Great Wall of Mexico

[Eki]

The Berlin Wall dividing East and West Berlin took 28 years to come down. I wonder how long it will take before the wall dividing Mexico and the US comes down.

Probably more people have died trying to cross that border in the last 13 years than trying to cross the Berlin Wall in 28 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_%E2%80%93_United_States_barrier


There have been around 5,000 migrant deaths along the Mexico-U.S. border in the last thirteen years, according to a document created by the Human Rights National Commission of Mexico, also signed by the American Civil Liberties Union[8] Between 43 and 61 people died trying to cross the Sonoran Desert during that same time period; three times that of the same period the previous year.[6] In October 2004 the Border Patrol announced that 325 people had died crossing the entire border during the previous 12 months.[9] Between 1998 and 2004, 1,954 persons are officially reported to have died along the US-Mexico border. Since 2004, the bodies of 1086 migrants have been recovered in the southern Arizona desert.[10]

[schmenke]

Not sure what point you’re trying to make Eki.
Are you suggesting that the U.S. should remove the barrier currently on the Mexican border and allow an unchecked flood of Mexican immigrants into the country?
If so, would you advocate an unchecked immigration of Somalis into Finland?

A comparison of Berlin and the U.S./Mexico border is invalid. The Berlin wall was erected to keep Berliners in the East, whereas the U.S./Mexico "wall" is erected to keep illegal immigrants out.

Yes, it is tragic that many Mexicans perish in trying to enter the U.S. illegally, but they attempt it knowing the risks.

[Bob Riebe]

The Berlin Wall dividing East and West Berlin took 28 years to come down. I wonder how long it will take before the wall dividing Mexico and the US comes down.

Probably more people have died trying to cross that border in the last 13 years than trying to cross the Berlin Wall in 28 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_%E2%80%93_United_States_barrierNEVER if we are lucky, but FIRST they have to finish it bunky.

[Eki]

Not sure what point you’re trying to make Eki.
Are you suggesting that the U.S. should remove the barrier currently on the Mexican border and allow an unchecked flood of Mexican immigrants into the country?
If so, would you advocate an unchecked immigration of Somalis into Finland?
They wouldn't go unchecked for long, even without a wall around Finland.


A comparison of Berlin and the U.S./Mexico border is invalid. The Berlin wall was erected to keep Berliners in the East, whereas the U.S./Mexico "wall" is erected to keep illegal immigrants out.

It's also there to keep the Mexicans in Mexico.

[Rollo]

Both the Berlin Wall and the wall between the US and Mexico are/were national borders.

Sovereign Nations have the right and responsibility to enforce the borders of their territory and who is allowed to enter and exit their territory. I'm guessing that at some point by now you must have passed through an international airport terminal and passed through customs control. Surely the principle is identical, albeit far more peaceful.

[Mr. Mister]

I've always thought the best way to deal with the number of illegal immigrants would be to pay them minimum wage to build the wall in front of them. Gets a wall built, gets them out, and with their new money, they'll stimulate the Mexican economy (call it foreign aid).

Perhaps not. ;)

But I do believe a wall is very much justified. It's not a perfect world and it's the "nicest" solution possible. I know it's so easy to have these opinions in my position, but if you can't respect the nation and the nation's laws, no matter what your situation is, it's just not right. The first step to being an American has to be respecting America, and it's not respectful to ignore our rules and wishes. Same goes with anyone in any nation.

That's not laying blame squarely on the immigrants. The government being soft on them and in fact rewarding them through various programs encourages them to do it. Time to toughen up. You build the wall, and then only the ones who really want to be Americans, who will really respect the nation, and are willing to do the work to get here legally (and therefore more likely to continue to work hard rather than take handouts)...those are the ones that will come here.

(I'm vaguely new to the forum, particularly this section, so if I've crossed any lines ( :p ) getting too political or whatever, my apologies).

[Koz]

That's not laying blame squarely on the immigrants. The government being soft on them and in fact rewarding them through various programs encourages them to do it. Time to toughen up. You build the wall, and then only the ones who really want to be Americans, who will really respect the nation, and are willing to do the work to get here legally (and therefore more likely to continue to work hard rather than take handouts)...those are the ones that will come here..

Yeah, how does that work exactly? Unless you have very good education and can find an employer to sponsor you, are an athlete or marry someone in the US, it's pretty much a no go.
People want to come to the USA (or other first world countries) because they don't have many options on getting work and having a decent life in their native land.

I work hard, and I'd like for nothing more than to move to the US. Do you know how hard it is to immigrate anywhere?
Everyone in the third world, who qualifies, fills out the DV lottery.

There are virtually no options for me to get into the US (permanently) other than overstay my Visa and be illegal for 7 years or whatever it is. Apparently, I have to wait 20 odd years worth of backlogs or whatever you call them to be eligible for the Green Card through family.
If these people could work they would, working "under the table" is not all that great you know. I have friend who is an illegal immigrant, the minimum wage here is close to 13$, he works two jobs $6 & $6.50, over 60 hours a week. I make more than that in 25 hours, after tax. And I am sure it's worse in the US.
People work like cattle for a 1$ a day, all over the third world - don't mistake working hard and respecting the country, which most of you yourselves fail to do, while ignoring the realities of the world we live in. That's just an exercise in arrogance.

[Alexamateo]

What Koz says is true. When people say that "they" should get in line, I will tell you there is no line.

This is a quote from a John Stossel column last year.


It would be easier to "regulate the flow" if America made it easier for people to work here legally. State Department data show that a British Ph.D. in bioengineering
must wait about six months to get a green card. A South African computer programmer, six years. An Indian computer programmer, 35 years.

A Mexican with a high school diploma must wait a theoretical 131 years! No wonder people sneak into America.

Thinking about immigration always makes me think of this line from It's a Wonderful Life.


You, you said that they -- What'd you say just a minute ago? They have to wait.... ..... Wait? Wait for what?! Until their children grow up and leave them? Until they're so old and broken-down that -- ......

My wife is from Mexico. Her brothers and sister and their families are all there and they have good lives and do really well. One brother owns his own business with 80+ employees. He had more, but he closed his second office in Juarez because they were threatening him and demanding protection money. Fortunately the violence and lack of rule of law seem confined to the border for now and hasn't touched them in Chihuahua City where they live.

That said it's always good to prepare, so we started investigating what we would need to do to sponsor them and bring them to the US. I make good money and it would be tough but we could support them. Those thoughts quickly fell flat. A quick glance just now at the Visa Bulletin issued by the US State Department shows that for March 2011, they are now only reviewing applications made on or before January 22, 1996, for brothers and sisters of adult citizens. So if we are lucky, we can put in an application today, and maybe they'll start our review in 2026.

For all practical purposes there is no line.

[ShiftingGears]

What Koz says is true. When people say that "they" should get in line, I will tell you there is no line.

This is a quote from a John Stossel column last year.



Thinking about immigration always makes me think of this line from It's a Wonderful Life.



My wife is from Mexico. Her brothers and sister and their families are all there and they have good lives and do really well. One brother owns his own business with 80+ employees. He had more, but he closed his second office in Juarez because they were threatening him and demanding protection money. Fortunately the violence and lack of rule of law seem confined to the border for now and hasn't touched them in Chihuahua City where they live.

