Which Should be our Goal: Equality Before the Law or Equal Oppertunity?

[Iceman]

Rule of law means that everyone is beholden to the law. Equality before the law means that everyone is treated equally before the law. You cannot have one without the other.

Yes, but laws can be proscribed differently to different people.

Are you saying there was no rule of law in America before the 14th Amendment?

That would be an absurd assertion...

I see. Come to think about it, black codes were an excellent example of having the rule of law but not equality before the law. I stand corrected.

Or denying those who didn't own land the right to vote, or women the right to vote, a couple others...

 

[Iceman]

The US was certainly not founded on equality under the law. Egalitarianism was not a founding virtue. Thank god for that was well. Egalitarianism is the foundation for marxism.

 

[Publius1787]

Yes, but laws can be proscribed differently to different people.

Are you saying there was no rule of law in America before the 14th Amendment?

That would be an absurd assertion...

I see. Come to think about it, black codes were an excellent example of having the rule of law but not equality before the law. I stand corrected.

Or denying those who didn't own land the right to vote, or women the right to vote, a couple others...

What was the idea behind the landowning qualification? Taxes?

 

[Publius1787]

The US was certainly not founded on equality under the law. Egalitarianism was not a founding virtue. Thank god for that was well. Egalitarianism is the foundation for marxism.

Your against equality before the law? Do you have an example of which you object to equality before the law?

 

[Iceman]

I see. Come to think about it, black codes were an excellent example of having the rule of law but not equality before the law. I stand corrected.

Or denying those who didn't own land the right to vote, or women the right to vote, a couple others...

What was the idea behind the landowning qualification? Taxes?

Yea, taxes was part of it. Those who don't finance the government should not have a say in it's governance. A fair enough principal. Also, I think the belief was those who didn't have a ownership stake in the nation shouldn't be given the responsibility to guide it.

 

[Iceman]

The US was certainly not founded on equality under the law. Egalitarianism was not a founding virtue. Thank god for that was well. Egalitarianism is the foundation for marxism.

Your against equality before the law? Do you have an example of which you object to equality before the law?

One example. Immigration Laws, after 1965, the US Government can no longer set quotas for immigration, not being able to restirct immigration from one part of the world, and to allow it from another.

 

[Publius1787]

Or denying those who didn't own land the right to vote, or women the right to vote, a couple others...

What was the idea behind the landowning qualification? Taxes?

Yea, taxes was part of it. Those who don't finance the government should not have a say in it's governance. A fair enough principal. Also, I think the belief was those who didn't have a ownership stake in the nation shouldn't be given the responsibility to guide it.

That's what I thought. I don't view that as a violation of equality before the law. The government provides services that affect the "general welfare" of the nation. Who gets to choose how those services are funded and who is implementing them should very well be taxpayers. To decide how government should function without the burden of taxation would be inequality before the law more so than equality before the law.

 

[Publius1787]

The US was certainly not founded on equality under the law. Egalitarianism was not a founding virtue. Thank god for that was well. Egalitarianism is the foundation for marxism.

Your against equality before the law? Do you have an example of which you object to equality before the law?

One example. Immigration Laws, after 1965, the US Government can no longer set quotas for immigration, not being able to restirct immigration from one part of the world, and to allow it from another.

I was under the impression that US laws were for the benefit of US citizens. To not allow culturally corrupt miscreants into the country from ass backwards countries is not inequality before the law.

 

[Iceman]

Your against equality before the law? Do you have an example of which you object to equality before the law?

One example. Immigration Laws, after 1965, the US Government can no longer set quotas for immigration, not being able to restirct immigration from one part of the world, and to allow it from another.

I was under the impression that US laws were for the benefit of US citizens. To not allow culturally corrupt miscreants into the country from ass backwards countries is not inequality before the law.

Inequality before the law was restricting immigration to primarily European and christian nations(which would include Armenians, Lebanese/Syrian Christians, for example), and restricting it from third world nations. That is no longer allowed. Thus, we have unchecked third world immigration. But it is equal.

 

[Publius1787]

One example. Immigration Laws, after 1965, the US Government can no longer set quotas for immigration, not being able to restirct immigration from one part of the world, and to allow it from another.

I was under the impression that US laws were for the benefit of US citizens. To not allow culturally corrupt miscreants into the country from ass backwards countries is not inequality before the law.

Inequality before the law was restricting immigration to primarily European and christian nations(which would include Armenians, Lebanese/Syrian Christians, for example), and restricting it from third world nations. That is no longer allowed. Thus, we have unchecked third world immigration. But it is equal.

