Justice as fairness: we can do better than we are

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by SoNotHer

Well this thread has gone down quite a road. I think Apocalipstic has the right idea in circling back to the beginning.

Keeping in mind that folks can be justified in feeling as they feel and thinking as they think, even if we do not share those feelings or thoughts, how do we move forward?

If we cannot come to some consensus about some basic ideas in thread of a dozen or so people, how exactly to we have justice, equality, harmony and sustainability in a world of seven billion?

Get attacked by another planet?

[SoNotHer]

Now that did make me laugh! :-) Yes, where's a "War of the Worlds" broadcast when you need one!

Originally Posted by Apocalipstic

Get attacked by another planet?

[ruffryder]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Well, if the immigrant is a US citizen then they stay here. If that person is a resident alien they can be sent home. That is how it should be. If someone commits murder, don't you think they *should* be thrown in prison? I do.



Why do we have to agree on religion in order to live in peace and comity?

Cheers
Aj

Thrown in prison for committing murder.. I believe in the death penalty not someone riding out their life in prison getting to read and lift weights and have a life.

We don't agree on religion. That is the point. And we will never live in peace because of it.

[ruffryder]

There will be a drug war if the latin countries got together. All of them will want to be the head honcho. You all are going to tell me there will not be? Look at El Paso Tx, Mexico border and look at Columbia. . not to mention Puerto Rico and Cuba. Drugs. I'm not being racist. I'm being realistic. Forget I said latin countries. That was brought up prior to my statement. I used it to make a point that no matter what countries you try and put together to live as one. There will be war.

[ruffryder]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Wait, are people *really* going to put the *illegal* kidnapping of girls and the *illegal* selling of same in the same category as legalized slavery and then say that slavery is still LEGAL in the United States? Is that actually the argument you are making here, Snow? Because that sounds *precisely* what you are saying and I am absolutely stunned that any person intelligent or educated person--and I assume everyone here is both--actually thinks that legalized slavery and illegal sex trafficking are the same things. By this logic, the prisons are filled with people who should not be in prison because murder is still legal.

Here's the argument that is being made:

Me: Slavery is illegal throughout the Western world and also in most other nations (I think there's one or two laggards.

Others: Slavery is still practiced in the United State because sex trafficking happens *therefore* slavery is still legal in the United States.


Cheers
Aj

What I was saying with my comment about slavery is that it existed. I didn't know we were talking about legal or illegal one way or the other. It exists. Perhaps that was what snow was getting at too. I cannot speak for her.

As for things being legal and illegal, why bother? People do illegal shit all the time. It is legal for them in their mind to do illegal things till they get caught then it becomes illegal and they face whatever punishment is deemed for the crime committed.

[ruffryder]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

No one has said that anyone can't speak here. Good god. However, I'm not going to just sit here and let people take my statement and then run it three times around the barn so they can, once again, inflate the United States into the most evil nation ever to plague the Earth.

Again, my ancestors came here as *property* not *people*. If one of my ancestors ran away and was caught if they were *lucky* they would be maimed. The law did not protect them. Their children could be sold--not taken from them because of abuse but "I lost a boatload of cash at the poker table, I'll sell a couple of slaves to raise the money". You, Snow, Apoc, are all arguing that this system is still legal in this nation because in another nation women and girls are being kidnapped and sold into slavery.

The argument, again, is NOT about whether it still exists, it is whether it is legal and socially sanctioned and to what degree that is true. Y'all are saying it is based upon the evidence of sexual slavery and sex trafficking. I say it is not legal or socially sanctioned because someone who kidnaps a woman in the United States has to fear being caught by the police and tried and imprisoned if caught. You are saying that kidnappers do not fear this because grabbing young women off the streets in the United States is perfectly legal because it happens. The kidnapper then sells the kidnapped to some other piece of walking scum. You are saying that the person who bought the woman has nothing to fear because holding her against her will is perfectly legal. The pimp then turns the woman out as a sexual slave. You are arguing that, once again, the pimp has nothing to fear either from having the woman as a prostitute or holding her against her will. The basis of this argument? The fact that sexual slavery is happening means that in the United States of America a man who kidnaps, sells, holds against her will and prostitutes a woman has nothing to fear from the law because these actiosn are legal. This is the argument being advanced. I would like someone making this argument to explain upon what evidence they base this belief that slavery is *legal* in the United States of America.