That said it's always good to prepare, so we started investigating what we would need to do to sponsor them and bring them to the US. I make good money and it would be tough but we could support them. Those thoughts quickly fell flat. A quick glance just now at the Visa Bulletin issued by the US State Department shows that for March 2011, they are now only reviewing applications made on or before January 22, 1996, for brothers and sisters of adult citizens. So if we are lucky, we can put in an application today, and maybe they'll start our review in 2026.

For all practical purposes there is no line.

What would happen should they gain citizenship of another english speaking country, such as Canada or New Zealand, and then apply for citizenship in the US? I should imagine that for a Mexican with a high school diploma, that would move them at least 100 years up the queue.


I wonder how long it will take before the wall dividing Mexico and the US comes down.

When Mexico becomes a country that Mexicans want to stay in.

[Koz]

What would happen should they gain citizenship of another english speaking country, such as Canada or New Zealand, and then apply for citizenship in the US? I should imagine that for a Mexican with a high school diploma, that would move them at least 100 years up the queue.

It's not any easier for Kiwis to get US citizenship than Mexicans, harder probably. Everyone who comes here(NZ), as soon as they get citizenship jump ship to Aussie anyway. 7-8 years ago you could get citizenship in 3 years or something, so many went over to Aussie that they ended up changing the 3 years to 5 with residency time requirements. I think back then they could get on the benefit in Aussie straight away too, not too sure though.

Anyway, as it stands now, to get NZ citizenship you've got to have PR for 5 years. Before you get PR you've got to be 2 years (sometimes less) on the work permit. Would you live in a country for 5-7 years just to move to the US?

[Eki]

What Koz says is true. When people say that "they" should get in line, I will tell you there is no line.

This is a quote from a John Stossel column last year.



Thinking about immigration always makes me think of this line from It's a Wonderful Life.



My wife is from Mexico. Her brothers and sister and their families are all there and they have good lives and do really well. One brother owns his own business with 80+ employees. He had more, but he closed his second office in Juarez because they were threatening him and demanding protection money. Fortunately the violence and lack of rule of law seem confined to the border for now and hasn't touched them in Chihuahua City where they live.

That said it's always good to prepare, so we started investigating what we would need to do to sponsor them and bring them to the US. I make good money and it would be tough but we could support them. Those thoughts quickly fell flat. A quick glance just now at the Visa Bulletin issued by the US State Department shows that for March 2011, they are now only reviewing applications made on or before January 22, 1996, for brothers and sisters of adult citizens. So if we are lucky, we can put in an application today, and maybe they'll start our review in 2026.

For all practical purposes there is no line.
Finnish companies operating in the US say that it has become more difficult for them to get work permits for their Finnish employees in the US.

[Mark]

Berlin was to keep people in. USA/Mexico is to keep people out, big difference! Anyone is free to leave Mexico.

[Eki]

Berlin was to keep people in. USA/Mexico is to keep people out, big difference! Anyone is free to leave Mexico.
In theory, not in practice. Before you can leave, you must have a place to go.

[Mark]

That's true, but it's an important difference. Not letting people in is very different from not letting people leave. If you don't see what the difference is there, then there's no point in this thread!

[Rollo]

People jumping across borders is the national equivalent of tresspass. Not letting people in is tantamount to the defence of the realm.

[schmenke]

...if I've crossed any lines ( :p ) getting too political or whatever, my apologies).

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:











Sorry... :dozey:

[anthonyvop]

What Koz says is true. When people say that "they" should get in line, I will tell you there is no line.

This is a quote from a John Stossel column last year.



Thinking about immigration always makes me think of this line from It's a Wonderful Life.



My wife is from Mexico. Her brothers and sister and their families are all there and they have good lives and do really well. One brother owns his own business with 80+ employees. He had more, but he closed his second office in Juarez because they were threatening him and demanding protection money. Fortunately the violence and lack of rule of law seem confined to the border for now and hasn't touched them in Chihuahua City where they live.

That said it's always good to prepare, so we started investigating what we would need to do to sponsor them and bring them to the US. I make good money and it would be tough but we could support them. Those thoughts quickly fell flat. A quick glance just now at the Visa Bulletin issued by the US State Department shows that for March 2011, they are now only reviewing applications made on or before January 22, 1996, for brothers and sisters of adult citizens. So if we are lucky, we can put in an application today, and maybe they'll start our review in 2026.

For all practical purposes there is no line.

There IS A LINE.

It is a difficult one to get in but it does exist. The US has every right to decide for itself who enters their country just like every other country has the same right.

[anthonyvop]

It's also there to keep the Mexicans in Mexico.

Nope. The immigration laws of the US are to regulate who enters our country. It in no way prevents Mexicans from going to any other country they want. That is between them and the country they are attempting to enter.

Don't seem to see 1000's of Mexicans crossing the border illegally into Honduras or Belize do we?

BTW Do you guys have any idea how hard it is to legally immigrate to Mexico? Have you a clue what is the penalty if you are caught illegally entering Mexico?

[anthonyvop]

In theory, not in practice. Before you can leave, you must have a place to go.

Wrong! Ever hear of International Waters?

BTW The US is among only a few countries that does not restrict emigration. As long as you are not fleeing from Justice a US citizen is free to leave anytime or anyhow they wish. Nobody is stopping them.

[BDunnell]

Both the Berlin Wall and the wall between the US and Mexico are/were national borders.

Not strictly true. If I remember the status correctly, the Berlin Wall was a border between the western and eastern sectors of Berlin, which happened to coincide with the national borders as they developed, so to speak, as Germany became divided. A minor distinction but worth pointing out.

[BDunnell]

Wrong! Ever hear of International Waters?

BTW The US is among only a few countries that does not restrict emigration. As long as you are not fleeing from Justice a US citizen is free to leave anytime or anyhow they wish. Nobody is stopping them.

'Only a few countries'?

[anthonyvop]

Not strictly true. If I remember the status correctly, the Berlin Wall was a border between the western and eastern sectors of Berlin, which happened to coincide with the national borders as they developed, so to speak, as Germany became divided. A minor distinction but worth pointing out.

Originally Berlin was divided into Soviet, American, UK and French sectors. The wall was actually built surrounding the three Western Sections which became known as West Berlin. East Berlin was only walled between their common border. After some time East Berlin became part of East Germany and in fact was it's capitol.
West Berlin was nowhere near the National borders separating East and West Germany.

[anthonyvop]

'Only a few countries'?

Yes...a few....Most countries require you to pass through immigration to leave as well as enter.

[Eki]

The US has every right to decide for itself who enters their country just like every other country has the same right.
Following the same logic, does Cuba also have every right to decide for itself who leaves their country?

Funnily you usually defend individual rights over government rights, but now you defend the government right to decide where individuals may or may not go. You're not being consistent.

[BDunnell]

Originally Berlin was divided into Soviet, American, UK and French sectors. The wall was actually built surrounding the three Western Sections which became known as West Berlin. East Berlin was only walled between their common border. After some time East Berlin became part of East Germany and in fact was it's capitol.
West Berlin was nowhere near the National borders separating East and West Germany.

Thank you for your clarification — you are quite right. I would add that West Berlin was not legally part of the Federal Republic.

[BDunnell]

Yes...a few....Most countries require you to pass through immigration to leave as well as enter.

Travelling within Europe by train, one never has to pass through immigration to leave a country; nor, in fact, to enter, except the UK (and any other exceptions I have not experienced).

