Why is there so much hate, and why is the country (US) so divided?

How do people buy food?

 

You said that "CITIZENS have both a right and a responsibility to contribute to the nation's prosperity and amenity, with above poverty reward."

Your system would pay unemployment, right?

Again, the simple fact is, that if the government thought that one single life was worth saving, then NASA would never have sent anyone into space. And if YOU thought that one single life was worth saving, then you would say that NASA should never have sent anyone into space. Yet, you cannot say that!

Yeah, the Supreme Court justices being unelected is ALSO unpopular!

Exactly. There are local elections for the local level, state elections for the state level, and national elections for the national level. Since when were there international elections?

ICJ?

Yes, this is what has LED to war, and you can say that wars could have been avoided with "international diplomacy" and "the required institutional machinery to deal with disputes between nations", but does that mean that all past wars have been bad?

 

The US is a very diverse place with a lot of opinions. We had a similar problem at and before the civil war with a lot of hate. I hope people can learn to respect each other more.

 

That's correct; with government taking the responsibility to enable that to happen, via establishment of the correct economic SYSTEM

No, those not able to contribute would be taken care of via a disability scheme.

Thanks for this part of the debate (obviously from a Libertarian 'check-list'):

1. Reverence for life seeks to avoid unnecessary loss of life; whereas the human desire to explore space cannot be considered to be denying that "one life is worth saving" (whether of ONE astronaut or all future space travellers).

2. Notice your formulation introduces "worth" into the concept of the value of life; in fact life is priceless, though in law sometimes a value is placed on it, in certain specific cases. What's YOUR life "worth"?

Addressed above. I would certainly sue NASA if they took unnecessary short cuts....

God bless your Libertarian brain! Guess what: most people accept rule of law, because they see it is to their own advantage (security, justice etc) it's not a matter of "popularity".

Like I said, rule of law involves justices selected by the peoples' representatives, in the particular area of jurisprudence (not by election by the people themselves); same for international law. Interestingly, town councillors ARE elected directly, in all other courts of law the justices are selected by the peoples' representatives (in government).

ICJ stands for International Court of Justice, to deal with cases involving international affairs ( a much simpler task if war is delegitimised; leaving mainly international criminal activity to deal with).

War is based on unmediated, aggressive national self-interest ("might is right") and is always bad,

Nations should never have to be in a position to have to defend themselves from an aggressor nation. That's past history. That's what the creation of the UN was all about....but the task is incomplete, owing to unbalanced commitment to personal sovereignty above international community cohesion and security.

 

Oh yeah, politics has always been toxic and even psycho. I remember when I was little, all the same BS going on with Nixon and Watergate. There's always some kind of soap opera going on in government, it just doesn't always get splattered all over the media.

Civilized discussion comes from educated people. And unfortunately, the "education" system in this country was shot to hell in the 80's, and has completely collapsed into nothing more than an expensive day care for taxpayers kids. They aren't allowed to learn anything anymore, unless it comes from some book of lies supplied by the School Board.

One must TEACH unrestricted knowledge in order to raise intelligent people that can converse in a civilized manner.
Unfortunately for us, this no longer happens in this country.

 

Let's get the ball rolling.

Civics education:

Classical liberalism which emphasizes individual sovereignty over community cohesion is a source of division in the community.

And its economics relation, classical market economics, directed in the last four decades by neoliberal supply-side economics (which postulates an inverse relationship between employment and inflation) is directly responsible** for the flat median wages growth of the last 4 decades, with high entrenched U6. Another source of conflict.

**along with unmanaged globalisation.

And are there economic advantages to China's authoritarian one-party Marxist meritocracy cf the US's adversarial two-party neoliberal democracy. Certainly the former is set to overtake the latter within a decade, a remarkable achievement.

Religion: re Christianity, emphasis should be put on what Christ is actually reported to have said, not his followers who deified him; Christ never claimed to be God (in the Trinity) , another source of division (eg what did Christ, as opposed to Paul, say about homosexuality?)

And why did Marcion reject the OT entirely, when he was composing his NT cannon (c100AD)? Rabin lost his life because of a fundamentalist Jew's reading of the OT.

And the SCOTUS said any amount of money can be donated to a political party without attribution, surely indefensible.

etc etc.

And you didn't reply to my observation that clean skies** alone are worth ditching the fossil industry, so I don't have a lot of confidence on your ideas for a curriculum.

**including absence of poisonous oxides of nitrogen and carcinogenic particulates, which is why vehicle manufacturers are exiting fossil fuel engines over the next two decades.

But I certainly believe in access to knowledge, the more the better.

 

How do people buy food?

 

Well you made it sound like it is the responsibility of the citizens, when you said, "CITIZENS have both a right and a responsibility to contribute to the nation's prosperity and amenity, with above poverty reward."

And ACTUAL disabled people would be on the same scheme?

So then do you agree with the below statement?

Whereas the human desire to have the freedom of travel cannot be considered to be denying that "one life is worth saving?"

