Discrimination by the Federal government is unconstitutional. By individuals, constitutionally speaking, it should absolutely be allowed even though it is reprehensible and sickening. The thing about our constitutional rights is... either you defend them, or you have them gradually stripped away and trampled by government or by the mob.
Funny, since you don't understand how they work. As I've explained to you several times elsewhere, our inalienable rights are inherent and not optional. A business is not an individual if it is open to the public, where public accommodation laws require it to honor the public's inalienable rights including the right to not be discriminated against based on things such as race.
That's how our constitution works and it's wonderful. Sadly, you don't understand the core concepts being discussed. But luckily you're not a judge so your ignorance can't damage anything.
Funny, since you don't understand how they work. As I've explained to you several times elsewhere, our inalienable rights are inherent and not optional. A business is not an individual if it is open to the public, where public accommodation laws require it to honor the public's inalienable rights including the right to not be discriminated against based on things such as race.
That's how our constitution works and it's wonderful. Sadly, you don't understand the core concepts being discussed. But luckily you're not a judge so your ignorance can't damage anything.
I find it strange that you refuse to acknowledge the difference between a privately owned business and a publicly owned one.
You are correct about our constitutional rights being inherent, but you are wrong with regard to your ideas concerning freedom of association.
I don't approve of, nor would I frequent a business run by an openly discriminatory proprietor. However, it's their right to act in a manner that will ultimately harm their business and reputation.
There can only be equality for all when special treatment for certain groups (just name one) is ended. The Constitution and Bill of Rights applies to individuals, not collectives.
The constitution has amendments defining human attiributes which cannot be used as grounds for discrimination against. These apply to individuals. The defining attributes are referred to as protected classes, but they do not create special rights for those classes because the rights are not exclusive -- they are freely given to every single individual. Thus your claim that this gives special rights to sub-sets of people is purely bunk.
Luckily for me that's how the constitution actual works, and your opinion is just that and won't have any effect on anything.
@rogifan - "Yeah and people are entitled to call him a hypocrite. Free speech and all. I'll change my opinion when Cook speaks out for gay rights in China and the Middle East."
First, Cook should be consistent, but do you whine about hypocrisy when one car going 80 mph is stopped for speeding and another one isn't? Is it wrong to feed one poor person if we're unable to feed another one? Because our resources are limited, it may be impossible to address all challenges simultaneously. That is reality, not hypocrisy.
Second, what about you? Your comment suggests that Cook should mend his ways and press the same offensive everywhere, whether the USA or China or the Middle East. Your only interest is eliminating hypocrisy. Well, suppose that Cook launches those political battles and succeeds in securing equal rights for gays in China and Iran. Would you feel better? Worse?
If better, then hypocrisy is, indeed, your only interest in the matter. Yay! Now gays in China can come out of the closet. But if you would feel worse when gays in China get more respect and greater freedoms, then your charge of hypocrisy against Cook falls apart.
Finally, consider Cook's comment from the perspective of those living in China. When the CEO of the world's biggest and most successful company, who only days before was selected by Fortune as the world's top leader, stands up and challenges Americans to turn away from bias and bigotry, that challenge is also heard overseas. Cook said directly and without equivocation that Apple conducts business with people regardless of their color, race or sexual orientation. That message was sent out by Cook and received by Chinese President Xi in full view of the Chinese people. If Xi doesn't like it, the next move is his.
So Cook did what you insisted he do, and is no hypocrite: He stood up against bias and bigotry everywhere the same, by expressing it as a universal principle at Apple. Since politicians in Little Rock and Indianapolis recently passed bills waiting for the signatures of their respective governors, then of course Cook focused his comments on those bills. Rednecks in Little Rock and Indy did gays around the globe a favor by giving Cook a vehicle to advance their cause.
I find it strange that you refuse to acknowledge the difference between a privately owned business and a publicly owned one.
You are correct about our constitutional rights being inherent, but you are wrong with regard to your ideas concerning freedom of association.
I don't approve of, nor would I frequent a business run by an openly discriminatory proprietor. However, it's their right to act in a manner that will ultimately harm their business and reputation.
