OT
OK, let's get after it & debunk your liberal bias & trash.
The Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, not democracy.>
<<Ruling elites like some of the founding fathers saw themselves as experts and insisted ordinary citizens were unqualified to participate in a dialogue on workers' rights or environmental protection. However, what they really mean is that their ruling status gave them the right to pursue profit without regard for human life. >>
I don't believe you can site anything that shows they held little or no regard for human life, but, they were building a nation & giving rights to the people of that nation, of which life iw the greatest right.
<<Multinational corporations and their government defenders often place property rights and corporate profit above human rights.>>
Property rights are one of the most basic of all human rights, every rational lover of freedom must support anyone that supports property rights.
<<They conduct cost-benefits analyses to determine how much a human life is worth, like Perot did in arguing for the Death Penalty a number of years ago.>>
Broad sweeping statement with little or no back-up.
<<Moreover, the cost of saving a life is measured against how much it would cost the corporation to put safety standards in place. >>
The death penalty demagoged in the same context with coporate profit / loss analysis - PLEASE - the two are not related. If these concepts are in any way related, it is that only in for profit prisons lifers are the most dangerous prisoners - thus we should protect both guards & our pockets at the same time & put the killers to death.
<<Right Wing spinmasters like you and Rush Limbaugh refer to democracy as "mob rule.">>
1. You are speaking with me not Rush, don't class the libertarian wing of the Republican Party with the Religious Right wing of the Republicans. I will say this is a Republic, you con't like it, go get a (group of)Constitional Amendments - if you can to disolve the Republic & set up a Democracy - but set into place rules which assure protection of freedoms of individuals for tyranny of the masses.
<<Some of the nation's founders were elitists who wanted all the power for themselves. From the words of Alexander Hamilton: ""The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class [the rich and well born] a distinct, permanent share in the government." (Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787.>>
Yes, some were, - and this nation found a good place for Hamilton in the Treasury, but for each of him there were perhaps 20 attempting to protect individual freedoms - in this I forward Jerrersomn, Paine, Wadsworth, Franklin, Even one of the Fathers of the Federalist Papers - Madison wrote volumes against "accumulation of all powers in the same hands". (Federalist Papers # 47)
<<Your Representative Republic as provided in the Original Constitution did not grant rights to women or blacks. This nation had slavery until the Thirteenth Amendment, 1865. The Thirteenth Amendment reads: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude...shall exist within the United States." Until the Nineteenth Amendment, in 1920, the Constitution did not allow women to vote. The Nineteenth Amendment reads: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by any state on account of sex.">>
I won't qualify this race bating & class warfare by even addressing it.
<<The real heroes of this Nation are not elitests like Hamilton but people who fought for civil liberties like Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Susan B. Anthony, Haym Solomon(know who he is?), Ralph Nadar, Eleanor Roosvelt.>>
Haym Solomon - how can any informed not know about his great works to help finance the Revoltary War or that he spent time in prison as a spy? As for Nader, the jurry is still out, many didn't agree with his "Unsafe at any speed". Tubman, yes, great, nothing more need be said. Rosa Parks, also did a great many good things. But Please, Susan B. Anthony - while she did good by pushing for sufferance, the ill she did this nation by also pushing the beginnings of the temperance movement must also be taken in average and with it all the ills it bought!
<<The Objective rule of Law that you implicitly champion is not very objective. Fixed principles are also subject to human interpretation and revision. >>
The change from this republic of 200+ years to your democracy is not a simple "revision" or "interpretation". |