Your argument would be valid IF you were talking about an international judiciary, but you are talking about an international legislature, aren't you? And even an international judiciary wouldn't be the same as a domestic judiciary obviously. Just because Justices are unelected, doesn't mean that it would be acceptable to start appointing international Justices! And you are talking about international legislators!

My point is that the result of WWII is that the Nazi's were defeated. Isn't that good?

 

In a total lockdown pandemic, TOTAL traffic is markedly reduced, as many are forced to stay at home, while some essential workers work from home; hence for permitted essential shopping....try walking, bike-riding, internet orders, private cars....and the few buses if you are game.....social distancing and masks required...

 

Addressed.

People who can't contribute ARE disabled....

'Freedom of travel' was not the proposition being considered. The desire to explore was.

I'm talking about extending the rule of law to the international sphere.

You are just revealing your preference for individual sovereignty over community cohesion.

Law is not about what is acceptable to you or me. No need for the exclamation marks. The delegates who were present at the founding of the UN Charter in 1946 had their reasons for voting against the veto forced onto the new UNSC. They lost to the demands of the great powers for absolute national sovereignty .....and so your world view continues to be complicit in the continuing age-old slaughter of children in war.

WW2 was a continuation of WW1.

My point is a UNSC without veto would have prevented WW1.

 

And suicides and domestic violence against women would not have radically increased?

 

And people with no legs would be on the same scheme as the unemployed?

So you think that space travel should continue even though it risks life, but you think that personal cars should be taken off the road because it risks life?

So you ARE talking about an international judiciary?

Sure, but was the defeat of the Nazi's a good thing?

Would people pay taxes in your system?

 

Financial stress is a major factor in those outcomes. In a pandemic, the government can guarantee financial security.

[Actually government can guarantee above poverty wages anytime, which would go a long way to eliminating family violence and suicide, in normal times].

 

So only poor men beat their wives?

 

Not necessarily.

Much as I enjoy driving, that's the likely outcome in the future because the cost in lives is indeed heavy. Driverless cars are already being investigated.

I'm talking about expanding rule of law to the international sphere, with justices from various nations selected on merit to adjudicate international cases. Same as the SCOTUS (at the national level).

Why can't the globe be considered as an entity subject to rule of law?

(My turn to ask a question.......)

The Nazis were as much a result of evil - or desire for empire - as a cause of evil.

Understand?

No, except perhaps in the form of sales taxes to regulate sectoral demand where required, to avoid excess demand on available resources, and to discourage unhealthy resource production and consumption (eg grog and cigs).

 

So then what scheme would relate to the legless man?

Why is it relevant that the cost in lives is "HEAVY?" Isn't your point that even ONE life is worth saving?

How would that differ to the ICJ?

Because not every country is the same.

Questions missed:

Was the defeat of the Nazi's a good thing?

Would people pay taxes in your system?

 

Ability to contribute would be determined at the local level.

Because economic development has resulted in mass transport (public and private) with heavy loss of life

All lives are worth saving....

I envisage the ICJ would advise the UNSC.

So what? How is that a barrier to international law?

Certainly the high court in Texas ultimately conforms to the ruling of the SCOTUS.

(You didn't understand that desire for power over others is the root of evil?)
1. Yes, but the loss of life required to defeat it is a condemnation of all of us.

(You didn't understand resources, not money, is the measure of wealth?)
2. Income taxes? No.

 

Rich men can experience financial stress.....bad luck, bad management, over-reach.

 

You think that personal cars should be taken off the road RIGHT NOW don't you?

You want an international court, right? Well there already is one!

Why do you think that not every country has the same laws?

How is that relevant?

Resources as in what?

Would people pay ANY tax?

 

And keeping them locked in their home will result in an increase in domestic violence.

 

So domestic violence has social as well as financial causes. Both need to be addressed. eg, by provision of adequate refuges is necessary...see how problems can be solved when government is not constrained by the current evil neoliberal monetarist orthodoxy.

 

Because of their different cultural backgrounds.

And in many ways, these differences are a source of conflict. Hence the need for an ICJ, to implement Thomas Paines' vision....(a man of the Enlightenment no less):

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, to do good is my religion".

But you prefer your ultimately paranoid claim to your individual sovereignty, regardless of the ongoing age-old slaughter of children in war which is the natural consequence of the claim to SELF-interested individual (or national) sovereignty....

I have heard calls from sovereignty of the individual types for their state to secede from the USA.....they don't like being subject to adjudication by the SCOTUS.....

Real resources, services and products.

Hint: economic development COULD be managed without recourse to money at all....(and in the past, technological development DID occur in purely barter economies).

 

You think that personal cars should be taken off the road RIGHT NOW don't you?

You want an international court, right? Well there already is one!

Would people pay ANY tax?

 

Your vision of a globalist, borderless, utopia is nothing more than a pipe dream I'm afraid. It's just LUDICROUSLY unrealistic.

And these have nothing to do with money?

 

This assumes that women can just simply UP and LEAVE and go to a refuge!