Incorrect. As I've said a business that is open to the public (public, not private) is bound by public accommodation laws. Google them and familarize yourself with how our country works. The short -- why you are free to believe whatever you want, your public business cannot discriminate against some customers based on those beliefs.
You're simply confusing your libertarian fantasies for how this country works in real life. This has all been settled and amended in the 1960s.
Tim Rocks! And so is Apple! On the other hand, guys like G*irk or Fi*rina (what a joke) are not just clowns, they (are paid and carefully manintained to) represent very dark forces (medieval to say the least, the ones who hurt us not long ago on friday 13 or literally murdered tens of millions of innocent women on (so called) religious grounds). Those forces try so hard to keep the new Atlantis down at small vilage level, far gone and un enlighted (old money wise, mentality wise, you name it). Well, I have four words for you: It Does Not Work, not anymore! You can sure try, but the harder you try, the faster you fail because more and more (we the) people realize that more and more things are none of your business what so ever!
I'm starting to agree with people here saying Tim should have kept quiet about this. Perhaps it would have been wiser to donate some of is billion dollar net worth to others to take the fight to Indiana and elsewhere. He's going to give away the money anyway. Then he could distance himself one level and just tweet a thumbs up. None of these otherwise rational posters here would have nervous breakdowns and pollute these threads with their their religious zealotry and anger. We AI readers would be spared all the hate since Tim would be seen as just a minor player in the world of politics yet his cause would be advanced by his donations.
I personally have nothing against him speaking out, but these threads are a disaster.
So because SOME people on threads display intolerance and bigotry, Tim shouldn't speak out? What if this were 1964 and we were talking about the voting rights act and equal housing laws? Should someone like Tim not have spoken out then either just because many people were racists and opposed to the laws?
Speaking out is exactly what one should be doing when it comes to what they believe are civil rights.
For those who are opposed to the legal rights of gays to marry, I have a suggestion: don't marry someone of the same gender as yourself. Besides, it's already all over: a majority of states have legalized gay marriage and the Supreme Court is going to deem it constitutional later this year, even with all the conservative members on the court. Conservative politicians actually want them to because this way, they don't have to take a stand either way - they can simply say that the Supreme Court made it the law of the land.
20 years from now, we'll look back at people who opposed gay marriage the same way we look at those who opposed racial inter-marriage. People also used religion as a rationale for banning interracial marriage.
People act like there wouldn't be gay couples if they weren't permitted to marry.
As for Apple being hypocritical when it sells products in countries that don't have such freedoms, I don't know of a single company who didn't, for example, sell products in the south during the segregation era. And most companies did business with Germany until WWII was declared. And we certainly invested in South Africa during apartheid up until the time that investment funds started pulling out at the demands of unions and other groups. If you start making decisions about where to sell based on how people are treated by their societies, you wouldn't sell anywhere, including the U.S. And one could make the case that computers, Pads and cellphones improve freedoms for people. Having said that, if a company decided not to sell their products in a country where rights were heavily violated, it would certainly be fine with me.
And why anyone is paying attention to Bernard McGuirk anyway, I can't imagine. He's the executive producer of the "Imus in the Morning" radio show, a show that's on its last legs. He's almost a nobody. Who cares what he thinks? He appears on the show in the role of a jerk and he apparently does this in "real life" as well.
When the CEO of the world's biggest and most successful company, who only days before was selected by Fortune as the world's top leader, stands up and challenges Americans to turn away from bias and bigotry, that challenge is also heard overseas. Cook said directly and without equivocation that Apple conducts business with people regardless of their color, race or sexual orientation. That message was sent out by Cook and received by Chinese President Xi in full view of the Chinese people. If Xi doesn't like it, the next move is his.
This. ^^^
And this is the basic point that lightweights like Fiorina, Fox, and the editorial pages of the WSJ don't understand.
The constitution has amendments defining human attiributes which cannot be used as grounds for discrimination against. These apply to individuals. The defining attributes are referred to as protected classes, but they do not create special rights for those classes because the rights are not exclusive -- they are freely given to every single individual. Thus your claim that this gives special rights to sub-sets of people is purely bunk.
Luckily for me that's how the constitution actual works, and your opinion is just that and won't have any effect on anything.
