The Golden Rule

[ehowton]

Compassion isn't a political agenda item. Peace and conservationism aren't Leftist ideas, yet modern-day pundits decry it as a Socialist movement - something which threatens to tear the fabric of Democracy from our fingertips. Mention "giving" or "helping" or "recycling" and young Conservatives immediately close their minds to the liberal propaganda which is sure to follow, when in fact its these very ideas - peace, love, giving - that all people, regardless of political alignment, strive for and promote every single day. Conservatives tend to just not want it legislated. That's different than not giving.

Compassion is not a political weapon to be wielded. Its not to be denied, nor assigned to any group of people. Its a universal label, to be applied freely by all. Where then lies the stigma?

The problem isn't necessarily the Right and Left Wing talk show hosts equally stewing feverishly in their spun tales - for anyone with any level of maturity will soon come to realize neither camp is ever completely honest. In fact the very basis of that hosts existence, no matter which side they're on, is to accuse the other side of doing it wrong. My conservative friends don't listen to Olbermann, and my liberal friends don't listen to Rush. Unless its to get inflamed about something - because its the perfect environment for that; An emotional powderkeg. They don't listen to their respective personalities out of anything more than confirmation. Justification for their thoughts and actions.

No, the problem (as always) is people. People who are too busy lining up to be labeled to listen to what's being said. I am by no means advocating "vote for the person instead of the party" rather, I'm asking everyone to just take a step back from politics for a moment and consider the harm its doing to our opinions of one another by way of these labels, and the part you're playing through the propagation of this myth - the myth that your politics or religions are making this world a better place.

If you really wanted to make the world a better place, you'd lay down your political party and your religion and you would follow the ethic of reciprocity: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I don't follow this advice more than when I'm behind the wheel of my car. I treat everyone how I wish I were treated, and my short commute is filled with the happy thoughts of a nation of drivers who aren't rude, careless, ignorant, angry, or stupid. Hands down its one of the more difficult things I do during the course of my day because it hurts my soul that most people simply don't care.

These same people, they've labeled themselves and call themselves by any number of names: Republican, Christian, Democrat, atheist, liberal, conservative...and they all pride themselves on being more open-minded than those who disagree with them. How wonderfully flawed.

Truly living by treating others as you yourself would like to be treated would culminate in a whole host of other little problems given our diverse nature, but it would be a damn fine start to a better world.

All of them, better worlds.

Comments

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

You're arguing the wrong point here. I implied "just compensation" when I brought up eminent domain. I don't require eminent domain defined for me. The question was, is it possible - possible mind you - that you could disagree with the law if they were trying to "just compensation" something of yours that you wanted to keep despite its Constitutionality?

Let me put it another way:

[schpydurx.livejournal.com]

You totally missed my point. I'll repeat it here once for your benefit:

if you look at what rights Fifth Amendment was protecting, you can see that this clause was a limit on government power, NOT a grant of power;

It takes two parties for a transaction to be complete. The government can offer to buy land, but it does not have the power to take land. Such a Hamiltonian view only leads to a usurpation of power culminated in a dictatorship, exactly what the Constitution was designed to prevent.

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

You're mistaken.

The clause limited the government's ability to take your land for "public use" and added "just compensation" which US Courts held that the proper measure of which is "fair market value."

Re-read my comic above.

Basically, its ridiculous to think that everyone should agree with every law which is Constitutional. That was one statement of yours I should've had the sense not to argue.

[schpydurx.livejournal.com]

This is the third time that you've failed to see my point. My point is that the phrase "just compensation" means a price that both the buy and the seller thinks is appropriate. This is also known as the Randian concept of the Value Proposition otherwise known as Value for Value. If the seller doesn't want to sell, the government can't buy. The Takings Clause does not give the government the power to presume ownership simply because it waves cash around.

As I also explained, just because the Supreme Court has ruled on a subject doesn't not mean that is the end of discussion on the topic. The same issue can be tried again in the Court and the Court may reverse itself or clarify its earlier ruling. Likewise, Congress acts as a check on the Court by issuing new laws and the President provides balance by selecting justices to sit on the bench after approval of the Senate.

Your comic is an oversimplification of the issues being discussed here.

Basically, its ridiculous to think that everyone should agree with every law which is Constitutional.
This is the most ignorant thing you have said to date!

If one shouldn't agree with every law that is Constitutional, what's the point of having a Constitution, given the fact that

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

--emphasis mine

If we are not going to judge our laws by the measuring stick of the Law of the Land, what measuring stick shall we use?

What then is the purpose of the Constitution?

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

lol

[schpydurx.livejournal.com]

That's exactly what I thought. You can't answer this simple question and are therefore unqualified to continue in this discourse. You have proven that you don't have the proper tools to engage in intelligent conversation on this and related issues.

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

I love you anyway.

[schpydurx.livejournal.com]

This has nothing to do with your hippy concept of free love.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself! You took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, yet in a time when it mattered most, you broke your oath and scoffed at a document that many a free man has shed blood and died for. As indicated on the thread on my blog, morality means nothing to you; all you care about is where your next lay is coming from. Your word means nothing to you because you failed to uphold your oath to the Constitution.

What do you have left to cling to?

I suggest that you prostrate yourself before God and spend some time soul-searching and reflect on what you have done here today: invalidate everything that you claim to take a stand for.

Good work!