7 ms·

As a european who is not always very fond of the US, this is ridiculous, and lazy thinking. The amount of generalization and black and white simplifications to

As a european who is not always very fond of the US, this is ridiculous, and lazy thinking. The amount of generalization and black and white simplifications to come up with such a thing is impressive though.

Ensorceled 7y ago
And yet, in this very thread there are discussions, presumably by Americans, about whether human rights “afforded” to people only apply to citizens or all humans. They are literally arguing if “people” only means US citizens.
- ip26 7y ago
  The Bill of Rights affords citizens protections from their government. They weren't written as inalienable human rights. So it has long been debated whether those protections are owed to non-citizens.
  - Ensorceled 7y ago
    Yes, those are exactly the types of disturbing discussions I was talking about.
  - bregma 7y ago
    > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. The USA was founded on the premise that human rights applied to all. When any governing entity no longer respects those rights, it's time to turf the bums out and start again. The current government of the USA, at the urging of a self-selected elite among its supporting citizens, believes those inalienable human rights only apply to a select few. These are the conditions outlined in the Declaration of Independence as reason to overthrow the current regime. There is well-documented historical precedence. Tread lightly.
    - murph-almighty 7y ago
      While I agree with your point, I need to point out that the Declaration of Independence generally isn't used in case law.
      - naasking 7y ago
        It seems like it would provide quite a bit of relevant background to originalist interpretations of the constitution, and those are fairly common.
        iudqnolq 7y ago
        Originalism as a legal doctrine means looking at the original meaning of words in the Constitution. It explicitly rejects as too wishy-washy trying to figure out the intent behind laws from other writings and using that to decide what they mean. > Some people would give the Declaration greater weight, as a reflection of values that inspired the Constitution, and thus of values that we should read into the Constitution even if they are not expressly there in the Constitution's text. But I am skeptical. The two documents are very different. The Declaration is fundamentally a rhetorical document, meant to persuade the world -- and more immediately and significantly, to persuade wavering Americans -- that the revolutionaries' cause was just. The Constitution is fundamentally a legal document, meant to spell out a form of government to which Americans would be bound, and by which that government would be bound. Perhaps the Constitution implemented the rhetorical ideals of the Declaration, but perhaps it didn't (and perhaps it was the worse for that). The way to see if the Constitution implemented the ideals of the Declaration is to look at the Constitution's text, not to assume that it did. https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2016/07/what-is-the-relevance-of-the-declaration-of-independence-for-interpreting-the-constitutionmichael-ra.html https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/201... (Note: Blog by UC San Diego prof.)
    - thomascgalvin 7y ago
      > The USA was founded on the premise that human rights applied to all. I agree with you, but when those words were written, slavery was still one of the cornerstones of the American economy and women didn't have the right to vote. Should the protections afforded by the constitution apply to all people? Of course. But legally, the US has a longstanding tradition of denying certain rights to certain people.
  - AtlasBarfed 7y ago
    And thus slavery was legal. Do you think slavery should be legal?
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  Really I am pretty sure that they do apart from oddities like restriction son roles like the president
- SilasX 7y ago
  Every country in the world makes a distinction between rights/privileges/protections they afford their own citizens vs non-citizens within their borders.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - fdjlasdfjl 7y ago
    Uhhh no they don't, unless you're referring to absolute monarchies like Saudi Arabia. Constitutional rights apply to all in a specific geographical region. "Congress shall pass no law" was a significant leap in rights and freedoms which is baked into most, if not all, modern constitutions.
  - Ensorceled 7y ago
    Canada's Bill of Rights does not restrict those rights and protections to citizens except for political rights such as running for office and voting. The right to due process in particular, is considered universal in Canada. Other countries take a similar approach to rights.
    - SilasX 7y ago
      Yes, there exist rights that Canada recognizes in everyone, just like there are rights the US recognizes in everyone. There are also rights it recognizes for a smaller class of persons. Just like I said before.
      - Ensorceled 7y ago
        Ah, yeah, this is why I hate having these discussions.
      - sitkack 7y ago
        The US constitution makes the same delination, with the majority of the document outlining the limits of government power. It is only because some people want to strip others of constitutional protection that they argue about who it covers. Everyone gets freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, etc.
throaway4644998 7y ago
He is far from being the only one to have this feeling. I once intended to even base my business there, but at this point I do not want to have anything to do with this country. This is not lazy thinking, this is exactly the opposite. This is finally catching up with reality and moving beyond hollywood movies and the American dream propaganda.
- Confusion 7y ago
  Your comment is devoid of argument.
  - plankers 7y ago
    So is yours.
    - Confusion 7y ago
      Indeed, because I'm not arguing any position in the debate, but offering an observation whose truthfulness anyone can judge on their own. The parent, on the other hand, was responding to someone in an attempt to prove them wrong. By not saying anything that engaged with what the grandparent said, they failed at that. So I know what I am, but what are you?
- jopsen 7y ago
  I wish the US would do better too. But the US is not that bad. It's ranked 17 on the human freedom index, along side Sweden. Just saying, where do you live? (I'm not American, and I wish they did better, but it's not that bad)
AtlasBarfed 7y ago
We are running concentration camps with 70000 children currently. We elected an almost-Nazi with routinely espoused almost-Nazi views who had a total information awareness intelligence apparatus at his fingertips. We have demonstrated legal facilities for "enemy combatants", "extraordinary rendition", offshore torture, treating an american citizen as a terrorist so they can be denied their constitutional rights. Most of that is from the Bush administration. The parent's declaration would have been slightly paranoid in that regime, but with this one, it is arguably a bit mild. The statement should now be that no country should be dealing with the USA. The parent's sentiment might have been somewhat outrageous

