Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
Cathy Young puts the Mad Morality into perspective.
|2.21.05 @ 1:04PM|#
"The right has no monopoly on morals�or on moral bullying"
Is there anyone at this site who wasn't already completely aware of
this?
Good article, BTW.
|2.21.05 @ 1:11PM|#
What�s more, an absolutist interpretation of the
�establishment of religion� clause has led to an aggressive
campaign to purge public spaces of all traces of even the most
voluntary religious expression, from Christmas decorations at a
firehouse to a reference to God in a student�s high school
graduation speech, often leading traditionalists to feel their
beliefs are the target of special hostility and
exclusion.
Cathy, have you completely ignored the past twenty-five years of
case law on this or what?
|2.21.05 @ 1:15PM|#
Agree with a given point she makes or not, Cathy Young thinks clearly and writes darn well. Bravo! It is great to see how an argument loses nothing by working at being fair to the other side. On the contrary, her criticisms become all the more telling when they are marshalled and only deployed when supported and rationally based. Again, bravo!
|2.21.05 @ 1:20PM|#
Cathy,
I suggest you read the following cases: Widmar, Lamb's Chapel,
Capitol Square & Good News Club. Shit in the latter of these
the SCOTUS permitted a virtual Sunday School type class to go on in
the after hours time of a public school.
Why is that reporters and the like discuss the legal arena without
having the first clue what they are talking about?
|2.21.05 @ 1:27PM|#
No matter how much libertine libertarians like Ms Young like to
complain, it was the gay marriage issue that propelled Bush to
victory last year. It mobilized traditional Catholics and
Evangelicals to the polls in record numbers. Also it helped
increase Bush's share of the black vote in places like Ohio which
put the President over the top. A lame article but I've come to
expect that from Ms Young.
I look foward to Hit and Run running this latest
laugher from Ms Young so it can be discussed here
|2.21.05 @ 1:42PM|#
"libertine libertarians like Ms Young"
Ha! I'm not sure what's funnier: the attempts by theocons to
portray mainstream libertarians who constantly bash both aisles
(perhaps too even-handedly, in Ms. Young's case) as "libertines",
or the attempts by leftists to portray them as "Republicans who
smoke pot".
Btw, Bush's share of the black vote was about 1% higher nationwide
than it was last year, thus making the difference worth only about
1/25 of his margin against Kerry. And if you're going to bash her
for bashing Woods' Zinn-caliber piece of revisionist BS, also make
sure to bash the Weekly Standard's Max Boot for doing the same.
|2.21.05 @ 1:49PM|#
Bush got 17 percent of the black vote in Ohio the state that put
him over the top. The increase is a direct result of the gay
marriage issue. Sorry if facts upset you.
As for Prof Woods book, 10 will get ya 100 Ms Young hasn't even
read the book. She's relying on a buffoon like Max Boot and his
review in the Weekest Standard.
|2.21.05 @ 1:50PM|#
BillyRay: would you be a theonomic libertarian, or just a pro-slavery libertarian?
|2.21.05 @ 1:59PM|#
Here it comes. The usual BS about being pro-slavery. There's nothing in Prof Woods book about being pro slavery. States rights and nullification yes, but not slavery. Sorry, but cheap comments from the cheap seats are all too common on Hit and Run
|2.21.05 @ 2:03PM|#
10'll get ya 100 that BillyRay hasn't read a critical word abt Woods that he couldn't dismmiss with ad hominems from his expensive seat here at H&R.
|2.21.05 @ 2:13PM|#
Gary G -
First, I don't pretend to answer for Ms. Young as she is obviously
capable of that herself, but I think there can be a point of
contention with your analysis.
While SCOTUS decisions may have given a right to a school not
previuosly exercised, this doen't in turn mean schools everywhere
can or will implement any of these. Especially considering when a
school does try to implement these items they are threatened with
lawsuits, that even though they might win, they can't afford to
fight.
