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
The Friday Political Thread: Best Week Ever
Me, Megan McArdle and James "Jamie" Kirchick will invade your iPod in the new edition of Inside Washington Weekly. It's cosmotarian Christmas in August! Who's got the Anarchy, State and Utopia tree ornaments?
The Week in Brief
- John McCain
ran two ridiculous TV ads and three moronic web ads. Naturally
it was all anyone talked about and he moved up in the polls.
- Barack Obama
doesn't care about black people, it turns out.
- Bob Barr might have
made the West Virginia ballot, which could give him 49-state
(and D.C.) presence.
- Republicans squatted in the House to
protest the lack of movement on energy bills, and Democrats turned
the power off. Really, this happened.
Below the Fold
- Mark Blumenthal sweeps
aside the polls and figures out when the election is.
(November, if you were wondering.)
- Will Saletan stands
against Food Apartheid.
- The Conservative mayor of London endorses
Obama.
According to Pollster.com, Obama still leads McCain with 284 to 147 electoral votes, but McCain has improved marginally since last week. Thanks to a good Texas poll, his firewall has expanded to 112 EVs. (Obama's is 231 EVs.)
Here, enjoy Porcupine Tree.
|8.1.08 @ 6:33PM|#
I just watched the Kanye West "George Bush does not care about
black people" video somewhere a few days ago.
My God, that's funny. Mike Meyers looks like he's going to throw
up. Because of what West says in his first spiel, Meyers' prepared
lines sound, in context, like he's seconding West's statement, and
then when it's West's turn again...BAM!!!
Fall out of your chair funny. Look it up on You Tube.
DannyK|8.1.08 @ 6:35PM|#
If you get a chance, ask James Kirchik about J Street. He has some great stories. Whatta imagination!
SIV|8.1.08 @ 6:37PM|#
Vernon Jones says Jim Martin is too liberal for Georgia.He got my vote today (early voting, runoff is on tuesday). I really hope he wins. The contest with Chambliss would be very entertaining.
DannyK|8.1.08 @ 6:46PM|#
Also, the Conservative Cafe is worth reading about:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-coffeehouse_31jul31,0,7930045.story
"Coffee shouldn't be about sitting in a cafe for 12 hours," Beckham
[the owner] says. "Coffee gets us through our workday. It's what we
drink before we make steel for the rest of the country or head out
into the fields."
GG|8.1.08 @ 7:03PM|#
- Republicans squatted in the House to protest the lack of
movement on energy bills, and Democrats turned the power off.
Really, this happened.
Politico has it covered. (The
WaPo's coverage sucked.)
Shadegg was psyched, punching in random numbers and yelling about
tea parties.
Pence says they'll be there through the break. We'll see...
|8.1.08 @ 7:29PM|#
"Do I get to be used in the Georgia Senate race, too?"
I would guess GA has not had an election in which you did not
figure EVER. And I mean even elections for dogcatchers...
|8.1.08 @ 7:34PM|#
Whether for or against Obama I can't think of anything that
happened this week that would have hurt his numbers relative to
McCain.
I did read an article by some political scientists that said, given
an unpopular war and economic problems, that if the Democrats do
not win the White House they should DISBAND AS A PARTY. I still
cannot believe the risk they are taking by nominating Obama...
|8.1.08 @ 8:02PM|#
According to Pollster.com, Obama still leads McCain with 284
to 147 electoral votes, but McCain has improved marginally since
last week.
I count just 15 states where either candidate has 51%+ of these
tentative votes. A lot of undecided / third party voters still in
play.
|8.1.08 @ 8:05PM|#
I did read an article by some political scientists that
said, given an unpopular war and economic problems, that if the
Democrats do not win the White House they should DISBAND AS A
PARTY.
Oh, the Democrats have a 100% chance of winning the White House --
and about a 50% chance that the winning Democrat will have an R
after their name on the ballot.
|8.1.08 @ 8:20PM|#
Shadegg was psyched, punching in random numbers and yelling
about tea parties.
Steve Shadegg's son doing this, kind of awesome.
|8.1.08 @ 8:44PM|#
Does anyone else think Obama running around is making McCain
campaign look like Fred Thompson's?
"""- Republicans squatted in the House to protest the lack of
movement on energy bills, and Democrats turned the power off.
Really, this happened.""
Didn't the republicans condem and bad mouth such behavior not long
ago?
""""Oh, the Democrats have a 100% chance of winning the White House
-- and about a 50% chance that the winning Democrat will have an R
after their name on the ballot."""
Well said.
Colin|8.1.08 @ 8:56PM|#
Obama just flipped on oil drilling:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/election2008/story/46174.html
Of course, McCain flipped perhaps a month earlier.
It's good to know that whoever wins -- it will be a man of
conviction.
jtuf|8.1.08 @ 9:11PM|#
Apparently it's traditional for house reps to give closing speeches at the end of a session if they want to. About 100 Republican reps wanted to give closing speeches. Peloski kicked C-span out and cut off the electricity to prevent them from speaking even after the session closed. I hope the Republican rent a ballroom close by and invite C-span to hear what Peloski silenced.
jtuf|8.1.08 @ 9:35PM|#
Well, politico said they left at 5 pm. Any citizen is allowed to stay in a federal building during business hours as long as he isn't a nuisance or threat. I imagine reps and staffers have access to the chambers during business hours. I would have to see a tape of the event and know more about congress's parlimentary procedures before judging it. Their speeches where not part of official debate, and rightly so, because a majority (213 to 212) voted to adjourn. If the Republicans made the speeches in a rented ballroom they would be 100% in the right. Is there a precedent for making speeches from the chamber?
|8.1.08 @ 10:07PM|#
Bob Barr might have made the West Virginia ballot
Well, what I meant to say was that as a Mountaineer I was suprised
to see that here.
Initially I'd typed alot of words, but I think my point was the
most Mountaineers have no concept of libertarian ideas at at least
as a political stance. Of the ones that do, they would identify
them with Ron Paul as a Presidential candidate.
The Race Card|8.1.08 @ 10:13PM|#
I would guess GA has not had an election in which you did
not figure EVER. And I mean even elections for
dogcatchers...
< 3 Georgia.
Orange Line Special|8.1.08 @ 10:19PM|#
1. Here's yet another thing Reason won't tell you
about Obama. That joins his "force", as well as the other Dems
who want to give the UN their own merc force.
2. Here's how SDS could have
had an effective protest against Cato (and Reason, the WaPo,
and all the rest).
3. Let's play If The Other Side
Had Done This. While I'm sure most Reason contributors would
condemn that attack, they and the attacker are broadly on the same
side. That's not completely invalid because Reason has not once
condemned anyone on their side of this issue and has frequently
issued smears against those on the other side.
4. Here's the theme song for most of
Reason's other commenters. Also cures prog.
|8.1.08 @ 10:31PM|#
Does anyone else think Obama running around is making McCain
campaign look like Fred Thompson's?
At least Fred Thompson managed to look like it didn't bother
him.
Elemenope|8.1.08 @ 10:35PM|#
I don't know how to *quit* you, OLS!
Do you have an off button that I may utilize?
|8.1.08 @ 11:11PM|#
All Libertarian blogs are reporting that Barr fell well short-
only turning in 12,000 of 15,000+ needed ( 15,000 certified, not
raw) and that early results show around 800 legit signs per the
first 2000+ counted.
The HIGHEST claim I read anywhere was that Barr MIGHT turn in
22,000 , which is still not enough to survive a challenge- as
anyone who follows these things knows usually close to 50% of raw
sigs are usually trash.
BakedPenguin|8.1.08 @ 11:13PM|#
LMNOP, before you do that, check out the latest print edition of the Lonewacker over at Urkobold.
EJM|8.1.08 @ 11:17PM|#
4. Here's the theme song for most of Reason's other
commenters. Also cures prog.
Sorry, but a
Hoodoo Gurus video featuring singing, guitar-playing claymation
dinosaur puppets handily beats a 10,000 Maniacs song about
puppets.
Dave W,|8.1.08 @ 11:40PM|#
Oh, yeh, and the whole US Army did the anthrax attacks came out this week, too, Weigs.
Mike Laursen|8.2.08 @ 12:03AM|#
That's not completely invalid because Reason has not once
condemned anyone on their side of this issue and has frequently
issued smears against those on the other side.
When you use "their" in an English sentence you should make it
clear which "they" you are talking about. Are you a native English
speaker, Lonewacko?
|8.2.08 @ 12:06AM|#
Today, I heard Sean Hannity on the radio weeping that, because
the evil Democrats had turned off the power in Congress, the might
Republicans couldn't get anything done and poor people wouldn't be
to take vacations because of high gas prices.
No, I'm not joking.
Mike Laursen|8.2.08 @ 12:09AM|#
Here's the theme song for most of Reason's other commenters.
Also cures prog.
Wow! They're whiter than Abba. Here's a cure for
that.
|8.2.08 @ 7:53AM|#
Out of curiosity, Senor Weigel, how accurate are Zogby polls
this year? On the pollster.com link I saw a bizarre poll (dated
June) that had Barr polling 7 percent in Ohio.
That can't be right, can it?
Episiarch|8.2.08 @ 9:49AM|#
LoneWacko's love for Natalie Merchant is the icing on a rich, nativist cake. Douchebaggery was never so pleasing.
|8.2.08 @ 10:07AM|#
Oh, yeh, and the whole US Army did the anthrax attacks came
out this week, too, Weigs.
Dave W.,
Was the free clinic out of Prozac again?
|8.2.08 @ 10:25AM|#
I dunno, sounds like more political back sliding to me.
JT
http://www.FireMe.To/udi
B|8.2.08 @ 11:04AM|#
In comparison to its attacks on McCain, this magazine posts virtually no negative threads about Obama, the most statist candidate in the history of the republic. My only question is: when is Reason magazine going to end the pussyfooting and outright endorse Obama for president?
|8.2.08 @ 11:35AM|#
I am tragically forced to agree with B's insightful observation. If reason wants to represent the "third way" of libertarianism, it needs to dish it out to both of the candidates, hardcore-style.
Warty|8.2.08 @ 11:39AM|#
Porcupine Tree is awesome. Now, post their buddies Opeth, and I might stop hating you.
Elemenope|8.2.08 @ 11:51AM|#
Now, post their buddies Opeth, and I might stop hating
you.
Just ran into those guys on Pandora. Not bad at all.
|8.2.08 @ 12:09PM|#
the most statist candidate in the history of the
republic
That's funny, I could have sworn I'd read that it was his
supporters who had built up an implausible image of him.
I hear he makes his advisors wear heart plugs, like Baron
Harkonnen.
|8.2.08 @ 12:14PM|#
"In comparison to its attacks on McCain, this magazine posts
virtually no negative threads about Obama, the most statist
candidate in the history of the republic."
That there are more threads critical of McCain than Obama should be
a claim that is fairly amenable to empirical verification, but I'm
sure as hell too lazy to do it on this Saturday morning. From what
I know about conservatives or right leaning libertarians any
"balance" short of Fox would be seen as pro-Obama so I take this
complaint with a grain of salt for sure. But even were it true that
McCain is attacked more here I should think there are probably two
non-nefarious reasons for the imbalance:
1. One of the major contributors to Reason, Matt Welch, has studied
McCain in-depth and has a recently released book out critical of
him. So that Welch writes many threads about McCain is no more
strange than that Ron Bailey writes about science or Sullum writes
about public health issues.
2. McCain has been a politician hated by, ironically, many of the
right leaning libertarians for a long time and has earned quite a
bit of grudges over the years.
I love the "most statist candidate bit." More statist than LBJ and
FDR, eh? B, meet reality and his pal history. History and reality,
meet B.
|8.2.08 @ 12:26PM|#
virtually no negative threads about Obama
Does that mean one, five or onlt forty seven?
the most statist candidate in the history of the
republic
I'll chalk up your ignoring McGovern to youth. How you managed to
ignore the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is not so
east to excuse.
If more articles critical of McCain have appeared at H&R than
articles critical of Obama, I'd use the low hanging fruit
explanation myself.
Anonymous|8.2.08 @ 1:00PM|#
What's the state where Barr won't have ballot access, and is it already a lost cause?
|8.2.08 @ 1:12PM|#
Bill Clinton ran Obama as one of his three horses specifically because many in the press fear that criticizing him will get them disinvited to Washington parties. Did anyone see Bill's hispanic entree recently held a fundraiser for his female entree? When Richardson gets the VP nod will anyone doubt who's pulling the strings?
|8.2.08 @ 2:01PM|#
James
Undoubtedly true, as undoubtedly true that LBJ is pulling Bill
Clinton's strings from beyond the grave...
|8.2.08 @ 2:32PM|#
It's not just Reason that's sticking up for Obama. The nutbags over at LRC are also focusing their wrath at McCain. Hell, I've even seen some glowing praise for Obama from the anarcho-paleolibertarians there. They have definitely jumped a rail. Except for Gregory, I think they're all just angry old men pissed that McCain "stole" the nomination from Ron Paul.
Colin|8.2.08 @ 3:41PM|#
Brandybuck, it's no surprise their hatred of McCain, when McCain went out of his to piss off Ron Paul supporters.
Charles|8.2.08 @ 3:42PM|#
re: McCain getting more criticism here
It seems like Obama is better, from a libertarian perspective,
where Democrats tend to be better (less enthusiastic about the drug
war, for example). McCain is bad where Republicans are often better
(see his snide dismissal of Romney working for profit).
tarran|8.2.08 @ 3:50PM|#
Brandybuck, I don't know which version of LRC you are reading,
but the one I keep an eye on is chock full of condemnations of
Obama's ideas about national service, economic policies etc.
The only praise Obama gets is that he is much less pro war than
McCain.
McCain, on the other hand while slightly less bad than Obama on
economics is a disaster in the making; a president who thinks that
permanent war is a good thing. Moreover, despite his personal
pronouncements that show he is no free marketeer, McCain is
cruising on the unjustified reputation that Republicans support
free markets.
To a supporter of free markets and opponent of empires, McCain is
rotten in every respect, and every effort should be made to
dissuade people who believe in free markets and a government that
does not loot, pillage, and injure its subjects from wasting their
votes on a man who believes in none of these things.
Travis|8.2.08 @ 5:35PM|#
"Today, I heard Sean Hannity on the radio weeping"
The most beautiful sound in the world.
Warty|8.2.08 @ 5:48PM|#
Since LMNOP is the only one of you slack-jawed faggots with some
taste, enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfmIDBfuGcU
|8.2.08 @ 7:39PM|#
virtually no negative threads about Obama
Haven't enough time to sort through all 208,000 entries that pop up
when you google
"Hit & Run" Obama bad
But I'm guessing "virtually none" is a dramatic understatement.
Colin|8.2.08 @ 10:20PM|#
I think he was just being a little hyperbolic.
My guess is that negative posts about the candidates (not sure
there's too money positive ones) run about 3:2 to McCain's
detriment.
They're certainly not giving Obama a free pass. Thankfully.
Colin|8.2.08 @ 10:21PM|#
Boy, I just terrible with the typos. Can't they introduce some form of editing system?
|8.2.08 @ 10:59PM|#
3:2 sounds about right. They're giving Welch a lot of exposure, because his book is a big deal.
Ali|8.2.08 @ 11:23PM|#
Are you a native English speaker, Lonewacko?
I have long suspected that LoneWacko is Mexican.
|8.3.08 @ 3:34AM|#
Dunno if 3:2 could be considered bias. It could be that, you
know, McCain is marginally worse than Obama from the slightly
left-lib cosmotarian perspective of Reason. Plus, some random
statistical skewing from the small sample of writers at Reason, and
there you go.
I think the more significant bias is the relatively free ride
ostensibly libertarian candidates have gotten here, but, hey, it's
not "Daily Kos", where it would be more like a ratio to ALL:0 for
criticism of McCain v. Obama. Guess you have to expect some
cheerleading for the home team.
robc|8.3.08 @ 9:54AM|#
prolefeed,
I think the more significant bias is the relatively free ride
ostensibly libertarian candidates have gotten here
Have you not seen the criticism of Barr/Paul here? I dont see any
kind of free ride.
|8.3.08 @ 12:41PM|#
Regarding LRC: Doing a spot survey, today's slow-news weekend page shows two snarky mentions of McCain, and zero mentions of Obama: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022240.html, http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022215.html.
|8.3.08 @ 1:01PM|#
"Have you not seen the criticism of Barr/Paul here? I dont see
any kind of free ride."
Yeah, I don't think Libertarian candidates get much of a free ride
here, especially considering, well, this is a libertarian magazine.
Hell, I'm not a libertarian and I understand that!
"slightly left-lib cosmotarian perspective of Reason"
Hmm, I might agree with that. I have noticed a difference between
the Reason contributers and many libertarians who post on these
threads. The Reason contributors are much more likely to argue on
utilitarian grounds while the posters are much more likely to argue
with deontological arguments. So Reason contributors would argue
against the minimum wage because they think it will utlimately hurt
the poor more (from increasing unemployment for example) or against
regulation on the grounds that it will utlimately make the
workplace or public health less safe. On the other hand posters
here are more likely to argue that the minimum wage is wrong
because it violates the "rights" of people to contract however they
want and regulation is wrong because it violates the "rights" of
people to "do whatever they want with their property." Reason
contributors criticize the welfare state on the grounds that it
works perversley while many posters argue more on the grounds that
it's tanamount to slavery or theft. I think the difference is
plain.
I can see why. You'd have a hard time hanging out with the
intellectual classes (journalists, authors, scholars) if you
advocated something that knowingly caused more poverty, inequality,
death, etc., but insisted that to do otherwise would be to violate
"natural rights" or some such. Mind you I don't necessarily think
this is because such a position is the only intellectually
defensible one available to the well read person, simply that as a
sociological matter the intellectual classes tend to think in such
ways more...
Neu Mejican|8.3.08 @ 1:40PM|#
You'd have a hard time hanging out with the intellectual
classes (journalists, authors, scholars)
How'd journalists get into the intellectual classes club?
Journalists are the masses, not the intellectual classes. If you
have doubts read science reporting.
|8.3.08 @ 2:54PM|#
Journalists are the masses, not the intellectual classes. If
you have doubts read science reporting.
Science reporting in MSM is admittedly abysmal. Science Week and
Science Daily are better than most.
That however pales in comparison to the fact that I googled
"Barbara Walters Journalist" (with the quotation marks) and got 740
hits.
Yes, she is routinely referred to as a journalist, eliminating that
occupation from the "intellectual class". Would you like to discuss
authors (Velikovsky) and scholars (Leonard Jeffries) next?
|8.3.08 @ 3:21PM|#
I included journalists as that class of persons involved in the
"knowledge class", that is they work with ideas and symbols rather
than say money or material resources. Perhaps intellectuals was a
poor choice of word.
Leonard Jeffries, that brings back some memories (the Afro-centric
"scholar", right?). I wonder what the fuck he got his Phd in...
|8.3.08 @ 4:50PM|#
MNG -- I think the Reason contributors spend more time arguing
on utilitarian grounds than moral grounds because of their overall
softer, small-l audience. I subscribe to both Reason and Liberty
magazines, and Liberty seems to push more of a large-L, moral
denunciation of the various nanny-state excesses.
That, and because once you accept the premise that certain acts are
entirely immoral, it really doesn't seem ... necessary ... to argue
about them on utilitarian grounds with 'logic' like this: "Well,
sure, rape harms the victims, but from a utilitarian standpoint, it
increases the birthrate, and with the birthrate below replacement
levels in our country, shouldn't we weigh the harm to the woman
against the greater societal good of having more workers in twenty
years to take care of senior citizens?"
So, in case you were wondering, that's why it's just a teensy bit
exasperating for me arguing with people who say stuff like: "Yeah,
yeah, we've discussed the 'taxation is theft' meme way too much in
other threads. So let's just set that aside and discuss the
practical advantages of taxpayer-funded public schools ..."
|8.3.08 @ 6:27PM|#
prolefeed
I think you're probably on to something in your first paragraph.