[Eki]

Travelling within Europe by train, one never has to pass through immigration to leave a country; nor, in fact, to enter, except the UK (and any other exceptions I have not experienced).
And I have driven both to Sweden and Norway without stopping or even seeing anybody.

[Eki]

Wrong! Ever hear of International Waters?

Have you ever heard anyone living in International Waters for the rest of their lives, unless the rest of their lives is only a few days or weeks? And what about land-locked countries like Switzerland? You can't leave Switzerland to International Waters.

[Tazio]

At the three ports of entry near San Diego you are required to show your passport upon returning to the U.S. This law has been on the books for a while but wasn't
enforced until June 1 2009.
Crossing from Canada you can also use a WHTI-compliant Drivers license in most areas. (I think)
BTW if you are traveling on interstate 5, 805, or Highway 94 near the border you will see road signs that look like this

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSqVDaCmPVy3RIdFDvxN1Z2AfUR4zrKe ueM9nvt1y_BXNBkOR4Z

The fence that is erected for a portion of the international border works as a deterrent by forcing a large portion of people wanting to cross illegally, do it in remote areas, where Border Patrol is stretched beyond its limits. The vast majority of deaths among illegal immigrants are from exposure.

[anthonyvop]

Following the same logic, does Cuba also have every right to decide for itself who leaves their country?

Funnily you usually defend individual rights over government rights, but now you defend the government right to decide where individuals may or may not go. You're not being consistent.

Logic truly escapes you.

Think about it like a home(If you even have one). The USA is my home. Being my home I have every right to say who enters my home. Nobody has a right to enter my home without my permission.
I don't have a right to keep an adult from leaving my home. That would be kidnapping.

Cuba has every right to prevent whomever they wish from entering their country but to prevent otherwise law abiding citizens from leaving is a violation of human rights.

[anthonyvop]

Travelling within Europe by train, one never has to pass through immigration to leave a country; nor, in fact, to enter, except the UK (and any other exceptions I have not experienced).

Like I said......Few. And then the EU only has that between member countries.

[anthonyvop]

Have you ever heard anyone living in International Waters for the rest of their lives, unless the rest of their lives is only a few days or weeks? And what about land-locked countries like Switzerland? You can't leave Switzerland to International Waters.

Excuse me but when did somebody tell you life was fair? Whomever it was they were lying to you.

BTW You can charter a seaplane in Switzerland then land in International Waters. Oh...And I hear parts of Antarctica is pretty much open to all.

[Rollo]

This is correct:


Originally Berlin was divided into Soviet, American, UK and French sectors. The wall was actually built surrounding the three Western Sections which became known as West Berlin. East Berlin was only walled between their common border. After some time East Berlin became part of East Germany and in fact was it's capitol.

I have no idea of the legal status of this though:

West Berlin was nowhere near the National borders separating East and West Germany.

West Berlin was nowhere near the Inner German border, but was it part of West Germany?

I remember traveling to West Berlin in 1989 and we passed through the wall on the western side through Bezirk Potsdam to get there. We had to show out passports to authorities to enter West Berlin, but were they legally West German authorities? Probably not.

West Berliners weren't allowed to take part in West German elections, though they were allowed to stand as candidates. Willy Brandt was a West Berliner who at one stage was Chancellor of Germany.
Certainly the GDR always maintained that West Berlin was part of East Germany legally, but since West Germany never made a disinction legally that its citizens were "West" German, it held that West Berliners were still German citizens.

Was the Berlin Wall a border? Certainly. Was it an international border? I have no idea.

[BDunnell]

This is correct:



I have no idea of the legal status of this though:


West Berlin was nowhere near the Inner German border, but was it part of West Germany?

I remember traveling to West Berlin in 1989 and we passed through the wall on the western side through Bezirk Potsdam to get there. We had to show out passports to authorities to enter West Berlin, but were they legally West German authorities? Probably not.

West Berliners weren't allowed to take part in West German elections, though they were allowed to stand as candidates. Willy Brandt was a West Berliner who at one stage was Chancellor of Germany.
Certainly the GDR always maintained that West Berlin was part of East Germany legally, but since West Germany never made a disinction legally that its citizens were "West" German, it held that West Berliners were still German citizens.

Was the Berlin Wall a border? Certainly. Was it an international border? I have no idea.

Well, because West Berlin was not fully part of the Federal Republic, I don't think it can be classed as an international border. It came to be seen as one, and quite understandably so, but technically this is not correct because of the details of the Four-Power status of West Berlin until 1994.

[Eki]

I don't have a right to keep an adult from leaving my home. That would be kidnapping.
What about your own children? Maybe Cuba considers their citizens as their children.



Cuba has every right to prevent whomever they wish from entering their country but to prevent otherwise law abiding citizens from leaving is a violation of human rights.
If leaving Cuba is prohibited by law, the ones leaving aren't law abiding. You don't think food, accommodation and health care aren't human rights, but leaving your own country is?

[Eki]

Like I said......Few. And then the EU only has that between member countries.
That's not true. Norway isn't in the EU, yet I can enter Norway no questions or documents asked.

[Bob Riebe]

[quote="Eki"]You don't think food, accommodation and health care aren't human rights,--these amount to government or charity hand-outs. There is no right to that from anyone.--- but leaving your own country is?--This is personal freedom no one has the right to take that.

In either case there is no right.

[Rollo]

Article 13-(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.". It does not follow that another country is legally obliged to accept them inwards though.

[BDunnell]

You don't think food, accommodation and health care aren't human rights,--these amount to government or charity hand-outs. There is no right to that from anyone.

So you are not in favour of food aid being sent to strife or disaster-torn countries, on the grounds that food isn't a human right?

[Bob Riebe]

So you are not in favour of food aid being sent to strife or disaster-torn countries, on the grounds that food isn't a human right?

Whether they send it, or not, has zero to do with it.

It is not a human right.

[Eki]

So you are not in favour of food aid being sent to strife or disaster-torn countries, on the grounds that food isn't a human right?
Bob also probably agrees with the North Korean government when they let their people starve.

[Bob Riebe]

Article 13-(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. ". It does not follow that another country is legally obliged to accept them inwards though.

The Universal blah, blah, blah get its authority from whom?
Who has the "right" to enforce such rules?
IF there is no legal authority to back it up, it does not exist.

Such universal x,y, z twits can flatulate out their "universal rights" bs till hell freezes.
They have no authority and such rules rank right up there with some Christians proclaiming "God given rights" as a benefit to mankind.
It is opium for the masses.

[Bob Riebe]

Bob also probably agrees with the North Korean government when they let their people starve.
Not my concern.
They allowed the government that exists, to come into being.

By that logic, you agreed with what Sadam was doing and what the Taliban were doing, as you did nothing but disrespect brave soldiers who fought and died to stop their reigns of terror.

Are you willing to strap on boots and gear to go over there and fight to feed them?
Talk is cheap.

[Rollo]

The Universal blah, blah, blah get its authority from whom?
Who has the "right" to enforce such rules?
IF there is no legal authority to back it up, it does not exist.

Such universal x,y, z twits can flatulate out their "universal rights" bs till hell freezes.
They have no authority and such rules rank right up there with some Christians proclaiming "God given rights" as a benefit to mankind.
It is opium for the masses.

