The difference between equality under the law or equity under the law.
Equity is by definition relative. Equality is at least absolutely reasoned without the interference of relativity or subjectivity.
By what measure can a system of government be most fair and immune to corruption? The one where everyone has equal rights or the one one where some are “more equal” or “less equal” than others?
The label you are looking for is “duly convicted party,” per the 13th Amendment:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Categorically, definitionally, and historically wrong.
What you are you are referring to is the following: “ Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…”
First, “welfare” here means “the state of well being.”
Second, it is tied to the “United States” as a whole - not any given individual, especially because the Supreme Court has ruled the government has no duty to protect its citizens from harm (Deshaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 1989; and The Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 2005).
Thus, if the Supreme Court has established that the government has no obligation to protect citizens from harm, it has no obligations to economically provide for citizens either. That’s called “charity” and it’s what churches have typically done by collecting revenue (tithing) from its congregants.
20th century governmental usurpation of charity by rebranding it as “welfare” is a distinctly modern concept, that also happens to be constitutional, insofar that the government collecting taxes to distribute benefits on a needs basis does not violate the Constitution, which is entirely different than being enumerated in the document itself, which you erroneously conflated.
If such a constitution was written as you suggest, then it would have been outdated and torn up long ago. It would have been too rigid to stand the test of time. Also HN supports at least one emoji (囧).
There are several theories in designing constitutions. Many countries just give up and rely on common law instead. The more rigid constitutions tend to be ignored or the countries fall off into chaos, so America is somewhat successful in its implementation of constitutional law.
Chinese jiong should be the only emoji allowed on HN, since it is a valid Chinese character, but then so is a swastika (in both directions, non-nazi Buddhist meanings of course).
In some ways it's even more expensive to remain "credit invisible" because of the security deposits now needed when you set up utilities, getting a mobile number, applying for an apartment rental, etc.
Building up a strong FICO score is the easiest thing with the exact mindset of OP with effectively the same amount of friction thanks to the "miracle" of autopay.
I don't really want to enter this discussion, since it usually quickly devolves to less than stellar levels. However, on the topic of the 1989 protests, I feel like Westerners often have a very superficial understanding of what happened back then, and in turn cannot understand chinese civil society and government today.
There's one documentary on the topic that I can wholeheartedly recommend, the Gate of Heavenly Peace.[1] It is quite long, but goes into incredible detail and also interviews a lot of organizers and politicians first hand.
The Tiananmen Square massacre was a turning point in chinese politics, ending a decade of increased freedom and open calls for reform. In civil society, people kept their heads down and went to work. In politics, almost all the reformers and politicians sympathetic to the students were isolated, demoted or even imprisoned. Still the last 30 years have been the best China has had in hundreds of years, and it is always much harder to argue with success. A lot of chinese people know what happened back then, and a lot of those accept it as something shitty that happened, but ultimately the country and people were still able to progress. Chinese people, by and large are not against their own government, even if they don't always agree with everything that happens.
The problem with hearing the other side is of course that most people are more concerned with reaching the correct value judgment (imprisoning innocent Uyghurs is bad, killing innocent protesters is bad) than with reaching it based on accurate information.
If you tell someone who believes that thousands of people died directly on Tiananmen Square and were crushed to pieces by tanks, correcting them by pointing out that actually
> ALTHOUGH HE DID NOT ACTUALLY WITNESS
ANY LARGE SCALE SHOOTINGS ON THE SQUARE PROPER, GALLO
SAW MANY CASUALTIES BROUGHT INTO THE SQUARE AND DID
NOT DOUBT THAT HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE IN BEIJING WERE
KILLED BY THE ARMY ON JUNE 3 AND 4.
that's not going to affect their value judgment (the numbers are smaller, people weren't killed on the square itself but elsewhere, who cares, it's still bad) and most likely they'll soon forget those details and keep telling their original story, because, well, it's just a much more visceral image.
It's also the the information about these events is so hidden. The govt admits no wrong and hides all evidence to the contrary. For that alone I prefer to err on the side of these events being pretty bad.