There's simply a wider audience for the idea that the government
may fuck things up trying to make it better than there is for the
idea that taxation=theft, that all coercion is immoral, selfishness
is good, etc., etc.. It's just true that those debates were
vigorously had and most people came to the conclusion that you guys
were wrong, way wrong....Interestingly by taking that into account
Reason could be said to be doing a service to those, like Liberty,
who argue more on grounds that are likely to invite instant eye
rolling and rejection from most folks but who would agree on the
ultimate goal of less government. In this sense I think "cosmos" do
"paleos" a big favor, one that of course the paleos hate them
for!
The example you give is a variation on a common opposition to
utilitarian, or rather consequentalist, reasoning: in a case of
rape the pleasure gained by the rapists has to at least be weighed
against the pain of the raped, and yes that just seems nutty,
doesn't it? But deontological and "rights" views have some really
nutty extrapolations as well; for example that if I could steal an
apple from a rich man's orchard to give to a starving kid I would
be in the wrong (that strikes most people, including myself, as
plain crazy). Or a better one, if I could save 100 lives by
violating one life, wouldn't I be a complete nut not to? The
"rights" or deontological view is even nuttier, there is NO number
that makes that act OK. That kind of divorce of right and wrong
from the welfare of human beings seems a bit Platonically crazy I
have to say...
But I do think that there is an intellectually rich and to some
degree defensible heritage that you guys have. I enjoy debating and
conversing and yes listening to folks who have fundamentally
different fundamental positions than I do. It makes one examine
oneself and perfect their views rather than just assume they must
be right.
|8.3.08 @ 6:37PM|#
I wanted to add that I think my orchard example to be an
excellent example of why an idea of "property rights" as something
having "intrinsic" moral worth (apart from its contribution to
human welfare), or something (even goofier I submit) having moral
worth trumping human welfare is something I think is easy for me to
reject. I steal the apple, the kid lives, though "property rights"
are violated. I don't, the kid dies but "property rights" are kept
intact. WTF? Who in their right mind would think that there is
anything better in the second example?
Now perhaps you think that, well, in the long run the rule of law
and the law of property makes for a much better and more productive
society and to preserve it we have to follow it even in the case of
someone stealing a superflous apple to give to a starving kid.
Well, ok, I see that point, but now you're a utilitarian. The
"rights" or deonotlogical view is that it is wrong to violate the
given principle (here property or its violation, i.e., theft) NO
MATTER the overall consequences. Just thinking about that makes me
conclude: WTF is that?
hotsauce|8.3.08 @ 8:25PM|#
I steal the apple, the kid lives, though "property rights" are violated. I don't, the kid dies but "property rights" are kept intact. WTF? Who in their right mind would think that there is anything better in the second example?
I think you're missing the point. Property rights are violated. And
it's overwhelmingly likely that the kid valued his life more than
the guy valued that apple. But the point of a property-rights based
philosphy isn't to argue over which of those is valued more. It's
irrelevant. What is relevant is what you now owe to the person
whose property rights you violated. I submit that he has the right
to be made whole.
|8.3.08 @ 9:51PM|#
Is stealing a rich man's apple to feed a starving child wrong?
Yes. But so what? Stealin apples is not a capital offense, even in
a Hard-Anarcho society. If the cost of the penalty is worth the
benefit of not seeing the starving child die, then steal the
fscking apple!
The trouble with hard-anarcho libertarians is not just that they
treat the non-aggression principle as a moral absolute, but that
they treat it as the only moral stricture. They've distilled all of
ethics and morality down into one pithy little sentence, and then
act like the universe will come to an end if it gets
violated.
Ditto for those stupid "lifeboat" analogies.
|8.3.08 @ 10:23PM|#
MNG -- The point you're trying to make is that sometimes theft
is OK, because it makes some people better off than the others who
are hurt. But, buried in that assumption is the assumption that
you're entitled to take anything from anybody if, from your
perspective, that would produce a net gain in happiness, or if you
can at least rationalize that theft that way, even if you
coincidentally benefit from this "transaction".
Now, if we were all perfect, omniscient people that would be fine.
But, we're not. This moral code you appear to advocate for is
basically might makes right, with a thin veneer of altruistic
rationalization overlying it.
I believe the apple instance you mentioned has been adequately
dealt with without violating the principle of property rights --
under exigent circumstances, you can take the apple and save the
starving kid, but you should be forced to pay the owner of the
apple for the theft.
