View Single Post
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-02-2008, 02:18
Tristan Lall's Avatar
Tristan Lall Tristan Lall is offline
Registered User
FRC #0188 (Woburn Robotics)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,484
Tristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Election 2008, Who's the best Candidate for FIRST?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaybee1405 View Post
Why does NASA need to sponsor teams? Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say "Taxpayer dollars should go to robotics clubs"? Hell, where does it give the Federal Government power on education? What is the legal basis for federally funding FIRST?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaybee1405 View Post
That depends on what you define as the "Best". If you define "Best" as "giving taxpayer dollars to FIRST", then I suppose Clinton or Obama would "Best". If you define "Best" as "verbally supporting FIRST within the parameters of being Constitutional...
You obviously favour a constructionist approach to the U.S. constitution; but you know what I find particularly puzzling about that mindset? Your entire legal system (Louisiana excepted) is based on a common law tradition that treats every law as a living document, subject to reinterpretation over the ages. Why is the constitution absolute, and yet every other law subject to the case law that follows it? (You can have principles which you hold strongly, while still allowing the nuances of interpretation to be modified over time as the society changes.)

Britain's constitution is all common law, and Canada's is a combination of common law and special acts of Parliament: these are continually revisited and reinterpreted, and in Canada's case especially, offer very robust protections of individual and collective rights. Why is this approach so antithetical to many Americans' political views?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaybee1405 View Post
...and allowing American citizens the freedom to do what they want with their money", then a Conservative would be "Best".
You seem awfully sure that this is a good thing. Recall what happened recently when American consumers were given the opportunity to take out high-risk and/or multiple mortgages on their homes, especially at low rates? You can't assume that a good citizen is necessarily a good investor, and you can't assume that what's good for the individual is good for the society.

Reduced progress (compared to the present) is a likely effect of a highly libertarian society, such as the one that you appear to favour. This is in large part because the government would not be able to steer the course of society as a whole by making strategic investments in programs that might not survive in an environment of capitalist self-interest alone, but which are likely to have have long-term or wide-ranging benefits. Government is supposed to look out for your neighbours, because frankly, most people will frequently neglect their society if they can derive an immediate personal benefit.

Incidentally, the freedom to control one's own funds is a libertarian idea, not a conservative one. Why do you conflate libertarianism with conservatism in this case? I would argue that Huckabee, Romney and McCain are no libertarians, and all unlikely to let citizens have appreciably greater control of their own finances than they already enjoy. Paul is the only libertarian, but he's worthless as an administrator, worse than worthless as a figure to be lionized, and too socially liberal to appeal to most conservatives.

So maybe what it comes down to is this question: if you had a choice between donating an insignificant portion of your income to FIRST of your own accord, or having the government automatically make that deduction, which would you prefer? Assuming that you think FIRST deserves to be funded, and assuming that you're truly diligent enough to make sure that FIRST receives its share, it would probably better to let you make your decision on your own without interference. But what if you're like just about everyone in the world, and can't be bothered to micromanage your finances to the degree necessary to fund all of the many good causes that exist out there? After all, this is why you elect representatives; they're delegates who make these choices so you can concern yourself with the perils of daily life. And isn't it generally better that way?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaybee1405 View Post
I believe the government has the privilege of protecting its citizens. $275 million going to saving American lives from terrorist attacks is worth me paying 8% sales tax and 4% income tax. Forcibly sponsoring something that can and should be privatized is not.
You're concerned with terrorists? Why, exactly? After all, your chances of dying because your health care system doesn't guarantee you substantial medical care in mundane, yet pervasive scenarios like car accidents or diabetes should do far more to strike terror into your heart. At those pitiably low tax rates, your government needs to put its limited resources toward blue-chip causes like citizens' health and education, rather than pursuing vendettas in Western and Central Asia.
Reply With Quote