Also having known an eye witness to Tiananmen square, I'm confident it was bad. Really bad. If he were to get caught talking about it, things would be really bad for him too. So you won't find many witnesses willing to talk.
No one claims there were no deaths. US-backed counter revolutions often involve violence, regardless of the self-restraint of the state being attacked. What exactly should the army do after several of its unarmed soldiers were killed by the “protesters”?
Every global power becomes one by exercising power, globally.
Claiming the existence of problems justifies these types of policies is an argument of convenience where the policy is fixed and someone is just fishing for reasons.
We ignore it when it's Saudi Arabia or the child slave driven mines of Central Africa and bring it up when there's a possibility of encroachment.
The world is terrible, we should do better. But carving out Chinese manufacturers of smartphones isn't how you'll get there.
If those actors really thought what they did was bad they would be trying to revert the outcomes of their actions. Do you see the US moving non-native descendants out of vast swaths of American to set up native-american countries, or paying native survivors the fair land value of all the lands they were driven from? Talk is cheap, watch the hands.
Kent State was barely 50 years though, and sending Predator Drones after anyone suspected to even tangentially be related to terrorism is current policy.
If the US still had an ethnic minority that lived predominately in one area and has been active in terrorism and islamist extremism, I don't think they'd handle it gracefully. Abu Ghraib gives us an idea about what the US would do in a similar situation and it's not been that long.
Jerry Brown was a conservative by any historical understanding of the term, and he won in a landslide. Gavin Newsom is also relatively moderate. For example, he's made it clear that it's simply not economically feasible to throw money at homeless housing (because he literally tried that in SF as mayor). And hit the pause button on high-speed rail (which is basically a death sentence). Newsom rose up through the San Francisco Democratic political machine, which while liberal on social issues has been until recently predominately controlled by right-of-center politicians and interest groups. The last three mayors, including Newsom, have been opponents of the self-styled "progressive" faction. Unfortunately, Newsom has ambitions for higher office so he's not providing much leadership at the moment; just refereeing squabbles and trying to avoid bad press.
A large contingent of Republicans wanted the top-two primary system, believing it would benefit them. (Though the GOP opposed it.) It didn't work out that way. But it didn't really change the dynamics in the other direction, either; that train had been accelerating for years.
California is a one-party state because of term limits. Running for office is expensive and difficult. Few sane people, unless they're independently wealthy, wish to expend all that time and effort to serve a mere two terms. They want a political career. With term limits the only way to have a political career is to jump office every two terms. The best chance of accomplishing that--of achieving career "progression"--is to work closely with a political party, which can ensure a spot in various low-level offices if you don't make the cut for a bigger office. Term limits make the party system more important. What ends up happening is that the party with more offices and better electoral chances in the near future when this process starts will quickly build on that initial advantage, while the other parties will quickly wither. If Texas enacted term limits I have no doubt that Houston, Austin, Dallas, etc, would quickly become, nominally at least, Republican.
That said, California may be a one-party state, but there are absolutely liberals, moderates, and conservatives within the party. What difference does the label "Democratic" or "Republican" make, so long as there are free and open elections? From a foreign country's perspective, most American politicians behave alike regardless of whether they're Democratic or Republican.
One benefit of being an all-blue (or all-red) state is that there's less political grid-lock. At least, less grid-lock from naked partisanship. Grid-lock from the electorate demanding conflicting and contradictory policies... alas that doesn't go away.
> A large contingent of Republicans wanted the top-two primary system, believing it would benefit them. (Though the GOP opposed it.) It didn't work out that way.
It does benefit them, by giving Republicans more influence on what candidate is elected in districts where they have no chance of electing one of their own.
> California is a one-party state because of term limits.
No, it’s more because the California Republican Party followed the national party to the far right over the last couple of decades, while the California electorate didn't.
California is a “one party state” because Gov Pete Wilson and the CA GOP went after the racist vote in the mid 90’s to get re-elected by heavily supporting Prop 187, which denied all state services to undocumented immigrants. Until then, it was relatively conservative.
Turns out that (thankfully) there aren’t enough racists for keep control of the state government, and since then the CA GOP has become basically irrelevant.
