Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal superyooser's Journal: "Equal at last!" and other MLK Day sleight of hand 18

Journal by superyooser
(Thanks to Farah's editorial "I have dream, too" for re-awakening me to some of these important points. I encourage you to read it since his commentary is more informative than mine.)

Because of liberal attempts to hijack Martin Luther King, Jr. Day for Socialist causes, let's keep in mind some lessons:
  1. Rights come from God. This is a fundamental American tenet that is acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence. Rights can neither be created nor destroyed. They exist because they are truly right. Government may impede or afford freedom for them, but they exist independently of government on a higher plane.
  2. Wealth is not a right. You are not entitled to acquire certain possessions, even "decent housing," via the resources of other people. (Charity is great, but gifts are privileges, not birthright entitlements.) However, the freedom to make choices to improve your life (e.g. finances) is a right.
  3. Being black is not a sin. Sexual perversion is a grave sin that is known to incur God's wrath and condemnation--literal fire and brimstone--on the whole of society that condones it.
  4. The Dream is about freedom, not equality, per se. The expansion of freedom results in equality of opportunity. State-engineered equality of effect is based on authoritarianism, not a love for fellow man, which is (or, should be) the highest objective of society.
  5. MLK was a great orator for civil rights, and he got his best material from the Holy Bible. Strangely, this is a book that some of MLK's supposed followers accuse of containing "hate speech" promoting genocide, slavery, racism, sexism, bigotry, and "homophobia."
  6. King is an inspiration to us, but his inspiration was the King of Kings, the Son of God. In America's near idolization of MLK, let us not forget who the real Savior and Liberator is.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

"Equal at last!" and other MLK Day sleight of hand More

"Equal at last!" and other MLK Day sleight of hand

Comments Filter:
  • The flip side of decent housing not being a right- USURY IS NOT A RIGHT! The *only* reason people can't afford decent housing is because of usury- of higher interest rates charged to the desparate than the banks charge amongst themselves. A great example is the differece between "Prime Rate", the rate banks charge for overnight loans to each other (currently hovering between 1%-5% APR for the last decade) and "Payday Loans"- which often cost up to 521% APR. The difference? The people taking payday loans
    • The government has spent a fair amount of time and resources investigating and fighting predatory lending [gao.gov]. It is actually a very complex problem. Similar to other areas in life, the government can't force people to make smart decisions about their financial well-being. While I agree that predatory lending is a big problem (particularly when there is fraud involved), there must be some element of personal responsibility
      • The government has spent a fair amount of time and resources investigating and fighting predatory lending [gao.gov]. It is actually a very complex problem.

        Back in the 1970s, it had a very simple solution drawn from Catholic morality- a legal defintion of usury as being any interest rate at the time of the loan more than 5% APR over prime, or more than 20% APR, with fines that were returned to the people hurt equal to the amount overcharged. What exactly is so hard about that idea? The answer is allowing

        • It's not a matter of smart decisions- it's a matter of housing and heating costs rising in relation to inflation at the same time that salaries decrease in relation to inflation, combined with an utter deregulation and lack of morality in the finanical industry. The people are already being forced into making bad decisions about their finanial well-being; they have NO choice.

          This simply isn't true - people are making suboptimal, irrational financial decisions. Because of this, they are spending *less* m

          • They clearly have a choice to not take the loan and accept late charges, or negotiate with utility companies to spread payments over time.

            That works with *some* utility companies (not all allow this), and of course it's a losing proposition in the long run anyway if your usage exceeds your ability to pay. NO mortgage company or property managment company will allow this for housing payments- they'll simply throw you out on the street if you try it.

            Payday loans make sense only when they potential late

  • Moo (Score:2)

    by Chacham ( 981 ) *
    rights can neither be created nor destroyed. They exist because they are truly right.

    He put it better. They are "inherent". They are not "rights" they are "inalienable rights". It's an unfotunate case that there is no better word for it.

    On another note, my brother likes to chide:
    I had a dream, that one day, my people will get jobs based on quotas and the color of their skin....
    • I think "natural rights" is pretty good - that is, related to our nature as human beings

      • Re:Moo (Score:2)

        by Chacham ( 981 ) *
        Interesting, i like the word "natrual" in one sense.

