORE likely that the court will be able to determine court misconduct. Not make it more likely for it to happen.
"And for all the denying this fact that people seem to do around here, making things easily searchable makes a big difference."
Maybe. And like above, maybe it's a good thing. Because if you can't understand or follow simple instructions, then maybe you aren't capable of deciding a case. And the fact that it is so easy means that you will more likely be found out. Maybe instead of collecting the electronic devices they could just tap them....:)
"The distance doesn't matter: make it a segment of a larger sphere (i.e. a smaller arc angle) and the focal point moves further away."
"Moving targets are hard, but with enough energy this isn't an issue. Sails ignite quite quick."
You do know that they are testing a MYTH? One that has certain parameters? This is not about whether is is possible to set something on fire with a fucking mirror. Add that to the fact that you believe that distance doesn't matter and sails ignite quickly, means that you are willfully ignorant and stupid.
"I wonder if this was a real problem before everyone started buying huge SUVs that they don't really need."
Yes. The Prius is an excellent example. The rear view visibility is awful due to the poor design. Having a rear view camera is actually a useful option despite the fact it is a small car.
Even more useful would be a sensor that detects how close you are to objects. Much more useful than a camera that people will ignore. Many higher end vehicles have these.
"The funniest about all this is that most people with security clearance would have been able to access those cables anyway through the gov systems."
Why is it that people don't have a clue how this works? It's not like you need to have a clearance to understand how this works.
Just because you have a certain level of clearance does not mean you have permission to access any and all documents at that level and below. This isn't a computer permission system.
In simple terms, if you have no need to access the information, it would be a violation of your clearance to access the information. Further, if you access the information outside of the proper channels and procedures, it would be a violation even if you had permission. So, for instance, if you are a State Department employee who has legitimate access to these documents at work and go to wikileaks and read one of the documents, you have screwed up. Unless you were tasked with the job of doing so.
"Worse yet, floating the idea you can be barred from future jobs because you read something is ridiculous.
Nothing but a scare tactic."
It might be ridiculous and it might be a scare tactic but that doesn't make it incorrect. It also may not technically bar them from future jobs. But it might bar them from getting a clearance needed for that job.
Clearances generally require you to never read or access material that you do not have permission to read or access. Even if it is distributed publicly. Even if it happened before you had a clearance. You certainly don't want to volunteer that you may have done so. Reading actual leaked government documents is hazardous to your future carerr if you ever want to work in a job requiring any type of clearance. And many of those jobs are outside of government.
"But if we killed every project that doesn't have an immediate implementation plan, we'd have killed a large amount of all the research we've ever done. The kind of research that led to almost all the technologies we have today."
Strawman much? The technologies you mentioned were clearly superior and new. There was no doubt. The only doubt was implementation. Those "academics" were also in the business of making money or funded by the military. Not exactly pure basic research.
This idea is not new (essentially a train). And not terribly superior (reduced energy usage). And they want a significant chunk of money to prove it. They are doing research by press release. Without having even done the research. They are not remotely close to your first three examples.
"Some of you are treating this idea like it was quantum rocket surgery being attempted by the schoolboys cast away in Lord of the Flies."
But what does this solve that wasn't already solved by the railroads? And taken over by trucks? And none of that was really planned.
That is the rocket surgery part. Our transportation system was not planned ahead of time. Any planning was pretty much done after the fact. At best we guide how the technology is used rather than decide on the best use of technology or even which technology will be used.
"Similar to problems laying fiber right now. Next time a road is dug up to repair something, stick in a foodtube as well. Eventually a network will start to take shape - it may take a couple of decades, but at minimal disruption and cost."
No, it's not remotely similar to laying fiber now. First, you actually expect to get a return on the investment from the fiber in the near future. Second, these tubes are over a meter in diameter. Think major sewer installation project, not minor fiber trenching. Massive cost and disruption as you have to avoid or relocate existing utilities, tear up and repair existing roads and reroute traffic.
