Unintended consequences of the Civil Rights Act

Posted by khalling 12 years, 1 month ago to Government
67 comments | Share | Flag

The Civil Rights Act was used to argue for a workplace free of blacks. up is always down in government
SOURCE URL: http://www.harrybrowne.org/WGDW/CivilRights.htm


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 12 years, 1 month ago
    I think this quote is aptly applied to O-care also...
    "But coercion never produces harmony. How harmonious are people who are being forced to act against their will? Most likely, those who are coerced will resent those who benefit from the coercion. This sets group against group; it doesn't bring them together."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ Maphesdus 12 years, 1 month ago
      A quote from an anarchist who thinks government doesn't ever work. Yeah, that's not a reputable source...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 12 years, 1 month ago
        Hello Mephesdus,


        I don't care who the source was. An attack upon the source as apposed to the argument is ad-hominem. I agree with the premise. Would you care to cite an example of a people living harmoniously under a state of coercion?


        I do believe in the necessity of limited government as expressed by our founders and others like:
        Frederic Bastiat, http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/frog.html
        Charles de Montesquieu http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/4...
        John Locke http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/author...
        John Stuart Mill http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/238...
        I can suggest many reputable authors and books. The above links are just quote pages from authors I recommend off the top of my head. I have many more... I would be pleased to offer other essential reads like Thomas Paine- Common Sense and Other Writings...


        If you have read Bastiat- The Law, Montesquieu- The Spirit of the Laws, Locke- Two Treatises on Government, or Mill- On Liberty, then you have my answer and it concurs generally with this thought from the Father of this Nation "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
        George Washington


        If you have read these materials and disagree, then if you would kindly make reference to your pertinent disagreements and offer specific notables/ philosophers and their countering arguments, who you believe to have superior reason, perhaps we could contrast and examine them.


        Like everyone else, I do not agree 100% with anyone but myself. I do however find that once one has studied at least the aforementioned primary works, one does gain a better understanding of the views you do not presently share. Government is a necessary evil which need only be empowered to protect us and our property from those who would do us ill and vigilance by the populace is required to keep it in check. The government has no business doing most of what it is doing today while failing to do the things authorized by the founding documents. They have been reading extra constitutional powers into it to suit their own desires for a century at least, completely ignoring the spirit and the letter of 9th and 10th amendments... don't even get me started on the "General Welfare" malarkey... the end result is dissension, discord, disharmony... It is wrong no matter which party does it, or for what purpose.


        "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

        Respectfully,
        O.A.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ Maphesdus 12 years, 1 month ago
          A limited government is still a government. Harry Browne did not write a book titled "Why Limited Government is the Only Kind of Government That Works." He wrote a book titled "Why Government Doesn't Work." Saying that government should be small and limited is a perfectly rational and reasonable statement. Saying that government just flat out doesn't work ever is not.

          Oh, and just so you know, that quote from George Washington is actually fake. George Washington never actually said that. ;)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 12 years, 1 month ago
            Mephesdus,

            Just so I am clear; I don’t give a wit about the man, the source of the premise, or what his book was about, or his purported anarchist positions. I have no more exposure to the man’s writings beyond the threads original article. I merely agree with the premise I related.

            As far as the quote is concerned: Perhaps Brainy Quote and others needs your assistance. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes...
            There are many more sites that attribute this quote to G.W. and a few that call it unsupported because they can’t find the documentation… I wasn't there… You could be right… :)

            There are other documented quotes from Washington that express a similar sentiment:
            Here is an excerpt from his Farewell Address in 1796. “It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.”
            http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/...

            It expresses the same general warning and fears. So it is not beyond the pale to posit that Washington may have spoken those words, or been incorrectly quoted or paraphrased; but he certainly warned of and shared the general sentiment.

            Now, it is plain to any objective observer that Washington’s warning was imperative and not without merit as history has proved by multiple examples.

            Respectfully,
            O.A.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by $ Maphesdus 12 years, 1 month ago
              If you look on Wikiquote, you can clearly see that that particular quote is listed in the "Disputed" section. The quote does not appear in any of George Washington's writings, or any writing at all in fact until 1902. When a quote doesn't appear until over a hundred years after the individual's death, that's a pretty sure sign it's fake.

              http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Wash...