Cheers
Aj

With all due respect Aj, we have all said slavery is not legal. Those voicing their opinions and talking about slavery are talking about what does exist, "legal" in the past and "illegal" now. We are dissecting and talking about each point you made with your initial post and discussing why or why not we agree and what we think about it now in our civilization and why it will never be peaceful or never be a "perfect society." Does anyone think slavery could ever be legal again in the U.S? because I think it can! I won't get into specifics. Just look at Hitler. It takes someone or a military with his mindset to come in take over and guess what. . yeah. Aj if we sat there with your initial post, which we all basically agree with we wouldn't be having a conversation here. We are all taking certain points and expanding on them. That's all. Is that what we do in this thread or not? Or are you asking us specific questions or just wanting us to agree?

I would like to take the the issue of slavery one step further however and say it is illegal in the U.S. I will not agree that it is illegal however in all countries. When Middle Eastern countries allow thier men to torture, abuse, and kill their wives for whatever reason they may want, that to me is legal slavery.

[Apocalipstic]

All the more reason for a unified North and South America. The war on drugs could be ended.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by Apocalipstic

All the more reason for a unified North and South America. The war on drugs could be ended.

How would that end the war on drugs? You think the citizens of what is currently the US are going to suddenly not be obsessed with the drug trade? It'll never happen.

Here's what will happen if North and South America become one huge cumbersome impossible to travel from one end to the other because it's just too giant of a land mass to be reasonable as a country country: The US will bowl over the rest of us. They will not compromise. The rest of us will be absorbed into the US life and the US mission and the US whim. It's not like merging is going to make everybody more like Canada. Merging all of North and South America isn't going to get equal marriage rights for all - it'll probably LOSE the rights that we Canadians currently enjoy. You know why? Because the US has the most fire power and the most money. So they'll get whatever they want.

I'm not sure why anybody would wish that on the rest of us. If the US is as awful and obnoxious as everybody says it is (and, you know, there are a lot of things I don't like about the US and I very clearly prefer Canada times a zillion) why would you expect that they would play nice if the countries were to amalgamate? It'll never happen.

[ruffryder]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Then what are you arguing about, Apoc? Here's how this started from my perspective:

Me: Slavery is now illegal in just about every nation.
Ruffryder: Slavery still exists in the United States
Me: That may be the case but slavery is still *illegal*.
You and Snow: Yes, slavery still exists in the United States.
Me: Yes, but it is still *illegal* in every Western nation and most every other nation on the planet.
Chorus: But sexual slavery still exists!
Me: That is the case but I did not make an argument that slavery was non-existent, I made an argument that slavery was *illegal*. The existence of slavery may be legal, but for slavery to exist it need not be legal.
Chorus: Sexual slavery still exists!
Me: but it's not LEGAL!

Now, it is perfectly reasonable, given the opening premise that slavery is illegal for me to interpret the arguments of you, roughryder, et. al. as being that if slavery exists anywhere then slavery is still *legal* therefore nothing has changed. Because I wasn't saying a damn thing about whether or not sexual slavery exists--I'm nowhere near stupid enough to entertain that possibility. From my perspective, the illegality of slavery in the vast majority of nations is a *vast* improvement over human history. The argument y'all seem to be making is that it either isn't an improvement or it's still legal for no OTHER reason than that sexual slavery still exists.

I'm sorry Apoc, you know I have a great deal of respect for all of you but either I can't read, someone decided to derail the thread, or y'all are saying that because sexual slavery still exists nothing has changed vis a vis slavery even though it was perfectly legal throughout the world until the 19th century and now is illegal pretty much everywhere.

Cheers
Aj

Wow this is what I said copied and pasted from my first post here .. this is the derailment. Not sure what anyone said after me but this is what I said:

"The world and the U.S. still has slavery." That's all. Nothing to do with legal or illegal. Your last post is talking about the U.S. forgive me, but that was my post about slavery. Whether you are only talking about the U.S. or not I mentioned it because their has been talk about countries joining together and my point was made about slavery existing still whether it's legal or illegal. Some places it is legal! .. and if you consider joining some of these countries with the U.S. then who is to say it will stay illegal in the U.S? It was just an observation by everyone that "slavery still exists." If you only want to talk about illegal slavery, then ok. In the U.S. slavery is illegal. We all agree.

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by betenoire

How would that end the war on drugs? You think the citizens of what is currently the US are going to suddenly not be obsessed with the drug trade? It'll never happen.

