1. He did say where it's illegal. The 10th Amendment, which says that any powers not specifically given to the Federal government and not prohibited from State governments is reserved for the State governments (or the people). Nowhere is education specified as a Federal power; therefore, it is a State one. Also, the "obsession with a 225 year old document" is because that is the very foundation of the government in the US. It is the document that created the federal government, and the document from which it is supposed to derive all it's power. It can be altered through the Amendment process. As for the 2nd Amendment, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it seems pretty clear to me. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Regardless of the "well regulated militia" part, it specifically states the right of the people. As to it's relevance today; all of the data that I have seen indicates that gun bans do not lower crime, but make things worse. Getting rid of gun bans decreases crime. As it is, I don't see a problem with allowing law abiding citizens to have one. Plenty do now and there aren't mass shootings taking place all the time because of it. I would even go as far as to say that most of those people sincerely hope that they never have to use those guns against another person. Banning guns will never eliminate guns. They will always exist, and making them illegal only creates a black market for them (like we have with illegal drugs now), so that only criminals will have them. It may deter some criminals, but not all. I do not believe that most people deny the changes that have occured since the writing of the Constitution. The Constitution has been changed, through Constitutional Amendments, to reflect the changing times. Perhaps one of the best examples is the ending of slavery in the 13th Amendment, whereas originally, slavery was basically allowed (3/5ths of a person). I believe that schools run at the state level would be better. If the states run schools, then in a sense, you have 50 different choices. That promotes competition. Each state would (at least in theory) want to be better than the rest. Parents want the best education for their kids, and having the best educational system could draw in more people to the state, which would benefit local business, etc, etc. I would also like for there to be a voucher system allowing you to send kids to a private school instead. As for the rest... I don't believe I know enough to comment on the matter, so I'll leave that to people who are smarter than me. 2. Global warming: I think the biggest issue a lot of people have is whether or not humans really have a large effect on things. The climate of the planet has been changing over thousands of years. Sometimes colder, sometimes warmer. There was a (geologically) recent ice age, so the Earth warming up would make sense. I won't pretend to know the data, because I don't. But again, I think the issue that many people have is whether or not humans actually have a significant effect on the change. 3. Yes, he would allow them to segregate. Chances are, people would be upset by that and the business would get a lot of bad press for doing it. The idea is to let the general public disgust with racism to enforce racial equality. I would also argue that many things the government does to protect minorities is a form of discrimination. It singles out a specific group of people based on color and excludes people who are not of that ethnicity. That is discrimination against everyone who is not of that minority. (I feel like I missed something in this post... please let me know of any mistakes). ^_^ |
1. We can argue for hours over the exact meaning and importance of the Constitution. There might also be better platforms for this than a gaming forum. Of course, there is the possibility of amending the document. However, there have arguably been very few so far. You mention the issue of slavery, I just wanted to remind you of the failure to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. So basically, sexism is constitutional. If people cannot even agree on one of the most basic things, how do you expect there to be any further meaningful amendments? What truely meaningful and revolutionizing amendments have there been in the last 50 years?
To open the whole new disussion on the 2nd amendment: Yes, if I lived in the 17th, 18th century with wild animals, the possibility of Native American raids, no indpendent police force and under a corrupt regime, I would want to carry arms and defend my family. However, things have changed. People should be allowed to bear arms, I do not challenge this right. But how do background checks etc. infringe on this right? Why is it necessary to get machine guns? Do you really need your gun so bad, so that you couldn't wait until your demand has been approved? Again, I do not have a problem with people having guns for sport, hunting or in their homes but why carry it in malls, schools or on-campus? I am honestly scared by the idea that any person regardless of his or her state of mind or psychological problems, can just enter a store in Texas and by a semi-automatic weapon.
2. You're actually (partly) right on this point. There always has been climate change even before humans developed any meaningful industry. However, the issue here is that human activity has considerably accelerated this natural process. This is a problem, as there is little time for the people who are most affected to adapt and live a meaningful life.
@Samuel: Yes, nature does decarbonize. However, please take a look at rise of pollution compared to the decline of forests. There is no way that all these pollutions can be made up. Regarding the economics, there is (more or less) a common understanding among economists that externalities are not fully internalized, just as the market can never be fully efficient. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong if you believe that the most profitable route is always the most efficient route. Recent developments should convince you otherwise.
3. @Samuel: It actually is a discussion about property rights. I do believe there a certain limits to it and you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate even if it your store. Back in the 60s (and sadly still today in some parts) in the South, Racism was common and widespread. The general public was not disgusted by Racism. So the Civil Rights Act really was very much ahead of its time. But what is government for if not to actually lead and educate people in some areas? I do not know how long it would have taken to really get rid of discrimination if not for the CRA.