On aanother level, schools adopt severly harsh policies such as
"zero-tolerance" for fear of lawsuits regardless of what rights
they have to implement other policies. And this isn't an indictment
on any specific organization famous for filing lawsuits, because
this same fear stops districts from kicking kids out of school for
cheating, not for fear from the ACLU, but for fear from the
parent(s).
|2.21.05 @ 2:14PM|#
Unlike you and Ms Young, Ive read the book and think it's outstanding. Should be required reading for every High School student. As for the critics, well a couple shyster law Profs, Glen InstaPundit and Eric Mueller are hysterical. Throw in the usual neocons and you have a very odd collection of people. Libertarian centralizers with the mad bombing neocons.
|2.21.05 @ 2:15PM|#
"Bush got 17 percent of the black vote in Ohio the state that
put him over the top. The increase is a direct result of the gay
marriage issue. Sorry if facts upset you."
According to the 2000 census, Ohio's population is 11% black. So
even a 10% increase in the black vote in Ohio wouldn't give Bush
half the margin that he got in the state. And it goes without
saying that it's quite presumptuous to think that the entire
increase came from the gay marriage issue. Farm subsidies, steel
tariffs, and foreign policy could have easily played roles.
|2.21.05 @ 2:24PM|#
I'm saying the gay marriage issue increased his share of the black vote in Ohio. And it did. No ethnic group is more opposed to this sham known as gay marriage than black americans. It also increased turnout among traditional Catholics and Evangelicals. Even Dem consultants like James Carville have said it really hurt his party in 2004. The Gaystapo overplayed its hand.
|2.21.05 @ 2:32PM|#
SixSigma,
Well, (a) the absolutist doctrine is dead and (b) the case law over
the past twenty years or so has been very friendly towards a
religious presence in the public sphere.
BillyRay,
Shysters? Can you spefically detail the unscrupulous methods that
you are referring to? Otherwise, I'll just treat your comment as a
troll.
Why is gay marraige a sham?
|2.21.05 @ 2:33PM|#
"The Gaystapo"
LOL. I figured that it was only a matter of time before the loony
right built off of its "feminazi" perjorative to attack other
ideological opponents with Third Reich-related slurs. But I hope
you realize that it opens you up to the same justified charges of
self-parody as those who carry Bush = Hitler banners.
|2.21.05 @ 2:36PM|#
BillyRay: I see now that your rhetorical techniques of making up amusing names for those you disagree with and asserting your beliefs as if they are facts are both part of a desperate cry for help. But you may not be in the right place. Most libertarians would defend your right to be self-deluded and spectacularly wrong instead of trying to gently guide you to seeing reason. But keep trying, someday someone will take pity on you and buy you a clue!
|2.21.05 @ 2:44PM|#
BillyRay,
I don't think he can. Now that's not because you're right, its
because you've made some claims of opinion that can neither be
confirmed nor denied.
For example, you claim that gay marraige is a sham. Is it? Can you
demonstrate that it is? Or is that just the way you look at the
world? In essence its a matter of subjective opinion. Your other
claims follow a similar course.
|2.21.05 @ 2:45PM|#
BillyRay,
BTW, I'm waiting for you to grow a pair and answer my earlier
questions. :)
|2.21.05 @ 2:47PM|#
BillyRay,
I think a lot of demagogues like yourself have a hard a time
differentiating what is mere opinion from factual claims.
|2.21.05 @ 2:47PM|#
holy fucking shit i am using gaystapo day until i die.
holy fuck shit, that's genius.
|2.21.05 @ 2:53PM|#
My wife and I are both Catholic. We still haven't figured out
how our marriage will be hurt if gays get to marry. But we've been
assured by Rick Santorum that gay marriage will in fact destroy our
marriage, so it must be true.
Right?
But seriously, I have yet to hear an explanation of the mechanism
by which gay marriage will harm society. It usually starts with a
speech about the importance of the institution of marriage (and I
whole heartedly agree!). Then there's something about how weird and
different it would be if gays could marry as well. And then it's
just asserted that this would have a negative impact on those
heterosexual marriages that form the bedrock of society.
It's a little like this South Park episode I saw. I rarely watch
South Park, but I saw one where some little gnomes steal underwear.
And in their lair they have a big sign with a 3-step plan.
Step 1: Steal underwear.
Step 2: ??????
Step 3: Profit!
That's how I feel about the arguments against gay marriage. They
seem to go like this:
Step 1: Gays marry
Step 2: ?????