In the long term I think the national GOP is doing this by going after racists, extreme fundamentalists, and other fanatics.
The fanatic vote is political cocaine: temporary high, then you need more and more, then your non coke head friends drift away, then you are strung out.
> then your non coke head friends drift away, then you are strung out.
Alas, that may be more wishful thinking than reality. :( There are countless countries around the world, both in modern history and today, that prove the dynamic can be sustained indefinitely.
I don't know about Dallas, but Houston and Austin are solidly liberal, and I don't think term limits would change that. Most people would still vote the same way for mayor and city and councilman.
I would say it’s your own bias which is informing your opinion. California has only gotten more “progressive” with each election.
If that makes you happy, I hope you understand that it’s “progressive” policy which has caused crime to explode, housing prices to rise, and people to leave the state.
> hope you understand that it’s “progressive” policy which has caused crime to explode
Crime has not exploded in California. California’s violent crime rate rose in 2017—but it remains historically low. The statewide property crime rate decreased in 2017. Crime rates vary dramatically by region and category. Violent crime increased in a majority of counties but property crime decreased in most counties. [0]
I don't trust any property crime "stat" in any moderately sized city. Every single person I know whose had property crime happen to them which is in multiple cities and states doesn't even bother reporting it because the cops won't do anything so it's just a waste of time.
Sounds like you’re the property criminal, because the odds of every single person you know having property crime committed against them is ridiculously low, unless you’re the one committing it.
Most of the property crime is see from various places around here the past couple years has been theft and damage under $500 - not enough to make it worth filing an insurance claim, and police reports don't seem to do much around here, sometimes they tell you to call back in a day or two if you do call.
So there is plenty of crimes posted on the fbook / nextdoors / stuff like that were people are feeling victimized / but these are not going to show in any crime stats anywhere. Unless fbook has some AI run through and tabulate this stuff and report it by area one day..
You also can't see the impact from some stats. A neighbor recently had a naked guy pounding on her back door, they did get cops out for that one, arrested him from hiding inside here storage shed... with screenshots of the whole ordeal posted in a group - lots of people were a bit traumatized, yet you would see in the crime stats '1 arrested for trespass' - which does not give you a good idea of the impact on the community of this data point.
trying to reply to comment below, but I guess the thread is at max threshold.
I like to point to data for calming things down sometimes like the gun violence debate.. but often times there is much missed in looking at data from a far.
Plus, a couple of mayors ago, our city mad all the cops change how they report crimes (choose the softer things to charge people with so the stats look better) - and, officers were actively asking people not to press charges for things, go so far as explaining the process, and how we would spend hours in court and they would be off the streets doing important stuff for hours if we pressed charges, and that the person was not going to be in jail anyway..
Maybe things are different elsewhere and maybe in some places they have some of the same tricky data reporting, until we have all robot cops that run the same software in all cities, some of these things are going to be difficult to compare.
I would say it’s the lack of mental healthcare and a social safety net that causes all of the above. And it’s not possible to address on a state level as all the other states would ship the problems to the state that tries to offer the benefits.
> California has only gotten more “progressive” with each election.
That is different from "damping the extremes".
Why is it so difficult for those on the "conservative" side to believe that the election outcomes reflect the will of the populace when they actively reject "conservatism"?
> I hope you understand that it’s “progressive” policy which has caused crime to explode
This is a dog whistle way of saying "homelessness" as most crime has not exploded.
However, I have yet to see a conservative solution to homelessness short of "round them up and ship them somewhere else". aka part of the reason for California's homelessness is other, generally conservative, states shipping them in.
> housing prices to rise
A fair argument. And this is also a contributor to homelessness. Prop 13 is going to have to fall before anything really helps with this.
> and people to leave the state.
I'm still waiting for all these Republicans in Southern California to head to Texas. Any time now ...
What the article points out is that most people leaving California are, unfortunately, on the lower end of the income range. Conservatives like you should welcome this as they are generally Democratic Party folks.
Do you know California is also the top state destination for people leaving Texas ? You know why ? It is because these are two largest states and they exchange population. The per year net migration to Texas is less than 0.1% of CA population.