              "Attributed to "The First President of the United States" in "Liberty and Government" by W. M., in The Christian Science Journal, Vol. XX, No. 8 (November 1902) edited by Mary Baker Eddy, p. 465; no earlier or original source for this statement is cited"

              As for his farewell address speech, all he's doing there is endorsing a system of checks and balances, and saying that the federal government should remain within the boundaries established by the Constitution. He is warning against the usurpation of free governments by despotic governments. Notice the distinction there: some governments are free, and some are despotic. By using the term "free governments," George Washington is actually saying that not all governments are tyrannical or despotic. Some governments, specifically free governments, are very good. Therefore, the misquotation you provided which says that all government is inherently bad is in direct conflict with George Washington's actual beliefs.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 12 years, 1 month ago
                Mephesdus,

                Really? I don't see it that way. I believe the quote is a simple acknowledgement that all governments have weaknesses which can and will be abused if vigilance is not exercised... that it is a necessary evil to be vigilantly controlled, so that it doesn't end up controlling you. The larger the government the more openings for exploitation. Have you read Benjamin Franklin's speech from the Constitutional convention? This is one of my favorite speeches regarding our founding.

                "Mr. President
                I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right — Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison."
                In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administred.
                On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument." Benjamin Franklin

                The passage... ("...I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.") expresses a similar sentiment as I see it. It is also clear to me that the time when it is no longer well administered and the despotism is showing its face has come to pass.

                I believe this to be a common sentiment among the founders generally. The founders had a deserved trepidation regarding big government and expanding government, that many today give far too little countenance. It is only natural for governments to try to expand their power to the detriment of liberty and freedom and that the citizens must be ever vigilant in controlling, or as they see fit even abolishing their form of government when it becomes too oppressive, which is eloquently expressed in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence.

                Respectfully,
                O.A.

                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 12 years, 1 month ago
    I plan to try to address this issue in part of "Roarke's Drift" (I haven't worked it out yet).

    Among the many attacks used to try to stop Roarke, the antagonist notices that his crew is all white males. So Roarke is taken to court. As his 'defense' he introduces each member of his crew. "This is my chief engineer. His race is Ernie Pryce... This is my pilot... his race is Freddy Haynes..." and so on. Then he explains how he met each *individual* and why he hired each *individual*.

    Don't ask *me* how the court case turns out. I haven't thought that part up yet...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ Maphesdus 12 years, 1 month ago
      I'd be interested in reading that story once you're done writing it. If you'd like some suggestions as to how you might proceed, here's some ideas to get you thinking.

      First off, there's a critical decision you're going to have to make in regards to your story, and that is this: are you trying to prove that your protagonist isn't prejudiced, or are you trying to argue that there's nothing wrong with being prejudiced? Or are you going to try and argue that race doesn't exist, and therefore it's impossible to be racist? These are very important distinctions, and what you choose will determine the direction of your story.

      If you intend to argue that race doesn't exist, well, you've got an uphill battle against biology to fight.

      If you intend to simply argue that it's okay to discriminate based on race and/or sex, then I can't see your story turning out to be anything more than racist, misogynistic drivel.

      However, if your goal is to prove that your protagonist isn't racist or sexist, in spite of the fact that he has only hired white men at his company, then your story may have some potential. But you're going to have to do more than simply weave a narrative of how he met the men he did hire, as such a narrative would not prove, in and of itself, that he wasn't discriminating in some way.

      In addition to explaining why he chose to hire the men, you're also going to have to explain why he DIDN'T hire any minorities or women.

      For minorities, there are a few legitimate arguments you could possibly use:

      Perhaps your character happens to live and work in an ethnically homogenous area. Maybe he lives in Utah, where black people only represent 2% of the total population. If everyone in the geographical region where his company primarily operates is white, he can hardly be blamed if he only hires white workers – he may not have any other choice.

      You could also say that perhaps he was earnestly engaged in trying to find quality workers from ethnic minorities, but for whatever reason was unable to do so. Perhaps no minority ever applied for a position at his company (it happens). Or perhaps minorities did apply for positions at his company, but due to the war on poverty and high crime rates, none of them were able to obtain a decent education, and as a result were unqualified for any but the most low level manual labor positions. This argument might work well for African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans, but it would probably not work so well for Asians, Indians (by which I mean people from India), or immigrants from any modern industrialized nation.

      You also have to consider the time period of your story. Does your story take place today, in the 21st century, or does it take place in the 1950s? Or does it take place in the future? What is the status of the American educational system in your story?

      If your story takes place in or close to the current year, are you taking into account the fact that 50% of all PhD candidates in the United States are foreign immigrants? How do you account for that, and how does the H-1B Immigration Visa figure into your story, if at all? Consider what Michio Kaku has to say on the subject:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXnAP6YUw...
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7C7Ncqb_...

      Anyway, that's just a few suggestions regarding race. Trying to justify why your protagonist hasn't hired any women, however, is going to be significantly harder.

