wsj being Murdoch owned is not a good reference to cite. As he and his organisations supported SOPA/PIPA, I'd view their opinion as jounalistically tainted.
There is a way to smack them other than criminal charges. Unless it was repealed during the post 9/11 orgy of civil rights abuses, Section 1984 of Chapter 15 of the US Code states that a government official is personally financially responsible for double damages if they violate the civil rights of a citizen. This probably came out of the 60s Civil Rights movement to prevent southern officals from keeping blacks out of the voting booths -- a necessary thing at the time. Now it can be used to protect people against abuses of the Patriot Act -- but only if they know they've been victimised.
There is something to this association. Not saying it's true, but that serves a purpose. Over the past 20 years there was a concerted effort to smear the word "Liberal" to pin on it as many negative associations as possible. Indeed, it was highly successful. Now, wouldn't it be bloody convenient to do the same with Environmentalist?
P.S. Good arguments, well thought out and delivered. Sorry my response was so brief and terse, it didn't reflect the effort you put into yours, but it's past midnight here.
"You can't force someone to work somewhere if they're simultaneously guaranteed the right to leave"
You're quite right. I did. I found a place where the playing field was more just; where corporations were controlled rather than controller; where you can't just sue someone at the drop of a hat; where there is socialised medicine; where school boards aren't made up of people without at least a degree in education. Perhaps if I thought we could get the corporations and lawyers under control in the US I would have stayed to fight, but the wise rat leaves the sinking ship first.
If a government does not meet the needs of the people it is time to leave it. Dirt and a flag aren't worth it especially when that flag no longer stands for the principals my ancestors fought and died for.
Here in NZ, our tax law is quite clear. There are very few loopholes, and corporations are taxed at the exact same rate as human beings. Yet still they manage to thrive and multiply. In fact, R&D is not considered a pre-tax expense. It's just a cost of doing business, yet still we innovate (e.g. WETA Digital)
Despite the US making loads of mouth-music about "Free Trade" it props up its Corporations with the most generous corporate welfare of any other country (currently adds up to $150 billion) as well as tarrif protections and price controls.
If corporations have the same rights as an individual (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad), they should have the same obligations -- but they don't, do they? They are taxed less, they can't be arrested or do jail time even if they knowingly and willfully kill purely to protect already their over-inflated profit margin (Ford Pinto).
<sarc>Obviously we can't ask these "people" to share the burden while they reap all those benefits. They are too poor, too weak, too frail, too moronic to compete on a level playing field with the rest of the world.</sarc>
Oracle, it seems most of your arguments here are spurious in light of Article 22
Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
These obligations are upon the State not the individual. This does not mean that the individual is exempt from prosecution, but it does mean they can only be prosecuted for interfering with these rights or hampering someone's access to exercising these rights. In short, you can't be prosecuted for "failing to provide". So don't worry, your accumulated pile of bucks is safe from the non-existant Reagan-era "lazy welfare recipient" (Fiction? Yes, a quick look at the paltry sum a person can get under American welfare shows you it is WAY below what is required to live on).
I could address these bullet point by bullet point, even though most of them constitute arguments which are reductio ad absurdam and as such hardly warrant it. However, I do have to point out some basic erroneous assumptions you've made:
This document spells out the rights citizens have to expect from their Governments. Granted, it can apply to the individual. For example, the right to food, housing etc "in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability....": if you attempt to prevent a disabled person from going to a food bank without legal reason and due process, that you have violated the rights of the person seeking assistance. There is no obligation on the individual to provide food, housing, etc.
Your comment regarding access to medical care flies completely in the face of an oath every physician is expected to keep, the Hippocratic Oath. You might want to take a look at it.
Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, [...] be they free or slaves.
Your arguments regarding access to education is a complete mistatement of the act. It clearly stipulates that governments have a responsibility to provide elementary education. Technical and professional education access should equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
I have to say your last two points seem to indicate you are familiar with Rousseau's Social Contract but you seem to want to exempt the government from its responsibilities under that contract and dump them instead on the individual.
To boil it down, replace "someone" in your objections with "the government through the use of collected tax revenues" and your whole argument deflates. And before we start with the "tax and spend" criticism. Who should get the aid more, the disabled and infirm or Halliburton and ADM? The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is WHO they give the money to. Personally, I think the people deserve to get their money back more than some lifeless, bloodless corporation.
How many US citizens, let alone students, know about the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights? A document which seems to be acknowledged and recognised in almost every member country BUT the USA?
I've had a long time interest in civil rights and constitutional law but never heard of this document until I became an exile and moved from the US to New Zealand. If you read the document you can see it's actually BETTER for the citizens than the US Bill of Rights. No wonder they don't teach about it in schools!
"We must remember that a right lost to one is lost to all." - William Reece Smith, Jr.
Freedom unexercised may become freedom forfeited.- Margaret Chase Smith
(example of this, now when you ask for a lawyer to protect yourself from sloppy/lazy police work, you're assumed guilty).
John,
I do have to agree it's good to see a movie rewarded for content over fluff. However, that the best actor/ess awards are not limited to "A-List" actors as this year's nomination for Best Actress shows -- Keisha Castle-Hughes (another Kiwi -- keep your eyes on NZ). I, personally, was very disappointed she did not win, for her performance in Whale Rider was spectacular especially considering she's only 13! (This is another one to watch, I think we'll see great things from this girl).