Step 3: Heterosexuals stop taking their marriages seriously and/or
other heterosexuals decide to not even bother getting married
and/or heterosexuals decide to have fewer kids.
I still haven't identified a step 2 that leads to step 3.
|2.21.05 @ 2:56PM|#
BillRay: Did I say wrong? I said you make up amusing names -
Gaystapo. I said you assert your opinions as fact - "No ethnic
group is more opposed to this sham known as gay marriage than black
americans."
Sorry if the facts upset you.
|2.21.05 @ 3:00PM|#
Morality extends beyond the sphere of Judeo-Christian ideology.
I'm an agnostic but I still hold dear many basic moral principles
(stealing and killing are wrong, honesty is a virtue, etc.). I
didn't vote for Bush or Kerry, nor did I pass judgment on their
individual moral compasses, which are probably not as far apart as
their campaign managers would have liked you to believe.
I have family members who are devout Catholics, yet disagree with
the Vatican's stance on the death penalty and war (particularly the
war in Iraq). Apparently, fifty percent agreement is all you need
to be infallible these days!
Finally, please don't feed the BillyRays on this board. Clearly, he
brings nothing to the table. Freedom of speech never meant you had
to take the other guy seriously.
|2.21.05 @ 3:01PM|#
BillyRay,
Some interesting numbers for you:
From approximately 1820-1860, 3,000-5,000 slaves a year escaped
bondage and headed North (often to Canada but also to New England,
etc.).
Can you tell me what is remotely defensible about a society which
more people escaped from than was the case of Germans from the DDR
in the Cold War?
During the Civil War, approximately 200,000 black men (mostly
recently escaped slaves) fought against the Confederacy. That's
200,000 out of a population of 9 million people (the latter number
is the South's population in 1860). What sort of society engenders
such hatred that this many of its citizens would take up arms
against it? Note too that of the four million slaves in bondage in
1860, one million of them escaped slavery by running to the Union
lines by 1865. What sort of society is it that encourages flight
when to the supposed "enemy" whenever their troops draw near?
|2.21.05 @ 3:04PM|#
Gary, it's a sham because most gays
really don't care about it. Also as Thomas Sowell so eloquently
writes here,
marriage isn't about equal rights. In fact, when you get married
you lose some rights!
Prof Dennis Powers makes a good case(which I don't agree with
totaly)
A truly libertarian take on gay marriage
|2.21.05 @ 3:04PM|#
Gary: You see "people" escaping bondage, BillyRay sees the immoral traffic in stolen property.
|2.21.05 @ 3:05PM|#
Gary, obviously the people who escaped and fought against the
Confederacy didn't appreciate the principles of federalism and
limited government. Oh, and lower tariffs. Can't forget the lower
tariffs!
Didn't you get the memo?
|2.21.05 @ 3:09PM|#
BillyRay,
Even if that is the case, why does that make it a "sham?" I dunno,
but I believe the INDIVIDUAL is the starting point of
analysis.
The Sowell article is inapposite. Whether you lose or gain rights
via marraige really doesn't matter in other words.
My take on marraige is that the government should get out of the
marraige business; however, barring that unlikely reality,
consensual adults as individuals should be free to make their own
decisions as to who to marry.
Anyway, you've yet to make a cogent argument on the matter.
|2.21.05 @ 3:15PM|#
Gary, the government is already involved at the state level big time. This entire issue is nothing more than a very small faction of people trying to use the government to force acceptance of their lifestyle.
|2.21.05 @ 3:20PM|#
BillyRay,
Oh, I see; since gay people are a "small faction" that means they
aren't entitled to voice their opinion on an issue or to convince
people to their position? You know, at one time black people were a
small faction of the population trying to gain their liberty from
oppression. Indeed, that's true of a number of groups. I don't see
why gay people have to work under different rules than those
previous groups of individuals.
|2.21.05 @ 3:21PM|#
Gary,
Here in San Diego, the ACLU types have been successful in getting
the Mt. Solidad cross banned by the courts (IIRC, a Korean War
monument). Pretty silly waste of effort if you ask me, and a good
way to loose in the court of public opinion. But a legal success .
