Information icon.svg

Campaigning for the RationalMedia Foundation 2021 board of trustees election is underway!

Essay talk:Needed Constitutional Amendments (Pbfreespace3)

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion welcomed.

"Country" and "nation-state" are not the synonyms you think they are. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:54, 10 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

Are nonprofit corporations people? :) --Read-Write (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

My point was if you're a nonprofit, you are allowed to donate money to a candidate. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Why not allow 18-year-olds to use drugs[edit]

They're old enough to be allowed to enjoy getting addicted to a drug that can cause lung cancer and emphysema, so why not let them have a few pot brownies too. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

And while we're at it, lower the drinking age to 18 years.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Sanders might support that. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I would reform drug laws far more than what is listed here. I would essentially ban chemicals in drugs (cigs, etc.) that cause cancer and disease. This way things like cigarettes, etc. would be far safer for use. With regards to age limits, I think there should be a simple set age. Say 18 for example. Sure.
You can't "ban the chemicals in cigarettes that cause cancer". To do that you would have to ban burning stuff. Many of the substances that make cigarettes so dangerous are produced because something burns at low temperature. That is also one of the reasons why second hand smoke can actually be more dangerous if taken at the same dose. Pizzameister (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Then ban cigarettes and only allow vaporizers, which are significantly less bad for you. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Ban cigarettes? You forgot, how the alcohol prohibition made the mafia in the US big and strong and how the drug prohibition continues to make the drug cartels big and strong enough to replace the legitimate government in some places?--Kugelschreiber (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Prohibition is not the way to go. Campaigns and help for the addicted are much more efficient. A person who is hooked needs help, not punishment. Pizzameister (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I understand all of that. It was a rhetorical statement designed to get a point across. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
To clarify: my view is that smokable drugs should be allowed but strongly discouraged. Smoking a cigarette is really bad for you. I'velost several relatives to it and I don't like the smell, so maybe I'm biased in that regard. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I also hate smoking. And I am very proud to say that a smoking ban was one of my first political decisions that counted. But we should not ever have prohibitions against self harm. At least not for adult sane people. Tax the crap out of cigarettes and prohibit any advertisement for them by all means. Educate people about the harm they do. But don't keep people who knowing all that still want to commit an extended suicide from doing so. Pizzameister (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
no one who smokes does so not knowing the harm is does and the same applies for illegal drugs. Its cultural far more than education. Its also cultural aspects that determine how damaging they are to the various communities where drug use is prevalent - compare a breaking bad style meth head red neck to a tina smoking gay male in london. Prohibitions on such behaviour is not purely about self harm. It is a lot to do with picking up the pieces from the various activities that result from drug use and ensuring addiction. I am all for legalising drugs but any argument based on libertarian view of 'its their choice' is ridiculously simplistic and takes no account for the damage drugs do individually and society at large, nor how liberalisation will affrct this. The only valid reasons legalising drugs is for better regulation and for taxing the stuff to pay for better ways to desl with the many many negative effects. It would also take a very lucrative trade away from criminals, and criminalising drug users creates more problems than it solves. Ultimately, legalisation is no solution, it is a lesser of two evils. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Why not let prisoners vote[edit]

Vermont and Maine do. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a matter of them not having a say in society since they've committed a crime. People are allowed to vote because it affects them. Prisoners are barely affected by outside politics at all except when it comes to crime sentencing, etc. So why should hundreds of thousands of law-breakers be given the ability to sway the outcome of an election that doesn't even affect them? It would be like allowing Canadians to vote. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Prisoners are affected by all kinds of legislation; for example the PLRA which almost completely cuts off prisoners' access to the courts. Prisoners are required to exhaust administrative remedies before suing, so the prisons deliberately set up labyrinthine administrative remedy systems that make it easy for prisoners to accidentally forfeit their rights by failing to fulfill some technical requirement, or that keep their cases tied up for months or years in internal appeals. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
OK. I don't think the law should be significantly changed. Keep in mind their families can all vote. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Stupid question. If we assume human behavior is not significantly tied to ethnicity and other characteristics of a similar kind, why does the US have both a higher crime rate and a higher incarceration rate than most of Europe? Pizzameister (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The culture of police in Europe is very different from that of America. In America, police are actively encouraged to arrest as many people as possible. In fact, some departments even offer pay increases for higher arrest rates. In Europe police are not armed, and crime is lower due to socialized economies that allieviate poverty. Also marijuana is demonized in America unlike any other country, and there are thousands of arrests per month for possession. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
There's also a tendency in the U.S. to just keep passing more laws that tack on harsher and harsher penalties, without regard to how much it costs or whether those penalties help with crime control. An example is probation for low-risk offenders, which studies suggest is effective at putting people back in prison for probation violations, but may not be any more helpful for crime control than simply letting first-time offenders off with a warning. The U.S. has also shown zero interest in building Norwegian-style cushy prisons that would help prisoners get in a state of mind more conducive to smoothly reintegrating into society when they get out. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Or in essence "fuck tough on crime". Pizzameister (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Basically yeah. Even a cushy prison is still a prison. You don't get to live with your family or go to bars and pick up hot babes. That one disadvantage alone is a strong incentive to avoid living a life of crime. On the other hand, in the U.S., a lot of black guys have no other ways to get laid other than by selling enough crack to support their baby mamas. The school systems in a lot of urban areas don't offer serious preparation for college. (Even with affirmative action helping them get admitted, if they're not prepared adequately to handle the rigorous college classes, they'll flunk out.) Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Corporate Personhood[edit]

I see that you want to abolish it which has some very broad consequences (see our article on Move to Amend). I think that the Democracy for All amendment makes it clear that campaign finances are the target for regulation and not any kind of speech; it also specifically protects freedom of the press which was the only good thing that came out of Citizen's United. Also is that what WolfPAC wants to achieve?--Owlman (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I need to reword that. Let me do that. The WolfPac thing was essentially a placeholder because lazy me. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

What about clarifying what a "natural born citizen" is?[edit]

Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Where do you see that in my essay? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
OH I see what you mean. OK.

Eliminate recess appointments and the pocket veto[edit]

please Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Why? Also, what about the line item veto? Pizzameister (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Recess appointments are basically an anachronism from the era before modern transportation. The purpose of the pocket veto, on the other hand, isn't even all that clear. What's the advantage of a line item veto? Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know. Some people say it reduces the chance for pork. I would support some anti-pork measures tbh. Though interestingly pork only ever happens in states you don't live in. Pizzameister (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Couldn't the President just veto the whole bill and say "I won't sign this unless you amend it to get rid of the following items of pork"? Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know. It does not seem to be a commonly taken route today. And several state constitutions allow for the line item veto without Nazis riding dinosaurs every second week... Pizzameister (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)