"Special rights" is a debatable term, however it certainly has resulted in unequal treatment, which is the argument successfully used to challenge existing laws against allowing gay marriage.
I'd argue that the unequal (economically favorable) treatment to be given to gays and previously only given to marrieds now results in unequal treatment for unmarrieds / singles. Clearly all federally enforced economically preferential unequal treatment created to socially engineer and encourage reproduction is unconstitutional and should be immediately stopped.
I find it strange that you refuse to acknowledge the difference between a privately owned business and a publicly owned one.
You are correct about our constitutional rights being inherent, but you are wrong with regard to your ideas concerning freedom of association.
I don't approve of, nor would I frequent a business run by an openly discriminatory proprietor. However, it's their right to act in a manner that will ultimately harm their business and reputation.
Not when the business operates in a place of public accommodation. No retailer has the legal right to discriminate against anyone for reasons enumerated as civil rights. They can have rules like, "no shirt, no shoes, no service" and bars can ban children, but that's about as far as it goes. Because where does it end? Can a "religious" movie theatre owner ban mixed-race couples? Can they ban two male friends coming to the theatre together because the owner thinks they might be gay? Can they ban Jews or Muslims because the owner doesn't feel those are valid religions? Can they ban a heterosexual couple who they think is unmarried and the woman is pregnant? I really don't think we want to have a public life where businesses can discriminate based on who they think sinners are, based on their personal choice of religion. Now can the religion itself discriminate as to who it lets join? Yes. Religions are all about discrimination.
On the other hand, I work as a consultant out of my home, which is not a place of public accommodation and I don't see clients here. I turn down work all the time for a variety of arbitrary reasons. If I happened to turn down work from someone who happened to be in a protected group, I wouldn't want to be sued for discrimination if they were paranoid enough to feel that was the cause of me rejecting the work. Having said that, I don't feel like I need any new laws to protect me.
One of the problems with these new laws is that they're specifically targeted at gays. If they weren't, they would have been enacted long ago.
There's a good story on NPR this morning about how a Coca-Cola executive in 1964 made sure that the city of Atlanta properly honored Dr. King after he got the Nobel Peace Prize, avoiding a disgraceful no-show from Atlanta citizens.
Tim Cook might be familiar with the story from his MLK studies.
Not when the business operates in a place of public accommodation. No retailer has the legal right to discriminate against anyone for reasons enumerated as civil rights. They can have rules like, "no shirt, no shoes, no service" and bars can ban children, but that's about as far as it goes. Because where does it end? Can a "religious" movie theatre owner ban mixed-race couples? Can they ban two male friends coming to the theatre together because the owner thinks they might be gay? Can they ban Jews or Muslims because the owner doesn't feel those are valid religions? Can they ban a heterosexual couple who they think is unmarried and the woman is pregnant? I really don't think we want to have a public life where businesses can discriminate based on who they think sinners are, based on their personal choice of religion. Now can the religion itself discriminate as to who it lets join? Yes. Religions are all about discrimination.
On the other hand, I work as a consultant out of my home, which is not a place of public accommodation and I don't see clients here. I turn down work all the time for a variety of arbitrary reasons. If I happened to turn down work from someone who happened to be in a protected group, I wouldn't want to be sued for discrimination if they were paranoid enough to feel that was the cause of me rejecting the work. Having said that, I don't feel like I need any new laws to protect me.
One of the problems with these new laws is that they're specifically targeted at gays. If they weren't, they would have been enacted long ago.
The Equal Protection Clause applies to the states, not to individuals.
Here's the text: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Again, this is not a law that can compel individuals or individual proprietors.
Not surprising, Fox usually brings hot headed, narrow minded republicans on their show... To the gents who say Tim Cook is a hypocrite, well this is his country, Apple is a business first, located in the grand U.S.A. It is not only his right to speak out regarding issues in America but a his responsibility as an American. If Tim was irresponsible and short sighted he would let personal feelings get in the way of business around the world... I personally believe that he is doing the right thing at least here in America
There can only be equality for all when special treatment for certain groups (just name one) is ended. The Constitution and Bill of Rights applies to individuals, not collectives.