Here's what will happen if North and South America become one huge cumbersome impossible to travel from one end to the other because it's just too giant of a land mass to be reasonable as a country country: The US will bowl over the rest of us. They will not compromise. The rest of us will be absorbed into the US life and the US mission and the US whim. It's not like merging is going to make everybody more like Canada. Merging all of North and South America isn't going to get equal marriage rights for all - it'll probably LOSE the rights that we Canadians currently enjoy. You know why? Because the US has the most fire power and the most money. So they'll get whatever they want.

I'm not sure why anybody would wish that on the rest of us. If the US is as awful and obnoxious as everybody says it is (and, you know, there are a lot of things I don't like about the US and I very clearly prefer Canada times a zillion) why would you expect that they would play nice if the countries were to amalgamate? It'll never happen.

I get what you are saying. Hell, if it was not so damn cold, I would have moved to Canada years ago! If I were Canadian I would not want to be part of the US either...

I think the war on drugs has created the drug trade as it stands. If drugs became decriminalized and there were not international borders to traffic across I think the violence would stop or at least way lessen.

I do get your point that the US would try to take over everything instead of being a collaborative union and I think that's a fair accesement. There are pros and cons of a union with many of the countries, but not with all.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Apocalipstic

All the more reason for a unified North and South America. The war on drugs could be ended.

Can you actually declare war on inanimate objects?

And maybe I'm a skeptic but considering all the documented involvement that U.S. agencies have had in drug trafficking from heroin to cocaine it's hard to believe that their hearts are really in winning this war.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by betenoire

I'm not sure why anybody would wish that on the rest of us. If the US is as awful and obnoxious as everybody says it is (and, you know, there are a lot of things I don't like about the US and I very clearly prefer Canada times a zillion) why would you expect that they would play nice if the countries were to amalgamate? It'll never happen.

Exactly.

I still think South America could benefit from some kind alliance. Not necessarily become one country, but a very strong allegiance.

[Kat]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMa'am

Not even a little bit. It sounds nice to refer to this sort of governance as "direct democracy". "Mob rule" just sounds so icky, you know? But that's what it is....

Never mind that this is a common misrepresentation of anarchic theory, which primarily involves elimination of the State, with a shift to essentially communal living -- how is "mob rule" any different from "democracy"?

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMa'am

In this sort of system, if the majority decides they don't want queer people getting married, well, tough shit, queer people! The majority has spoken! In fact, the majority has just voted that it's totally legal to kill queer people. I hope you're good at hiding!

But you've just described democracy in the U.S. right now! If a simple majority wants to ban gay marriage, it's banned (which is exactly what happened in Oregon seven years ago when a few counties legalized it for about 6 weeks.) Ditto any "freedom" that we may currently believe is a given, but probably won't be much longer (abortion, anyone...?) If enough ignorant fools vote for or against something in this country, it becomes law. That is the very definition of mob rule...

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMa'am

I'm endlessly amazed whenever a person who is any sort of minority is in favor of this sort of system. I know several people who are, and every one of them is a straight, white, man.

Well, I have long been what I like to call an "anarchic realist" -- I believe in anarchy as an ideal that can never possibly attained if human beings are involved.

Chipmunks, on the other hand...

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

Can you actually declare war on inanimate objects?

And maybe I'm a skeptic but considering all the documented involvement that U.S. agencies have had in drug trafficking from heroin to cocaine it's hard to believe that their hearts are really in winning this war.

Well, the US Govt. is always declaring war on stuff like war and poverty...I agree its problematic.

I agree about not winning the war on drugs, but a lot of money and lives are wasted every day on it.

[Apocalipstic]

One of the things that really interests me here and in the OP is how continuing to have affirmative action but basing it on income would play?

I remember taking the ACT back in High School and noticing at the time how much easier the language part was for me since the only people I had heard speak English for large parts of my childhood were my parents who were very well educated in English and Speech. It did not seem fair that I only had to answer what sounded right to me, the English I heard at home.

[nowandthen]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

Can you actually declare war on inanimate objects?

And maybe I'm a skeptic but considering all the documented involvement that U.S. agencies have had in drug trafficking from heroin to cocaine it's hard to believe that their hearts are really in winning this war.