There is a reason that trucks have taken over for trains in most cases. They are much more flexible. That may change in the future. But this is not better than a train at the present.
"In this context a natural right is whatever a person is capable of without the interference, positive or negative, of any other person."
Then why didn't you just list them. It shouldn't be too hard.
Except that the definition you provided isn't very useful. In fact I would consider it worthless. Because natural rights would seem to be highly variable based on personal ability. An infant or invalid would have essentially none. An able bodied person would have more. And as soon as more than one person exists, then they seem to go away because they would always interact in some way.
Natural rights like natural law is a fiction. It may be a useful fiction. Humans ultimately determine their own rights whether they invoke a god, a creator or nature. I don't understand why that makes people so squeamish.
"Debt is intrinsically bad when it's gov't debt, because gov't is not supposed to be a business."
That has to be one of the most clueless things I have ever seen posted on Slashdot. Truly impressive.
You are asserting that the infrastructure spending, in the form of bonds, that allow government to build things like roads, bridges, schools and the like are intrinsically bad. You believe that none of that spending should be done until the government has cash on hand. This means that you believe that any consequences from the delays are less severe than the mere act of government borrowing.
"And is this surprising in a country where most government workers (including Army, USPS, many suburban Teachers depending on their local contracts, etc) work 20-25 years and can then retire on half pay and full health insurance the rest of their lives. How many private sector jobs let you start at 18 and quit with by 43?"
Any of them that have pensions.
Isn't ignorance wonderful? Just because you can retire after 20 years with a "full" retirement (generally about 40% of pay) doesn't mean you can collect it. There is almost always an age requirement if you don't work 30 years or more.
So now your teacher who gets employed at age 24 (needs a MS degree, remember?) and works for 30 years straight could retire at age 54 and receive about 60% of pay. Not terribly impressive. And they probably are responsible for health care on top of that.
In any case, this retirement is fully paid for by the contributions of the worker and employer during employment. It doesn't cost the government a cent. Unless of course the legislature was raiding the pension fund at the direction of the citizens.
"The People wanted entitlements, they got them."
The problem isn't entitlements. The problem is an unwillingness to pay for them. That was driven entirely by the politicians. Ultimately we have a revenue problem coupled with a health care problem.
"That's the whole POINT - that the Constitution established the framework for our liberties..."
No, it established the framework for the liberties of property owning white men. It firmly established that half the population were second class citizens (women) and that many more were merely property (slaves). Those who came after the founders expanded upon the Constitution and established what we now take for granted as our liberties. They may have been great men who created a great document with many great ideas but they were absolutely racists and bigots and otherwise not so great people. An idea is not valuable just because it is old but rather because of its quality.
"Go read the Constitution."
I have. You seem to have missed all of the negatives.
Slashdot Mirror
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
You have some serious cognitive dissonance. How exactly does health care not become a right if people have a right to life? Perhaps you should ponder the concepts behind the quotes. While you are there, please note that the statement explicity holds that women are inferior (minorities implicitly), that it is an assertion, requires the existence of a Creator (no evidence, appeal to authority). In other words, it leaves a lot to be desired.
"If, however, you believe that a RIGHT can be secured by the TAKING from another, then I suggest that you lock your kidneys up, because someone's right to LIFE might require them to TAKE your kidney, regardless of how you feel about it. If you can demand of me to give to another to secure a "right", then society has the same ability to do the same thing to you in ways that is most unpleasant."
Strawman much? Be very careful of any open flames. And you had better be a pacifist. Because if you are not, then you support precisely what you are strawmaning against.
"It cost money to produce, people to work for it, technology and skills to enhance it."
One of the failings of libertarianism is the idea that somehow money is more important that liberty and life.
"The War on Drugs is a result of Wickard v Fillburn [wikipedia.org] and more recently Gonzales v Raich [wikipedia.org]."
No it isn't. The war on drugs was underway well before those decisions. They certainly helped.
"The health care bill is distinguished because it requires people to buy something."