I still don't see how that is equality before the law. That would be like saying that by virtue of being a culturally backwards world citizen in another country we must grant you the chance to pollute our country the way you did yours. Cultural preservation is a legitimate object of government and to allow an invasion of non assimilating outsiders in to the country would reverse the preference away from the welfare of American citizens and toward the culturally jacked up migrant. I don't see how this is equality before the law from our point of view. Europeans assimilated quite well in only a few generations. I can't say the same for a few other countries who share neither the culture that made advancement possible in the United States or the ability to assimilate into that culture. Such an immigration preference for those cultures who assimilate into ours is an objective standard, and therefore, not unequal.

 

[Iceman]

I was under the impression that US laws were for the benefit of US citizens. To not allow culturally corrupt miscreants into the country from ass backwards countries is not inequality before the law.

Inequality before the law was restricting immigration to primarily European and christian nations(which would include Armenians, Lebanese/Syrian Christians, for example), and restricting it from third world nations. That is no longer allowed. Thus, we have unchecked third world immigration. But it is equal.

I still don't see how that is equality before the law. That would be like saying that by virtue of being a culturally backwards world citizen in another country we must grant you the chance to pollute our country the way you did yours. Cultural preservation is a legitimate object of government and to allow an invasion of non assimilating outsiders in to the country would reverse the preference away from the welfare of American citizens and toward the culturally jacked up migrant. I don't see how this is equality before the law from our point of view. Europeans assimilated quite well in only a few generations. I can't say the same for a few other countries who share neither the culture that made advancement possible in the United States or the ability to assimilate into that culture.

You aren't very smart are you?

All people, regardless of national origin, have a right to enter the US. Before 1965, they didn't.

I agree, immigration laws before 1965 were preferable to today's laws. The point is, equality under the law is not necessarily a good thing, case and point this example. Equality before the law can be a very bad thing. Things were better when we discriminated based upon national origins(when we didn't treat people equally under the law).

 

[Publius1787]

Inequality before the law was restricting immigration to primarily European and christian nations(which would include Armenians, Lebanese/Syrian Christians, for example), and restricting it from third world nations. That is no longer allowed. Thus, we have unchecked third world immigration. But it is equal.

I still don't see how that is equality before the law. That would be like saying that by virtue of being a culturally backwards world citizen in another country we must grant you the chance to pollute our country the way you did yours. Cultural preservation is a legitimate object of government and to allow an invasion of non assimilating outsiders in to the country would reverse the preference away from the welfare of American citizens and toward the culturally jacked up migrant. I don't see how this is equality before the law from our point of view. Europeans assimilated quite well in only a few generations. I can't say the same for a few other countries who share neither the culture that made advancement possible in the United States or the ability to assimilate into that culture.

You aren't very smart are you?

All people, regardless of national origin, have a right to enter the US. Before 1965, they didn't.

I agree, immigration laws before 1965 were preferable to today's laws. The point is, equality under the law is not necessarily a good thing, case and point this example. Equality before the law can be a very bad thing. Things were better when we discriminated based upon national origins(when we didn't treat people equally under the law).

You aren't very smart are you? I'm saying that the post 1965 immigration laws do not amount to equality before the law.

 

[Iceman]

I still don't see how that is equality before the law. That would be like saying that by virtue of being a culturally backwards world citizen in another country we must grant you the chance to pollute our country the way you did yours. Cultural preservation is a legitimate object of government and to allow an invasion of non assimilating outsiders in to the country would reverse the preference away from the welfare of American citizens and toward the culturally jacked up migrant. I don't see how this is equality before the law from our point of view. Europeans assimilated quite well in only a few generations. I can't say the same for a few other countries who share neither the culture that made advancement possible in the United States or the ability to assimilate into that culture.

You aren't very smart are you?

All people, regardless of national origin, have a right to enter the US. Before 1965, they didn't.

I agree, immigration laws before 1965 were preferable to today's laws. The point is, equality under the law is not necessarily a good thing, case and point this example. Equality before the law can be a very bad thing. Things were better when we discriminated based upon national origins(when we didn't treat people equally under the law).

You aren't very smart are you? I'm saying that the post 1965 immigration laws do not amount to equality before the law.

You aren't very smart are you?

That is what I said all along.

 

[Publius1787]

You aren't very smart are you?

All people, regardless of national origin, have a right to enter the US. Before 1965, they didn't.

I agree, immigration laws before 1965 were preferable to today's laws. The point is, equality under the law is not necessarily a good thing, case and point this example. Equality before the law can be a very bad thing. Things were better when we discriminated based upon national origins(when we didn't treat people equally under the law).

