posted
I've been off this board for three years, and reading through the recent threads reminds me of why I left.
Actual discourse has been replaced with vicious sniping and base character attacks.
Everyone seems to have been distilled into a caricature of their core beliefs, mindlessly repeating their mantras in what they believe are new and creative ways.
If PapaMoose (sorry PapaJanitor) has checked out, who can blame him?
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do people even think that he's 'checked out?' he hasn't gone anywhere, has he? he's just dealing with more important stuff than a now fully imploded, dysfunctional forum.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Samp, I get the feeling you think you can do whatever you want because PJ seems pretty much to have checked out.
Yeah, no. I'd prefer this place be better regulated. But thanks for contributing!
You're not responding to what I said.
Yes, I get that you feel that stronger moderation is needed. A component of this is that you don't seem to think that self-regulation is effective. Therefore, until PJ becomes a more heavy handed moderator, you see no reason to act like an adult. (Initially I thought you were behaving this way to make a point, but observing your other behavior and opinions, it seems to me that this is your natural inclination.)
For myself, I've been at Hatrack where moderation was very light but we handled most problems with self-regulation. Having a culture that expects people to act like adults can be effective in most cases. There were outliers with people who had no desire to honestly interact with the community, because, let's face it, the majority of people on hatrack are not what I'd call person-savy.
I actually agree with you that the in the current state of things, we'll likely need more involved moderation to have most things here change, but a significant part of that is you and a few others not being willing to act like adults. If you (plural you, I'm certainly not putting this all on your shoulders, although several of the others seem to be taking cues from you) change this behavior and exercise better impulse control, it could result in many changes for the better.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am responding to what you said. I'm just not commenting as to whether or not you think I'm acting like an adult because I find it completely irrelevant.
I also don't think self-regulation is effective because it isn't effective. All forums usually pass through a phase where it is, but unless the community doesn't grow or nothing changes, that period doesn't last forever. Then people always start grousing about the glory days as though the forum could just 'grow up' and start self-regulating again without going through a mass exodus and doing what Hatrack does now, which is become so ridiculous that there's at least three other forums that Hatrack exports its drama to (along with most of its expats).
Dreaming for a return for a Remember When This Place Managed Itself And We Were All Mature is a humorous way to spend one's time but it's not going to change, even if I vanish off the face of the forum.
In the meantime I'll keep doing what I'm doing, which will include the fact that I think that someone with obviously paranoid and unsubtle personality inclination will continue to be paranoid and act that way. You can continue to call me a baby. We all win.
As for whether or not I still want "more involved moderation?" The timeframe where that would have really helped is over. I'm disinterested in commenting or caring about it anymore. This place will do what it wants, I am and will continue to be straight and uncompromising with people who I feel have devolved into political or personal caricatures as long as they continue to play their tired old song like a skipping record (hey Malanthrop, stop posting forever) and people can feel that way about me in turn.
Now if anyone else would like to say I'm a terrible poster, please go right ahead! Just leave the whistles at (1) because PJ for serious has a load of RL crap on his plate and hey I'm not worth his time.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Rand Paul cancels on Meet the Press - only other two cancellations ever were Louis Farrakhan and Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia.
And Hitler was a vegetarian. And John Wayne Gacy painted clowns for children. What's your point?
Ok. If you need help deducing "my point" then I'll tell you, but first I will ask you a question:
Do you agree with Rand Paul that we should repeal the part of the act which prevents you from excluding customers from your private business based on race?
I don't know if Rand Paul actually said that, but it doesn't matter. Yes. I absolutely do. And religion. And gender. And sexual orientation. And hair color. And political ideology.
The law should absolutely prevent government run or government funded institutions from discriminating. I'm as much a citizen as a straight Christian male, despite being none of those things.
But when it comes to private property? Hell no.
Look, let me make it clear. I think that someone who refuses to hire someone or rent to someone or sell to someone or do business with someone in this country because they're Jewish or Muslim or Christian or black or white or purple is an ass. A morally bankrupt piece of trash. I wouldn't spit on such a person if they were on fire.
That said, it isn't the place of government to force people to be nice.
If I go out to buy a car, GM doesn't have any "right" to demand that I buy one of their cars. If I choose not to, no one has the right to make me explain my decision and then rule on whether I made my choice for good or odious reasons. So why do you think that if I'm buying someone's time/labor, I should be forced to do exactly that? Who the hell died and made a government the arbiter of what I do with what I've earned?
So yes. It's unpopular as hell, but I do not believe that it is proper for government to prevent private citizens from discriminating on idiotic grounds. Or any other grounds.