Sorry, no, thanks for playing. As others have noted, there is car insurance. Or property taxes (of various kinds). There are the FICA taxes if you work. The only possible difference is one of scale. And you don't have to buy anything if you don't want to. The tax will be cheaper. And you could probably make the case that you shouldn't be charged for going to a public hospital ER....(somebody will)
"You might find that a surprising proportion of them support abuse of the commerce clause when it's used to hurt drug users, but are against a similar overreach when it's used to help the poor."
Exactly.
More concisely:
Small government = government I like.
Big government = government I don't like.
"Hence the growing popularity of the tea party movement."
Anyone who thinks that the most or even the majority of the tea party wants smaller government is some combination of stupid, ignorant, lying and/or bullshitting. The tea party is populism. And not a nice form. When they say smaller government, they really mean less government of the type I don't like. Just like most people. Remember that they voted socially conservative fiscally irresponsible Republican.
"Umm actually, the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways disagrees with you, as it was built for military purposes and thus is well within the constitutional bounds of government."
Actually President Madison disagrees with you. He vetoed a bill from Congress funding interstate roads citing the need for a Constitutional amendment. He thought it was a good idea but felt he didn't have the authority. I'd say he was an authority on strict interpretation of the US Constitution.
The things you cite were all built under the idea of an expansive commerce and general welfare clause. They aren't consistent with strict interpretation of the US Constitution. Though the idea of a strict interpretation wasn't universal even in Madison's era (hence the road bill).
"There's a big, big difference there."
What is the big difference? If the only difference is one of scale, then that is a pretty weak argument. Why can't the government force you to buy insurance? How is that different from a specific tax in practice? And that is what we actually have here, a tax. One that is waived if you show proof of insurance. Which happens to be free if you are low income.
So what is the problem? I mean there doesn't seem to be the same outcry about the assassination of US citizens, warrantless wiretaps, 4th amendment violations, war crimes, etc. So why the outcry about something that clearly falls within established case law and actually helps society? I just don't get it.
"You can't buy health insurance across state lines because the Federal government specifically prevents it."
That is simply false. A lie. I was insured for years by out of state insurance companies. It is true that individual STATES have requirements that companies must meet in order to provide coverage in a state. But any company that meets those requirements is free to sell insurance in any state.
"People can already get free health care by going to emergency rooms (BTDT)."
Another lie. It is not free. Someone pays for the care. Either the insured or the taxpayers. And you simply cannot get some care at the ED. Like transplants. See Arizona.
But I see you have the libertarian attitude of "fuck you, I've got mine".
"So, now if your young and healthy you will be compelled to buy a product you may not use for many years subsidizing everyone else."
Do you not understand the concept of insurance? Are you really that fucking stupid? And no one is required to buy insurance. That's the whole fucking point of the tax penalty.
"Hopefully one day we will get a Supreme Court ruling to curtain the Commerce clause."
Good luck. They are the ones that expanded it...
"Your constitutional amendment would have to be championed by the people over the objections of the government, as there is no desire in the executive or legislative branch of government to see the constitution interpreted in a way that restricts the power of the government."
It would also have to be championed over the objections of most of the people. This is what most "strict constructionists" or whatever they call themselves currently seem to forget. There never was one interpretation of the document, it was a compromise to begin with. And if the founders and writers didn't agree on the interpretation there is no reason to expect us to agree 200 plus years later. People like their governments to do stuff for them. The same clause that allows Congress to do objectionable things also allows it to do many of the nice things.
"Who gets to decide what constitutes the "general Welfare of the United States"?"
That would be Congress. Per the document in question.
"What if the people authorized to make that decision are wrong?"
Well, you see, we have this court system thingy. Per the document in question.
Any other stupid questions?
"This particular ad hominem..."
The problem is that you don't understand the term. An ad hominem attack is dismissing a persons argument by name calling. Calling someone a name is not an ad hominem attack. There is a difference between your argument sucks because you are an asshole and your argument sucks because of x and you are an asshole.
