There should be no problem in reaffirming trade union and suffrage rights both, Mr.Bachmann. I also believe we already have a minimum wage and if not such social reforms have been proposed before. So reaffirming that is no problem.
Beyond reaffirming existing safety regulations and perhaps bolstering them, I was under the impression that the provision about unsafe and demeaning labor is referring to forced labor. That is, that prisoners will not be forced to do cruel or unusual labor when given hard labor sentences (not using them for forced hazardous duty or the like).
So I see no problem with the entire document as is. If there needs to be any alterations, it might just be to separate the right of everyone to safe workplaces from the part about forced labor, which applies primarily to the government.
I see nothing vague or corrupt about safety regulations in the private sector, we already have those I thought and those were some of the first social reforms proposed - and were proposed and supported by centrists and pro-business Americans.
The entire document is redundant, and is simply an attempt to build upon the promise to never abolish our social reforms. Considering the moderate position has become for quite some time the leaving of these reforms intact, it is clear the majority of the American people strongly support the idea of these reforms - or the ends to them, such as everyone having healthcare, - as falling under constitutional rights to life, liberty, and opportunity (the pursuit of happiness).
These reforms, and these rights, would only clear more statist barriers such as the inequality of inherited wealth out of the way of free market competition; you can't tell me that you honestly believe a man being healthier because his parents were able to afford better care when he was a child is a factor of his own merit above and beyond the man whose parents could not afford good care? Differences in starting positions have allowed the undeserving to dominate business too long, while men and women who have outcompeted and outproduced them work for them - hardly a free market or fair competition.
In the interest of a healthy private sector and a spirit of competition, I say we add a provision reaffirming the right to a good education to this bill.
Healthcare, education, union rights; these are centrist, moderate stances that already exist as social reforms and that the majority of Americans consider to be constitutional rights - to provide a slightly less uneven playing field so that the best and brightest are not beaten out for the best occupations and leaderhship roles by considerably less competitive individuals who simply had the benefits of better education and healthcare.
I'm surprised you don't support this, Mr. Jarvis. If you actually believed that people should catch their own happiness, you would support these measures. But I guess you feel those who rule deserve to rule even when they are outcompeted, even when brighter and harder working individuals exist. I suppose you believe it is government's job to enforce these forced inequalities of opportunity, in order to ensure that certain individuals are guaranteed high status even when they lack merit, and that other individuals are denied status even when they possess far greater merit.
In short, like anti-monopoly legislation, this Second Bill of Rights does not attack or restrict the private sector or the free market, it removes barriers put in the way of the market by the government - the barriers of land monopolies and aristocracy. By creating and ensuring a level playing field, this Second Bill of Rights does not punish or aid competitors in the field, it secures and defends competition itself.
That is the philosophy of the rising American wave - a centrist wave sweeping back the feudalistic reaction of Jarvis Republicanism. It is astounding when Callaghan supporters can be attempting to lower the graduated tax differences, differences centrist capitalists like Adam Smith himself strongly supported, and yet still be too leftist for Mr.Jarvis. It is a sad state when being to the right of the inventor of capitalism is radical communism in the eyes of a former vice president.
So I say, do not support Jarvis and the far-right; come join us in the center-right in supporting Eamon Callaghan and the Second Bill of Rights.
Beyond reaffirming existing safety regulations and perhaps bolstering them, I was under the impression that the provision about unsafe and demeaning labor is referring to forced labor. That is, that prisoners will not be forced to do cruel or unusual labor when given hard labor sentences (not using them for forced hazardous duty or the like).
So I see no problem with the entire document as is. If there needs to be any alterations, it might just be to separate the right of everyone to safe workplaces from the part about forced labor, which applies primarily to the government.
I see nothing vague or corrupt about safety regulations in the private sector, we already have those I thought and those were some of the first social reforms proposed - and were proposed and supported by centrists and pro-business Americans.
The entire document is redundant, and is simply an attempt to build upon the promise to never abolish our social reforms. Considering the moderate position has become for quite some time the leaving of these reforms intact, it is clear the majority of the American people strongly support the idea of these reforms - or the ends to them, such as everyone having healthcare, - as falling under constitutional rights to life, liberty, and opportunity (the pursuit of happiness).
These reforms, and these rights, would only clear more statist barriers such as the inequality of inherited wealth out of the way of free market competition; you can't tell me that you honestly believe a man being healthier because his parents were able to afford better care when he was a child is a factor of his own merit above and beyond the man whose parents could not afford good care? Differences in starting positions have allowed the undeserving to dominate business too long, while men and women who have outcompeted and outproduced them work for them - hardly a free market or fair competition.
In the interest of a healthy private sector and a spirit of competition, I say we add a provision reaffirming the right to a good education to this bill.
Healthcare, education, union rights; these are centrist, moderate stances that already exist as social reforms and that the majority of Americans consider to be constitutional rights - to provide a slightly less uneven playing field so that the best and brightest are not beaten out for the best occupations and leaderhship roles by considerably less competitive individuals who simply had the benefits of better education and healthcare.
I'm surprised you don't support this, Mr. Jarvis. If you actually believed that people should catch their own happiness, you would support these measures. But I guess you feel those who rule deserve to rule even when they are outcompeted, even when brighter and harder working individuals exist. I suppose you believe it is government's job to enforce these forced inequalities of opportunity, in order to ensure that certain individuals are guaranteed high status even when they lack merit, and that other individuals are denied status even when they possess far greater merit.
In short, like anti-monopoly legislation, this Second Bill of Rights does not attack or restrict the private sector or the free market, it removes barriers put in the way of the market by the government - the barriers of land monopolies and aristocracy. By creating and ensuring a level playing field, this Second Bill of Rights does not punish or aid competitors in the field, it secures and defends competition itself.
That is the philosophy of the rising American wave - a centrist wave sweeping back the feudalistic reaction of Jarvis Republicanism. It is astounding when Callaghan supporters can be attempting to lower the graduated tax differences, differences centrist capitalists like Adam Smith himself strongly supported, and yet still be too leftist for Mr.Jarvis. It is a sad state when being to the right of the inventor of capitalism is radical communism in the eyes of a former vice president.
So I say, do not support Jarvis and the far-right; come join us in the center-right in supporting Eamon Callaghan and the Second Bill of Rights.
))