I'm going to go on, because I've been here before, and generally the kind of people who ask questions like the one you did will expend stunning amounts of energy drawing lame conclusions from what I said, and reading things into it that I did not say. That doesn't mean that if I enter into a contractual agreement with someone, and then I find out they're into David Duke or Louis Farakkhan or other people who make my stomach turn, that I have the right to abrogate my agreement. But it does mean that I don't have to renew the agreement. And it does mean that I don't have to enter into the agreement in the first place.
I work at a small company. I'm an "at will" employee. That means that I have no contractual relationship. If my boss wants to fire me, he can. If he were to decide to do so because I'm Jewish, I could, as the law stands, sue the hell out of him. But that would be wrong. It would be a huge temptation to take advantage of the immoral power I'm given by statists, but I would like to hope that I'd resist it.
I'm against Medicare. And Medicaid. And anti-discrimination legislation that violates the rights of individuals. Why? Does that bother you?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, I understand your point about the sanctity of private property.
What about the sanctity of the private property belonging to the minority consumer?
If someone steals your private property and resells it, shouldn't the government have the authority to stop that business? Shouldn't the government insist that a private company does not destroy property belonging to person A in order to sell their own?
If you agree with that we can move on to what discrimination on a large scale does to the private property of the people being discriminated against. It steals its value.
If I have $100 I can spend it to buy a wide range of things. If a black man from 1950 had $100 he had only a very limited number of things he could buy. That $100 lost its value because of discrimination by private companies. Not only was that black man deprived of the value of his personal property by those who discriminated, but it led to a weakening of the entire libertarian idea. Why would a black man in 1950 work hard to earn money if he couldn't spend it as well as a white man?
The autonomy lost by the private business owner was insignificant against the property stolen from the minorities by those businesses.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does your small business own the property they work on, or only lease it?
What if the owners of the property stipulated that the lease was cancelled if Jews were employed there?
What if 70% of the commercial real estate were owned by people who had such stipulations? If a small number of people owned a lot of property, it wouldn't be so unlikely.
Is the right of David Duke to keep Jews from working on his property more important than your right to work for whomever will hire you?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: If I have $100 I can spend it to buy a wide range of things. If a black man from 1950 had $100 he had only a very limited number of things he could buy. That $100 lost its value because of discrimination by private companies.
No. That's weird logic. That $100 is like any other $100. If he takes his $100 and swaps it with $100 belonging to a white guy, no value has changed.
Let's say I'm a store owner selling a box of cereal for $1. You don't have any money on you, so you go home and get some. When you come back, you find that I've raised the price of the cereal to $2. Are you claiming that I just stole $1 from you? Because that's crap.
The value of anything is what someone will exchange for it. You're positing some sort of objective and intrinsic value of money, and that's insane.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Not only was that black man deprived of the value of his personal property by those who discriminated,
He wasn't deprived of anything. To be deprived of something, you must have a right to it in the first place. A right is something you can legitimately claim from someone else. That black man in your example isn't entitled to a damned thing except to be able to attempt to engage in trade. Again, when we talk about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that's not the right to life, liberty and happiness. There are no guarantees in life.
Have you ever been to the Arab souk in Jerusalem? I remember going there (back in 1980, when it was actually safe) and seeing how things were bought and sold. I was at a distinct disadvantage, because I don't do haggling. So I'd buy something, and two minutes later, I'd see someone else buy the same exact thing for half of what I paid. Do you think I was stolen from?
You have a particular cultural bias. You think that everything should have a fixed price and that everything should be controlled so that no one ever has an advantage over anyone else. Or so it seems. You sound like someone out of the world of Harrison Bergeron. And the frightening thing is the degree to which others agree with you, and are willing to really steal from others in order to shore up your worldview.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: but it led to a weakening of the entire libertarian idea. Why would a black man in 1950 work hard to earn money if he couldn't spend it as well as a white man?
So now you're pretending I'm a consequentialist? You must know by now that I'm anything but. I don't hold by some "libertarian idea" in order to encourage people to work. I hold by it because it's unjust and vile to violate the rights of others.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: The autonomy lost by the private business owner was insignificant against the property stolen from the minorities by those businesses.
There was no property stolen from the minorities by businesses. You can call a tail a leg, but it's still just a tail. Term switching in the service of your agenda doesn't actually make reality change. Since those businesses owed nothing to any of their customers or potential customers, and since money does not have a fixed value, but only that which another will accept, discrimination is not theft.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: Does your small business own the property they work on, or only lease it?
They probably lease it.
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: What if the owners of the property stipulated that the lease was cancelled if Jews were employed there?
At the time the contract was signed? Well, since the president of the company is Jewish, he probably would have told them to go frak himself.
