Left or Right?

It does relate to voting if how you identify ever causes you to say "There ought to be a law."

If I think that public schools should not exist and that education of children is the responsibility of the parent, and Briana thinks that we not only need public schools but gifted programs, how else is she going to take the fruits of my labors without voting? Other than using a gun and doing it herself.


No offense intended to Briana, I just used her as an example.

Should they? I don't know. But unless I figure out a way to live without having to work with, habitate near, buy from or sell to, or environmentally impact other people, then I need to figure out a way that I and those other people can agree to get along. If I found myself in a place where majority voting set the rules, and I decided that majority voting was wrong, then I think it would be my responsibility to move to a place that had a different system.

Why should you have to move? Does the majority have a claim upon you just because of where you were born? If you are not using force against an innocent or committing theft or fraud, why should anyone else tell you how to live?

These are philosophical questions poorly suited to an electronic discussion, in my opinion, so I'll answer quickly and then stop replying. There is no logic to the idea that only certain behaviors (such as theft) necessitate interaction between the individual and society. Why say that society can set down rules regarding property (such as prohibiting theft), but not rules regarding marriage, or education, or economic behavior? Such distinctions are based on a particular ideology. Humans do not all share the same ideological framswork, but they do share the same space and resources. The human condition therefore necessitates ideological negotiation with others.

Well, i do not believe the Federal government should be involved in funding state schools.

I think state & local taxes - i.e. property taxes, gas tax etc. Should pay for the education of the states residents.

If we moved to a all private school system, what happens with people who cannot pay for school? Do we get generation after generation of uneducated masses now who can't even join the military as a last ditch effort to pull themselves up?

The school my kids attend is a Private School that receives public funding, and you have to test to get into the school - which is what makes it private. Everyone has equal access to it, if your kid(s) can score high enough - which makes it public. Weird huh...They are ranked 7th in the state for education.

Gifted programs are what produce leaders and innovators that continue to keep the U.S. ahead of the rest of the world.

Education is important.

Sure, that's one way to look at it. I don't disagree. My point is also very relevant as well.

Take it all with a grain of salt.

I have the same thoughts concerning music genres. Genres, in many ways, pigeon-hole unique music into categories that don't quite fit. Human beings have a natural inclination towards categorizing chaos, and I believe it does a disservice to the unique nature of many things in this world.

Is categorization useful for certain applications? Sure. People just have to remember to think outside that box too.

Yes, i totally agree. Good analogy with the music.

That's why there is a Constitution and Bill or Charter of Rights.... although from what I understand the US Bill of Rights is relatively weak.

This left right view of politics is probably related to why it seems no country can have more than 2 major political parties? Anyone know a country that has 3 or 4 major parties big enough to pul 20% of the vote each?

Both have been a dead letter since at least 1865.

This is where the rubber really meets the road.
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/07/department_of_bizarre_argument.php

The entire question of politics is "Who owns you and your body?" If I want to sell a kidney to the highest bidder, why shouldn't I be allowed? It is my body. If after my death I want my body parts sold off in order to help provide for my family, why shouldn't it be allowed? It is my body. Enforced "charity" is not charity at all, it is theft.

Australia.

Labor
Liberal
National/Country Party

Canada has three: Liberal, Conservative, and New Democrat. The NDP usually hover at or just under the 20% range federally, but often form provincial governments. We also have the Bloc Quebecois. The Bloc have a much smaller share, but a disproportionate number of seats because they are concentrated in Quebec.

The national Party was assimilated by the Liberal party nearly 10 years ago

That's hardly any time at all.

I'm sure it was Whitlam's fault.

(googling at recent politics, it looks like the Labor party is turning into the Liberal party)

We had an advantage of sorts in that ours was a Brit document until relatively recently. When we repatriated we had a chance to revise and update ours.

We temporarily also had the National party and the Reform party. The former folded due to lack of support and the latter merged with the Conservative party.

Even though they have such a low %, the NDP have been influential though, occassionally holding the deciding voting block. Our modern heath care system was an NDP idea, even though it was implemented by the Liberals.

The Bloc at one point also held enough seats relative to other parties to temporarily the official opposition.

Thus even though government shifts between the two main parties here, all four are influential enough to matter.