I was trying to support your point, that it obviously stands to reason that a country has the right to defend its borders. Obviously my effort was wasted. Well done.

[Bob Riebe]

I was trying to support your point, that it obviously stands to reason that a country has the right to defend its borders. Obviously my effort was wasted. Well done.

There are no human rights, and when anyone starts bloviating about universal rights, it is absurd.

It is not what you wrote but that a piece paper touts "universal rights" as existing is asinine.

For anything to imply the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says exists, cannot be left unchallenged at face value.

If I did not, another poster would probably say- "No such thing as human rights huh. Well Rollo just wrote....?

[BDunnell]

For anything to imply the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says exists, cannot be left unchallenged at face value.

An interesting point of view, given that you also apparently believe that what is written in the Bible, concerning such matters as loaves and fish, water and wine, parting of seas, walking across water, resurrection from the dead and other contestable 'facts', can and should be left unchallenged as it is the gospel truth — unless I am completely misrepresenting you.

[Rollo]

There are no human rights

Your country is based on a complete lie then. Also, it logically follows that the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution based on what you've just said are also a lie.

[Bob Riebe]

An interesting point of view, given that you also apparently believe that what is written in the Bible, concerning such matters as loaves and fish, water and wine, parting of seas, walking across water, resurrection from the dead and other contestable 'facts', can and should be left unchallenged as it is the gospel truth — unless I am completely misrepresenting you.

Give me the Bible verse that says anything about human rights, or the rights of man.

Jewish law, and I would imagine laws of other countries may have had such items, but God gave Israel the rights to the promised land, not man's rights.

[Bob Riebe]

Your country is based on a complete lie then. Also, it logically follows that the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution based on what you've just said are also a lie.
The boys who founded this country decided to give its citizens rights, so they are real
and backed by a Federal Court and the laws.

There was a source for ideas, but there is no transferring of a previous law, as it did not exist.

[Rollo]

The boys who founded this country decided to give its citizens rights, so they are real
and backed by a Federal Court and the laws.

Argue with yourself then:

There are no human rights, and when anyone starts bloviating about universal rights, it is absurd.


How can a country give its citizens rights when as you say there are no human rights? It is impossible to give something which you say does not exist.

[anthonyvop]

What about your own children? Maybe Cuba considers their citizens as their children.

I said "ADULTS" because I knew you would use that feeble excuse.



If leaving Cuba is prohibited by law, the ones leaving aren't law abiding.

I said Otherwise...Once again one step ahead of you.


You don't think food, accommodation and health care aren't human rights, but leaving your own country is?

Yes. It is called freedom of choice.

[Bob Riebe]

Argue with yourself then:


How can a country give its citizens rights when as you say there are no human rights? It is impossible to give something which you say does not exist.
They are called Constitutional rights.
Constitutional rights are NOT human rights.
The concept is probably foreign to those under socialist systems but the British and Dutch should be familiar with the basic concept as our government learned from their systems.
The Articles of Confederation were inspired by the Dutch.

It is really quite simple.
It is why we have three branches of government- so those rights cannot be lost.
The the armed option as guaranteed in the Constitution is the last resort.

The only thing that could probably be considered a God given right is the one's right to choose one's path in life.
Surrender that and there are no back-ups.

[Rollo]

They are called Constitutional rights.
Constitutional rights are NOT human rights.

Who or what authority gave you those rights?

[Bob Riebe]

Who or what authority gave you those rights?
The ratified Constitution.

[Rollo]

The ratified Constitution.

Ok, we'll run with this then:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Constitution provides that the national government created by the Constitution derives its sovereignty from the people.
Would this be the same people who "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"?

And if it was "self-evident" to them that they "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", then why is it not "self-evident" to you?

[Bob Riebe]

Ok, we'll run with this then:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Constitution provides that the national government created by the Constitution derives its sovereignty from the people.
Would this be the same people who "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"?

And if it was "self-evident" to them that they "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", then why is it not "self-evident" to you?
It does not matter what they think, without that Constitution, they would have no legal rights in the U.S.

Life-murder is against the law.
Liberty- freedom of choice I mentioned that.
Pursuit of Happiness- redundant, same as freedom of choice, but that pursuit is what the liberals are trying to control.
No Constitution, life-liberty-pursuit of happiness, are either empty words, or something you go to war to get.

They are endowed by the Creator which means they gleaned the laws as laid out in the Bible.
There is no mention of rights in the Ten Commandments, but I am damn glad they decided to make some things a legal right, without that legal speak, we would be screwed.

[Rollo]

It does not matter what they think, without that Constitution, they would have no legal rights in the U.S.

It very much matters what the people think. Government only has the ability to rule through the consent of the governed. Or are you suggesting that government derives its power from elsewhere?

[Rollo]

Life-murder is against the law.
Liberty- freedom of choice I mentioned that.
Pursuit of Happiness- redundant, same as freedom of choice, but that pursuit is what the liberals are trying to control.
No Constitution, life-liberty-pursuit of happiness, are either empty words, or something you go to war to get.

They are endowed by the Creator which means they gleaned the laws as laid out in the Bible.
There is no mention of rights in the Ten Commandments, but I am damn glad they decided to make some things a legal right, without that legal speak, we would be screwed.

There is very much a mention of human rights contained within the Ten Commandments.

The Sixth Commandment establishes a right to life by prohibiting killing. The Eighth Commandment establishes a right to property by prohibiting stealing.
Perhaps if you want to read further, Leviticus 19:33-34 establishes a foreigner's right to be treated with respect.

A right itself is a permission or recognition of some freedom at law. A law which prohibits someone from infringing on someone else's life, liberty or happiness, is tacit recognition that that person enjoys those freedoms or permissions at law.

The whole point of human rights is the establishment at law that people should be treated with dignity. Peter for instance, finally understood in Acts 10 that God doesn't show favouritism, which is also a call to treat people with dignity regardless of nationality.
Indeed it can very easily be argued that Jesus himself was showing the lady brought before him in John 8, a degree of respect and dignity by not condemning her.

[Eki]

The boys and girls representing multiple countries decided to give the world's humans rights, so they are real and backed by the UN and its Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

[Eki]

Yes. It is called freedom of choice.
So that's the only human right there is? There often isn't choices for starvation, hypothermia or dying from illnesses, don't you think something should be done about it and give people choices?

[BDunnell]

The only thing that could probably be considered a God given right is the one's right to choose one's path in life.
Surrender that and there are no back-ups.

Some may choose, therefore, to have a God-given right to be a mass murderer. I would hope that any society would attempt to, at the very least, suggest to its citizens that this might not be a good thing.

[anthonyvop]

So that's the only human right there is? There often isn't choices for starvation, hypothermia or dying from illnesses, don't you think something should be done about it and give people choices?

The idea that there is some sort of right to not getting sick or dying is laughable.

BTW A basic right ends when it infringes on the rights of others. So just because you think free food or a free home is a right the fact that it would mean Taxing others means it isn't.

[Koz]

So that's the only human right there is? There often isn't choices for starvation, hypothermia or dying from illnesses, don't you think something should be done about it and give people choices?

The concept of human rights is not quite the same as having facilities provided for you. In that case, lets stop all these wars, open up the borders, let everyone who wants into a first world country in. Who cares about people working or doing anything for that matter?
Lets just feed everyone, provide everyone with medical treatment and stop everyone from contracting aids. While we're at it, lets start feeding everyone caviar.