Now you might argue poisoning the well or some other attack....
"The question is why someone with demonstrated behavioral problems still had a secret clearance."
Why people thought this statement was insightful is beyond me. He had it because he needed it for his job. The same reason the military doesn't discharge gay people who are deployed. They need them for unit cohesion. Once they aren't deployed....
Fighting in the military isn't exactly considered a negative. The same impulses that cause you to hit an officer make you willing to kill another human being. They just try to channel it in the correct direction.
"Of course we've gotten more data from the unmanned missions because *that's the only thing that's been there*."
That's the fucking point. It's also the only thing that has a realistic chance of going there in my lifetime. Which people don't seem to want to understand or accept.
I have no doubt that a human could do a massive amount of science on Mars. It would also cost a massive amount of money that we aren't going to spend. As a geologist I would love to see it happen. I also know it is the definition of luxury.
"Oh yeah, and you need a reactor to burn it in too."
Funny how that never seems to get mentioned when helium-3 is used as a rational to go to the moon....
"I disagree; I think it's also a scale issue."
But the scale issue rarely matters. Either you communicated or you didn't. Either it affected the outcome or it didn't. If anything, the scale issue makes it MORE likely that the court will be able to determine court misconduct. Not make it more likely for it to happen.
"And for all the denying this fact that people seem to do around here, making things easily searchable makes a big difference."
Maybe. And like above, maybe it's a good thing. Because if you can't understand or follow simple instructions, then maybe you aren't capable of deciding a case. And the fact that it is so easy means that you will more likely be found out. Maybe instead of collecting the electronic devices they could just tap them.... :)
"The distance doesn't matter: make it a segment of a larger sphere (i.e. a smaller arc angle) and the focal point moves further away."
"Moving targets are hard, but with enough energy this isn't an issue. Sails ignite quite quick."
You do know that they are testing a MYTH? One that has certain parameters? This is not about whether is is possible to set something on fire with a fucking mirror. Add that to the fact that you believe that distance doesn't matter and sails ignite quickly, means that you are willfully ignorant and stupid.
"I wonder if this was a real problem before everyone started buying huge SUVs that they don't really need."
Yes. The Prius is an excellent example. The rear view visibility is awful due to the poor design. Having a rear view camera is actually a useful option despite the fact it is a small car.
Even more useful would be a sensor that detects how close you are to objects. Much more useful than a camera that people will ignore. Many higher end vehicles have these.
"The funniest about all this is that most people with security clearance would have been able to access those cables anyway through the gov systems."
Why is it that people don't have a clue how this works? It's not like you need to have a clearance to understand how this works.
Just because you have a certain level of clearance does not mean you have permission to access any and all documents at that level and below. This isn't a computer permission system.
In simple terms, if you have no need to access the information, it would be a violation of your clearance to access the information. Further, if you access the information outside of the proper channels and procedures, it would be a violation even if you had permission. So, for instance, if you are a State Department employee who has legitimate access to these documents at work and go to wikileaks and read one of the documents, you have screwed up. Unless you were tasked with the job of doing so.
"Worse yet, floating the idea you can be barred from future jobs because you read something is ridiculous.
Nothing but a scare tactic."
It might be ridiculous and it might be a scare tactic but that doesn't make it incorrect. It also may not technically bar them from future jobs. But it might bar them from getting a clearance needed for that job.
Clearances generally require you to never read or access material that you do not have permission to read or access. Even if it is distributed publicly. Even if it happened before you had a clearance. You certainly don't want to volunteer that you may have done so. Reading actual leaked government documents is hazardous to your future carerr if you ever want to work in a job requiring any type of clearance. And many of those jobs are outside of government.
"But if we killed every project that doesn't have an immediate implementation plan, we'd have killed a large amount of all the research we've ever done. The kind of research that led to almost all the technologies we have today."
Strawman much? The technologies you mentioned were clearly superior and new. There was no doubt. The only doubt was implementation. Those "academics" were also in the business of making money or funded by the military. Not exactly pure basic research.