. .
|2.21.05 @ 3:23PM|#
Gary: They have to work under different rules cuz they're gay. Don't you have any idea what those poeople are doing in the privacy of their own homes? And you think cuz they are individuals thay have special rights? What's next, just cuz chicks are "individuals" we should let them vote?
|2.21.05 @ 3:24PM|#
Don,
As far as I can tell, the cross is still standing:
http://www.soledadmemorial.com/news.html?nw_id=12
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200411/NAT20041124a.html
|2.21.05 @ 3:27PM|#
Don,
And let's note all discrimination atheists have had to suffer for
trying to put a monument to atheist veterans:
http://www.mindspring.com/~alutiiq/atheists-in-foxholes.html
|2.21.05 @ 3:30PM|#
You've got it backwards Gary. As Prof Powers writes "I cannot
think of any libertarian who would ever suggest a purpose of the
government is to make a moral declaration. In this sense, gay
marriage is diametrically opposed to the ideas of libertarianism.
One criticism of the above argument is that government is already
making a moral declaration by not allowing gay marriage.
I do not think this is true. The reason is that heterosexual
marriage has its origin outside the context of government.
The origins of marriage lie with private individuals, usually
acting through religious institutions (at least in our
culture)."
|2.21.05 @ 3:35PM|#
As far as I can tell, the cross is still
standing:
It is still standing. My understanding is that the courts ordered
its removal, but I suspect there are challanges to the ruling. One
suggestion was to make the land federal, but that obviously won't
end the debate. What looks likely is that the cross will have to be
moved to another location.
I haven't followed this debate closely, but as a SD resident I have
to say it makes the "anti-cross" crowd look rather silly. Someone
should be picking their fights a little more wisely . . .
|2.21.05 @ 3:44PM|#
Battles over cross memorials and Christmas trees and whatnot are always fun: They remind me that even people who happen to be right can still be just as dumb and insufferable as the people on the other side.
|2.21.05 @ 3:44PM|#
Gary,
The cross has been up for something like 50 years. Putting
something new up is a different matter.
|2.21.05 @ 3:53PM|#
Freedom of speech never meant you had to take the other guy seriously.
light bulb... on!!!
...a good way to loose in the court of public opinion...
that would be your opinion, stated publically.
|2.21.05 @ 4:05PM|#
BillyRay: They don't call it the All Communist Lawyers Union for nothing. (How's that? I know your propensity for funny names. And I agree with you that making fun of their name completely discredits anything they have ever done.)
|2.21.05 @ 4:39PM|#
"The ACLU has always been a Emma Goldman Bolshevik front
group"
Does the KKK (Kwazy Kracker Korps, as long as were dishing out
derogatory acronyms) know about this?
|2.21.05 @ 5:08PM|#
The origins of marriage lie with private individuals,
usually acting through religious institutions (at least in our
culture).
So it would be OK if, say, the United Churches of Christ or the
Episcopal Church started performing gay marriages? Then the
government could start accepting gay marriage, since it was
originated with private individuals acting through religious
institutions?
By the way, you're right that gays and lesbians seriously
misstepped with this one. Twenty or thirty more years, and gay
marriage would have been accepted without much of a struggle.
Unlike you, I see this as a bad thing, that it's going to be much
more of a struggle now.
|2.21.05 @ 5:12PM|#
BillyRay,
You've got it backwards Gary. As Prof Powers writes "I cannot
think of any libertarian who would ever suggest a purpose of the
government is to make a moral declaration. In this sense, gay
marriage is diametrically opposed to the ideas of libertarianism.
One criticism of the above argument is that government is already
making a moral declaration by not allowing gay marriage.
This would be an interesting rebuttal if I actually claimed
anything like what the author is arguing against. But I haven't
claimed anything of the like. You really have a way of introducing
material which is almost wholly beside the point.
Furthermore, this does nothing for your claim that gay marraige is
a "sham" nor does it defend your your rather silly claim about gay
people being a "small faction" who apparently don't deserve the
same rights to speech, petition, etc., that straight people
do.
Don,
Why not allow both the cross and the atheist memorial?