Do you want every Somalian (every finn seems to mention somalis, what's up with that?) that is hungry and ill to be sent to Finland, because they can't get food/medical treatment in Somalia?

But maybe, just may be, there is a Finn starving somewhere who has more claim to food in Finland than the Somali? Can you justify even one of your citizens starving while you feed a foreigner?

It's all nice in concept, we all love and care for each other, we are not greedy and will help anyone who wants and/or needs help, and of course we have the economic capacity to make everything good happen for everyone, solve world hunger and have a beach party afterwards... But then again life is unfair, and hard on every everyone. It's unfair that I have two kidneys while you are going to die on a waiting-list for one. It's unfair that Paris Hilton is wasting her money on crap/drugs/dogs while children die of starvation. It's unfair someone was born poor in Somalia and it's unfair that you have a good life while someone else does not. Everything is so god damn unfair, one should kill him (or her) self and be done with this terrible terrible thing that is life.


Human rights as such don't really exist. The biggest so called proponents of "human rights" are the included in those who violate it the most.


Who exactly enforces so called human rights? The UN?
Where the hell was the UN when a third of a million people were slaughtered in Darfur??

Where's the UN stamping out human rights abuses in N. Korea, China, and Guantanamo Bay? Are they taking a nap?

[anthonyvop]

The boys and girls representing multiple countries decided to give the world's humans rights, so they are real and backed by the UN and its Universal Declaration of Human Rights:


Let's see.


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Nope...Nothing about the UN. So the it has no authority over me.

[anthonyvop]

Where's the UN stamping out human rights abuses in N. Korea, China, and Guantanamo Bay? Are they taking a nap?

funny how you mention Guantanamo Bay but not the really abuses going on in the rest of the Island.

[Koz]

I could care less for Cuba, let start with the big players, the do-gooders of the world, who tell the world they are fighting for the rights and liberties of every man, woman, and child?

One must also ask another question, who is the greater evil?
How many people has Castro killed compared to the civilian casualties in Iraq? What about Augusto Pinochet?

[BDunnell]

The idea that there is some sort of right to not getting sick or dying is laughable.

BTW A basic right ends when it infringes on the rights of others. So just because you think free food or a free home is a right the fact that it would mean Taxing others means it isn't.

It means it isn't in your opinion.

[BDunnell]

Nope...Nothing about the UN. So the it has no authority over me.

And what, therefore, did the US have in terms of the authority to go into Iraq in 2003?

[BDunnell]

I could care less for Cuba, let start with the big players, the do-gooders of the world, who tell the world they are fighting for the rights and liberties of every man, woman, and child?

One must also ask another question, who is the greater evil?
How many people has Castro killed compared to the civilian casualties in Iraq? What about Augusto Pinochet?

You seem to assume that those on the left who quite rightly complain about civilian casualties in Iraq and are concerned about the infringement of human rights around the world somehow don't care about the likes of Cuba or Argentina under Pinochet. This is simply untrue.

[Koz]

You seem to assume that those on the left who quite rightly complain about civilian casualties in Iraq and are concerned about the infringement of human rights around the world somehow don't care about the likes of Cuba or Argentina under Pinochet. This is simply untrue.

No, you've got me all wrong. The civilian casualty estimates from the Iraq (~100k) are higher than what is suspected of Castro (~20k), and Pinochet(~5k), - in fact it makes the latter look like a Saint, FFS the Bosnian genocide has been surpassed!
That's insane. You can't ignore the stunts the "good guys" pull while saying: funny how you mention Guantanamo Bay but not the really abuses going on in the rest of the Island.

Pointing at the (smaller) asshole(s) next to you doesn't make you any less an asshole. I'm asking who's worse, the asshole who ****s himself or the asshole who ****s on everyone else and says the ****'s actually chocolate?

The winning team isn't always the right or good team. Vae Victis.

[555-04Q2]

I don't see the problem Eki. The US has and still is putting up a wall along the border. The illegal immigrants can either:

A. Jump over it.
B. Go under it.
C. Go through it.
D. Go around it.
E. Stay in their own bloody country.

[BDunnell]

No, you've got me all wrong. The civilian casualty estimates from the Iraq (~100k) are higher than what is suspected of Castro (~20k), and Pinochet(~5k), - in fact it makes the latter look like a Saint, FFS the Bosnian genocide has been surpassed!
That's insane. You can't ignore the stunts the "good guys" pull while saying: funny how you mention Guantanamo Bay but not the really abuses going on in the rest of the Island.

Pointing at the (smaller) asshole(s) next to you doesn't make you any less an asshole. I'm asking who's worse, the asshole who ****s himself or the asshole who ****s on everyone else and says the ****'s actually chocolate?

The winning team isn't always the right or good team. Vae Victis.

I'm not sure quite what point you're making here, but I apologise for mis-representing you.

[BDunnell]

I don't see the problem Eki. The US has and still is putting up a wall along the border. The illegal immigrants can either:

A. Jump over it.
B. Go under it.
C. Go through it.
D. Go around it.
E. Stay in their own bloody country.

Or the other option is for the parties concerned to deal with the reasons why people feel such desperation to leave their homeland. This would be the sensible, long-term approach.

[Eki]

The idea that there is some sort of right to not getting sick or dying is laughable.

Shouldn't there still be the option of treatment of said illnesses and trauma, and maybe also measures to try to avoid them?

[Tazio]

I don't see the problem Eki. The US has and still is putting up a wall along the border. The illegal immigrants can either:

A. Jump over it.
B. Go under it.
C. Go through it.
D. Go around it.
E. Stay in their own bloody country.

Going under was working in a big way for a while!
This tunnel was also used for trafficking Immigrants

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/americas/Drug-Tunnel-Discovered-Under-US-Mexico-Border-110903654.html


U.S. authorities say a sophisticated cross-border drug tunnel has been discovered under the U.S.-Mexico border, and more than 20 tons of marijuana have been seized, in the second major drug bust of its kind this month.

Immigration and customs enforcement officials say the nearly 1-kilometer-long tunnel was uncovered Thursday. The 27-meter deep passageway contains advanced rail, electrical and ventilation systems and has two entrances on the U.S. side, about 244 meters apart in the Otay Mesa industrial complex in southern San Diego.

[Retro Formula 1]

No, you've got me all wrong. The civilian casualty estimates from the Iraq (~100k) are higher than what is suspected of Castro (~20k), and Pinochet(~5k), - in fact it makes the latter look like a Saint, FFS the Bosnian genocide has been surpassed!
That's insane. You can't ignore the stunts the "good guys" pull while saying: funny how you mention Guantanamo Bay but not the really abuses going on in the rest of the Island.

Pointing at the (smaller) asshole(s) next to you doesn't make you any less an asshole. I'm asking who's worse, the asshole who ****s himself or the asshole who ****s on everyone else and says the ****'s actually chocolate?

The winning team isn't always the right or good team. Vae Victis.

I understand your point completely and agree 100% with it.

[anthonyvop]

It means it isn't in your opinion.

Are you suggesting that it is OK to violate the rights of another in order to feed your need to feel better about yourself?

[anthonyvop]

Shouldn't there still be the option of treatment of said illnesses and trauma, and maybe also measures to try to avoid them?

You have every right to access Health care. You don't have a right to force somebody else to pay for it.