I had a paradigm shift around the term "war on drugs" back in 1995 when I was doing HIV outreach in rural areas out side of Houston Texas. I went to a conference in Austin for work and was in a workshop with a women who was doing outreach work in LA. She was in recovery and self-identified as Latino work in low income and communities of color and gave a great talk. The one thing I took away was here description of "war". She asked us if we knew what happened in a war, we gave different answers. She described it this way, " In a war, people die and we take prisoner". If we look back to the Reagan years, and the "war on drugs until today what have we seen? The government flooded the streets with crack, we had the drug laws that gave more time for rock cocaine vs powder, we got tough on crime with 3 strike laws, and we created the private prison industry.

So language that sound good on the outside actually is a system that has created what Michelle Alexander book, The New Jim Crow exposes which is system of laws that have created a permanent underclass that is in one form or another under the surveillance of the state (Jail, probation, metal institution, work release, etc). So for me the war on poverty is the same thing, war is a devastation not a construction that creates a world without poverty, in fact it recreates the need as a tool of marginalization, blame the victim for not have bootstraps. Ah, the 1% are good

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by nowandthen

I had a paradigm shift around the term "war on drugs" back in 1995 when I was doing HIV outreach in rural areas out side of Houston Texas. I went to a conference in Austin for work and was in a workshop with a women who was doing outreach work in LA. She was in recovery and self-identified as Latino work in low income and communities of color and gave a great talk. The one thing I took away was here description of "war". She asked us if we knew what happened in a war, we gave different answers. She described it this way, " In a war, people die and we take prisoner". If we look back to the Reagan years, and the "war on drugs until today what have we seen? The government flooded the streets with crack, we had the drug laws that gave more time for rock cocaine vs powder, we got tough on crime with 3 strike laws, and we created the private prison industry.

So language that sound good on the outside actually is a system that has created what Michelle Alexander book, The New Jim Crow exposes which is system of laws that have created a permanent underclass that is in one form or another under the surveillance of the state (Jail, probation, metal institution, work release, etc). So for me the war on poverty is the same thing, war is a devastation not a construction that creates a world without poverty, in fact it recreates the need as a tool of marginalization, blame the victim for not have bootstraps. Ah, the 1% are good

I so agree with this.

The word "war" seems to indicate someone has to win and someone has to lose...and who is losing?

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

I still think South America could benefit from some kind alliance. Not necessarily become one country, but a very strong allegiance.

Some movement in that direction.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/12/09-5

Out of the Backyard: New Latin American and Caribbean Bloc Defies Washington
by Benjamin Dangl

Rain clouds ringed the lush hillsides and poor neighborhoods cradling Caracas, Venezuela as dozens of Latin American and Caribbean heads of state trickled out of the airport and into motorcades and hotel rooms. They were gathering for the foundational summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), a new regional bloc aimed at self-determination outside the scope of Washington’s power.

Notably absent were the presidents of the US and Canada – they were not invited to participate. "It's the death sentence for the Monroe Doctrine," Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega said of the creation of the CELAC, referring to a US policy developed in 1823 that has served as a pretext for Washington's interventions in the region. Indeed, the CELAC has been put forth by many participating presidents as an organization to replace the US-dominated Organization of American States (OAS), empower Latin American and Caribbean unity, and create a more equal and just society on the region’s own terms.

The CELAC meeting comes a time when Washington’s presence in the region is waning. Following the nightmarish decades of the Cold War, in which Washington propped up dictators and waged wars on Latin American nations, a new era has opened up; in the past decade a wave of leftist presidents have taken office on socialist and anti-imperialist platforms.

The creation of the CELAC reflected this new reality, and is one of various recent developments aimed at unifying Latin America and the Caribbean as a progressive alternative to US domination. Other such regional blocs include the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) which has successfully resolved diplomatic crises without pressure from Washington, the Bank of the South, which is aimed at providing alternatives to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and the Bolivarian Alliance of Latin America (ALBA), which was created as an alternative to the Free Trade Area of the Americas, a deal which would have expanded the North American Free Trade Agreement throughout Latin America, but failed due to regional opposition.

The global economic crisis was on many of the leaders’ minds during the CELAC conference. "It seems it's a terminal, structural crisis of capitalism," Bolivian President Evo Morales said in a speech at the gathering. "I feel we're meeting at a good moment to debate ... the great unity of the countries of America, without the United States."