        However, i do not like the word "rights". It is not that we have the right to do something, it's that noone has the right, or ability, to take it away. More like interpersonal non-impedence of freedom of action.

        OK, going to turn this into a JE. Thanx for responding. :)
        • It is not that we have the right to do something, it's that noone has the right, or ability, to take it away. More like interpersonal non-impedance of freedom of action.

          That's a great insight. I see that I have overlooked one of the definitions of "right," as in a car having the right of way at an intersection. A right is a liberty of movement (physical or figurative) that no one else has a right (as in "right of way") to get in the way and take over. We each have a right to speech, but we can't shut eac

          • Re:Moo (Score:2)

            by Chacham ( 981 ) *
            That's a great insight.

            Thanx. :)

            A right is a liberty of movement (physical or figurative) that no one else has a right (as in "right of way") to get in the way and take over.

            Decent analogy. :)

            I hope we can get to the bottom of this. :P
        • It's the ABILITY part that I don't get- governments and people can always choose to act against liberty and rights.
      • Inalienable rights according to the UN [un.org]

        Isn't it funny how there isn't a single country in the world today that lives up to this half-century old document? Also, note that while it doesn't list decent housing and food as an inalienable human right, it *does* list the right to be paid for the work one does in amounts sufficient to provide for decent housing, food, and medical care for oneself and one's family. I submit that if there's any differences between races or country of origin left in the United St

        • Re:Moo (Score:2)

          by Chacham ( 981 ) *
          it's that we're failing to provide right to work at a living wage for all.

          When emolument is mandated at a set rate, it is merely a form of Socialism. Socialism has failed every time it was tried. Look at the USSR or somewhat at China now. This is not the answer.

          The appropriate way to enforce this is via goverment providing all neccessities and a high tax rate. It is just another form of Socialism, but at least it (sometimes) works.
          • When emolument is mandated at a set rate, it is merely a form of Socialism. Socialism has failed every time it was tried. Look at the USSR or somewhat at China now. This is not the answer.

            The USSR and China were not socialist countries, they were totalitarian dictatorships. Socialism only works if it's based on democracy- and is currently working throughout Europe, though their form of socialism is not complete either.

            I would also say that requiring businesses to pay fair wages and benefits for work don

            • Re:Moo (Score:2)

              by Chacham ( 981 ) *
              The USSR and China were not socialist countries, they were totalitarian dictatorships. Socialism only works if it's based on democracy- and is currently working throughout Europe, though their form of socialism is not complete either.

              The statement itself is coerrect. However, the point i was making was specifically on set wages. That is either Communist or Socialist, or a mixture of the two. Ultimately Socialist because pure Communism has no wages.

              I would also say that requiring businesses to pay fair wages
              • The statement itself is coerrect. However, the point i was making was specifically on set wages. That is either Communist or Socialist, or a mixture of the two. Ultimately Socialist because pure Communism has no wages.

                Actually, other systems include set wages, including Platonic Capitalism, Guild Capitalism, and Distributism. In fact, two out of these three require set wages to work- because in the small scale local capitalisms of Guild Capitalism and Distributism, the people must make money to be able

                • Re:Moo (Score:2)

                  by Chacham ( 981 ) *
                  Basically, you are promoting Socialism via changing Capitalism little by little. If i argue on the fine points and show you why they are wrong, you will point to the global picture. I have nothing against your global picture, you can have your own beliefs, however, changing Capitalism is these ways is destructive to Capitalism, that's all.
                  • Basically, you are promoting Socialism via changing Capitalism little by little. If i argue on the fine points and show you why they are wrong, you will point to the global picture. I have nothing against your global picture, you can have your own beliefs, however, changing Capitalism is these ways is destructive to Capitalism, that's all.

                    There are more choices than pure Socialism and pure Capitalism; and likely it's a halfway point that will satisfy all needs of justice and profit. Yes, this is destruct

Slashdot Top Deals

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

Close