Next year, when my wife and I are living in NC I am planning on
putting up a pro-atheist sign at the county courthouse. We'll see
how that goes.
|2.21.05 @ 5:25PM|#
"The reason is that heterosexual marriage has its origin outside
the context of government."
Oh please. It is true that heterosexual marriage has its origin
outside the context of government, but so does polygamy. Gay
marriage could just as easily have its context outside of
government as well. But since the government has taken it upon
itself to validate long-term relationships, it should not be able
to discriminate.
The true libertarian argument is, as far as I can see, for the
government to make contracts available for individuals to bind
themselves to other individuals, with all the accompanying rights.
These would be called civil unions, or some such, with marriage
itself being placed in the realm of religion.
This situation, while ideal, is not especially likely. I don't see
how you can justify denying some group rights that are afforded to
another group just because you don't like the nature of the rights
in question.
|2.21.05 @ 5:37PM|#
I just love how everyone assumes that just because you don't
defend a freedom-destroying war and a
dictator-in-democratic-clothing (hint: I'm talking about Abe) that
you are, by definition, a supporter of slavery.
Did England require a war to abolish slavery (1834)? How about
Argentina, Peru, Chile, and Bolivia (1825)? What about the
Netherlands (1814)? No? Well, how about that! But they didn't have
"Civil Wars," so they must be racists!
clarityiniowa|2.21.05 @ 5:38PM|#
More-or-less-correct denotative definitions:
"morals" - What you yourself uphold as correct behavior, and seek
to adhere to.
"mores" - What any given community upholds as correct moral
behavior, and expects its members and others to adhere to.
"values" - Those things or ideas one holds dear, to one degree or
another.
"principles" - Ideas by which a person or persons choose to live
and behave.
So much of the morals/values debate hinges upon using subjective
definitions of these words. Unfortunately, in political terms,
"values" and "morals" have become nothing but Republican code for
an anti-gay, anti-choice agenda.
|2.21.05 @ 6:53PM|#
"Unfortunately, in political terms, "values" and "morals"
have become nothing but Republican code for an anti-gay,
anti-choice agenda."
I'm not sure that this is entirely accurate, but to the extent that
it is true, I suspect it's because so many Libertarians and
Democrats have lost the ability to speak the language of ethics. I
don't know why so many Libertarians and Democrats insist on ceding
voters concerned with questions of ethics to Evangelicals, but
that's what we do.
|2.21.05 @ 7:07PM|#
By the way, you're right that gays and lesbians seriously
misstepped with this one. Twenty or thirty more years, and gay
marriage would have been accepted without much of a
struggle.
I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. Why was it OK for other
marginalized groups (blacks, women) to PUSH for change just as such
change was beginning to become acceptable - but it is not OK for
gays?
|2.21.05 @ 7:10PM|#
Thoreau,
"Step 3: Heterosexuals stop taking their marriages seriously and/or
other heterosexuals decide to not even bother getting married
and/or heterosexuals decide to have fewer kids."
Aren't we already at step 3 in the western world?
|2.21.05 @ 7:30PM|#
kwais-
Good point! I should revise the argument about what will happen if
gays get married:
Step 1: Gays get married.
Step 2: ?????
Step 3: All of the trends already working against marriage in the
Western world will be exacerbated by the gays.
|2.21.05 @ 7:41PM|#
But since the government has taken it upon itself to
validate long-term relationships, it should not be able to
discriminate.
Gay's can enter into any legal contract they want. Leave money to
each other for example. But marriage is an age old institution. No
one is being discriminated against. No more than elderly people
forced to continue paying for public schools when all their kids
are gone.
|2.21.05 @ 8:29PM|#
I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. Why was it OK for other
marginalized groups (blacks, women) to PUSH for change just as such
change was beginning to become acceptable - but it is not OK for
gays?