Think of it like a Lobster dinner. You have every right to go to a restaurant, sit down and Pig out. You don't have a right to get it for free.

[anthonyvop]

No, you've got me all wrong. The civilian casualty estimates from the Iraq (~100k) are higher than what is suspected of Castro (~20k), and Pinochet(~5k), - in fact it makes the latter look like a Saint, FFS the Bosnian genocide has been surpassed!
That's insane. You can't ignore the stunts the "good guys" pull while saying: funny how you mention Guantanamo Bay but not the really abuses going on in the rest of the Island.

Pointing at the (smaller) asshole(s) next to you doesn't make you any less an asshole. I'm asking who's worse, the asshole who ****s himself or the asshole who ****s on everyone else and says the ****'s actually chocolate?

The winning team isn't always the right or good team. Vae Victis.

The claims of 100K + civilians casualties have been roundly discredited. Of the much smaller number most were killed other Iraqis.

The # of Cubans Killed by the Castro government range from 35,000 to 141,000 (1959-1987) Considering the Population of the Island that puts them on par with Mao and Stalin percentage wise.

[BDunnell]

Are you suggesting that it is OK to violate the rights of another in order to feed your need to feel better about yourself?

The rights of another to what? Pay as little tax as possible? I do not see that as a right. But I seem to remember before that you genuinely believe you know my mind better than I do, so maybe I shouldn't enter into this discussion.

[anthonyvop]

The rights of another to what? Pay as little tax as possible? I do not see that as a right. But I seem to remember before that you genuinely believe you know my mind better than I do, so maybe I shouldn't enter into this discussion.

Yes!!! Taxes are a fee for services rendered by a Government. Infrastructure, Military...etc are those services. Being generous with MY MONEY isn't!

[BDunnell]

Yes!!! Taxes are a fee for services rendered by a Government. Infrastructure, Military...etc are those services. Being generous with MY MONEY isn't!

So you feel that your right to pay as little tax as possible is of greater importance than the right of others to food.

[Bob Riebe]

Some may choose, therefore, to have a God-given right to be a mass murderer. I would hope that any society would attempt to, at the very least, suggest to its citizens that this might not be a good thing.
What you write makes no sense. The possibl "right" is to choose a life path, it has nothing to do with murder.

Murder is against God's and most societies laws, so that point is moot.

[BDunnell]

What you write makes no sense. The possibl "right" is to choose a life path, it has nothing to do with murder.

Murder is against God's and most societies laws, so that point is moot.

The life path of a fair number of individuals would appear to be crime, surely? Never heard the phrase 'career criminal'?

Oh, and what God allegedly had to say is irrelevant to me.

[Bob Riebe]

The boys and girls representing multiple countries decided to give the world's humans rights, so they are real and backed by the UN and its Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
The UN has no legal authority.

As much as liberals would like it, there is no world government; therefore if some ignore the UN's feel good edicts, there is nothing the UN can do about it.

[BDunnell]

The UN has no legal authority.

I find it amusing that you consider the UN, which actually exists, to have no authority, whereas God, the existence of which is questionable at best, does.

[Bob Riebe]

There is very much a mention of human rights contained within the Ten Commandments.

The Sixth Commandment establishes a right to life by prohibiting killing. The Eighth Commandment establishes a right to property by prohibiting stealing.
Perhaps if you want to read further, Leviticus 19:33-34 establishes a foreigner's right to be treated with respect.

A right itself is a permission or recognition of some freedom at law. A law which prohibits someone from infringing on someone else's life, liberty or happiness, is tacit recognition that that person enjoys those freedoms or permissions at law.

The whole point of human rights is the establishment at law that people should be treated with dignity. Peter for instance, finally understood in Acts 10 that God doesn't show favouritism, which is also a call to treat people with dignity regardless of nationality.
Indeed it can very easily be argued that Jesus himself was showing the lady brought before him in John 8, a degree of respect and dignity by not condemning her.Jesus told the people their they had the legal right to kill her. He informed them to think-were they really any better than her? They choose by guilt not to.-- They had every legal right to kill if they so chose.

This debate is about legal verses feel good let's pretend universal "human rights"

RIGHT--the Oxford boys say:
The standard of permitted and forbidden action WITHIN A CERTAIN SPHERE; law; rule or canon--1610

There is no world government; therrefore beyond local, regional, national laws, there is not universal human right/s.


The sixth Commandment prohibits murder, not killing. The poor translation in the King James version that some feel good Christians try to float does not change that It is a law not right much less a "human right."

The book of laws in the Old Testament goes as far as to define when, under Jewish law, it is alright for a home owner to kill an intruder and when it is not.

[Bob Riebe]

It very much matters what the people think. Government only has the ability to rule through the consent of the governed. Or are you suggesting that government derives its power from elsewhere?
A lot of people think this, that or the other thing, but if enough do not think so and it cannot be RATIFIED as an amendment of the Constitution, it mean nothing to national U.S. rights.

Each state has a constitution giving or denying citizens of that state, state rights.

[Bob Riebe]

So you feel that your right to pay as little tax as possible is of greater importance than the right of others to food.

What legal right do they have? Prove it. Show it.

Tax laws define that; this legal right to food- show me those laws.

[Bob Riebe]

The life path of a fair number of individuals would appear to be crime, surely? Never heard the phrase 'career criminal'?

Oh, and what God allegedly had to say is irrelevant to me.

Legally as irrelevant as the proclaimed universal rights bs trying to be floated here.

[Bob Riebe]

I find it amusing that you consider the UN, which actually exists, to have no authority, whereas God, the existence of which is questionable at best, does.God has as much legal authority as the UN.

[BDunnell]

What legal right do they have? Prove it. Show it.

Tax laws define that; this legal right to food- show me those laws.

What legal right does anyone have to pay as little tax as possible, for that matter?

[BDunnell]

God has as much legal authority as the UN.

OK, fine. This means, then, that you are willing to place more moral authority on an entity that many would consider to be a figment of believers' imagination than one that genuinely exists.

[BDunnell]

Legally as irrelevant as the proclaimed universal rights bs trying to be floated here.

Those of us who would prefer to see fewer people around the world starving than cut anthonyvop's tax bill are probably quite comfortable in our moral positions.

[chuck34]

Those of us who would prefer to see fewer people around the world starving than cut anthonyvop's tax bill are probably quite comfortable in our moral positions.

Explain to me why you have to force me, at the point of a gun, to give money that I earned to feed someone I have never met, have no conection to, and really has no effect on me what-so-ever. What legal right do you have to my money?

If you want to see fewer people around the world starve they what's wrong with charities? In most cases they deliver actual aid more effectively and more efficiently than government entities anyway. So if your true goal is to reduce starvation shouldn't you be against higher taxes that confiscate money that you could be donating to more worthy causes?

[BDunnell]

Explain to me why you have to force me, at the point of a gun, to give money that I earned to feed someone I have never met, have no conection to, and really has no effect on me what-so-ever. What legal right do you have to my money?

You are putting words into my mouth, and your language is over-emotive. Where did I ever say 'at the point of a gun'? Nowhere. And where have I stated that I have a 'legal right' to your money? The point I am making is that I feel that the moral obligation to do good for one's fellow man should be more widespread, and that therefore I do not have any objection to a very small proportion of my taxes going towards food aid for the poor and undernourished. Why? Because I am not selfish.