I assume that you are referencing the weakening of states' rights, rather than the Emancipation Proclamation of a few years earlier, or the Thirteenth Amendment of 1865?

Just a tentative thought here (I am certainly no expert on American constitutional history), but as the old federal system allowed individual states south of the Mason Dixon line to treat a large proportion of their populations as chattel, then maybe that weakening wasn't such a very bad thing?

Arguably, had states' rights been weakened MORE, the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s would have been rendered largely unnecessary, or would, at the least, have been somewhat less urgent?

But I'm just guessing here. What ARE you referring to?

It's all Andrew Jackson's fault.

Well, I was rooting for the "bloody British" so, um, yeah, it is . . .

I understand that you say you are no expert on American history..but I'm curious if you think slavery only existed in the south?Lincoln let it continue in the north as a tool to use against the south..the only way anyone could earn their freedom was to fight for the north..
they were treated just as much like cattle up north..there was just as much if not more farm fields up there..and they were not let go up north until the war was over and won..
the war was not about slavery it was about the government wanting to control the states..

Tennessee is the one that abolished it's slavery not Lincoln..

I'm glad it is gone but there is a big misunderstanding with a lot of people that the north was an angel and the south was all evil..

No, I take your point; I was not intending to imply such an easy dichotomy of good/evil.

So far as nations were concerned, no one was very angelic with regard to slavery. Upper Canada (Ontario) "abolished" slavery in 1793, but pressure from the commercial sector meant that the original intention of literally doing away with it in the province was abandoned: the abolition applied only to "new" slaves and the slave trade, not to those already "owned." Similarly, Britain's "abolition" in 1833 didn't apply to the substantial holdings of the East India Company; again, powerful economic interests intervened.

I don't believe in angels and devils.

ok sorry i misunderstood you hehehe

A lot don't realize that at the time Tennessee and North Carolina had more antislavery areas than any other State..it wasn't because of political pressure..they still fought for the south..so that tells me there was more to this war if the two most anti slavery states were fighting for the south..

thats the meaning i am trying to make i guess lol..

Yeah, np.

Every nation has its founding "myths." One of ours is that Canada bravely fought off American imperialism in 1812-15, when in fact the American desire to annex Canada was not the main cause of the war, and it was British regular troops, rather than "Canadians," who did most of the defending anyway.

Oh god don't you know it..LOL History is sometimes laughable with the myths lol

I am Apache myself and i was pretty much fed one thing in school and really could not contest the teacher..When i did i was removed from class for the day for being disruptive..I was actually for telling the truth and them not having a response..
My family which is pretty large showed me another side history thank god hehehe..
From the revolution all the way up until Geronimo surrenders..Mostly my Father who is the best teacher in my world showed me it is very much made with a lot of romance..Plus it sets the tone for societies..A lot of kettle calling the pot black goes on hehehehe

My theory is that sides are created to keep us divided while someone gets rich or gains power..Country vs country then within that country we find other things that separate us from politics,religion,race,teams..Competitive blood over territories of any size..

You are from this state so you are not better..You are from this county so you are not better and you are from this town and we are much better..
You were born from this family so the apple doesn't fall from the tree..
It goes on and on..
Not all history is skewed but important pieces have been just for manipulation and moral..

The only time we have unity is when everyone is affected and that is only short term..Like say when 9/11 happened or pearl harbor or when tsunamis kill hundreds of thousands of people..
The rest of the time it is fighting between ourselves..

I have a hard time joining one side or the other when it comes to politics really..
To me a bird cannot fly with only one wing..And it is hard to join one side or the other when there is so much finger pointing going on at each other..When one is in power the other side has conspiracy theories all over the place then the other gains power and it is rinse and repeat..


I shut my tv off 4 years ago because of all the fighting..I found for me that clearing all the clutter away and getting down to the raw basics..It is much easier to see what is going on ..For me anyways..Each side of things there is good and bad..When it comes down to the final count unless it is something so strong that most agree to it..It is most likely decided by those that look at both sides and say..Ok this one over here seems to be making more sense..

The undecided voters are the reason politicians go on the road to try and sway them..Not the ones that will vote for their party..

I think that if history were a bit more factual there would be a lot more undecided voters..
It's just a theory though lol
But it would be nice if there were

We catch a lot of flak for staying in the middle..I see that as pressure to try and make us pick a team..