I'm starting to agree with people here saying Tim should have kept quiet about this. Perhaps it would have been wiser to donate some of is billion dollar net worth to others to take the fight to Indiana and elsewhere. He's going to give away the money anyway. Then he could distance himself one level and just tweet a thumbs up. None of these otherwise rational posters here would have nervous breakdowns and pollute these threads with their their religious zealotry and anger. We AI readers would be spared all the hate since Tim would be seen as just a minor player in the world of politics yet his cause would be advanced by his donations.
I personally have nothing against him speaking out, but these threads are a disaster.
Actually, I find these threads absolutely hilarious.
Plus, they've helped me expand my Block List to include a lot of people who should have been there already.
I wondered if I was the only one doing that. I usually rely on DED to "out" a couple of new trolls every week.
I'm starting to agree with people here saying Tim should have kept quiet about this. Perhaps it would have been wiser to donate some of is billion dollar net worth to others to take the fight to Indiana and elsewhere. He's going to give away the money anyway. Then he could distance himself one level and just tweet a thumbs up. None of these otherwise rational posters here would have nervous breakdowns and pollute these threads with their their religious zealotry and anger. We AI readers would be spared all the hate since Tim would be seen as just a minor player in the world of politics yet his cause would be advanced by his donations.
I personally have nothing against him speaking out, but these threads are a disaster.
Actually, I find these threads absolutely hilarious.
Plus, they've helped me expand my Block List to include a lot of people who should have been there already.
I wondered if I was the only one doing that. I usually rely on DED to "out" a couple of new trolls every week.
Unfortunately, blocking due to political views ends up blocking some posters who are quite knowledgeable on the core subjects of this site. Probably better just to avoid the contentious topics.
You need to understand the term "collectivism" before you comment:
collectivism |k??lekt??viz?m|nounthe practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.• the theory and practice of the ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state.
The US was founded on the ideals of individualism, self-ownership and free will, not those of collectivists. The states established the Federal government and restrict its powers through the US Constitution. Communism and Marxism are collectivist and do not respect the individual, property ownership or the idea of free will.
Comments
Funny, since you don't understand how they work. As I've explained to you several times elsewhere, our inalienable rights are inherent and not optional. A business is not an individual if it is open to the public, where public accommodation laws require it to honor the public's inalienable rights including the right to not be discriminated against based on things such as race.
That's how our constitution works and it's wonderful. Sadly, you don't understand the core concepts being discussed. But luckily you're not a judge so your ignorance can't damage anything.
I find it strange that you refuse to acknowledge the difference between a privately owned business and a publicly owned one.
You are correct about our constitutional rights being inherent, but you are wrong with regard to your ideas concerning freedom of association.
I don't approve of, nor would I frequent a business run by an openly discriminatory proprietor. However, it's their right to act in a manner that will ultimately harm their business and reputation.
The constitution has amendments defining human attiributes which cannot be used as grounds for discrimination against. These apply to individuals. The defining attributes are referred to as protected classes, but they do not create special rights for those classes because the rights are not exclusive -- they are freely given to every single individual. Thus your claim that this gives special rights to sub-sets of people is purely bunk.
Luckily for me that's how the constitution actual works, and your opinion is just that and won't have any effect on anything.
First, Cook should be consistent, but do you whine about hypocrisy when one car going 80 mph is stopped for speeding and another one isn't? Is it wrong to feed one poor person if we're unable to feed another one? Because our resources are limited, it may be impossible to address all challenges simultaneously. That is reality, not hypocrisy.
Second, what about you? Your comment suggests that Cook should mend his ways and press the same offensive everywhere, whether the USA or China or the Middle East. Your only interest is eliminating hypocrisy. Well, suppose that Cook launches those political battles and succeeds in securing equal rights for gays in China and Iran. Would you feel better? Worse?
If better, then hypocrisy is, indeed, your only interest in the matter. Yay! Now gays in China can come out of the closet. But if you would feel worse when gays in China get more respect and greater freedoms, then your charge of hypocrisy against Cook falls apart.
Finally, consider Cook's comment from the perspective of those living in China. When the CEO of the world's biggest and most successful company, who only days before was selected by Fortune as the world's top leader, stands up and challenges Americans to turn away from bias and bigotry, that challenge is also heard overseas. Cook said directly and without equivocation that Apple conducts business with people regardless of their color, race or sexual orientation. That message was sent out by Cook and received by Chinese President Xi in full view of the Chinese people. If Xi doesn't like it, the next move is his.