It's not, at least in my eyes, a matter of it being not OK. It's a
matter of how other people react. I see the whole issue in much the
same way as Roe vs. Wade: the country was moving in that direction
anyways, but the push for "everything we want right now"
crystallized the opposition to it. It's a sucky situation, but this
is the real world we have to deal with. It's not that gays and
lesbians should have to wait for marriage rights; it's
that if the issue hadn't been pressed now, it wouldn't have been an
issue in twenty or thirty years.
|2.21.05 @ 9:40PM|#
Thoreau,
You need to expand step 3. "With the institution of marriage
sufficiently compromised, people with be free to engage in other
perverse unions such as Adult-Child marriage,Man-Animal marriage,
and Man-Mannequin marriage."
|2.21.05 @ 11:33PM|#
Marcvs,
Britain required massive revolts on Barbados, Jamaica and I believe
Trinidad to end slavery; revolts where hundreds of slaves were
killed. These revolts convinced the British government, under the
new Reform Parliament, that slavery wasn't sustainable.
An island civil war in Cuba was the precusor to ending slavery
there.
Re: Latin America, note that Bolivar sought the aid of slaves in
his efforts and that much of the fighting there - especially since
it was aided by Haiti - can be characterized as open warfare
against the Spanish slave-supporting colonial regimes.
A lot more conflict has been involved in ending slavery in the
Americans than most people ever appreciate. They think that the
American experience with violence regarding the end of slavery is
unique, when indeed that is far from the truth.
BillyRay,
Gay's can enter into any legal contract they want.
Actually, homosexuals are denied by operation of law the majority
of the rights that are afforded to married heterosexual couples.
For example, suing for loss of consortium is a right only married
couples may exercise.
But marriage is an age old institution. No one is being
discriminated against. No more than elderly people forced to
continue paying for public schools when all their kids are
gone.
I'm sorry, this is your most pathetic argument yet. Two wrongs
don't make a right after all.
|2.22.05 @ 12:30AM|#
it's that if the issue hadn't been pressed now, it wouldn't
have been an issue in twenty or thirty years.
So instead of pushing for change, people should just shut up and
wait for society to catch up? I don't think so. First of all,
nobody knows what society will be like in twenty or thirty years.
It's not safe to assume that society will be any more tolerant than
it is now. Secondly, "shutting up" is exactly what large parts of
middle America would prefer, in order to pretend that the issue
will go away. Thirdly, the tolerance we see today is largely thanks
to people who fought for change against tremendous resistance at
the time. For example, if it wasn't for the Stonewall riots, gays
today might still be hiding in bars, waiting to be arbitrarily
rounded up by the police. Any backlash that might occur as a result
of gays pushing for marriage rights is going to be just as
fruitless as the backlash that occurred during other civil rights
fights.
|2.22.05 @ 2:29AM|#
Did England require a war to abolish slavery.... -
Marcvs
In addition to Gary's points, the Royal Navy strove for years to
eradicate the slave trade. The UK spent much blood and treasure to
destroy it.
Unfortunately, there are still slavers at large.
Kevin
http://www.antislavery.org
http://www.iabolish.com
clarityiniowa|2.22.05 @ 11:52AM|#
Ken Schultz - I'm not sure that this is entirely accurate,
but to the extent that it is true, I suspect it's because so many
Libertarians and Democrats have lost the ability to speak the
language of ethics. I don't know why so many Libertarians and
Democrats insist on ceding voters concerned with questions of
ethics to Evangelicals, but that's what we do.
To the extent that your statement is true, and largely I agree with
you, it is because Dems aren't used to being out of power, and they
have gotten out of the habit of defending their basic assumptions
because up to recently, they haven't had to. Thus, they speak about
"saving Social Security" rather than its goal, which is some sort
of assurance for seniors of a secure retirement free from poverty.
In short, they haven't had to talk about basic principles, and have
forgotten how.
With regard to Libertarians, it is almost impossible for them to
talk about morals, mores, ethics or principles except as a purely
individual and relativistic way because, in Libertarian terms,
there can be no real standards or mechanism for social norms.
clarityiniowa|2.22.05 @ 11:59AM|#
kevrob - Unfortunately, there are still slavers at
large.
Well, we'd better round 'em up, then! ;-)
|2.22.05 @ 1:16PM|#
The problem with the Democrats is that wealth redistribution
programs (i.e., theft) such as SS are going out of style. Socialsim
is dying. They can't talk about their basic principles without
exposing have squalid they really are.