The 33 nations comprising the CELAC make up some 600 million people, and together are the number one food exporter on the planet. The combined GDP of the bloc is around $6 trillion, and in a time of global economic woes, the region now has its lowest poverty rate in 20 years; the growth rate in 2010 was over 6% - more than twice that of the US. These numbers reflect the success of the region’s social programs and anti-poverty initiatives.

In an interview with Telesur, Evo Morales said the space opened by the CELAC provides a great opportunity to expand the commerce of Latin America and the Caribbean in a way that does not depend on the precarious markets of the US and Europe. In this respect he saw a central goal of the CELAC being to “implement politics of solidarity, with complementary instead of competitive commerce to resolve social problems…”

While the US is the leading trading partner for most Latin American and Caribbean countries, China is making enormous inroads as well, becoming the main trade ally of the economic powerhouses of Brazil and Chile. This shift was underlined by the fact that Chinese President Hu Jintao sent a letter of congratulations to the leaders forming the CELAC. The letter, which Chávez read out loud to the summit participants, congratulated the heads of state on creating the CELAC, and promised that Hu would work toward expanding relations with the region’s new organization.

The US, for its part, did not send a word of congratulations. Indeed, Washington’s official take on the CELAC meeting downplayed the new group’s significance and reinforced US commitment to the OAS. Commenting on the CELAC, US Department of State spokesman Mark Toner said, “There [are] many sub-regional organizations in the hemisphere, some of which we belong to. Others, such as this, we don’t. We continue, obviously, to work through the OAS as the preeminent multilateral organization speaking for the hemisphere.”

Many heads of state actually saw the CELAC meeting as the beginning of the end for the OAS in the region. This position, held most passionately by leaders from Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba, was best articulated by Venezuelan President, and host of the CELAC meeting, Hugo Chávez. "As the years pass, CELAC will leave behind the old OAS," Chávez said at the summit. “OAS is far from the spirit of our peoples and integration in Latin America. CELAC is born with a new spirit; it is a platform for people's economic, political and social development, which is very different from OAS.” He later told reporters, “There have been many coup d'états with total support from the OAS, and it won’t be this way with the CELAC.”

However, the presidents involved in the CELAC vary widely in political ideology and foreign policy, and there were differing opinions in regards to relations with the OAS. Some saw the CELAC as something that could work alongside the OAS. As Mexican chancellor Patricia Espinosa said, the OAS and the CELAC are “complementary forces of cooperation and dialogue.”

A test of the CELAC will be how it overcomes such differences and makes concrete steps toward developing regional integration, combating poverty, upholding human rights, protecting the environment and building peace, among other goals. The final agreements of the two day meeting touched upon expanding south to south business and trade deals, combating climate change and building better social programs across the region to impact marginalized communities. In addition, the CELAC participants backed the legalization of coca leaves (widely used as a medicine and for cultural purposes in the Andes), condemned the criminalization of immigrants and migrants, and criticized the US for its embargo against Cuba.

Various presidents at the CELAC spoke of how to approach these dominant issues. Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega said the CELAC should “monitor and rate” the US anti-drug efforts. As long as the US continues its consumption of drugs, Ortega said, “All the money, regardless of by how much it’s multiplied, and all the blood, no matter how much is spilled” won’t end the drug trade.

Yet there are plenty of contradictions within the CELAC organization itself. The group is for democracy but includes the participation of Porfirio Lobo from Honduras, the president who replaced Manuel Zelaya in unfair elections following a 2009 military coup. The CELAC is for environmental protection, yet its largest participant, Brazil, is promoting an ecologically disastrous agricultural model of soy plantations, GMO crops and poisonous pesticides that are ruining the countryside and displacing small farmers. The group is for fairer trade networks and peace, yet various participating nations have already signed devastating trade deals with the US, and corrupt politicians at high levels of government across the region are deeply tied to the violence and profits of the transnational drug trade.

These are some of the serious challenges posed to Latin American and Caribbean unity and progress, but they do not cancel out the new bloc’s historical and political significance. The creation of the CELAC will likely prove to be a significant step toward the deepening of a struggle for independence and unity in the region, a struggle initiated nearly 200 years ago and largely led by Latin American liberator Simón Bolívar, whose legacy was regularly invoked at the CELAC conference.

In 1829, a year before his death, Bolívar famously said, “The United States appears destined by Providence to plague America with miseries in the name of Freedom.” Yet with the foundation of the CELAC under the clouds of Caracas, the march toward self-determination is still on.

[Apocalipstic]

Great article MT!

Its happening.