You aren't very smart are you? I'm saying that the post 1965 immigration laws do not amount to equality before the law.

You aren't very smart are you?

That is what I said all along.

you said

"All people, regardless of national origin, have a right to enter the US. Before 1965, they didn't.

I agree, immigration laws before 1965 were preferable to today's laws. The point is, equality under the law is not necessarily a good thing, case and point this example. Equality before the law can be a very bad thing. Things were better when we discriminated based upon national origins(when we didn't treat people equally under the law)."

I said

I'm saying that the post 1965 immigration laws do not amount to equality before the law."

How exactly is this what you said all along? Those are two different statements.

 

[Iceman]

Well first off, you are stupid because you can't spell opportunity. Second, you are making a simple statement far more complicated than it needs to be. Our post 1965 immigration system is based on equality under the law. That is, you cannot discriminate based on national origins. You asked for an example of equality under the law that I oppose. This is an example.

Now kindly, **** off.

 

[Iceman]

Your privileges to this retarded ass thread have been revoked. It's my thread now.

 

[Publius1787]

Well first off, you are stupid because you can't spell opportunity. Second, you are making a simple statement far more complicated than it needs to be. Our post 1965 immigration system is based on equality under the law. That is, you cannot discriminate based on national origins. You asked for an example of equality under the law that I oppose. This is an example.

Now kindly, **** off.

Your privileges to this retarded ass thread have been revoked. It's my thread now.

No need to get angry. I will look past the fact that you don't understand the difference between the words "post" and "before." Indeed, I would certainly prefer to misspell a word by mistake rather than be accused of being without literary comprehension, but hey, were all human here. Of course, I caught this mistake myself which is why the title is the only place where "opportunity" is spelled wrong, but lets not let the facts get in the way of our unruly emotions. Of course, I cannot say that I am sorry that you feel the need to make up for your lack of comprehension via profanity. I am usually man enough to admit when I'm wrong or I misunderstand something, indeed I did so in this thread, but others like yourself show both their ignorance and their stupidity by responding to legitimate point of order amid their own failures of comprehension with profanity and imaginary authority of which they do not possess. Sadly it is all too common and distracts from the merits of the subject matter. Now for my next trick I will walk away until someone more astute decides to post in this thread.

 

[Iceman]

Well first off, you are stupid because you can't spell opportunity. Second, you are making a simple statement far more complicated than it needs to be. Our post 1965 immigration system is based on equality under the law. That is, you cannot discriminate based on national origins. You asked for an example of equality under the law that I oppose. This is an example.

Now kindly, **** off.

Your privileges to this retarded ass thread have been revoked. It's my thread now.

No need to get angry. I will look past the fact that you don't understand the difference between the words "post" and "before." Indeed, I would certainly prefer to misspell a word by mistake rather than be accused of being without literary comprehension, but hey, were all human here. Of course, I caught this mistake myself which is why the title is the only place where "opportunity" is spelled wrong, but lets not let the facts get in the way of our unruly emotions. Of course, I cannot say that I am sorry that you feel the need to make up for your lack of comprehension via profanity. I am usually man enough to admit when I'm wrong or I misunderstand something, indeed I did so in this thread, but others like yourself show both their ignorance and their stupidity by responding to legitimate point of order amid their own failures of comprehension with profanity and imaginary authority of which they do not possess. Sadly it is all too common and distracts from the merits of the subject matter. Now for my next trick I will walk away until someone more astute decides to post in this thread.

Wow, a whole lot of nothing to do with the topic.

 

[Iceman]

I don't apologize for misreading your comment, or admit any wrong. It is late, you are complicating a simple issue. And have yet to explain how our current immigration system is unequal before the law.

 

[Publius1787]

I don't apologize for misreading your comment, or admit any wrong. It is late, you are complicating a simple issue. And have yet to explain how our current immigration system is unequal before the law.

Migration of cultures that have a proven record of not valuing the rule of law or equality before the law, or likewise fail to assimilate into a culture that recognizes the rule of law/equality before the law, reasonably hinders the rule of law/equality before the law by diluting the political culture of a country away from the rule of law/equality before the law. Therefore, equality of migratory privileges isn't equality before the law, but in many cases, the exact opposite. It's kinda like a northern Democrat moving down south for the lower cost of living amid his/her retirement, but then votes for the party that ruined the cost of living for his/her own state up north. A bad example, perhaps, but I'm sure you get the idea.

Hmmm, "It is late." A great excuse for yourself, however, not applied to me when making your assessment of stupidity. Funny how that worked out.