Slashdot Mirror
wsj being Murdoch owned is not a good reference to cite. As he and his organisations supported SOPA/PIPA, I'd view their opinion as jounalistically tainted.
There is a way to smack them other than criminal charges. Unless it was repealed during the post 9/11 orgy of civil rights abuses, Section 1984 of Chapter 15 of the US Code states that a government official is personally financially responsible for double damages if they violate the civil rights of a citizen. This probably came out of the 60s Civil Rights movement to prevent southern officals from keeping blacks out of the voting booths -- a necessary thing at the time. Now it can be used to protect people against abuses of the Patriot Act -- but only if they know they've been victimised.
There is something to this association. Not saying it's true, but that serves a purpose. Over the past 20 years there was a concerted effort to smear the word "Liberal" to pin on it as many negative associations as possible. Indeed, it was highly successful. Now, wouldn't it be bloody convenient to do the same with Environmentalist?
P.S. Good arguments, well thought out and delivered. Sorry my response was so brief and terse, it didn't reflect the effort you put into yours, but it's past midnight here.
You're quite right. I did. I found a place where the playing field was more just; where corporations were controlled rather than controller; where you can't just sue someone at the drop of a hat; where there is socialised medicine; where school boards aren't made up of people without at least a degree in education. Perhaps if I thought we could get the corporations and lawyers under control in the US I would have stayed to fight, but the wise rat leaves the sinking ship first.
If a government does not meet the needs of the people it is time to leave it. Dirt and a flag aren't worth it especially when that flag no longer stands for the principals my ancestors fought and died for.
Here in NZ, our tax law is quite clear. There are very few loopholes, and corporations are taxed at the exact same rate as human beings. Yet still they manage to thrive and multiply. In fact, R&D is not considered a pre-tax expense. It's just a cost of doing business, yet still we innovate (e.g. WETA Digital)
Despite the US making loads of mouth-music about "Free Trade" it props up its Corporations with the most generous corporate welfare of any other country (currently adds up to $150 billion) as well as tarrif protections and price controls.
If corporations have the same rights as an individual (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad), they should have the same obligations -- but they don't, do they? They are taxed less, they can't be arrested or do jail time even if they knowingly and willfully kill purely to protect already their over-inflated profit margin (Ford Pinto).
<sarc>Obviously we can't ask these "people" to share the burden while they reap all those benefits. They are too poor, too weak, too frail, too moronic to compete on a level playing field with the rest of the world.</sarc>
Oracle, it seems most of your arguments here are spurious in light of Article 22
These obligations are upon the State not the individual. This does not mean that the individual is exempt from prosecution, but it does mean they can only be prosecuted for interfering with these rights or hampering someone's access to exercising these rights. In short, you can't be prosecuted for "failing to provide". So don't worry, your accumulated pile of bucks is safe from the non-existant Reagan-era "lazy welfare recipient" (Fiction? Yes, a quick look at the paltry sum a person can get under American welfare shows you it is WAY below what is required to live on).
I could address these bullet point by bullet point, even though most of them constitute arguments which are reductio ad absurdam and as such hardly warrant it. However, I do have to point out some basic erroneous assumptions you've made:
This document spells out the rights citizens have to expect from their Governments. Granted, it can apply to the individual. For example, the right to food, housing etc "in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability....": if you attempt to prevent a disabled person from going to a food bank without legal reason and due process, that you have violated the rights of the person seeking assistance. There is no obligation on the individual to provide food, housing, etc.
Your comment regarding access to medical care flies completely in the face of an oath every physician is expected to keep, the Hippocratic Oath. You might want to take a look at it.
Your arguments regarding access to education is a complete mistatement of the act. It clearly stipulates that governments have a responsibility to provide elementary education. Technical and professional education access should equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
I have to say your last two points seem to indicate you are familiar with Rousseau's Social Contract but you seem to want to exempt the government from its responsibilities under that contract and dump them instead on the individual.
To boil it down, replace "someone" in your objections with "the government through the use of collected tax revenues" and your whole argument deflates. And before we start with the "tax and spend" criticism. Who should get the aid more, the disabled and infirm or Halliburton and ADM? The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is WHO they give the money to. Personally, I think the people deserve to get their money back more than some lifeless, bloodless corporation.
How many US citizens, let alone students, know about the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights? A document which seems to be acknowledged and recognised in almost every member country BUT the USA?
I've had a long time interest in civil rights and constitutional law but never heard of this document until I became an exile and moved from the US to New Zealand. If you read the document you can see it's actually BETTER for the citizens than the US Bill of Rights. No wonder they don't teach about it in schools!
John, I do have to agree it's good to see a movie rewarded for content over fluff. However, that the best actor/ess awards are not limited to "A-List" actors as this year's nomination for Best Actress shows -- Keisha Castle-Hughes (another Kiwi -- keep your eyes on NZ). I, personally, was very disappointed she did not win, for her performance in Whale Rider was spectacular especially considering she's only 13! (This is another one to watch, I think we'll see great things from this girl).