To take another example, recently mentioned in Liberty magazine:
you fall off a 50 store building, but grab a flagpole on the 49th
floor. The owner of the apartment attached to the flagpole is a
dick and refuses entry to his apartment. Of course you violate his
property rights to save your life. But, you own him or her
compensation for the violation. It may seem unfair to you to have
to pay such a prick $5 or so -- maybe even $100 -- but you're still
better off doing that than dying, and society is better off because
the important principle of private property has been
preserved.
But, liberals (and big-government "conservatives") in practice
don't adhere to exigent circumstances with compensation -- they
adhere to "we can appropriate any amount of money for any purpose,
no matter how frivolous, if we can muster 50.1% of the votes." And
this is apparently what you support.
I say, on both moral and utilitarian grounds, this is a far
inferior system than one of strict enforcement of property rights,
with some allowance for exigent circumstances with compensation --
inferior, that is, except for the handful of slick thieves who
benefit from this regime -- thieves who have managed to convince
most of the other victims that they're better off somehow.
Basically, I view the utilitarian arguments as a way of explaining
the consequences of the underlying moral argument, not as an end in
itself.
Now, if you can come up with a scenario where you think that a
system of strict enforcement of private property with allowance for
exigent circumstances with compensation fails -- well, fire
away.
M. Simon|8.4.08 @ 4:00AM|#
Of course, McCain flipped perhaps a month
earlier.
That is representative government for you. The pols follow the
people.
M. Simon|8.4.08 @ 4:10AM|#
Why is McCain up?
Because, the electorate is in no mood to be called racists for 4
years every time some one complains about Obama's policies.
BTW Obama's "drill now" was limited with caveats. McCain's move was
total.
Why the diff? Obama has to please the watermelons (green on the
outside red on the inside). McCain has no such limits.
M. Simon|8.4.08 @ 6:07AM|#
Jim Bob | August 2, 2008, 12:06am | #
*mighty Republicans
**Set Sail 4 Fail
And that explains why the tourist crowds in the gallery were
cheering. Them Republicans are so unpopular.
|8.4.08 @ 7:18AM|#
Let's say that dick owns the flagpole, and let's say most of the
building, because of a rent seeking agreement he, no his dad, had
wherein he recieved a preferred position from the government for
years allowing him to amass and bequeath a great deal of capital to
his ne'er do well son. And let's say you fell in the first place
because you were working for him in an unsafe environment on top of
the building, something you felt compelled to do because of the
unequal bargaining power between you and him (let's say it was your
dad and yourself taken advantage of in part by this rent seeking
agreement or many years).
Now, it's morally owed that I compensate this guy for his flagpole
when he refused me entry?
Now a great deal of extant property rights fall under this kind of
thing, hell even Hayek and Mises admitted this (their "solution"
was something to the effect of "well, we gotta draw the line
somewhere and start respecting propery rights" [always easier t do
when the line is drawn when it would do you some good]). And so
perhaps this is one of the several reasons I have a great deal less
respect for "property rights" and think that they cannot trump net
gains in happiness.
|8.4.08 @ 9:03AM|#
Why is McCain up? He's not. He's several points
behind
Because, the electorate is in no mood to be called racists for
4 years every time some one complains about Obama's
policies.
|8.4.08 @ 9:06AM|#
Because, the electorate is in no mood to be called racists
for 4 years every time some one complains about Obama's
policies.
Yeah, that's it: POLICY. McCain disagrees with Barack Obama's Paris
Hilton/Britney Spears POLICY. The regulatory hurldes set up by
Obama's Skinny White Chick Omnibus Reconciliation Bill of 2007
violate McCain's belief that Paris Hilton POLICY needs to be
structured around encouraging public-private partnerships.
Yeah, that's it. Policy.
|8.4.08 @ 12:46PM|#
"""Why is McCain up?"""
Because the republicans have learned to like the guy that's been on
capitol hill for 20 years. They know there is much more he can do
in the next four that he couldn't do in the last twenty.
/sarcasm
|8.4.08 @ 12:47PM|#
"""Why is McCain up? He's not. He's several points
behind"""
I guess it depends on the poll. I've been hearing that they are
tied.
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