In mid-contract? That's not an issue of discrimination; it's a matter of violating a contract.
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: What if 70% of the commercial real estate were owned by people who had such stipulations? If a small number of people owned a lot of property, it wouldn't be so unlikely.
Gee, that would suck. What's your point?
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: Is the right of David Duke to keep Jews from working on his property more important than your right to work for whomever will hire you?
That's just it. David Duke has the right to decide who works on his property (subject to voluntary agreements he's entered into, of course).
Let's take a really complicated situation, because you clearly want to stretch this to the breaking point. Suppose my boss signs a lease for a property for the company. And suppose the lease has a clause in it forbidding Jews to work on that property. So that's the first nexus. Does my boss sign the lease or not? That's his choice, right? Let's say he doesn't pay close attention to the lease and doesn't notice the anti-semitic part. Just for the sake of argument. Or that he notices it but doesn't care, because he doesn't have anyone Jewish working for him (let's pretend he isn't Jewish for the sake of the question, okay?).
Now I go and apply for the job. And because I'm so clearly superior to other candidates, he decides that he'd like to buy my services, and he hires me. Yay, me. And let's take two possibilities: in Scenario A, I enter into an employment contract with him, and in Scenario B, I start work as an at-will employee without a contract. In neither case does my boss think about the Jew thing. Maybe he knows I'm Jewish, maybe he doesn't.
So I'm working there for 6 months, and the rat-bastard my boss is leasing the property from twigs to the fact that there's a hebe working on his property. Now things get interesting.
So my boss is in breach of his contract with Herr Schweinhund. What can he do? Well, he can either move the company elsewhere, or move me elsewhere. That seems pretty simple, no?
Suppose he chooses to fire me, because the location is really amazing, or because he just hates packing. Well, if I have a contract with him, then he's in breach of that contract. If not, then I'm hosed. Again, not rocket surgery.
See, you referred to "your right to work for whomever will hire you". I have a right to enter into an agreement to exchange my labor for money, yes. But that right doesn't confer any obligation on a third party.
Let's see if I can make it simpler and more clear. I have the right to go to the store and buy a cherimoya. Does that mean that a farmer in California (or wherever) has an obligation to supply my local grocery store with cherimoyas? Obviously not. The only obligation that my rights create is the obligation not to violate my rights.
I don't recall offhand if you're one of those people who thinks that a right is something created by governments and conferred on people like an entitlement. But if you think that, we're talking two different languages. A government can recognize rights, or not. But it doesn't alter them. As the saying goes, my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. But that doesn't mean that if your nose itches, you have a right to have someone else scratch it. People aren't there to serve you.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, how do you then feel about shared commodities. The Gulf of Mexico, say. Or air. What if my nose itches, and it ends up being noxious fumes from Asia?
Do I sue Asia? There was no breach of contract. Merely overuse of a shared commodity. Do I ask them nicely? Or do I try and come to an agreement with Asians recognizing that I have as much of a right to breath clean air as they do? Do I try and make my government work with other governments to create and recognize this right to clean air?
When these governments were founded, there was no issue with air quality. The populations were too low, their emissions were negligible. No one worried about the air. It wasn't killing anybody. Two hundred years later, air quality is a huge problem.
How would you go about addressing air quality problems?
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are two ways to deal with that. Persuasion and coercion. This is an area where people can disagree honestly. What constitutes an initiation of force? If China (for example -- sorry Blayne) were to intentionally spew mustard gas at it, everyone would agree that this is an act of aggression. What about if they spew toxic gunk into the air? Is there a threshhold of toxicity? A threshhold of quantity?
A government has an obligation to protect the people from initiated force. Should it try to negotiate with the Chinese? Well, I'd think that's preferable to nuking them. But if persuasion doesn't work, retaliatory violence might be necessary.
It's pretty much like the tannery next door, writ large.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, please. How many times do I have to point out the fallacies in that silly thing?
"Rand's argument seems to be as follows".
Not to anyone familiar with what she wrote.
"Value is agent-relative; things can only be valuable for particular entities. premise "
Wrong. That's not a premise; it's a definition. Find me a philosopher that doesn't define key terms for use in their philosophic system. "Value is that which one acts to gain or keep" is Rand's definition of "value" in her system. "Virtue is the means by which one gains or keeps a value" is another definition.
So Huemer proceeds to claim that the argument (which isn't Rand's argument at all, but only a flawed reformulation of Rand's argument) has eight "fatal flaws".
1. "Rand bases her ethics on the agent-relative position, but she offers no argument for it, only a bald assertion."
Wrong. Again, it isn't a premise; it's a definition. She states it in order for readers to understand what she means when she uses the term "value". See, words only have meaning if they have definitions. If you use a word that everyone interprets differently, and you don't define how you're using it, then you're only spouting vagueness and drivel. A word is only a symbol for a concept. So Rand states what the concept is that she's using that symbol to symbolize.
Huemer reformulation #2: "2. Something is valuable to an entity, only if the entity faces alternatives. premise"
"Premise 2 seems to be false. If I knew that I was inevitably going to get a million dollars tomorrow--there's no way I can avoid it--would that mean that the money will have no value? Again, Rand offers no defense of this assertion."
What does that even mean? "Inevitably"? This sounds like a semantic trick. Along the lines of "Can God make a rock so big that He can't lift it?" It's just a trick of language, and doesn't signify anything that can exist.
Huemer reformulation #3: "3. No non-living things face any alternatives. premise"
All of Huemer's "counter-examples" are about the possibility of non-living things being destroyed. How is that "facing an alternative"? Rand talks about making choices. Huemer's "counter-examples" are pure babble.
Huemer reformulation #4: "4. Therefore, values exist only for living things. from 1,2,3"
Three bad premises lead to a baseless conclusion.
Huemer reformulation #5: "5. Anything an entity acts to gain or keep is a value for that entity. premise"
"Either premise 5 is false, or the argument contains an equivocation. The word "value" has at least two different meanings."
He's just repeating himself. This is a definition; not a premise.
Huemer reformulation #6: "6. Every living thing acts to maintain its life, for its own sake. premise"
Where do I start here? The man simply can't read. A rock doesn't just roll down a hill; something external has to cause it to roll. Gravity, my hand, an explosion. Whereas a living thing can go one way or the other, even without consciousness. You believe in evolution, don't you? A plant that photosynthesizes lives. One that doesn't dies. In the most simple case. Correct action leads to life. Incorrect action leads to death.
Huemer reformulation #7: "(7. There is no other thing that they act to gain or keep for its own sake.) implicit premise"
Seriously? "Implicit premise"? He can't even get real premises correct. "I have included 7, because it is necessary in order to get to 8." So #8 is going to rely on this "implicit premise". Can't wait to see that.
But even within his argument of this objection, he uses phrases like, "It is hard to believe". Just because something is hard for Michael Huemer to believe doesn't make it false.
"Many people value happiness or pleasure for its own sake, and not simply for the sake of further prolonging their lives. Rand herself, inconsistently, later declared happiness to be an end in itself. According to her theory, she should have said it was good only because it helped maintain your life."
This just demonstrates Huemer's ignorance of Rand's "theory". It shows that he doesn't know (or has forgotten, intentionally or unintentionally) how happiness is treated in Objectivism. Rand contends that emotions are analogous to an individuals pain/pleasure reaction. Except that with pain/pleasure, the feeling is hardwired into us. Yes, there are people who are damaged so that they can't feel pain, or who are damaged psychologically so that they find pleasure in pain, but we're not talking about sick people here. With emotions, they operate in a context of an individual's values (going back to Rand's use of the term "value"). Change your values, and your emotional response will change along with them. If you value controlling others, then government policies which facilitate that will make you happy. If you find the idea of controlling others repugnant, such policies will make you unhappy. And if you have conflicting values, certain things will really frak you up, because you'll feel happy and unhappy at the same time, about the same thing.
Of course, this is a simplistic, schematic description of things, with "happy" and "unhappy" standing in as polar opposites on a spectrum. The full picture is obviously more complex than that, but the understanding of emotions stemming from a combination of a situation and your values is clear.
So if your values are rational, then happiness is an end in itself. See, context is really important, but Huemer drops it.
Huemer reformulation #8: "8. Therefore, its own life, and nothing else, is valuable for its own sake, for any living thing. from 5,6,7"
Huemer reformulation #9: "9. Therefore, life and nothing else is valuable for its own sake. from 4,8"
Again, bad premises lead to bad conclusions.
Huemer reformulation #10: "(10. Everyone should always do whatever promotes what is valuable for himself.) implicit premise"
Gah. Another "implicit premise". "This is probably the most egregious error. Premise 10 begs the question." What? This "implicit premise" is the most egregious error? On whose part?
(I have to finish this, don't I. If I don't, you'll claim that I stopped because I couldn't continue. So I'll continue, even though the arrant stupidity of Huemer's "criticism" is making me physically nauseous. Granted, that might just be because I haven't had breakfast yet and I'm hungry, but still.)
Huemer reformulation #11: "11. Therefore, everyone should always do whatever promotes his own life. from 8,10"
Wait... so Huemer's "implicit premise" in #10 is necessary because otherwise #11 doesn't follow. But #11 is only predicated on #8 and #10. And #8 is a conclusion he draws from #5, #6 and #7. And #7 was also an "implicit premise", while #5 and #6 are just wrong (as I noted above). This is kind of pathetic reasoning, if it can be called reasoning at all.
Huemer reformulation #12: "12. A person can live only if he is rational. premise"
It's kind of funny that critics of Rand accuse her of being too black and white, and not seeing the greys. Here, that's exactly what Huemer does. He seems to have the idea that Rand is saying that a moment's irrationality will immediately cause one to drop dead. Or that "If her thesis is something weaker, such as that any person who is not by and large rational will probably die..." But it's neither. A moment's rationality won't make you necessarily live, and a moment's irrationality won't necessarily make you die (which is lucky for Huemer, because otherwise, writing this drivel would have killed him deader than a doornail). Rationality leads towards life. Does that mean a 100% rational person can't get struck by lightning and killed? Obviously not. But it does mean that rationality is life-affirming and that irrationality is the very opposite.
Huemer reformulation #13: "13. Therefore, everyone should be 100% rational. from 11,12"
Bad premises. Bad conclusion. No surprises here.
Pardon me if I don't continue. This is such a small fraction of the whole page, and I've gone on so long already. I'm going to go out on a limb here and said that if you read "The Objectivist Ethics" with a clear mind and without an axe to grind, you'll easily see the fallacies in Huemer's scribbles.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp, I would consider it a personal favor if you would try to act a bit less like a dick. That I know you can is the only reason I bother asking.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regarding the civil rights acts, when Lisa says she would oppose it, I believe it is an extension of her libertarian principles. She has more than convinced me that she really does believe in the extreme libertarian views. However, when Paul says it, I think, hmm, interesting where he chooses to libertarian and where he doesn't. He is in favor of govt intervention on moral grounds (abortion, drugs and I think anti-ssm though not in the let's eliminate all marriage way). Without that consistency, I think it is fair to question his statement's motivation.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I've read (not that I care deeply) Paul is pro-legalization (at least for medical purposes) and anti-DOMA (or federal amendment excluding SSM). He is strongly anti-abortion, but I don't think being anti-abortion is antithetical to ideological libertarianism (although it's not a common belief for a libertarian to hold).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Regarding the civil rights acts, when Lisa says she would oppose it, I believe it is an extension of her libertarian principles. She has more than convinced me that she really does believe in the extreme libertarian views. However, when Paul says it, I think, hmm, interesting where he chooses to libertarian and where he doesn't. He is in favor of govt intervention on moral grounds (abortion, drugs and I think anti-ssm though not in the let's eliminate all marriage way). Without that consistency, I think it is fair to question his statement's motivation.
So vote for me instead. <grin>
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I find it interesting that anti-Constitutional libertarians or anti-states rights people never make the best criticism that they could. At least I've never seen the criticism made.
See, according to the constitution, the Bill of Rights only limits the federal government. It actually allows individual states to declare a state religion, or to conduct unreasonable searches and seizures. Or to ban guns (next time an NRA type starts talking about the Second Amendment, point out that states rights means that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to anti-gun laws on the state or municipal level and watch them blow a blood vessel).
To me, the prospect of Utah declaring LDS the state religion (formally, I mean) or Michigan declaring Islam the state religion... well, those are nightmare scenarios. And I'd oppose any such thing. But Constitutional libertarianism certainly allows for that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Declare a state religion? Only if they ignored the 14th amendment, which extended the protections explicitly to the states.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the Everson v. Board of Education ruling disagrees with that interpretation. So if constitutional libertarians believe official state religions are legal under the constitution, they've been wrong for at least 70 years (and possibly since the 14th amendment was enacted, depending on how you define "legal").
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa: Utah essentially declared LDS the territorial religion when they first settled there. When it became a state it was probably the closest thing to a state religion the country had seen in almost 100 years. I can't conceive of anything like it since. It wasn't exactly a nightmare scenario at the time. But it probably would be problematic now.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Declare a state religion? Only if they ignored the 14th amendment, which extended the protections explicitly to the states.
Maybe, but they never formally repealed the 9th and 10th amendments, which puts the 14th amendment in a fuzzy legal category. Also, the wording is interesting. Because the First Amendment isn't a protection of us so much as a limitation of the federal government.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 14th amendment is after, and thus supersedes, the 9th and 10th, if there were any conflict. No fuzziness at all.
As for the wording, both the intent of those who put in that wording (which was to extend those rights) and the history of legal interpretation are both clear: privileges include prohibitions on restrictions.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 14th amendment doesn't incorporate the entirety of the bill of rights. The Supreme Court has decided which amendments represent fundamental rights which are protected by the 14th amendment. Since SCOTUS has not yet ruled on gun control, that's why it's still an issue.
I believe the 1st amendment was incorporated under the 14th, or at least the guarantee against establishment of religion in Everson v. Board of Education.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Samp, I would consider it a personal favor if you would try to act a bit less like a dick. That I know you can is the only reason I bother asking.
A personal favor, eh?
Fine, but I want a postcard.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Armoth: yep, that's why I focused on the state religion question. The question of gun control has always been more complicated.
Though the second amendment probably applied to the states even before the fourteenth. The first amendment places limits on Congress (and whether or not that also places limits on the states, it definitely does after the 14th). The second amendment, however, gives rights to citizens directly, and explicit Constitutional granting of rights trumps state law (as the Constitution is quite clear on).
So no, states can't place gun control laws (that the federal government couldn't), at least as the 2nd amendment is concerned: it explicitly gives the right to the people, and the Constitution's protections trump any state law.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if he supports that particular act, that means he supports Congress attempting to pass unconstitutional laws (no doubt he has some complicated reason he thinks that law isn't unconstitutional).
At least if you're against people born in the US being citizens, be forthright about it and call for a constitutional amendment. The language is not at all unclear.
Note: the other possibility, making the children of illegal immigrants not subject to US legal jurisdiction, would also make them un-extraditable. Somehow I doubt that's the desired outcome. Even people who break the law are subject to the law. Indeed, if they weren't, they wouldn't have been able to break it. Of course, the newborn children of illegal immigrants aren't breaking the law (they're citizens from the moment of birth; when could they have broken the law?).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Oh, please. How many times do I have to point out the fallacies in that silly thing?
"Rand's argument seems to be as follows".
Not to anyone familiar with what she wrote.
So, the fact that the author is obviously familiar with what she wrote, it seems to derail your entire argument from the get-go. If you don't want to be countersniped so easily, don't make silly comments like this.
"Value is agent-relative; things can only be valuable for particular entities. premise "
quote:Wrong. That's not a premise; it's a definition.
Very strangely worded for a definition. The assertion of it as a premise makes more sense, assuming we are both speaking the english language.
In fact, yes, it most definitely seems to be a premise. I'd wait for a more impartial analyst of philosophy to have a go at it before I believed your assertion.
Since the rest of your post is more or less hinged on that point, that pretty much wraps it up, I guess.
quote:So yes. It's unpopular as hell, but I do not believe that it is proper for government to prevent private citizens from discriminating on idiotic grounds. Or any other grounds.
"Any other grounds"?
How about criminal history, citizenship status, or health concerns? Is the government not allowed to discriminate against someone's right to travel over drug resistant tuberculosis infection for instance?
I am going to guess that the answer is no.
quote:make my stomach turn
Yes like everything.
quote:I'm against Medicare. And Medicaid. And anti-discrimination legislation that violates the rights of individuals. Why? Does that bother you?
No, it does not bother me, because it is irrelevant to how we will actually be governed and it wont pick up. But here is another question: Rand Paul very clearly wants to repeal those "immoral statist rights" but he is now mincing his words because he knows it hurts his electability. If it came down to him mincing his words and hiding his true ultralibertarian intent to get elected versus hiding his ultralibertarian intent to get elected, even though he can not even seem to figure out when a bill is clearly unconstitutional, or does not care, which do you want?
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rand Paul is a Libertarian. The vast majority of Libertarians separate ideology from voting preference. I'm a Libertarian but I wont waste my vote on a Libertarian candidate. Effectively, it's a vote for the liberal.
Libertarian's believe in tolerance. Rand Paul is demonized for his beliefs,.....disregarding his voting record. The opposite end of the spectrum: progressives that run as conservatives and vote hard left.
At least Rand Paul states what he believes and let's his voting record stand for what it is. Progressives talk centrist and vote liberal.
If Obama told the truth of his ideology beyond the platitudes of Hope and Change,....he would've lost.
At least Rand Paul tells the voters what he really thinks. You should worry....the extreme right wing can tell the truth and win. The extreme left can't be honest and win. (other than San Fransisco)
Rand shares his ideology....the left hides it.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:At least Rand Paul tells the voters what he really thinks.
The truth is, yet again, close to the polar opposite. He's very unabashedly for repealing restrictions on race-based discriminations for private companies but he's very explicitly trying to conceal and abrogate that and avoid direct questioning on the issue because he (now) knows it is a profound political liability.
quote: You should worry....the extreme right wing can tell the truth and win.
I'm not worried at all. Please, extreme right wing. Please tell us the truth about what you think about things. Please continue to go nuts with racial overtones over the mosque at ground zero. Continue to talk about how you would march with Martin Luther King but you want to get rid of every protection that allowed the civil rights marchers to live and eat in southern towns. Go ahead. Make me super afraid with all of your truth.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: November 2, 2010, is coming, Samprimary. If you're not worried about that, you ought to be.
Do go on, I would like to hear your prediction on this one. Will the republicans be taking back the house and the senate?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And even then, why should Samp personally be worried? Would it be a bad thing for the Republicans to take the House and Senate?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: And even then, why should Samp personally be worried? Would it be a bad thing for the Republicans to take the House and Senate?
Come on now, I know pithy one liners are like, your thing (and with good reason! You're really quite good at them ) but I think the answer to this is obvious.
I think Samprimary would definitely think it was a bad thing if the Republicans actually did manage to take the House and the Senate. He'd be worried, not for himself, but for the country. He would worry that they would pass terrible legislation or repeal good legislation, and generally muck things up worse than they currently are.
Is that inaccurate, Samp? I'm basing these predictions on what I've seen you say, and what I've discussed with you, but I'm no mind-reader. If I'm wrong, let me know. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing. For starters, the GOP wouldn't have to filibuster anything in order to continue breaking our legislative system.
I actually wouldn't be that torn up about it for serious unless it exposed a giant hole in analytical poll methodology. it would just prove that bait-and-switch concrete obstructionism really actually does work. Since the expiration of conservatism is, in a generational sense, seriously f****** nigh, and because the conservatives aren't going to be taking the white house anytime soon, I wouldn't have to be worried about 'progress being undone,' (the health care overhaul, for instance, is already politically untouchable), just a yawning pause in anything really being accomplished by our legislative branch (which might just be the kick in the teeth it needs to see real reform before 2025-ish).
In the long cycle, I win. In the short term, I'm entertained either way.
The issue is estimating likelihood. The pithy one-liner's purpose is not because Tom really needs to know whether or not I'd personally be worried, he wants to know why Ron Lambert thinks I should be worried.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's fair. Perhaps you wouldn't be worried, then.
However, don't you (and/or Tom) think it's likely Ron was basically just implying the same reasons I gave? I mean, he said it in a vaguely menacing way, I guess. But honestly, when someone on either side of the political spectrum says to someone on the other side "You better be worried about next election cycle!" I think the unspoken second part of that sentence pretty much always "Because your side is going to lose!" isn't it?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The left side of the political spectrum is much more politically adept. Dick Morris is a political commentator on Fox today,...we was an adviser for Clinton. "Triangulation" is a term foreign to the Libertarian and liberals run as centrist conservatives.
You can criticize people like Rand Paul for stating their beliefs. I prefer politicians that are honest with the voters about their ideology. I respect Rand for stating the truth of his ideology, all the time. In Washington, a "gaff" is mistakenly being honest. IE, Joe The Plumber Moments. Obama gaffed and exposed his real position as a socialist redistibutionist. (no wonder he doesn't give unscripted press conferences). Rand is free to speak his mind. Obama and his ilk need advisers to spin their true position. Someone like Palin can give a speech based upon a few words written on her hand. She's ridiculed for the ink in the palm but a one word reminder will generate a speech. She's being honest and a one word reminder is all she needs to speak her mind. Obama can't even talk to elementary school kids without a filtered teleprompter. Joe the Plumber caught him in an honest moment and his handlers won't let that happen again. Rand Paul doesn't play these games. Rand Paul isn't a liar and deceiver.
Obama is about marketing. Paul is about truth. This is what I am, vote for me or don't. Obama can't expose what he really believes.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The left side of the political spectrum is much more politically adept. Dick Morris is a political commentator on Fox today,...we was an adviser for Clinton. "Triangulation" is a term foreign to the Libertarian and liberals run as centrist conservatives.
You can criticize people like Rand Paul for stating their beliefs. I prefer politicians that are honest with the voters about their ideology. I respect Rand for stating the truth of his ideology, all the time. In Washington, a "gaff" is mistakenly being honest. IE, Joe The Plumber Moments. Obama gaffed and exposed his real position as a socialist redistibutionist. (no wonder he doesn't give unscripted press conferences). Rand is free to speak his mind. Obama and his ilk need advisers to spin their true position. Someone like Palin can give a speech based upon a few words written on her hand. She's ridiculed for the ink in the palm but a one word reminder will generate a speech. She's being honest and a one word reminder is all she needs to speak her mind. Obama can't even talk to elementary school kids without a filtered teleprompter. Joe the Plumber caught him in an honest moment and his handlers won't let that happen again. Rand Paul doesn't play these games. Rand Paul isn't a liar and deceiver.
Obama is about marketing. Paul is about truth. This is what I am, vote for me or don't. Obama can't expose what he really believes.
I actually know a number of career political operatives. Not one of them would even consider the idea that one side is somehow more sincere. These people are trying to get elected, not achieve sainthood, 99.9% of the time.
That's not to say there's not the occasional candidate (or even more rarely, incumbent) who just says what he/she thinks, and couldn't care less. However....Good God...if anyone really thinks that there's more than 1 or 2 elected officials in Washington at any time like that...they are sadly, hilariously naive.
The reason Palin can give a speech from just a few words is because the conservative schtick is so deceptively correct-sounding and internally consistent, in this country. In the former Soviet bloc, I imagine it was the leftists who could give speeches with only a few words of notes. Why?
Extremism is easier to express simply.
It sounds great, until you actually see it in practice.
That's true for both sides of the issues, the extreme left and right.
Extremism doesn't require as much THOUGHT. It leaves a much bigger mess, but, hey, the people with the foresight to avoid extremism are the thinkers. It's the Palins of our country (and many under-informed, poorly-read, and uneducated people, everywhere) who desire a philosophy/worldview that is solid, dependable, and easy to grasp. Such a worldview never works in practice, sadly.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Oh, please. How many times do I have to point out the fallacies in that silly thing?
"Rand's argument seems to be as follows".
Not to anyone familiar with what she wrote.
So, the fact that the author is obviously familiar with what she wrote, it seems to derail your entire argument from the get-go. If you don't want to be countersniped so easily, don't make silly comments like this.
"Value is agent-relative; things can only be valuable for particular entities. premise "
quote:Wrong. That's not a premise; it's a definition.
Very strangely worded for a definition. The assertion of it as a premise makes more sense, assuming we are both speaking the english language.
In fact, yes, it most definitely seems to be a premise. I'd wait for a more impartial analyst of philosophy to have a go at it before I believed your assertion.
Since the rest of your post is more or less hinged on that point, that pretty much wraps it up, I guess.
A couple of things. First, Huemer doesn't display familiarity with Rand's work; only with this one essay.
Second, it is a definition rather than a premise.
Third, you can't prove a negative. All anyone disagreeing with her statement needs to do is produce one single thing which has intrinsic value. Value which exists divorced from those who find value in it. Just one thing. You can't do that, however, because there is no such thing. To suggest that she needs to prove there's no such thing is silly. Produce a counter-example.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So yes. It's unpopular as hell, but I do not believe that it is proper for government to prevent private citizens from discriminating on idiotic grounds. Or any other grounds.
"Any other grounds"?
How about criminal history, citizenship status, or health concerns? Is the government not allowed to discriminate against someone's right to travel over drug resistant tuberculosis infection for instance?
While I'm having a bit of a problem parsing that sentence -- I assume you're asking whether I think it's okay to quarantine someone, but correct me if you meant something else -- the role of the government is to protect people. With the understanding that "not helping" does not equate to "hurting", governments exist to prevent people from hurting one another. To mediate disputes so that it needn't come to that. To punish those who have hurt others. So if someone has a communicable disease and isn't doing anything to prevent contaminating others, the government can certainly step in and protect me and you and everyone else from their recklessness.
Does that answer your question?
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: I am going to guess that the answer is no.
Interesting. You'll have to tell me how your guess did. Since I'm still not 100% what your question was, I don't know for sure what my answer would be.
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:make my stomach turn
Yes like everything.
Aw... is that a pout I see on your face? No, not like everything. Like you, I have to admit.
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: [QB][QUOTE]I'm against Medicare. And Medicaid. And anti-discrimination legislation that violates the rights of individuals. Why? Does that bother you?
No, it does not bother me, because it is irrelevant to how we will actually be governed and it wont pick up. But here is another question: Rand Paul very clearly wants to repeal those "immoral statist rights" but he is now mincing his words because he knows it hurts his electability. If it came down to him mincing his words and hiding his true ultralibertarian intent to get elected versus hiding his ultralibertarian intent to get elected, even though he can not even seem to figure out when a bill is clearly unconstitutional, or does not care, which do you want?
"Ultralibertarian"? Did you make that up yourself?
Yes, it seemed to me like he was equivocating a little. Maybe he needs more practice doing interviews, or maybe he really was equivocating. I hope it's the former.
Wait... do you think I'm so gung-ho for Rand Paul that I'd be okay with that? Or pretend he wasn't doing it?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) but I think the answer to this is obvious. 