Ensorceled 7y ago

And yet, in this very thread there are discussions, presumably by Americans, about whether human rights “afforded” to people only apply to citizens or all humans. They are literally arguing if “people” only means US citizens.

ip26 7y ago
The Bill of Rights affords citizens protections from their government. They weren't written as inalienable human rights. So it has long been debated whether those protections are owed to non-citizens.
- Ensorceled 7y ago
  Yes, those are exactly the types of disturbing discussions I was talking about.
- bregma 7y ago
  > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. The USA was founded on the premise that human rights applied to all. When any governing entity no longer respects those rights, it's time to turf the bums out and start again. The current government of the USA, at the urging of a self-selected elite among its supporting citizens, believes those inalienable human rights only apply to a select few. These are the conditions outlined in the Declaration of Independence as reason to overthrow the current regime. There is well-documented historical precedence. Tread lightly.
  - murph-almighty 7y ago
    While I agree with your point, I need to point out that the Declaration of Independence generally isn't used in case law.
    - naasking 7y ago
      It seems like it would provide quite a bit of relevant background to originalist interpretations of the constitution, and those are fairly common.
      - iudqnolq 7y ago
        Originalism as a legal doctrine means looking at the original meaning of words in the Constitution. It explicitly rejects as too wishy-washy trying to figure out the intent behind laws from other writings and using that to decide what they mean. > Some people would give the Declaration greater weight, as a reflection of values that inspired the Constitution, and thus of values that we should read into the Constitution even if they are not expressly there in the Constitution's text. But I am skeptical. The two documents are very different. The Declaration is fundamentally a rhetorical document, meant to persuade the world -- and more immediately and significantly, to persuade wavering Americans -- that the revolutionaries' cause was just. The Constitution is fundamentally a legal document, meant to spell out a form of government to which Americans would be bound, and by which that government would be bound. Perhaps the Constitution implemented the rhetorical ideals of the Declaration, but perhaps it didn't (and perhaps it was the worse for that). The way to see if the Constitution implemented the ideals of the Declaration is to look at the Constitution's text, not to assume that it did. https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2016/07/what-is-the-relevance-of-the-declaration-of-independence-for-interpreting-the-constitutionmichael-ra.html https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/201... (Note: Blog by UC San Diego prof.)
  - thomascgalvin 7y ago
    > The USA was founded on the premise that human rights applied to all. I agree with you, but when those words were written, slavery was still one of the cornerstones of the American economy and women didn't have the right to vote. Should the protections afforded by the constitution apply to all people? Of course. But legally, the US has a longstanding tradition of denying certain rights to certain people.
- AtlasBarfed 7y ago
  And thus slavery was legal. Do you think slavery should be legal?
C1sc0cat 7y ago
Really I am pretty sure that they do apart from oddities like restriction son roles like the president
SilasX 7y ago
Every country in the world makes a distinction between rights/privileges/protections they afford their own citizens vs non-citizens within their borders.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- fdjlasdfjl 7y ago
  Uhhh no they don't, unless you're referring to absolute monarchies like Saudi Arabia. Constitutional rights apply to all in a specific geographical region. "Congress shall pass no law" was a significant leap in rights and freedoms which is baked into most, if not all, modern constitutions.
- Ensorceled 7y ago
  Canada's Bill of Rights does not restrict those rights and protections to citizens except for political rights such as running for office and voting. The right to due process in particular, is considered universal in Canada. Other countries take a similar approach to rights.
  - SilasX 7y ago
    Yes, there exist rights that Canada recognizes in everyone, just like there are rights the US recognizes in everyone. There are also rights it recognizes for a smaller class of persons. Just like I said before.
    - Ensorceled 7y ago
      Ah, yeah, this is why I hate having these discussions.
    - sitkack 7y ago
      The US constitution makes the same delination, with the majority of the document outlining the limits of government power. It is only because some people want to strip others of constitutional protection that they argue about who it covers. Everyone gets freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, etc.

throaway4644998 7y ago

He is far from being the only one to have this feeling. I once intended to even base my business there, but at this point I do not want to have anything to do with this country. This is not lazy thinking, this is exactly the opposite. This is finally catching up with reality and moving beyond hollywood movies and the American dream propaganda.

Confusion 7y ago
Your comment is devoid of argument.
- plankers 7y ago
  So is yours.
  - Confusion 7y ago
    Indeed, because I'm not arguing any position in the debate, but offering an observation whose truthfulness anyone can judge on their own. The parent, on the other hand, was responding to someone in an attempt to prove them wrong. By not saying anything that engaged with what the grandparent said, they failed at that. So I know what I am, but what are you?
jopsen 7y ago
I wish the US would do better too. But the US is not that bad. It's ranked 17 on the human freedom index, along side Sweden. Just saying, where do you live? (I'm not American, and I wish they did better, but it's not that bad)

AtlasBarfed 7y ago

We are running concentration camps with 70000 children currently. We elected an almost-Nazi with routinely espoused almost-Nazi views who had a total information awareness intelligence apparatus at his fingertips. We have demonstrated legal facilities for "enemy combatants", "extraordinary rendition", offshore torture, treating an american citizen as a terrorist so they can be denied their constitutional rights. Most of that is from the Bush administration. The parent's declaration would have been slightly paranoid in that regime, but with this one, it is arguably a bit mild. The statement should now be that no country should be dealing with the USA. The parent's sentiment might have been somewhat outrageous