      Simply explaining how he met the men doesn't dispel any possibility of prejudice, as you still have to answer why he only seems to meet talented people of a specific demographic (i.e. white males). What sort of social activities is he engaging in that make it impossible for him to meet talented women? Is he making any effort to find talented women? Or are talented women just not applying to his company? If so, why? Does his company operate in primarily a male dominated field? If you're trying to prove that your character is not sexist, these are arguments you're going to have to think about.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 12 years, 1 month ago
    Sorry, but I don't agree with this article at all. The man who wrote that article, Harry Browne, is the author of a book titled "Why Government Doesn't Work," which is simply a ridiculous statement. There are certain kinds of government which don't work (Communism, Socialism, Fascism, etc.).

    If he had said Communist government doesn't work, he would be right. If he had said Socialist government doesn't work, he would be right. But to simply say that government of any kind doesn't work is such an absurd statement that anyone who makes it can be called nothing but an anarchist. He has no credibility.

    Also, I notice that the author of the article conveniently neglected to state the outcomes of the frivolous lawsuits he tried to use as evidence to support his argument. A frivolous lawsuit is proof of nothing if the person making the lawsuit loses their case or if the judge throws it out.

    The only legitimate piece of evidence that Mr. Harry Browne uses in this entire article is the example of the white women who was supposedly awarded disability benefits because her fear of black people was not accommodated at work. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr. Browne could be distorting the facts here, or leaving out important details. But even if he's not, he does say that the incident occurred in Florida, a state which has a long history of racist lawmakers passing prejudiced legislation. And on top of that, even if it is a real case, it is nevertheless only a single isolated incident, and it is not enough in and of itself to outweigh all the innumerable injustices which the Civil Rights Act explicitly outlawed. If this is the one and only time the Civil Rights Act has ever been so explicitly misused, then we've got a pretty good track record. When we pit this one single incident against all the thousands of other incidents where minorities were persecuted, the trade-off is well worth it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 12 years, 1 month ago
      "The man who wrote that article, Harry Browne,"
      This sounds like the fallacy of poisoning the well, but I think it's not. I think you're establishing Browne is not a reliable source.

      Here's how I read what Browne is saying: There was a legitimate problem of racist local laws at the time. The Civil Rights Act undid the law forcing people to be racist, which was a good thing. It also created laws forcing people not to be racist, which was a bad thing. If the racist local laws are gone for good, the Civil Rights Act is nothing but bad.

      Do you agree with that? Or do you think we should force people not to act racist so that racism is stigmatized as illegal?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ Maphesdus 12 years, 1 month ago
        I think we should force people not to act racist so that racism is stigmatized as illegal, at least in the public sector. ;)

        I consider racism and discrimination to be among the greatest evils that man is capable of committing, and I have no qualms whatsoever about explicitly outlawing it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 12 years, 1 month ago
          I suppose if it's the public sector, they're working for us and I don't want them to be racist. I wish we could shrink our public sector (i.e. the military) though.

          I also think forcing businesses to recruit outside their normal networks (i.e. AA) can be beneficial, although forcing people to do anything is not desirable. I suspect AA isn't necessary today.

          I have heard that when the gov't was working on a set of public service announcements and laws against teenagers smoking, the tobacco companies secretly loved it. The laws and PSAs made something that was poised to go out of style suddenly cool. Making things illegal to change societal normals has mixed and sometimes paradoxical results.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 12 years, 1 month ago
      1.you discredit the author with bias before attending to his points in the article.
      2. The Lawsuits he cites were not frivolous. I remember well the Denny's lawsuit. Those secret service agents settled out of court for 54Million
      3. The main point of the article is that it wasn't evil restauranteurs prohibiting certain races service as much as it was local and state governments using court systems and ordinances to force segregation. The passage of the Civil Rights Act just ENFORCED the opposite. Those pushing its passage weren't against force. They just wanted it to work the way they wanted it to. It has become a regulatory nightmare. And we are less free because of it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ Maphesdus 12 years, 1 month ago
        Alright, you do have a legitimate point with the Denny's lawsuit, I'll grant you that. But the other lawsuits that he cites are most certainly frivolous.

        The lawsuit by the woman who claimed to have a microchip in her tooth was a frivolous lawsuit.

        The lawsuit by the man who was fired for bringing a gun to work was a frivolous lawsuit.

        The lawsuit by the 220 lbs. woman against the National Guard was a frivolous lawsuit.

        The lawsuit by the couple who were forced off the airplane may or may not be frivolous, depending on whether or not the couple actually had tourette syndrome as they claim. If the couple really and truly did have tourette syndrome, and they could prove it in court, then their lawsuit was legitimate and the airline should pay them damages. But if the couple did not actually have tourette syndrome, and they were just lying in an attempt to get money, then their lawsuit is frivolous, and should be dismissed by the court.