Libertarians are a very different matter. Libertarians enjoy the
basic ethic of freedom, property rights, etc., but we disagree on a
varity of moral issues. Myself, I don't have a problem with
conservative morals, I just don't think the state should be
imposing them.
clarityiniowa|2.22.05 @ 2:21PM|#
Don - I don't think so. Remember, Dems are still an incredibly
strong minority, roughly 48% of voters by the only poll that
matters. Note also that ALMOST NOBODY is talking about ending SS,
or any other entitlement program. Fewer still would actually do
what it took to make it happen in any forthright manner. Bush's
folks are trying what Reagan tried, i.e. starving the government
out of existence by means of deficit spending. This immoral
strategy will ultimately fail as it did before. No, what Dems have
now is largely an identity/communications problem.
I wish what you were saying were true, but there is very little
evidence for it. Now, if you are willing to argue that the PR
emphasis has balanced out between those who NEED and those who pay
the bills, I'd be more inclined to agree with you. This is the
problem Dems have yet to work out in terms of a communications
strategy.
The problem for Libertarians is that freedom and/or liberty, in and
of themselves, are pretty free-floating abstractions - largely
ill-defined and very difficult to build an objective set of ethics
around.
By "conservative morals" I assume you mean sexual/personal mores or
standards. On this I agree with you %100.
|2.22.05 @ 8:25PM|#
"With regard to Libertarians, it is almost impossible for
them to talk about morals, mores, ethics or principles except as a
purely individual and relativistic way because, in Libertarian
terms, there can be no real standards or mechanism for social
norms."
People who sell addictive drugs are disgusting people; pimps are
disgusting; people who make fun of handicapped children are also
disgusting.
...Just because something is disgusting doesn't mean it should be
against the law, but just because something shouldn't be against
the law doesn't mean it isn't disgusting.
I would like more non-libertarians to understand the former; a good
way to accomplish that is by getting more libertarians to
understand the latter.
clarityiniowa|2.23.05 @ 10:16AM|#
Ken - I agree to a large extent, but some things that are
disgusting should also be illegal. Murder, rape, fraud, theft leap
immediately to mind.
The hardcore Liibertarian position, as I understand it, would be
similar to that of the Amish, that those engaging in those
activities should be "shunned" by the community. Somehow that's
supposed to take care of the problem of the ruthless strongman who
just won't behave himself. I realize most of you aren't that
hardcore, and support some form of highly limited government,
including some form of judicial system and law enforcement.
clarityiniowa|2.23.05 @ 10:24AM|#
Don - The Dems are in serious trouble as a political Party.
Put another way, it's the Repubs game to loose. I wouldn't
underestimate the ability of the Repubs to do something really
stupid, but it is hard to see the Dems doing something smart to
save themselves.
If I were in a snotty mood, I'd point out that you meant to use the
word "lose," rather than "loose." No biggie, but you see that a lot
these days, and it's become a pet peeve of mine.
Nevertheless, I wouldn't count the Dems out. It took the
Republicans four decades to get back in power. The pendulum always
swings - in some eras faster than others. I agree the D party has
to find a way to reform itself for the future rather than clinging
to New Deal assumptions that a massively altered economy and
demographics have rendered obsolete. But, there will always a need
and a market for representation for those who do not conform to
prevailing social mores, who seek intervention and protection from
the ruthless, who feel powerless for whatever reason, or for those
for whom the free market simply fails to work. What the Dems need
to do is find new ways and avenues to do what they have always
claimed to do: Tell truth to power, and protect individual
liberties.
The upside for them is that they are actually in a BETTER position
for change now that the traditional Democratic rhetoric and theory
are clearly failing to appeal. They are in the same position
Republicans found themselves in in the early Sixties. They'll find
their voice again as the Republicans did.
Question is, will the Libertarians EVER find a coherent message and
voice that will allow them to take the best of both of the majors,
and succeed as a viable alternative?
clarityiniowa|2.23.05 @ 10:43AM|#
FYI - D Representative Steny Hoyer, the House Minority Whip, is making a helluva speech on CSPAN right now. Just cited a stat that 90% of the U.S. debt incurred in January has been purchased by the PRC. Cited some very dire consequences to being financed by the ChiComs, particularly as their currency is pegged to ours. This gentleman will be one to watch.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245