If you want to see fewer people around the world starve they what's wrong with charities? In most cases they deliver actual aid more effectively and more efficiently than government entities anyway. So if your true goal is to reduce starvation shouldn't you be against higher taxes that confiscate money that you could be donating to more worthy causes?

I quite agree about charities, but, as I said, I have no objection to taxation being used for this purpose either. How much of the tax one pays per annum goes towards food aid in real terms? The amount, surely, will be very small indeed.

To be honest, I am not the sort of person who would ever moan about the amount of tax they pay, because to do so is (a) boastful and (b) tiresome. I prefer to just get on with life and pay my dues. There's nothing wrong with that.

[Bob Riebe]

What legal right does anyone have to pay as little tax as possible, for that matter?
That statement makes no sense.
If one's tax returns are found legal, that makes paying the smallest amount possible legal.
What part of such Tax Laws do you not understand?

[chuck34]

You are putting words into my mouth, and your language is over-emotive. Where did I ever say 'at the point of a gun'? Nowhere.

Then, apparently, you don't understand how taxes work. Do you have a choice to pay taxes? If you don't what is the consequence?


And where have I stated that I have a 'legal right' to your money?

You seem to be advocating increased aid to starving people. How do you propose to do that, especially in light of the fact that in the US (I won't speak to other countries) we can not even pay our bills without borowing (going into debt)? The only logical conclusion is that you seek to raise my taxes, and that you feel that you have a legal and moral right to do that wether I object or not. Have I mis-understood your stance somehow?


The point I am making is that I feel that the moral obligation to do good for one's fellow man should be more widespread, and that therefore I do not have any objection to a very small proportion of my taxes going towards food aid for the poor and undernourished. Why? Because I am not selfish.

I too feel that charity should be more widespread than it is. But do not confuse taxes with charity. There are BIG differences there. If one chooses to be a selfish b@stard and not contribute anything, that's on him. As for me, (and I assume you) I am not selfish and therefore I choose to donate on my own.


I quite agree about charities, but, as I said, I have no objection to taxation being used for this purpose either. How much of the tax one pays per annum goes towards food aid in real terms? The amount, surely, will be very small indeed.

But if it is demonstrated that charities do a better and more efficient job actually distributing the aid, shouldn't you, as a person that wants to help as many people as possible, be advocating for less taxes so you have more money to do good with?


To be honest, I am not the sort of person who would ever moan about the amount of tax they pay, because to do so is (a) boastful and (b) tiresome. I prefer to just get on with life and pay my dues. There's nothing wrong with that.

If you really want to do good in this world, the answer is less government, not more. Have you ever heard the parable about teaching a man to fish? Probably not as you seem to be dead set against anything "religious".

[Bob Riebe]

OK, fine. This means, then, that you are willing to place more moral authority on an entity that many would consider to be a figment of believers' imagination than one that genuinely exists.Ummmm- Ja sure, you bet :)

[BDunnell]

That statement makes no sense.
If one's tax returns are found legal, that makes paying the smallest amount possible legal.
What part of such Tax Laws do you not understand?

I have very little interest in taxation, and find the whole subject bores me rigid, as do those who go on about it. But what is legal is to pay what you are deemed to legally owe, surely, however much that might be? Whether that is the smallest possible amount it might be is neither here nor there.

[BDunnell]

Then, apparently, you don't understand how taxes work. Do you have a choice to pay taxes? If you don't what is the consequence?

Not pointing a gun at me, which is exactly the point I was making about your over-emotive choice of language.



You seem to be advocating increased aid to starving people. How do you propose to do that, especially in light of the fact that in the US (I won't speak to other countries) we can not even pay our bills without borowing (going into debt)? The only logical conclusion is that you seek to raise my taxes, and that you feel that you have a legal and moral right to do that wether I object or not. Have I mis-understood your stance somehow?

Not really, and though I take the point about other priorities taking precedence given the global financial crisis, I would have thought that combating food poverty by whatever means has many potential long-term benefits in terms of international stability, much as the G8 stated a few years ago. Short-termist policy in any area does no favours.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/164de0fa-22e1-11de-9c99-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1GEfiAe4L



But if it is demonstrated that charities do a better and more efficient job actually distributing the aid, shouldn't you, as a person that wants to help as many people as possible, be advocating for less taxes so you have more money to do good with?

I have never once thought about what I could do were my tax bill to be a bit smaller. There are lots of things I might want to do. As it stands, I am able to donate to a small range of charities as I see fit. Of course it would be nice to do more, but it would be nice to do a lot of things.



If you really want to do good in this world, the answer is less government, not more.

Not having an exaggerated respect for the intrinsic superiority of the private sector, I tend to see well-run government in a stable society as, while imperfect in many ways, a lesser evil than the worst the private sector has to offer.

[BDunnell]

The only law or right that matters a wit is one which is enforceable. The UN has close to zero ability to enforce anything. Hence no "rights" should any other person or body choose to ignore them.

I agree somewhat with Bob. The only rights anyone, anywhere, has are those which either they individually or as part of a community can establish and enforce over time.

But none of this proves that the rights it declares should be universal are in any sense wrong, as some — whose views I consider selfish, I must say — seem to be suggesting. I say this not out of any great claims for altruism myself — we are always selfish at times, after all — but I fail to see what is so controversial about saying that I feel the right of people to food is more important than the right of people to pay a bit less tax.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

God has as much legal authority as the UN.

I think my sides have just split!!! :laugh:

[Eki]

God has as much legal authority as the UN.
Or the US. The US doesn't have much legal authority beyond its borders.

[Bob Riebe]

Or the US. The US doesn't have much legal authority beyond its borders.
That is why every effort should be made to keep the Mexicans in Mexico.

Brilliant!

[Rollo]

If you want to see fewer people around the world starve they what's wrong with charities? In most cases they deliver actual aid more effectively and more efficiently than government entities anyway. So if your true goal is to reduce starvation shouldn't you be against higher taxes that confiscate money that you could be donating to more worthy causes?

I disagree with this romantic notion entirely.
When a Hurricane Katrina kit, what sort of proportion of actual charitable donations were made to help in the efforts to rebuild the place? 1% if that?

Similarly, Queensland has been hit with floods and a cyclone in 2010. Yet if you look at the total charitable donations actually given over the course of FY2010/11 including those specifically set up to help in rebuilding efforts for Queensland, it amounts to less than 0.7%.
A one off Federal levy was passed by the Federal Government last week which amounts to 1% above certain income levels. The Federal levy will collect far more than charitable donations will.

People aren't as charitable as you would have us believe. Generally firms only indulge in it because they want to raise their corporate profile and because there is a tax incentive for doing so.

[Rollo]

Not having an exaggerated respect for the intrinsic superiority of the private sector, I tend to see well-run government in a stable society as, while imperfect in many ways, a lesser evil than the worst the private sector has to offer.

I tend to view human nature as being able to display utter horridness given the circumstances. Because the private sector and the government sector are both run by people, both have the potential to be incredibly horrid. I think that a reasonable strong government sector coupled with a regulated private sector is the best policy to play them both off against each other.

I have equal mistrust of governments and business.

[BDunnell]

I think that a reasonable strong government sector coupled with a regulated private sector is the best policy to play them both off against each other.

That I agree with.

[Bob Riebe]

That I agree with.
Who is going to regulate the government?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Who is going to regulate the government?