So Cook did what you insisted he do, and is no hypocrite: He stood up against bias and bigotry everywhere the same, by expressing it as a universal principle at Apple. Since politicians in Little Rock and Indianapolis recently passed bills waiting for the signatures of their respective governors, then of course Cook focused his comments on those bills. Rednecks in Little Rock and Indy did gays around the globe a favor by giving Cook a vehicle to advance their cause.
You know you don’t have a leg to stand on when you can only point to something someone hasn’t done.
Incorrect. As I've said a business that is open to the public (public, not private) is bound by public accommodation laws. Google them and familarize yourself with how our country works. The short -- why you are free to believe whatever you want, your public business cannot discriminate against some customers based on those beliefs.
You're simply confusing your libertarian fantasies for how this country works in real life. This has all been settled and amended in the 1960s.
I'm starting to agree with people here saying Tim should have kept quiet about this. Perhaps it would have been wiser to donate some of is billion dollar net worth to others to take the fight to Indiana and elsewhere. He's going to give away the money anyway. Then he could distance himself one level and just tweet a thumbs up. None of these otherwise rational posters here would have nervous breakdowns and pollute these threads with their their religious zealotry and anger. We AI readers would be spared all the hate since Tim would be seen as just a minor player in the world of politics yet his cause would be advanced by his donations.
I personally have nothing against him speaking out, but these threads are a disaster.
So because SOME people on threads display intolerance and bigotry, Tim shouldn't speak out? What if this were 1964 and we were talking about the voting rights act and equal housing laws? Should someone like Tim not have spoken out then either just because many people were racists and opposed to the laws?
Speaking out is exactly what one should be doing when it comes to what they believe are civil rights.
For those who are opposed to the legal rights of gays to marry, I have a suggestion: don't marry someone of the same gender as yourself. Besides, it's already all over: a majority of states have legalized gay marriage and the Supreme Court is going to deem it constitutional later this year, even with all the conservative members on the court. Conservative politicians actually want them to because this way, they don't have to take a stand either way - they can simply say that the Supreme Court made it the law of the land.
20 years from now, we'll look back at people who opposed gay marriage the same way we look at those who opposed racial inter-marriage. People also used religion as a rationale for banning interracial marriage.
People act like there wouldn't be gay couples if they weren't permitted to marry.
As for Apple being hypocritical when it sells products in countries that don't have such freedoms, I don't know of a single company who didn't, for example, sell products in the south during the segregation era. And most companies did business with Germany until WWII was declared. And we certainly invested in South Africa during apartheid up until the time that investment funds started pulling out at the demands of unions and other groups. If you start making decisions about where to sell based on how people are treated by their societies, you wouldn't sell anywhere, including the U.S. And one could make the case that computers, Pads and cellphones improve freedoms for people. Having said that, if a company decided not to sell their products in a country where rights were heavily violated, it would certainly be fine with me.
And why anyone is paying attention to Bernard McGuirk anyway, I can't imagine. He's the executive producer of the "Imus in the Morning" radio show, a show that's on its last legs. He's almost a nobody. Who cares what he thinks? He appears on the show in the role of a jerk and he apparently does this in "real life" as well.
When the CEO of the world's biggest and most successful company, who only days before was selected by Fortune as the world's top leader, stands up and challenges Americans to turn away from bias and bigotry, that challenge is also heard overseas. Cook said directly and without equivocation that Apple conducts business with people regardless of their color, race or sexual orientation. That message was sent out by Cook and received by Chinese President Xi in full view of the Chinese people. If Xi doesn't like it, the next move is his.
This. ^^^
And this is the basic point that lightweights like Fiorina, Fox, and the editorial pages of the WSJ don't understand.
"Special rights" is a debatable term, however it certainly has resulted in unequal treatment, which is the argument successfully used to challenge existing laws against allowing gay marriage.
I'd argue that the unequal (economically favorable) treatment to be given to gays and previously only given to marrieds now results in unequal treatment for unmarrieds / singles. Clearly all federally enforced economically preferential unequal treatment created to socially engineer and encourage reproduction is unconstitutional and should be immediately stopped.
