The problem as you point to is the rhetoric. It is the belief in balance and both side extremism. But the facts tell a different story. An Israeli left wing (pro-human) Knesset member went to the West Bank and filmed Israelis back by the government abusing and forcing Palestinian farmers off their land and building settlements and farms on that stolen land. This Israeli left wing politician was complaining to his fellow members that this treatment is unfair and needs to stop. They didn’t listen of course and went right on doing it.
That wasn’t new of course and was happening for decades. I’m not an expert in this region, but in my research I found in every decade since 1920 Israeli Jews from Europe pushing Palestinians of their land and then building on it. The Naqba (Nakba) of 1948 is the most “famous” example, though it happened in the 1920 and 1930s. I haven’t found any example yet of the reverse, of an instance where the Palestinians forced the Jews off their land and then built settlements on it that stand to this day. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, just that I found plenty examples of one and none of the other.
In America, the right engages in vast extremist rhetoric, but the left only appears to. There was no evidence found on Hillary and her server, Joe Biden, Obama, etc. When wronging was found, it was properly prosecuted and punished: Senator Manendez was found guilty and the Dems want nothing to do with him. The trial and result took less than a year. Other Dems have been punished, and even self censored themselves out of decency, like Senator Al Franken who was caught “play groping” a female, and he quit because he knew it was wrong. In direct contrast is not only Trump, who went beyond just being accused of real groping 26 women or more, but being found to have fully sexually penetrated a woman in a dressing room at a department store by a jury of his peers in a civil suit. These two items do not balance each other out. At all. One side acted out of decency and resigned, the other saw its leader gain support immediately after being convicted and fined in a criminal trial he had pleaded guilty to. I don’t any moral equivalence.
You are correct, for all means for all; it means unalienable rights. That is the core concept of equality. Previously in British American, under British law, there was voting. There was black voting. Blacks were voting as seen on the record in 1701 and 1703 in South Carolina, as they were freeholders. Race of freeholders was not determined until 1715 when the legislature of the that British state made the first arbitrary condition into these voting rights of freeholders by using the word “white” to legally define the type of freeholder who could vote. Like all British laws, the Monarch had to assent to it or sign it as we say in the US. That is adding a condition under an arbitrary reasoning structure. It is alienating the rights of voters for the first time in that state due racial identity as defined by the law makers. This struggle went on with the Monarch overturning his British Virginia assembly and re-instating black freeholder voters, who had their rights taken away in 1734 as had been done in South Carolina.
The Monarch has the right, like SCOTUS but without the need for a trial, to declare a law unconstitutional and so he did. He didn’t find it fair that landowners of any color paying taxes in Virginia to have their voting rights stripped away. He used arbitrary reasoning against arbitrary reasoning. Under no conditions he said in one state should freeholders lose their right to vote, while allowing that to continue i South Carolina. He looks like a hypocrite, but that fact is that ability to set conditions around an action like voting—which helped black freeholders in one state while hurting them in other—is the essence of autocracy, a system of alienable rights. The government can set conditions to take away a citizen’s rights under certain arbitrary conditions it sets. The founders knew this. They knew about these arbitrary voting decisions, about arbitrary taxation systems. It wasn’t taxes they were against, but how arbitrarily they were imposed on a whim that they had no control over from an unelected official, an unelectable head of state, a person who could alienate rights arbitrarily, often under the protection of an elected Parliament. The founders labeled this British system and its leader “tyranny” in the Declaration and the system of of the “oppressions.” Unalienable rights were to insure that basic rights like voting could not be alienated under arbitrary conditions set by a legislative body.

Today, 48 states have set arbitrary conditions to alienate voting rights from American citizens. Blacks and browns are vastly and disproportionately affected, with over five million Black Americans having those sacred rights taken away. Only two don’t—Vermont and Maine. That’s 98 percent that set conditions to alienate voting rights under whatever arbitrary reasoning their legislature sets under various arbitrary reasons, different in every one of the 48 states, lacking clear consistency as one would expect under autocratic reasoning structure.

In 1832, 9 of the original 13 states allowed black freeholders to vote, showing an increase in democracy, not a decrease. That was a hard fought struggle like in North Carolina by the “fusionist” black and white egalitarian party. In two counties I’ve just read about, white candidates had to court the black vote to win. Not every where was equal, just those two counties. The oppositional party (the conservative Democratic Party) crush voting rights in some counties under allegations of blocking the ballot box and stuffing it. In 1835 they won in the legislature 66 (conservative Democrat) to 61 (egalitarian fusionist) to take away voting rights from black freeholders (about 10 percent of the black population, significant enough to win an election) that began to reverse those black freeholder voting rights by making a new state constitution passed in 1840 that permanently took them away. 8 out of 13 in 1841. Today, 48 out of 50. After the 2000 election, Massachusetts went backward and pass a law to strip away or alienate voting rights under arbitrary conditions. A precipitous drop covered over the perception projection of fairness and victory throughout the 20th century.

The rhetoric is to blame. You don’t see us moving backwards because we are told we are maintain balance, and the balance equals fairness and equality to the human mind inherently bent on seeking stability. There is natural reasoning being exploited. Thus the mind and the media maintains an idea of equal extremism when the actions show that clearly does not exist. We are like Israel, and perhaps many countries, in that we have only one side engaging in extremist actions. It is the side stripping away the voting rights from Black and Brown Americans under arbitrary conditions it sets in 48 states. We have the only capital city in “free world” where citizens living there can NOT vote for their presidential leader of government and get representation. It’s absurd. And yet the media blathers on both sides talking about democracy when the example set in 48 states and the nations capital is anything but. Repeating the lie while eroding our rights only allows us to project an image of fairness in a reality of empire and autocracy.


Thanks again for your good provocation of reasoning.