The electorate.

[chuck34]

Not pointing a gun at me, which is exactly the point I was making about your over-emotive choice of language.

Really? I'd like to live where you are. Here we go to jail for not paying taxes, the equivalent of having a gun pointed at you.


Not really, and though I take the point about other priorities taking precedence given the global financial crisis, I would have thought that combating food poverty by whatever means has many potential long-term benefits in terms of international stability, much as the G8 stated a few years ago. Short-termist policy in any area does no favours.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/164de0fa-22e1-11de-9c99-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1GEfiAe4L

OK? Your Point? Are you really suggesting that we feed some people in Africa or where ever even if it means putting ourselves, children, and grandchildren in deeper debt?


I have never once thought about what I could do were my tax bill to be a bit smaller. There are lots of things I might want to do. As it stands, I am able to donate to a small range of charities as I see fit. Of course it would be nice to do more, but it would be nice to do a lot of things.

Good to hear that you do donate. Wouldn't it be nice to do more?


Not having an exaggerated respect for the intrinsic superiority of the private sector, I tend to see well-run government in a stable society as, while imperfect in many ways, a lesser evil than the worst the private sector has to offer.

Show me a wellrun government then.

[donKey jote]

Have you ever heard the parable about teaching a man to fish? Probably not as you seem to be dead set against anything "religious".

Talking about Chinese whispers... was that really a parable? What's "religious" about it?

Next you'll be implying we need god, or at least to have read His Very Own Book, to teach us the Golden Rule too? :mark:

Have you seen how many question marks I managed to fit into a single post?

[Bob Riebe]

The electorate.
Not if the government controls the businesses they own. He who controls the money, controls the people.

[anthonyvop]

So you feel that your right to pay as little tax as possible is of greater importance than the right of others to food.

NO...The RIGHT for me to decide how I spend my money to feed and shelter myself and whomever I wish is of MUCH GREATER IMPORTANCE than it being forcibly taken from me and given to people who in all probability don't deserve it.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Not if the government controls the businesses they own. He who controls the money, controls the people.

The people control the government, the government control the businesses, the businesses control the people.

[anthonyvop]

I disagree with this romantic notion entirely.
When a Hurricane Katrina kit, what sort of proportion of actual charitable donations were made to help in the efforts to rebuild the place? 1% if that?

Similarly, Queensland has been hit with floods and a cyclone in 2010. Yet if you look at the total charitable donations actually given over the course of FY2010/11 including those specifically set up to help in rebuilding efforts for Queensland, it amounts to less than 0.7%.
A one off Federal levy was passed by the Federal Government last week which amounts to 1% above certain income levels. The Federal levy will collect far more than charitable donations will.

People aren't as charitable as you would have us believe. Generally firms only indulge in it because they want to raise their corporate profile and because there is a tax incentive for doing so.


Amid the slew of charities and foundations publicizing their post-hurricane efforts, the American Red Cross collected the most: at least $2.1 billion, or about half of the total collected in the United States, the chronicle reported.

Other big charities collected large amounts, according to the chronicle: the Salvation Army, $363 million; Catholic Charities USA, $146 million; the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund, $129 million; and Habitat for Humanity International, $123 million.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/content.view/cpid/486.htm

The US Government did not give a single dime in Charitable contributions. The US Government disbursed monies taken by private citizens in the form of Taxes.

[anthonyvop]

I have very little interest in taxation, and find the whole subject bores me rigid, as do those who go on about it.

It is obvious that you don't pay very much in Taxes then. Of course that tends to make one assume about your current employment situation.

[BDunnell]

It is obvious that you don't pay very much in Taxes then. Of course that tends to make one assume about your current employment situation.

I don't believe that interest in tax works on a sliding scale relative to income.

[BDunnell]

Who is going to regulate the government?

The voters, and Parliament (or equivalent) itself, as is already the case in democracies.

[BDunnell]

Really? I'd like to live where you are. Here we go to jail for not paying taxes, the equivalent of having a gun pointed at you..

In what sense is it 'the equivalent of having a gun pointed at you'? I don't see the two as being equivalent at all.



OK? Your Point? Are you really suggesting that we feed some people in Africa or where ever even if it means putting ourselves, children, and grandchildren in deeper debt?

Re-read what I wrote. Yes. It is a policy that brings benefits beyond merely feeding people.



Good to hear that you do donate. Wouldn't it be nice to do more?

Again, re-read what I wrote. It would be nice to do a lot of things if one had a bit more money, but I am utterly unobsessed with personal wealth, and unimpressed by those who possess it. An individual has to have more qualities than that to gain my respect. I would rather pay a small amount in tax (and, come on, we are talking small amounts per head of population here) in order to help make up for those who don't bother to donate to charity.



Show me a wellrun government then.

Nobody can expect perfection from any body, whether public or private. All governments are flawed, just as all companies are flawed. People aren't suddenly rendered incompetent by working in the public sector and competent by working in the public sector.

[BDunnell]

NO...The RIGHT for me to decide how I spend my money to feed and shelter myself and whomever I wish is of MUCH GREATER IMPORTANCE than it being forcibly taken from me and given to people who in all probability don't deserve it.

Does everybody who you choose to give your hard-earned money to, for example through the purchase of consumer goods, 'deserve it'?

[Rollo]

Here we go to jail for not paying taxes, the equivalent of having a gun pointed at you.

People go to gaol for not complying with the law. As a citizen of a nation and even as a visitor, one is bound to comply with the law.

[BDunnell]

People go to gaol for not complying with the law. As a citizen of a nation and even as a visitor, one is bound to comply with the law.

Well, certain recent comments relating to another topic on these forums suggest that some people here believe they know better than the laws of certain countries. Yet, apparently, illegal immigration into Mexico is to be considered a heinous crime.

[Bob Riebe]

The people control the government, the government control the businesses, the businesses control the people.
People control the government, in the U.S. form we do, but the business sector is still mostly free, but the Obama and pals are doing their best to change that.

Else where, more often than not that is mostly wishful thinking, and your particular statement is absurd.

[anthonyvop]

I don't believe that interest in tax works on a sliding scale relative to income.

If it is an Progressive Income Tax only those who don't pay(NO JOB) don't have even a mildly passing interest.

[anthonyvop]

Does everybody who you choose to give your hard-earned money to, for example through the purchase of consumer goods, 'deserve it'?

Yes.

[Tazio]

This thread has gone so far off topic it deserves to be closed, post-haste ;)

[Bob Riebe]

This thread has gone so far off topic it deserves to be closed, post-haste ;) Just like the border.

[airshifter]

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/content.view/cpid/486.htm

The US Government did not give a single dime in Charitable contributions. The US Government disbursed monies taken by private citizens in the form of Taxes.

And on top of the money the government disbursed after taking it from people, the private contributions still amounted to about 4% of the total.


Just some more greedy American info from the article:

"Americans' private donations for the three disasters from December 2004 through 2005 -- the tsunami in Southeast Asia, the earthquake in Pakistan, and Katrina -- tallied about $7 billion, making up about 3 percent of the record $260billion Americans gave to nonprofit corporations last year, according to the Giving USA Foundation"

[Roamy]

so this is what I heard. When the Jews built the wall they quit having suicide bombers. Hmmmmmmmm TIREs is this correct?????
If so maybe if we complete our wall we could control something also