This idea is not new (essentially a train). And not terribly superior (reduced energy usage). And they want a significant chunk of money to prove it. They are doing research by press release. Without having even done the research. They are not remotely close to your first three examples.
"Some of you are treating this idea like it was quantum rocket surgery being attempted by the schoolboys cast away in Lord of the Flies."
But what does this solve that wasn't already solved by the railroads? And taken over by trucks? And none of that was really planned.
That is the rocket surgery part. Our transportation system was not planned ahead of time. Any planning was pretty much done after the fact. At best we guide how the technology is used rather than decide on the best use of technology or even which technology will be used.
"Similar to problems laying fiber right now. Next time a road is dug up to repair something, stick in a foodtube as well. Eventually a network will start to take shape - it may take a couple of decades, but at minimal disruption and cost."
No, it's not remotely similar to laying fiber now. First, you actually expect to get a return on the investment from the fiber in the near future. Second, these tubes are over a meter in diameter. Think major sewer installation project, not minor fiber trenching. Massive cost and disruption as you have to avoid or relocate existing utilities, tear up and repair existing roads and reroute traffic.
There is a reason that trucks have taken over for trains in most cases. They are much more flexible. That may change in the future. But this is not better than a train at the present.
"In this context a natural right is whatever a person is capable of without the interference, positive or negative, of any other person."
Then why didn't you just list them. It shouldn't be too hard.
Except that the definition you provided isn't very useful. In fact I would consider it worthless. Because natural rights would seem to be highly variable based on personal ability. An infant or invalid would have essentially none. An able bodied person would have more. And as soon as more than one person exists, then they seem to go away because they would always interact in some way.
Natural rights like natural law is a fiction. It may be a useful fiction. Humans ultimately determine their own rights whether they invoke a god, a creator or nature. I don't understand why that makes people so squeamish.
"Debt is intrinsically bad when it's gov't debt, because gov't is not supposed to be a business."
That has to be one of the most clueless things I have ever seen posted on Slashdot. Truly impressive.
You are asserting that the infrastructure spending, in the form of bonds, that allow government to build things like roads, bridges, schools and the like are intrinsically bad. You believe that none of that spending should be done until the government has cash on hand. This means that you believe that any consequences from the delays are less severe than the mere act of government borrowing.
That is truly absurd.
"And is this surprising in a country where most government workers (including Army, USPS, many suburban Teachers depending on their local contracts, etc) work 20-25 years and can then retire on half pay and full health insurance the rest of their lives. How many private sector jobs let you start at 18 and quit with by 43?"
Any of them that have pensions.
Isn't ignorance wonderful? Just because you can retire after 20 years with a "full" retirement (generally about 40% of pay) doesn't mean you can collect it. There is almost always an age requirement if you don't work 30 years or more.
So now your teacher who gets employed at age 24 (needs a MS degree, remember?) and works for 30 years straight could retire at age 54 and receive about 60% of pay. Not terribly impressive. And they probably are responsible for health care on top of that.
In any case, this retirement is fully paid for by the contributions of the worker and employer during employment. It doesn't cost the government a cent. Unless of course the legislature was raiding the pension fund at the direction of the citizens.
"The People wanted entitlements, they got them."
The problem isn't entitlements. The problem is an unwillingness to pay for them. That was driven entirely by the politicians. Ultimately we have a revenue problem coupled with a health care problem.
"That's the whole POINT - that the Constitution established the framework for our liberties..."
No, it established the framework for the liberties of property owning white men. It firmly established that half the population were second class citizens (women) and that many more were merely property (slaves). Those who came after the founders expanded upon the Constitution and established what we now take for granted as our liberties. They may have been great men who created a great document with many great ideas but they were absolutely racists and bigots and otherwise not so great people. An idea is not valuable just because it is old but rather because of its quality.
"Go read the Constitution."
I have. You seem to have missed all of the negatives.