I find it strange that you refuse to acknowledge the difference between a privately owned business and a publicly owned one.
You are correct about our constitutional rights being inherent, but you are wrong with regard to your ideas concerning freedom of association.
I don't approve of, nor would I frequent a business run by an openly discriminatory proprietor. However, it's their right to act in a manner that will ultimately harm their business and reputation.
Not when the business operates in a place of public accommodation. No retailer has the legal right to discriminate against anyone for reasons enumerated as civil rights. They can have rules like, "no shirt, no shoes, no service" and bars can ban children, but that's about as far as it goes. Because where does it end? Can a "religious" movie theatre owner ban mixed-race couples? Can they ban two male friends coming to the theatre together because the owner thinks they might be gay? Can they ban Jews or Muslims because the owner doesn't feel those are valid religions? Can they ban a heterosexual couple who they think is unmarried and the woman is pregnant? I really don't think we want to have a public life where businesses can discriminate based on who they think sinners are, based on their personal choice of religion. Now can the religion itself discriminate as to who it lets join? Yes. Religions are all about discrimination.
On the other hand, I work as a consultant out of my home, which is not a place of public accommodation and I don't see clients here. I turn down work all the time for a variety of arbitrary reasons. If I happened to turn down work from someone who happened to be in a protected group, I wouldn't want to be sued for discrimination if they were paranoid enough to feel that was the cause of me rejecting the work. Having said that, I don't feel like I need any new laws to protect me.
One of the problems with these new laws is that they're specifically targeted at gays. If they weren't, they would have been enacted long ago.
Tim Cook might be familiar with the story from his MLK studies.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2015/04/04/397391510/when-corporations-take-the-lead-on-social-change
The Equal Protection Clause applies to the states, not to individuals.
Here's the text: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Again, this is not a law that can compel individuals or individual proprietors.
There can only be equality for all when special treatment for certain groups (just name one) is ended. The Constitution and Bill of Rights applies to individuals, not collectives.
This country was founded by a collective.
I'm starting to agree with people here saying Tim should have kept quiet about this. Perhaps it would have been wiser to donate some of is billion dollar net worth to others to take the fight to Indiana and elsewhere. He's going to give away the money anyway. Then he could distance himself one level and just tweet a thumbs up. None of these otherwise rational posters here would have nervous breakdowns and pollute these threads with their their religious zealotry and anger. We AI readers would be spared all the hate since Tim would be seen as just a minor player in the world of politics yet his cause would be advanced by his donations.
I personally have nothing against him speaking out, but these threads are a disaster.
Actually, I find these threads absolutely hilarious.
Plus, they've helped me expand my Block List to include a lot of people who should have been there already.
I wondered if I was the only one doing that. I usually rely on DED to "out" a couple of new trolls every week.
I'm starting to agree with people here saying Tim should have kept quiet about this. Perhaps it would have been wiser to donate some of is billion dollar net worth to others to take the fight to Indiana and elsewhere. He's going to give away the money anyway. Then he could distance himself one level and just tweet a thumbs up. None of these otherwise rational posters here would have nervous breakdowns and pollute these threads with their their religious zealotry and anger. We AI readers would be spared all the hate since Tim would be seen as just a minor player in the world of politics yet his cause would be advanced by his donations.
I personally have nothing against him speaking out, but these threads are a disaster.
Actually, I find these threads absolutely hilarious.
Plus, they've helped me expand my Block List to include a lot of people who should have been there already.
I wondered if I was the only one doing that. I usually rely on DED to "out" a couple of new trolls every week.
Unfortunately, blocking due to political views ends up blocking some posters who are quite knowledgeable on the core subjects of this site. Probably better just to avoid the contentious topics.
http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-46362-page-3.html
This country was founded by a collective.
You need to understand the term "collectivism" before you comment:
collectivism |k??lekt??viz?m|nounthe practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.• the theory and practice of the ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state.
The US was founded on the ideals of individualism, self-ownership and free will, not those of collectivists. The states established the Federal government and restrict its powers through the US Constitution. Communism and Marxism are collectivist and do not respect the individual, property ownership or the idea of free will.