Skip to main content

View Diary: The Descent of Republicans (163 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Hand in hand with the development and shifts (15+ / 0-)

    that you track here, were business policies and government policies supporting those business policies, that made it increasingly easier to undermine union negotiating power, union membership drives, and worker demands for fairness in pay, safe workplace conditions, etc.  What you track goes hand in hand with the creation of tax laws rewarding companies for sending American jobs overseas, and permitting companies to park their money in offshore accounts and away from tax liabilities.  

    What has happened is the core concept "liberty" has been adopted increasingly in the second half of the twentieth, and the first decade of the twenty-first, centuries to support the interests of big business and the super-rich, over and against workers and labor.  "Liberty" means now personal, individual freedom to make money and shoot anyone who tries to stand in the way of that.  But not just rhetorically-- rather, enshrined into ever-more labyrinthine laws that seem to provide an undergirding of reality for whatever it is that Republicans end up arguing.  

    What I'm getting at is, yes, your argument that the Republican party has changed and gotten meaner is a good one; but our government has changed too over the decades, and has permitted the playing-out of such meanness across the tax, legal, and economic landscape.

    That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

    by concernedamerican on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 06:14:58 AM PST

    •  Property rights have always trumped (12+ / 0-)

      human rights or the rights of the person. Had to. Otherwise, the ownership of persons as property would not have been consistent.
      Let us not forget that to this day, minors are considered the property of their parents and, for that matter, much of the conflict over the progress and termination of a pregnancy is a matter of asserting the paternal property right to off-spring.
      Since it wouldn't be well received to announce "every sperm enhancement is an increase in paternal property and every fetus belong to him," the proponents of property rights resort to euphemisms. Which is why "abortion rights," was such an appropriate but counter-productive phrase. In further eliminating the woman affected by the deposition of a sperm from the discussion of rights, the term reinforces the dominance of property over human rights. Ditto for including a bundle of fetal tissue and an artificial body (corporation) into the category of person. Real persons  with human rights lose out. Again.
      Why is property to be advantaged?  Probably because it is easy to see and quantify. Human rights are amorphous and hard to imagine, especially by people whose vision is restricted to superficial optics. Some people simply can't believe in what they can't see.

      We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

      by hannah on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:20:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Minors aren't considered property in the US (0+ / 0-)

        Parents have a legal duty to children, not the other way around.  Parental custody can be suspended for cause.

        •  People also have legal duties regarding other (0+ / 0-)

          property such as cars (where they leave them), cows (where they wander), dogs (whether they trained). Even how their lawns are maintained can be regulated by law. Ownership and obligation are not inconsistent. If children are to be removed, the parents are entitled to legal representation to protect their rights. Children sent to detention for minor crimes aren't. Nor, for that matter, has the  U.S. ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. There is a good reason for that. We don't recognize that children have rights. If we did, parents could not give school personnel permission to beat them with a paddle.  That the law supports corporal punishment, as a matter of routine and especially in prison, which provides the predicate for what the rest of the world considers torture is not pleasant, but denying it won't make it go away.
          The commitment to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is an aspiration that has never yet been achieved. But, we are making progress. It's what we are moving forward towards. Perhaps when we start respecting children's rights, we won't have a million runaway teens a year.
          Humans make poor parents, perhaps because they perceive it as an all cost/no benefit experience. Which is probably why most successful societies have invented reward systems to encourage good parenting. In Canada, for example, the community provides a monetary stipend for each child. In the U.S. it is considered progress when parents are enabled to ensure (pay for) health care for their children for five more years. In Africa, it is not only common knowledge that "it takes a village" to raise a child, but historically, it was the mother's brother who shouldered the obligation to provide material support for her children. Wich makes sense since, until recently, it was difficult to identify the father, but the whole village knew the mother, even if she happened to die in childbirth.
          "Families" in the U.S. is a euphemisms for authority. "Family values" is a euphemism for parental ownership, especially on the father's part.

          We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

          by hannah on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 01:53:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Freedom to shoot anyone who stands in the way (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, JerryNA
      "Liberty" means now personal, individual freedom to make money and shoot anyone who tries to stand in the way of that.  But not just rhetorically--
      Isn't that the basis for the "stand your ground" laws that the GOP/NRA is trying to pass in state legislatures?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site