        But Harry Browne fails to mention what the outcome of any of these cases were, and as such his usage of them undermines his credibility.

        In a free society, it is inevitable that frivolous lawsuits will be brought before a court. The mere existence of such frivolous lawsuits cannot be used as evidence of corruption unless the person making the lawsuit wins and is awarded damages. If the frivolous lawsuit is defeated in court, then that is evidence that the court is not corrupt. But since Harry Browne fails to mention the outcome of these cases, we can't draw any conclusions either way, except to conclude that Mr. Browne is grasping at straws to support his agenda, and making a problem seem worse than it actually is.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 12 years, 1 month ago
          the outcomes of most of these cases were settled out of court. That means, the plaintiff was compensated. get it? it's just like holding someone up on the street. you have a gun. M-you are for those holding the gun? Capisce?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by LetsShrug 12 years, 1 month ago
            He likes force. That's well documented throughout.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by $ Maphesdus 12 years, 1 month ago
              Not exactly. I just reject the anarchist notion that laws cannot prevent evil.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by LetsShrug 12 years, 1 month ago
                (Yes exactly...you've used the word 'force' way too many times.) You cannot legislate morality, and you can't fix stupid.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by $ Maphesdus 12 years, 1 month ago
                  Well you obviously can't have a discussion about the force of law without using the word "force." And if a law has no force behind it, what good is the law? Perhaps you believe that the government has no legal authority to enforce any law?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by LetsShrug 12 years, 1 month ago
                    ... not if the the law, itself, isn't "good". (And most aren't.)
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by $ Maphesdus 12 years, 1 month ago
                      Actually, a government always has legal authority to enforce its laws, regardless of whether those laws are good or not. Now if you're arguing from the standpoint of MORAL authority, that's an entirely different matter. Legal authority and moral authority are two very different concepts... ;)

                      Though I would certainly agree that immoral and harmful laws should be overturned or repealed, as enforcing them would obviously have very negative ramifications on society.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by LetsShrug 12 years, 1 month ago
                    OR perhaps I believe in the freedom to live your own life and you believe in the control of others.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by $ Maphesdus 12 years, 1 month ago
                      I don't believe in controlling others, I simply believe that laws are necessary for the protection of both individuals and society. I also agree that having the freedom to live your own life is very important, but at the same time it's also important to remember that freedom does not include the right to cause harm to others, and you are only permitted to exercise your freedom to the extent that doing so does not have any negative impact on other individuals or on society at large.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ winterwind 12 years, 1 month ago
                        My, my, my. M, there are always so many loose ends in what you say that I don't now where to start.

                        My first philosophy teacher taught me that if one sees what appears to be a contradiction, examine the premises. One of them will be wrong. The "wrong" one here is that you, in fact, DO believe in controlling others, by force when desired. Believing the second half shows the man behind the curtain. It illustrates your desire to use force [or condone its use, the same thing] against others.

                        "...you are only permitted to exercise your freedom..."??!? By whom? Oh, the force-exercising bullies you "don't believe" in?

                        how is a "negative impact" defined? and by whom?

                        "...impact...on society at large" ?? There is no such thing as a group impact. There can be a group of impacts, as when several individuals are affected by something, but events do not happen to a group - only to the people in it.

                        *ding!* Thank you for playing!


                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by $ Maphesdus 12 years, 1 month ago
                          A drunken man was going down the street in Baltimore flinging his hands right and left, when one of his arms came across the nose of a passer-by. The passer-by instinctively clenched his fist and sent the intruder sprawling to the ground. He got up, rubbing the place where he was hit, and said, “I would like to know if this is not a land of liberty.” “It is,” said the other fellow; “but I want you to understand that your liberty ends just where my nose begins.”
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by $ Maphesdus 12 years, 1 month ago
                          Well one could certainly make a legitimate argument that law enforcement and police officers might qualify as "bullies" under some circumstances (cases about police brutality are plentiful), however, police officers are also necessary for keeping the peace and protecting the citizens, even if they don't always do a good job of it. Or are you implying that you would rather live in a world without any police officers or law enforcement?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by sierrasky 12 years, 1 month ago
    This article reminds me of some issues that schools are currently facing. Because of the disability act, students identified as IEP, which includes a description of issues that impact their behavior, are fairly protected at school regardless of acting out against students or teachers. If their behavior is related to any disclosed psychiatric issues, they cannot be removed even in cases where they hurt other students or teachers. They have to cause "serious bodily harm", "bring a weapon to school" or "drugs". Even after any of the above occur, it is difficult to remove the student permanently. At least that is how I have seen CA is interpreting the Federal law.....
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo