Survey Says: Nobody Likes a Bully

That's one hopeful takeaway from three recent polls on issues related to health care.

Americans still don't like a bully. That's one hopeful takeaway from three recent polls on issues related to health care.

First, a Quinnipiac poll found a majority — a small one, but still a majority — of Virginians oppose legislation passed by this year's General Assembly forcing a woman to submit to an ultrasound before having an abortion. (More Democrats than Republicans resented the mandate, which is not surprising. But more men opposed it than women, which is.) As state Sen. Dick Saslaw and others have noted, this is only the second time Virginia has ordered any medical procedure to be performed. The last time the state did so, it approved the forced sterilization of the mentally disabled.

More encouraging than the 52 percent opposition to ultrasound per se is this: 72 percent of state residents think the government should not pass laws seeking to change a woman's mind about getting an abortion.

Second, a Washington Post/ABC News poll shows 67 percent of respondents want the Supreme Court to throw out either the individual-mandate portion of the 2010 health-care overhaul or the entire statute. This tracks with a Kaiser Family Foundation poll from a few days earlier showing only 28 percent of Americans think the Constitution allows the government to make you buy insurance. Judging from this week's oral arguments, a majority of the Supreme Court also thinks the mandate is unconstitutional.

Third, a New York Times/CBS poll several days ago found that 57 percent of Americans believe the Obama administration's mandate forcing employers to provide contraception coverage should include an exemption for religiously affiliated institutions. A slim majority (51 percent) supports a conscience exemption for all employers. Even a 53 percent majority of women themselves think religious institutions should be able to opt out for reasons of conscience.

Would it be nice if those majorities were even larger? Absolutely. Nevertheless, it is encouraging to see a preponderance of the public come down on the right side of these issues. It suggests that while Americans are quite happy to have the government do things for them, many of them still bristle when the government starts trying to do things to them — or to their neighbors and fellow citizens.

Granted, public opinion is not the final word on every issue. Majorities can be wrong — as they were in the 1940s, when two-thirds of whites supported racial segregation in public schools, and as in 2009, when 58 percent of Americans said the underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, should be waterboarded during questioning.

Majorities also can be incoherent. A 2003 USA Today/CNN/Gallup survey on the separation of church and state found that 70 percent of respondents approved of allowing monuments of the Ten Commandments in public places, while 64 percent disapproved of allowing monuments of the Quran in public places.

But the majorities in the polls cited above are neither wrong nor incoherent. They are expressing something worth taking note of. The common thread running through the ultrasound mandate, the contraception mandate, and the insurance mandate is the callous indifference to the subject's consent.

Consent, which ought to be the first principle of every social interaction, is the last concern of bullies everywhere. It also is a cornerstone of the American ethos. The word appears explicitly three times in the Declaration of Independence, and implicitly many more — as when the Colonists protest that the monarch has called together legislative bodies at distant and uncomfortable places "for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance."

Fatiguing women into compliance seems to be the point of mandatory ultrasounds, which are not medically necessary and which are, according to state Sen. Jeff McWaters, motivated by concern for the "sanctity of human life." Opponents have called them part of a war on women. The rhetoric is overheated in some ways, but not in this: Ultimately, the ultrasound mandate is backed up by the threat of state violence. Comply, or else.

So too are the contraception mandate and the individual insurance mandate. Those edicts enjoy the support of some liberals who, ironically, think America is the world's bully because it uses force in the international arena. They would prefer that Washington use "soft power" — at least abroad. At home, they feel somewhat less compunction about compulsion, particularly in the service of liberal causes such as socializing medical costs.

But as Santayana said, "it will take some hammering to drive a coddling socialism into America." And as recent poll results show, Americans still do not like to be hammered on — even by their government.

A. Barton Hinkle is a columnist at the Richmond Times-Dispatch, where this column originally appeared. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Gadianton||

    Comply or Else.

    The threat which stands behind everything which comes out of a lawmaker's pen.

  • MNG||

    Of course no one wants to be told what to do, what they like is to tell others what to do!

  • Mainer||

    Not me. I have no interest in telling others how to live their lives.

  • Socialistic Individual Sparky||

    +1. That would be way too much work.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Indeed. I like to tell others to leave me the fuck alone.

  • ||

    *ding* and that's one of the reasons (ha!) I turned to Libertarianism.

    I have a strong 'Leave me the fuck alone' impulse whenever people tell me what to do.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Apparently a significant portion of Americans like to be cared for like children, however.

  • MNG||

    You mean people living off of trust funds and other legacies?

  • Almanian||

    Those folks are vastly outnumbered by the number living off of the theft of my - and other folk's - income. But you knew that.

    So - DERP!

    Happy Friday, Mung.

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    Stop it, those "John Kerry marries rich women" jokes are soooooooo 2004. :P

  • MNG||

    "At home, they feel somewhat less compunction about compulsion"

    Well, this is sort of, and sort of not, the essence of what differentiates you guys frowm what some people here call "statists" of either stripe: libertarians tend to take a deontological stand against coercion across the board, while "statists", while recognizing that coercion is usually something negative, are willing to weigh it against other negative consequences and accept that at times that the coercion is not always the morally worst thing.

    Pat Buchanan once said of liberals that their problem is that they think discrimination is the worst thing in the world, and while it is bad indeed it's not the WORST. I think much the same can be said about libertarians and coercion...

  • Charlotte Corday||

    Once you decide that it is okay to coerce people into doing something for their own good there is really no stopping down that road.

    The problem is that once you decide that liberty is not the highest value, liberty will always lose. There will always be some harm somewhere that can be prevented if only people are coerced in some way.

  • MNG||

    I'm not so much talking about coercing people for their own good, though there is lamentably some of that, but coercing people so they don't harm others.

    "The problem is that once you decide that liberty is not the highest value, liberty will always lose."

    That's just demonstrably wrong. The vast majority of people are not libertarians and don't have liberty as the highest value all the time, and yet you get poll results like the one talked about here.

  • Charlotte Corday||

    I'm not so much talking about coercing people for their own good, though there is lamentably some of that, but coercing people so they don't harm others.

    You are making a distinction that doesn't exist. Laws designed to coerce people for their own good are ALWAYS couched in terms of preventing people from harming others in some way.

    And there is some of that? Understate much? There is a multi trillion dollar government apparatus that is nearly all of that.

  • Charlotte Corday||

    The vast majority of people are not libertarians and don't have liberty as the highest value all the time, and yet you get poll results like the one talked about here.

    You utterly miss the point. It is not that people don't value liberty some of the time. It is that in every case enough people value the coercion and preventing the harm more than liberty. Sure maybe in other cases they don't. But in those cases there is a new ad hoc alliance for coercion. And there is an enormous bureaucracy whose whole exist is predicated on the superiority of coercion over liberty.

    This is how we ended up going from a small government to one that tells us what foods we can eat, what kind of insurance we can buy, what our light bulbs should be, and manages nearly every other aspect of our lives.

  • anon||

    I'm not so much talking about coercing people for their own good, though there is lamentably some of that, but coercing people so they don't harm others.

    Jesus christ, you and your logical circles again.

    It's not coercion if it's done to someone committing a "crime;" it's punishment. A person that initiates force on another can't claim he's being "coerced" into jail.

    With that distinction made, why would you approve of coercion if you recognize that it's morally wrong? There is no instance I can think of where it can be justified unless you think you're doing it "for their own good" or for some other arbitrary group's "good." Laws against drugs are just a tiny example of morally bankrupt coercion.

  • MNG||

    "There is no instance I can think of where it can be justified unless you think you're doing it "for their own good" or for some other arbitrary group's "good.""

    Er, which is exactly what I said...For some people, when the harm prevented to others outweighs the harm of coercing people (the loss of liberty), only then is that OK.

    The difference is that for libertarians no amount of harm or benefit gained to any amount of people will justify what you see as coercion.

  • ||

    Harm prevented does not equal harm done. You are talking entirely about forcing people to give something of theirs to other people. Using coercion to prevent people from coercing others (i.e. assault) is alright, coercing other people to DO THE RIGHT THING (assuming it IS the right thing, of course) is never right. To force people to do what you think is right is itself a moral wrong. People have to be free to make their own choices, even if those are sometimes the wrong choices.

  • ||

    Uh, harming other is a FORM of coercion. And you were VERY MUCH talking about coercing people for their own good. No one here thinks that laws against murder and theft are bad.

  • ||

    So basically what you're saying is that coercion is only bad when you don't like what it's coercing people to do. Got it.

  • MNG||

    Yes, of course that is exactly what I am saying...

    WTF? I'm saying that when "statists" do a moral calculus they usually coercion as a negative, but it can possibly be outweighed by consequences of non-coercion sometimes.

  • ||

    It's good to know that you will flat out admit this. At least you're honest about it. By the way, I've decided that your daughter needs to be "coerced" into something. That's OK, right?

  • anon||

    It's good to know that you will flat out admit this. At least you're honest about it. By the way, I've decided that your daughter needs to be "coerced" into something. That's OK, right?

    Obviously she's eating food, drinking water, using sewage... all increasing the cost of these items! We must prevent her from eating. You know, so the rest of us can have cheaper food. It's for our own good.

  • MNG||

    Yes Epi, the people who disagree with you are just freedom hating evil people.

    What you don't see is that "statists" sometimes see situations in which refraining from coercion results in a worse outcome than engaging in it, not that they love coercion for it's own sake.

  • anon||

    God, you still miss the fucking point.

    A worse outcome FOR WHOM?

  • MNG||

    Do you dispute that the mandate would help some people and hurt others?

    This is why people talk about "cost shifting" when they talk about it dude. It lowers the cost for some, raises it for others, in terms not only of money but other morally relevant criteria (like being coerced to buy insurance).

    The "sin" of the statists is they can imagine times where the benefits of a coercion to one group outweigh the costs of the coercion to those coerced, and so they support it. It's not that they don't value liberty or count coercion as a negative, they do. They just don't see it as a constantly trumping value.

  • Joe M||

    It would hurt the young and poor, and benefit the old and rich. Why are liberals in favor of that?

  • MNG||

    I'm betting they see the outcomes differently than you do.

  • Joe M||

    In that case, they're ignorant of the reality.

  • MNG||

    You are of course right, never are you wrong. Those that disagree with you are either ignorant or evil.

    Yeah, I know the drill round these parts.

  • anon||

    Do you dispute that the mandate would help some people and hurt others?

    Nope. My premise is exactly that it would harm the vast majority of people while helping a very select few; most of whom have probably made poor life decisions anyways, such as smoking, diet, or other drug/alcohol consumption.

  • MNG||

    So you admit there is a class of people that will be helped by it, just a small and in your opinion undeserving one.

    Now, to get my point, you can at least imagine a situation in which a group is helped that is much larger and more deserving. It is in THAT case that so-called "statists" are for coercion. The difference with the libertarian is that libertarians will say "even in that case the liberty of the few coerced trumps the benefits gained by this group." What defines "statists" is simply an unwillingness to adopt liberty as an ultimate trump to all other values and benefits. That's all.

    Everyone is against coercion that results in a net loss of welfare and other values.

  • anon||

    So you admit there is a class of people that will be helped by it, just a small and in your opinion undeserving one.

    Sure, when you take money from one group and give it to another group, it "helps" one group. I'll admit that.

    Now, to get my point, you can at least imagine a situation in which a group is helped that is much larger and more deserving.

    See, here's how you miss the fucking point 100% of the time; nobody DESERVES property that they did not earn, and nobody DESERVES a portion of my life. Mere existence does not entitle any group of people to my life; your persistence in accepting the axiom that they *can* be deserving is what makes you a TEAM BLUE shill.

  • MNG||

    It's you that is missing the point. What people deserve is another discussion; my point here is that what differentiates a statist from a libertarian is that when they think they have a situation where a large group of deserving (whatever that is) people benefited by a coercion of others which they see as a negative, but as a negative outweighed by the benefit above, they are willing to entertain it.

    The libertarian says "no, no, no matter how many benefit how much, or how few are coerced however little, it is never justified."

    Maybe that view is right, but it's pretty extreme. It's taking one value among many and magnifying its value to be a constant and ultimate trump. That most people don't follow you guys in this should not surprise much.

  • anon||

    What people deserve is another discussion; my point here is that what differentiates a statist from a libertarian is that when they think they have a situation where a large group of deserving (whatever that is) people benefited by a coercion of others which they see as a negative, but as a negative outweighed by the benefit above, they are willing to entertain it.

    My god you're an idiot. You tell me it's "another discussion," then proceed to reiterate how "deserving people NEED STUFFZ!!"

    It is not another discussion. You assume the right to take my shit and give it to some arbitrary group of your choosing; you may value YOUR liberty, but you certainly don't value MY liberty.

  • anon||

    And of course, it's always easier to "help the needy" when it isn't your money being spent to help them.

    So, I'd say your only value would be the unjust accumulation of shit that doesn't belong to you. You're nothing more than a thief.

  • MNG||

    I support doing that when the benefits of doing so are great and outweigh the costs of doing so. Note, they are seen as a cost. If there were no outweighing benefits then I would never support it. That's been my point the whole time.

  • anon||

    Everyone is against coercion that results in a net loss of welfare and other values.

    Even here, you value the Welfare State above liberty, and yet proclaim that liberty is one of your values. Give me a break.

  • MNG||

    You should google "welfare definition"

    When I speak of "welfare" I'm not talking about TANF dude.

  • anon||

    You should google "welfare definition"

    And you should google "welfare state." Mostly because if you value welfare, you value the welfare state; you just don't want the negative connotations that go along with it.

  • Tulip||

    What makes one group more deserving? Usually the answer I get is 'they have less'. Which has nothing to do with deserve.
    I understand that those with trust funds didn't do anything to 'deserve' what they have either, but just saying one group has less is not convincing enough to me to justify coercion.

  • anon||

    It's not that they don't value liberty or count coercion as a negative, they do. They just don't see it as a constantly trumping value.

    It's precisely that they don't value liberty.

    Here's a little math exercise for you; if the value of A is greater than B, and B is greater than C, is C of the least value?

  • MNG||

    They value, it's just that it can be matched and passed in value.

    You're problem with such folks is that, unlike you, they don't find it invaluable, or the most valuable, in all situations.

  • anon||

    Oh please.

    When fucking salt basically banned in NYC "for my own good," you sit there and tell me individual liberty is even on the fucking chart?

    Open your eyes.

  • MNG||

    My entire point here is that for that set of people, yes, liberty has little value.

    But for many people, liberty has a value, but they are willing to let providing benefits to others/preventing harms to others sometimes be a jusitication for some coercions.

  • ||

    "But for many people, liberty has a value, but they are willing to let providing benefits to others/preventing harms to others sometimes be a jusitication for some coercions."

    Yes, people are very much willing to let that happen if it isn't THEM being coerced.

  • MNG||

    "Here's a little math exercise for you; if the value of A is greater than B, and B is greater than C, is C of the least value?"

    This is perfect, because it proves my point. You acknowledge it has some value, just less (or "least" in your ever so smug formulation).

  • anon||

    Everything has "value" MNG, but when liberty is the *least* valuable in your system of morals, you've become morally bankrupt.

  • MNG||

    How about when it is an equal value of several other values? Because that is where most people you call "statists" are.

  • anon||

    How about when it is an equal value of several other values? Because that is where most people you call "statists" are.

    How can you claim it's valued "equally?"

    All I see are more laws and regulations intended to "help people."

    They don't value liberty; they value the control of the distribution of wealth to the people they deem "deserving."

    This is the exact opposite of liberty. The two are NOT compatible.

  • MNG||

    What can I say, those who support such laws honestly think the coercions are minor compared to the gains in other things valued. That doesn't mean they don't see coercions as a negative, just that it can be outweighed if it brings many, many positives.

  • anon||

    That doesn't mean they don't see coercions as a negative, just that it can be outweighed if it brings many, many positives.

    So, it's OK to kill 60 million people as long as the system of government stays the same so that you can provide welfare to another billion?

    It's OK to rape a woman to prevent you from raping a hundred?

    Pathetic.

  • MNG||

    Ah, see, it's like I said from the beginning, you're a deontologist and most people are consequentialists. For you the ends can never justify the means, for most people they can imagine some situations in which they can and do.

  • anon||

    For you the ends can never justify the means

    ding ding ding, we have a winner! Calm down, that smoke might start a fire.

    You just show that you basically have no values; if you adhered to your morals you would understand that the ends *don't* justify the means, because hey, it's still not OK to rob a bank.

  • anon||

    it's still not OK to rob a bank.

    Unless you're a liberal, that is.

  • ||

    related:

    Clement’s comment about “a very funny conception of liberty” points to the fundamental divide between Left and Right since the New Deal. FDR argued that a necessitous man cannot be a free man. This is not implausible on its face, but as a practical matter it made redistribution of wealth the central ground of modern liberalism at the expense of individual liberty. It has led liberalism to reject the natural rights philosophy of the Founding—FDR explicitly did this in his Commonwealth Club address of 1932. Hence the real divide between Left and Right today is over the meaning of individual liberty.


    http://www.powerlineblog.com/a.....ctions.php

  • Fatty Bolger||

    What can I say, those who support such laws honestly think the coercions are minor compared to the gains in other things valued.

    Well, of course. The communists and Nazis felt the same way. Their end-game dreams were just bigger.

  • FreeMan||

    MNG, accepting for the sake of argument the utilitarian ethical calculus you postulate, you still have the issue that "value" is subjective, and that only the person whose liberty is impugned can assign a fair value to the liberty he has lost.

    Arguing for libertarianism in your terms, a libertarian is one who holds that, for some (not necessarily all) people, liberty is of either infinite value, or at least of such great value that no possible worldly good provided at the expense of another's liberty could possibly be justified as a fair trade.

    To show your argument to be valid, you'll need to either demonstrate that value is not subjective, or else show that the worldly goods and services traded for liberty are also of infinite (or similar finite but extremely great) value.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    In other words, the ends justify the means? How original.

  • shorter MNG||

    "Would you rather die or pay a 10% tax on your income?"

    "I'd rather the 10% tax."

    "SEE!?!?!? YOU LOVE TAXES!!!!1111one."

  • MNG||

    Supporters of the mandate, for example, don't say "let's make people buy insurance for shits and giggles!" They say "if forcing some people to buy insurance means many others will get treatment they otherwise would not, then it's worth the negative of the coercion."

    Setting up your opponents as just evil goofballs who love doing evil for evil's sake is not productive, unless it is in producing smugness.

  • ||

    Your inability to get this concept is fucking hilarious. You're basically a self parody. I guess all I can say is thanks for the lulz.

  • ||

    Basically?

  • ||

    Mostly. They mostly come out at night. Mostly.

  • anon||

    Literally.

  • Charlotte Corday||

    Supporters of the mandate, for example, don't say "let's make people buy insurance for shits and giggles!" They say "if forcing some people to buy insurance means many others will get treatment they otherwise would not, then it's worth the negative of the coercion."

    Exactly. coercion is always couched in terms of preventing harm to others. And that makes your statement above

    'm not so much talking about coercing people for their own good, though there is lamentably some of that, but coercing people so they don't harm others.

    utterly ridiculous. MNG, two commentators in one.

  • ||

    Basically.

  • MNG||

    "coercion is always couched in terms of preventing harm to others"

    That's not true of course. Some people want to limit the salt content in foods via coercion to save people "from themselves." Others might, say, support coercing people into buying insurance not to save the ones coerced, but other people.

  • ||

    "To save people 'from themselves' "

    Again, preventing harm. It is irrelevant whether you are coercing people to "save themselves" or to "save others," the coercion is ITSELF a wrong. By believing that the ends EVER justify the means, you really are admitting to moral bankruptcy. "It's wrong until enough people are helped, THEN theft/murder/genocide/etc. are all right."

  • ||

    To be more accurate, instead of "morally bankrupt" it would be more appropriate to say "consequentialist" or "utilitarian" (a Benthamite "Act" Utilitarian, to be precise).

  • mgd||

    "let's make people buy insurance for shits and giggles!"
    Actually, I believe there was some of that to the mandate. Can you explain how, out of hundreds of possible other goods or services, HHS landed on making an issue out contraception? If that wasn't just a big "fuck you", what was that all about? I mean, why not mandate coverage for infant/toddler antibiotics with no co-pay, for fuck's sake?

  • Almanian||

    As you know, the key to coercion is having The Right People® in charge.

    "OK for me, but not for thee" for many 'murcans. Dare I say "most"? I think I do dare - MOST 'murcans.

    And it's *always* wrong, if one is principled about coercion. But if one is merely pragmatic (or if other principles - like #WINNING - are more important to them), and not in fact driven by principle (see "Every Politician" and "Pretty Much Every Lefty/Righty Idealogue Who's Not A Politician"), then MEANS TO AN END, BITCHES! So fuck them and the coercion they rode in on.

  • Toolbag||

    May your chains rest lightly.

  • Joe M||

    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
    —C. S. Lewis
  • sarcasmic||

    Bullies gravitate towards government, because when you're a member of government you can bully people with impunity.

    What's a person to do when the bully is part of the organization that is supposed to come to their aid when they are being bullied?

  • ||

    Stop resisting?

  • Almanian||

    Winner

  • MNG||

    Governments are also used to stop bullies, or are you against government fighting robbers, murderers, and scam artists?

  • Almanian||

    Mung, way to go full retard right outta the gate on a Friday.

    Yeah, that's what he was implying. Idiot.

  • sarcasmic||

    the organization that is supposed to come to their aid when they are being bullied

    MNG reading comprehension fail

  • shrike||

    I hate being told my property taxes should support religious schools via "vouchers". The First Amendment has meaning to me.

    Luckily, us secularists are winning that one against the conservatives - for now.

  • o3||

    the worst part of voucher coercion is the gop [DENIAL] of locals voting whether their local property taxes may be transferred outta the local district to for-profit charters.

  • Charlotte Corday||

    Because if giving a kid a decent education means someone making a profit, it just isn't worth doing.

    Democrats, keep the poor poor and ignorant since Reconstruction.

  • MNG||

    So you support taking my money and giving it to a religious school?

    Interesting.

  • Charlotte Corday||

    How is that different than taking your money and giving it to a public school? It is still your money isn't it? It is still a school isn't it?

  • MNG||

    Well, it might be different because of this thing called the first amendment, the raison d'etre of which was that I wouldn't be compelled to financially support religious institutions.

    But more to the point, I can see why you would oppose both giving money to public and religious schools, or why you would support just the public, but you seem to have taken the rather strange stance of supporting just the taking of money and giving it to religious schools. And that seems odd.

  • Charlotte Corday||

    Because letting someone use tax money to attend a religious school is not establishing a state religion and does not violate the 1st Amendment. If it did, you couldn't use a Pell Grant to attend Notre Dame.

    And I don't have a problem with tax payer funded education. And the most efficient way to fund education seems to be giving everyone a voucher and let them choose their own school that is best for them.

    The only possible reason anyone would support public support for just public schools is that you value teachers and their union money more than you value students.

  • o3||

    why does charlotte ASSume local voters wont vote to support property tax vouchers??? hummmmmmmmm

  • Charlotte Corday||

    Perhaps they will. In fact they often do. In fact they do in places like Washington DC and Milwaukee. And Democratic politicians did everything they could to prevent it from happening. Why? Because Democrats love union money more than they even like black students.

    Democrats, keeping minorities poor and ignorant since reconstruction.

  • o3||

    and ive got no prob w it either...provided local voters actually get to vote on the issue. absent that, its coercion.
    >also, libertarians (vs republicans) should support that vouchers are the property of local property owners subject to sale on the open market.

  • ||

    I would prefer that the money for education not be spent (or taxed) in the first place, and let parents use their retained money to decide where to send their kids to school (if at all).

    Barring that, I would prefer that the money be given BACK to parents to spend on their kids schooling however they wish. Vouchers serve that end. The vouchers should not be SPECIFICALLY for religious schools, just private schools in general. If parents choose to send their kids to religious private schools, I think that's their prerogative, not the state's.

  • Ring||

    Do you support taking my money and giving it to religious people?

  • shrike||

    Good business idea - when vouchers become commonplace become an on-line educator and pound conservative/religious sludge into the kiddies heads for a hefty fee.

  • Charlotte Corday||

    Or better yet, go be a teacher and teach liberal/socialist sludge in return for life time employment and a fat pension.

  • shrike||

    You're new here (or your handle is).

    SoCons are the biggest scumbags on the planet now that Communism has been defeated. China and Japan are not afflicted with this poison nearly to the extent we are.

    SoCons - whether of the Muslim or Christo-Fascist variety, must be defeated.

  • Socialistic Individual Sparky||

    Needs more christ-fag.

  • MNG||

    It's neat that people rush to defend conservatives when they are maligned here so often.

    Not that these people are conservatives, mind you. They're libertarians of course.

  • Charlotte Corday||

    I am new here. And everyone tells me you are someone named Mary Stack. I have no idea if that is true. But you clearly need some kind of medication and treatment.

  • Socialistic Individual Sparky||

    The christ-fags that live in shrike's underwear make him crazy. Everything that shrike doesn't agree with is controlled by dirty, stupid, fundamentalist christ-fags.

  • shrike||

    Why do you defend SoCons?

    Got a little stiffy for Santorum? Maybe a Gingrich fan?

  • MNG||

    That's funny, because I'd bet money that you are that person. You just popped up, eh? I think your our griefer, just having more fun with this different, "more serious" persona.

  • Charlotte Corday||

    Do you really think our Griefer would know my name much less understand the significance of it? Really MNG?

  • MNG||

    See, this is partly why I'm increasingly sure that's who you are. You're "new here" you say above, but familiar with "our Griefer."

    Gotcha.

  • Charlotte Corday||

    The griefer spams every thread. And someone puts up rather surreal and funny "Mary Stack" graffiti after every post. You don't have to be on here long to figure out there is a griefer problem you doofus.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    I hate being told my property taxes should support religious schools

  • o3||

    but you can, at least, exercise your voting rights against levys unlike vouchers.

  • Ring||

    Here's a novel idea, let households keep their property tax money and pay their own way into schools. No need for levy's since you could just move your kids to another school if the instituted something you don't like and would have to pay for.

    The only reason its any of your business in the first place is because the state makes you pay for it rather than letting me keep my money and pay for it myself and keeping it my business.

  • ||

    "if forcing some people to buy insurance means many others will get treatment they otherwise would not, then it's worth the negative of the coercion."

    Scam artistry, FTW!

  • ||

    They mostly come out at night. Mostly.

    That's what the hoodies are for.

  • ||

    Mostly.

  • ||

    Xenohoods or Hoodiemorphs?

  • Charlotte Corday||

    That and Bill Bellicheck.

  • ||

    I wonder if there's any hoodie-themed porn.

    *Googles*

    Sort of.

  • Loki||

    Rule 34

  • Tony||

    Some of us do.

  • ||

    if forcing some people to buy insurance do X,/b> means many others will get treatment they otherwise would not Y, then it's worth the negative of the coercion

    Fill in the blanks. Identify a limiting principle. Show your work.

    Suggestion:

    X = report unmutual behavior by family and neighbors

    Y = the minimum food allotment designated by the State

  • ||

    Fecking HTML. This place needs a previous function.

  • sarcasmic||

    A preview function would be nice. That way you could check to see if you closed all your html properly before hitting submit.

    Oh well. :-(

  • Almanian||

    I want a previous function as RC suggests. I see that as being able to make updates to a previous post...which would be awesome.

    Although even just having preVIEW WOULD be nice.

    Stupid reason.com and their 1920's computer "technology"! Man - for a magazine called "Reason"...

  • Charlotte Corday||

    Perhaps Reason's stalker has encouraged them to upgrade their technology.

  • sarcasmic||

    being able to make updates to a previous post

    You make a post, people respond, then you modify your post so that the responses make no sense.

    That could be fun!

  • Almanian||

    I like the way you think, and am interested in subscribing to your newsletter.

  • Loki||

    So then every thread will end up looking like WI shit. Great idea.

  • o3||

    funny idea sparky

  • Socialistic Individual Sparky||

    Aside from the mess, it looks like there might be a good point in there somewhere.

  • Almanian Barbrie||

    ALGEBRA MIXED WITH READING IS HARD! LOL!

  • Almanian||

    So is "typing", self - so is "typing"...

    I isz in ur interwebs not checkin ur spellin lol wut?

  • ||

    Speaking of bullies -

    http://pjmedia.com/richardfern.....ned-to-it/

    Fuck Richard Blumenthal

  • ||

    I really hope Obama finishes his term with a court-packing attempt. TEAM BLUE loves them some FDR, doesn't it?

  • Charlotte Corday||

    Roosevelt was saving us from a fascist revolution. He had to destroy Democracy to save it.

    Don't you read?

  • Almanian||

    I'd like to see Obama finish his term with a fudge-packing attempt, but I'm weird like that.

  • Loki||

    Shorter Blumenthal: Say, that's a nice court you've got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it.

  • ||

    Government bullying is perfectly reasonable and appropriate, as long as the end justifies the means.

  • Charlotte Corday||

    Eggs broken

  • Translucent Chum||

    Omeletes were made.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    They tasted awful.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "First, a Quinnipiac poll found a majority — a small one, but still a majority — of Virginians oppose legislation passed by this year's General Assembly forcing a woman to submit to an ultrasound before having an abortion. (More Democrats than Republicans resented the mandate, which is not surprising. But more men opposed it than women, which is.)"

    Just a few comments.

    Why is it "surprising" that a significant number of men want the assurance that, if they get a woman knocked up, she will be able to get an abortion with little inconvenience, saving the men the fuss of supporting the child. And it's not at all surprising that women will be more supportive of laws protecting children, even unborn children. There is such a thing as a maternal instinct. Or has Hinkle been reading *The Handmaid's Tale* too many times?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Also, abortionists already do ultrasounds, the bill simply says that, as part of informed consent, the woman must be given a chance to *see* the ultrasound.

    Next, who are the real bullies - folks who kill an unborn child, or folks who try to adopt minimal protections for the unborn?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    VA bill summary:

    Requires that, as a component of informed consent to an abortion, to determine gestational age, every pregnant female shall undergo transabdominal ultrasound imaging and be given an opportunity to view the ultrasound image of her fetus prior to the abortion. The medical professional performing the ultrasound must obtain written certification from the woman that the opportunity was offered and whether the woman availed herself of the opportunity to see the ultrasound image or hear the fetal heartbeat. A copy of the ultrasound and the written certification shall be maintained in the woman's medical records at the facility where the abortion is to be performed. The ultrasound is not required if the woman is the victim of rape or incest and the incident was reported to law enforcement.

    http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin
    /legp604.exe?121+bil+HB0462

  • Eduard van Haalen||

  • shrike||

    Better dead than Red

  • ||

    The only thing that can really be gleaned from these polls is that voters are fickle and schizophrenic. They like coercion until they don't.

  • ||

    "But more men opposed it than women, which is (surprising)".

    Men are in favor of abortion because of the freedom it allows them to have frequent sex with different partners without the risk of having to support any children that may result.

    Not surprising at all.

  • ||

    buddy's mom made $19011 a month ago. she is making an income on the computer and bought a $529600 condo. All she did was get lucky and put in action the information shown on this web site NuttyrichDOTcom

  • Aaskavind||

    "The common thread running through the ultrasound mandate, the contraception mandate, and the insurance mandate is the callous indifference to the subject's consent."

    Tell that to the dead babies.
    We have disclosure requirements in place for all kinds of contracts. They are in place to grant both parties full access to relevant information prior to codifying their decision.

    It is simply false to say this is unique. When a patient is counseled about elective surgery, it is considered "best practice" to show the patient the medical imagery used to make the diagnosis and to explain the pros and cons of moving forward. Failure to follow these best practices exposes the surgeon to legal risk. Abortion should not be placed on a different plane simply because it is a hot-button political issue.

  • emily12||

    New Era Hats
    "it is released by http://www.hatbrandshop.com/ 2012.06.15"

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement