Reason Morning Links: Gitmo Gags, Syrian Sanctions, Taliban Tunnellers

• As Ron Paul gears up for a potential presidential run, Haley Barbour pulls out of the race.
• Washington to Gitmo defense attorneys: Those WikiLeaked files are still off-limits.
• The Defense of Marriage Act gets a new law team.
• Washington considers sanctions on Syria.
• The Great Escape, Afghan edition.

The latest from Reason.tv: "We Don't Need No (Public) Education."

Comments

[[J[o]h[nn]y] L[o][n]gt[o]rs[o]]

Heartless Doll - Top Ten Best Things About The Golden Girls
My gay male friends and I have often gone head to head in Golden Girls quote-offs (I always emerge defeated, of course), but seriously, who can forget "I see little orbs of sunshine in a bag!"

[[J[o]h[nn]y] L[o][n]gt[o]rs[o]]

The left decides who gets lawyers

UM union violence lectures grab attention

[rather]

The United States had issued increasingly forceful statements in recent days condemning the crackdown by Assad's government, but the violence has escalated anyway.

Well, it doesn't work when I call epi a bad boy either

[CUNT-VOMIT ALERT!]

EOM

[Sergeant Mohammed Schultz]

[The Taliban said] "The most astonishing thing throughout the operation ... was that all the enemy forces inside the prison, which includes foreign invaders, did not notice the results of the operation even four hours later"

I see NOTHING! I know NOTHING!

[[J[o]h[nn]y] L[o][n]gt[o]rs[o]]

Another Drilling Halt: Your Taxpayer-Funded Regulators at Work for You

[Free2Booze]

But... but... but... what if the mean ole ice breaker runs over a polar bear? Why do you hate polar bears?

[R C Dean]

What's really outrageous is that they paid billions, to the federal government, for a lease that the federal government is now prohibiting them from using.

The feds should at least refund the lease payment. If I was Big Oil, after this I would refuse to lease any drilling rights from the feds without a clawback clause that got my money back if the feds refused to let me drill.

[x,y]

Negotiating with the feds, that's a good one.

[Nipplemancer]

apparently Martin Short knows Rather
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiP2n1uisEY

[dbcooper]

Go on, admit it. Which one of you did this?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/b.....nes-780215

[SugarFree]

Podniestrzanski and his cousin "got into a verbal altercation" over which of the cable program's characters was going to win

If they were able to read, they would already know the answer to that: none of them.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Well, I can read, and reading your comment just spoiled the ending for me. What a waste of time I spent watching one and a half episodes now.

Also, win what?

[SugarFree]

TriWizard Tournament, of course.

[Rich]

As will happen during shows "based on medieval times," Podniestrzanski and his cousin "got into a verbal altercation"

Obviously, it could be any of a number of us; but, more to the point, there should obviously be a law banning shows "based on medieval times".

[pancakes]

Well how 'bout them sand diggers? A 320m tunnel is quite a feat, getting 475 people through it before someone notices, quite another.

Gross incompetence? Or is the enemy every bit as cunning as molelike?

[creech]

One would suspect inside help.

[Tim]

Maybe we wanted them to escape, there's no other way to get rid of them, just ask Obama.

[Brett L]

So we just let the GITMO guys tunnel to Cuba? I'm down.

[waffles]

As long as they're not put in that famous place in Cuba most people don't even pretend to care what happens to captured enemy. Maybe someday the United States will question the wisdom of putting all your bad guys in cages with each other. It seems they collude and become more capable bad guys. Domestic and abroad.

[prolefeed]

Maybe someday the United States will question the wisdom of putting all your bad guys in cages with each other. It seems they collude and become more capable bad guys.

That doesn't matter so much if you have no intention of ever letting any of the prisoners near a court to challenge their imprisonment.

[Fluffy]

My vote is on divine intervention.

[waffles]

I never figured Allah for a tunneler, doesn't seem grandiose enough. Always figured Allah to be more flash than substance, moving mountains > digging tunnels. But hey, why not?

[Ska]

What do they call a mole in Scotland, er, Afghanistan?

[KWebb]

A mole's a mole, but they call it d-Mole.

Don't ask what they call a whopper. I didn't go into Burger King.

[Rich]

[The governor of Kandahar insisted] that the job of recapturing so many prisoners would be made easier by the detailed biometric records held on all the men, including fingerprints and iris scans

The odds concerning "misplacement" of said records are ...?

[rather]

Hmm, don't they need electricity to run that equipment?

[The governor of Kandahar]

Actually, the "iris scans" are just sketches.

But they're sufficiently accurate for rounding up the usual suspects.

[Governor Zabul]

We weren't supposed to cut them out?
-my bad

[Tim]

All they have are cases of WWII surplus rectal thermometers-but they don't know how to use those either.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Washington considers sanctions on Syria.

Obama to Syria: Not the whole thing, just the tip, I promise.

[Syria]

Well, OK, ... but it had better be uncircumcised.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

Hey, have I mentioned recently that the current President of the United States is a collossal narcissist and pathological liar?

[Brett L]

Pretty sure those are personality requirements of the job.

[The Pauls (Pair o' Docs)]

If you lie about being a liar, do you still get the job?

[Brett L]

"Let me be clear, this will be the most honest, open and transparent government ever."

[Reagan]

"facts are stupid things"

[West Texas]

Financiers Switch to the GOP

No mention anywhere about, you know, ditching BOTH teams and switching to something altogether different. Because we Americans are just too goddamn simple to handle more than two choices at a time.

[Montani Semper Liberi]

Why would they try something different? Rent seeking has worked out pretty well for Wall St. They see that the country is shifting back to Republicans and want to make sure they still have a seat at the table after the next election.

[Montani Semper Liberi]

Why would they try something different? Rent seeking has worked out pretty well for Wall St. They see that the country is shifting back to Republicans and want to make sure they still have a seat at the table after the next election.

[West Texas]

Touch?. That's a good point that needs to be made twice.

[DJF]

Why change, when both team red and team blue have been so reliable in bailing out the financial markets at taxpayers expense?

[SugarFree]

Haley Barbour pulls out of the race.

"They'll miss me, I say, I say, miss me when I'm gone."

[Hugh Laurie]

Governor, I can recommend a great speech coach for 2016.

[AU H20]

He doesn't stutter when he curses!

[Ice Nine]

Even if he doesn't stutter he still speaks some barely comprehensible foreign language.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

Fortunately, I've heard that he keeps his feathers numbered, for just such an emergency.

[Tim]

+1

[Fist of Etiquette]

"She also vigorously opposes using half a million taxpayer dollars or any taxpayer resources to defend discrimination, at a time when Republicans in Congress are cutting critical initiatives like education and infrastructure," [House Minority Leader Spokesman Drew] Hammill said.

At least hypocrisy shows no reluctance to reach across the aisle in the House. Pelosi is suddenly worked up over $500,000 of constituent money, and Boehner's austerity ends when the Institute of Marriage's honor is at stake.

[Rich]

But, FoE, these are truly important -- yea, *essential* -- causes.

Yet another reason to cut 'em all and let God sort 'em out.

[Tulpa]

How much money is the administration using to defend indefinite detention and the Unlimited Commerce Clause?

[Fist of Etiquette]

Yes, but those make the administration money.

[MNG]

The Cult of Robert E. Lee

I confess to always being puzzled by the cult of Lee. Whatever his personal or military virtues, he offered himself and his sword to the cause of slavery. He owned slaves himself and fought tenaciously in the courts to keep them. He commanded a vast army that, had it won, would have secured the independence of a nation dedicated to the proposition that white people could own black people and sell them off, husband from wife, child from parent, as the owner saw fit. Such a man cannot be admired.

He was not, as I once thought, the creature of crushing social and political pressure who had little choice but to pick his state over his country. In fact, various members of his own family stuck with the Union.

But in that exotic place called the antebellum South, there were plenty of people who recognized the evil of slavery or, if nothing else, the folly of secession. Lee was not one of them. He deserves no honor ? no college, no highway, no high school. In the awful war (620,000 dead) that began 150 years ago this month, he fought on the wrong side for the wrong cause. It's time for Virginia and the South to honor the ones who were right.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....ml?hpid=z4

[Fist of Etiquette]

Plus, you just know he bent his frame every time they jumped a washed-out bridge.

[SugarFree]

Over 300 hundred were destroyed over the life of the show.

[Clich? BaNDIT]

now THAT is wrong.

[Montani Semper Liberi]

Lee is overrated as a general. His legend is due more to the blundering Union generals he faced than to anything he did himself. A better general than the overly cautious McClellan would have ended the war at Antietam.

[John]

It is also due to the myth created by his deadbeat nephew Fitz Lee and Jubal Early, who ironically enough Lee wanted to relieve. If anyone lost them the war it was the State of Virginia. Why was Lee in Norther Virginia wasting precious man power defending Richmond while the South was losing the war in the West? Because Virginia wouldn't let its armies fight anywhere but Virginia. That prevented Lee from retreating and drawing out the war and using resources to save the west.

To avoid this unpleasent fact, Early and other Virginians invented the myth of Lee as a brilliant general. He was very good tactician. But he was a terrible strategic thinker. He wasted men he didn't have to lose on battles that didn't decide anything. And he allowed Grant to bottle him up in Petersburg rendering him useless to the Southern cause.

[MNG]

I just read the other day that Early was one of the reps that meet to vote for secession and that he spoke against it. I wonder where Lee stood at that time...

[Tim]

Of course the only thing yankee kids want to know about Ulysses S. Grant is how to apply for one.

[Heroic Mulatto]

And who's buried in his tomb, of course.

[pancakes]

He wasn't fighting for slavery. He was fighting for property rights. The Emancipation Proclamation is the worst abuse of eminent domain in the history of the United States. Sure it seems easy to justify now, but how do you feel when government wipes out your productive capability and decimates your material wealth?

[MNG]

This is a joke right?

[John]

When your material wealth is in the form of human beings, it deserves to be wiped out. What the fuck kind of libertarian has sympathy for slave owners?

[waffles]

When pancakes pops into the MNG/John dialogues it's probably jokes. Still I've got to wonder, how in the heck did they justify slavery?

In modern times the phrase 'human capital' gets used to more or less the same end. Difference is, today people volunteer to be human capital. But can modern employment become coercive? I thinks so, but it still isn't outright ownership.

Though I feel simple phrases like "all men are created equal" are normal and right it seems to be a rarity. Humans have been enslaving each other in some form for most of the historical record. It's lucky to live in an environment that (usually) recognizes rights.

So yeah, jokes.

[John]

They convinced themseleves that they were helping slaves. They didn't think slaves could live on their own or handle their freedom and were better off with benevolent white owners.

[Progressives]

That sounds vaguely familiar for some reason...

[Monty]

Like democrats today?

[Southern Libertarian]

And the history of negro ghettos proves the validity of that point.

[nekoxgirl]

Yeah, if you just ignore all the progressive legislation that has resulted in perpetuating the ghetto by breaking up black families and keeping single mothers dependent on the federal government.

[Brett L]

Slavery was in the Bible. It had been practiced throughout recorded history. Usually, not as brutally as plantation slavery in the 16th-19th centuries. About that time, the Pope had forbidden bapitized Christians from being sold into slavery. (Ironically, slaves were baptized immediately after being bought by the Portugese.) At that point it became a rear-guard battle to redefine groups of humans as "people" who should be exempt from slavery. If you've known slave-owners all your life, how can you NOT some that you consider good? If some of them are good, then maybe slavery isn't evil. Never doubt man's ability to deceive himself.

[Anonymous Coward]

Slavery was in the Bible.

Yes it was. There were also things like this:

If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them. -Deuteronomy 23:15-16

Sounds like an argument for the Fugitive Slave Law if I've ever heard it.

[Free2Booze]

Still I've got to wonder, how in the heck did they justify slavery?

Conventional wisdom. Slavery was an accepted practice since the beginning of human history. We have the benefit of 150+ years of history, to reflect on the morality of slavery. For those living in the moment, forgive the pun, the issue wasn't so black and white.

[Heroic Mulatto]

Slavery was an accepted practice since the beginning of human history.

True, but you could argue that it didn't have a racial dimension until about 600 years ago. If one could travel back to Classical Rome, one might see a dark-skinned Numidian dominus owning a blue-eyed, blond-haired German or Gaul servus.

[waffles]

So the pool of humans that were acceptable to enslave shrank and shrank until it became the empty set. As the set shrank slavery became more vicious, more cruel perhaps? Eh, works for me.

[Brett L]

Like I said above, once Christians could no longer own Christian slaves, it quickly became racist and far, far more brutal for the average slave. One of the great Stoic philosophers, Epictetus, was born a Roman slave and educated at the expense of his master, then manumitted. This was apparently not uncommon. Slavery was not necessarily a life sentence and certainly not necessarily multi-generational before 16th Century Europe.

[Free2Booze]

I don't think the enslavement of africans was based on race, rather supply. Slavery was a common institution on the continent of Africa. The slave trade was highly dependent on tribal conflict on the continent of Africa. Tribes captured members of other tribes, and sold them into slavery.

[Tim]

The war on drugs is a continuation of slavery.

[prolefeed]

But can modern employment become coercive?

Only if you're in the military and are thus not allow to quit whenever you want.

If you can walk out the door anytime you want, it's not coercion.

[Anonymous Coward]

Still I've got to wonder, how in the heck did they justify slavery?

1. They were doing God's work by Christianizing the black people while making money off their backs.

2. Blacks were a "degraded" form of human. They were people, but they weren't PEOPLE people.

3. Blacks were human and had natural rights, but those rights could be abridged by law because it was just convenient to the economy.

There are a few other novel arguments in favor of slavery, but I'm too drunk to remember them at the moment.

[John]

He left the Army and ran the Custis farm for a while. And he was not known as a particularly generous slave owner. He wasn't the worst. But he was hardly enlightened.

Lee deserves endearing credit for one noble act. He ended the war. The real scoundrals in the South like Jeff Davis wanted to continue the war in the form of guirilla warfare. Lee to his great credit realized that would have been an even worse tragedy for the South and the country. Lee and Nathan Bedford Forest both used their moral capital as great soldiers to get the Southern forces to lay down their arms and not fight a partisan war. For that we owe them a debt. Oddly, modern day confederate sympathyzers never give Lee credit for the one noble thing he ever did.

[MNG]

"Lee and Nathan Bedford Forest both used their moral capital as great soldiers to get the Southern forces to lay down their arms and not fight a partisan war"

Didn't Forrest pick those arms back up wearing a white robe and mask?

[John]

No. That was after the war. And he left the Klan after it became violent. When he formed it, it was just a social club among veterans. That is why they have goofy titles like "Grand Wizard". It wasn't Forrest who made the Klan what it was later known as.

[MNG]

I will say the titles like Grand Imperial Wizard are the one nice thing about the KKK.

[John]

Forrest was bad guy, a slave trader, and the perpetraitor of the Fort Pillow masacre. But he doesn't deserve the rap he gets for the KKK. I find him fascinating. He is at once evil as hell, yet also was capable of great kindness, even towards blacks, and was probably the greatest natural battlefield leader this country has ever produced.

[RyanXXX]

Agreed on Forrest. He led a unit of black cavalry during the war, his former slaves. Quite a badass

[Warty]

I thought the story was that he formed the KKK as more or less an old-boy's club, and disbanded it after it started to get too violent.

Something like that, anyway.

[creech]

Lee is a Rommel-like character. His cause was not worthy of the military prowess he deployed and the courage the men of the Army of Northern Virginia displayed. He, like Jefferson and the other upper crust Viriginians of his circle, knew slavery was wrong but could not see an immediate way out of the predicament.
So they accepted "God's will" that they were to care for the darkies until such time (unspecified, and with little concrete action) as they could be trusted to be independent free men.
By 1863, Lee certainly had the stature to demand gradual emanicipation and, I believe, foreign recognition would have resulted and a weary North capitulated. But he didn't and his post-bellum advice regarding the Negro
was more hateful than anything he had expressed ante-bellum.

[Tulpa]

o they accepted "God's will" that they were to care for the darkies until such time (unspecified, and with little concrete action) as they could be trusted to be independent free men.

This common apologetic simply doesn't line up with the fact that teaching a slave to read and write was a capital crime in most of the Old South. They knew full well that slaves were fully capable of operating on their own and sought to prevent it.

[creech]

True. Such laws were in response to Turner's rebellion. However, some did defy the law: Stonewall Jackson and his wife held Sunday School for slaves, teaching them to read and write, in defiance of Virginia law.

[Marshall Gill]

What, you didn't include Washington or Jefferson or any of the Founders of this Nation "founded on slavery". Why you picking on Lee? Why no hatred for, say, Jefferson Davis?

I realize that you have been "educated" but you do know that slavery existed in the Union after it ended in the South? The Union fought for Human Liberty, except it didn't free it's own slaves until later?

[MNG]

Unlike Jefferson and Washington Lee made a conscious decision to fight a war based on keeping slaves.

And I'm not sure why Confederate apologists constant pointing out that the Union took a little while longer to free all slaves than Southern ones somehow justifies the South's cause.

[Old Mexican]

Re: MNG,

And I'm not sure why Confederate apologists constant pointing out that the Union took a little while longer to free all slaves than Southern ones somehow justifies the South's cause.

Pointing out that fact undermines the argument that the Federal government was somehow fighting this crusade against slavery, which is what the Amerikan Pulbic Skool Sestim history books would lead one to believe. It is not used to point out the virtue of slavery - you're being purposefully dishonest by claiming that it is.

[Marshall Gill]

Thanks, OM, couldn't have said it better myself.

And MNG, you do not get to say shit about slavery, you support it as long as the collective is the owner. It is laughable that you would pontificate about owning other human beings.

[MNG]

Nice try Marshall, but astute observers won't miss the considerable and ironic overlap between neo-Confederates like you, OM and DJF and paleo-libertarians screaming about the slavery of minimum wage laws and such.

[DJF]

When did I become a neo-confederate? The only thing I posted today regarding this today has been to point out that the author Richard Cohen thinks that the ""fatuous infatuation with the Constitution, particularly the 10th amendment, is clearly the work of witches, Wiccans and wackos""'

[MNG]

You're a paleo, and like most paleo's you were drawn to the discussion about the evils of the Confederacy and contributed by attacking the author of the article. But I've found paleo's react to Civil War thread discussions like moths to light, so perhaps you can't help it.

[Old Mexican]

Re: MNG,

neo-Confederates like you, OM and DJF[...]

"neo-Confederates"?

"When in doubt, smear."

Old Statist proverb.

[MNG]

Hey, you seem to show up moth-to-the-flame-like to every Civil War discussion to defend the Confederacy.

By their fruits you shall know them.

That's an old non-statist proverb you know.

[Old Mexican]

Re: MNG,

Hey, you seem to show up moth-to-the-flame-like to every Civil War discussion to defend the Confederacy.

Right, MNG. Every time someone defends the right to secede, automatically one becomes a de facto defender of the Confederacy - in your mind.

[MNG]

When the secession in question was one based on the full-throated defense of slavery, yeah, I do get that idea!

[Old Mexican]

Re: MNG,

When the secession in question was one based on the full-throated defense of slavery[...]

You seem particularly dense today, MNG. The motive for seceding is NOT germane to the act of seceding itself. I may want to secede from my family because I want to pursue a career as a pornographer; that reason does NOT make the very act of seceding an immoral one.

[The Gobbler]

You grow tiresome.

[Marshall Gill]

Hey, you seem to show up moth-to-the-flame-like to every Civil War discussion to defend the Confederacy..

It isn't a question of defending the Confederacy, it is a question of defending history. Your first point was total bullshit which I easily refuted. The North was all about ending slavery, but didn't free their slaves until after the war?

As you do later in the thread, the point is the defense of Federalism. Secession =/= slaver or Nazism, however much you want to repeat it.

All you are really claiming is that centralization is good. Strange that you do not draw any comparisons with Stalin or Mao. Why is that?

[MNG]

"Your first point was total bullshit which I easily refuted. The North was all about ending slavery"

I didn't make that point, though interestingly the South did.

[Marshall Gill]

I didn't make that point, though interestingly the South did.

No, your exact words were:

Unlike Jefferson and Washington Lee made a conscious decision to fight a war based on keeping slaves.

So you claim the war was about keeping/freeing slaves but then say that the fact the Union hadn't actually freed their slaves is meaningless.

Either the war was NOT about slavery alone or why didn't the North have freed their own slaves? They fought a war to put down the Nazi like CSA so they didn't have time?

Even after reading you for all this time I simply can't believe you are so dense. It is mind-numbing. Then I remember that you were not only indoctrinated, but all the way to a "PHD".

the Union took a little while longer to free all slaves than Southern ones somehow justifies the South's cause.

No, it points out the objective fact that they were equally unenlightened about human slavery, like most of the rest of the world at that time. It refutes your imbecility that the South was unique in its acceptance of human slavery or that the North held some moral high ground in the same area.

[MNG]

"Unlike Jefferson and Washington Lee made a conscious decision to fight a war based on keeping slaves.
So you claim the war was about keeping/freeing slaves but then say that the fact the Union hadn't actually freed their slaves is meaningless."

I didn't say the Union fought the war over slavery, the South did. They seceded to preserve slavery.

[Anonymous Coward]

The president should be allowed to do whatever he wants, legal or not, Constitutional or not, amirite?

[Mike Laursen]

A little heavy-handed, but a serviceable troll nonetheless.

[MNG]

I'm not sure schools teach that. What I remember being taught was that the South wanted to secede to protect its institutions of slavery and the North rebuked their right to secede on such grounds. Thank goodness they won, people should not be able to secede from a nation's authority on the grounds of protecting fundamental violations of others civil rights.

[Shorter MNG]

"I'm a sanctimonious asshole."

[MNG]

Its sanctomonious to be glad a system based on the total and actual enslavement of about a 1/3 of its citizens lost its move to preserve that?

Wow, witness the mental gymnastics that is the Neo-Confederate Paleo-libertarian mindset, defending the Confederacy while screaming about the evils of social security withholding.

[Shorter MNG]

"I shall blind you with my halo, evil libertarians!"

[crossofcrimson]

"Wow, witness the mental gymnastics that is the Neo-Confederate Paleo-libertarian mindset, defending the Confederacy while screaming about the evils of social security withholding."

Alright, let's take a hypothetical. If I (or anyone else) lamented what took place in the fallout of WWI as precipitously, and unfairly, pushing Germany into an environment the lead-up to WWII was possible - essentially sympathizing with early WWII era Germans with respect to those things specifically - would you call me (or anyone else) neo-Nazis?

Or is it possible to have a problem with what Germany did AND what was done to them?

[Old Mexican]

Re: MNG,

What I remember being taught was that the South wanted to secede to protect its institutions of slavery and the North rebuked their right to secede on such grounds.

Which in effect, is the same thing as "the Federal government was somehow fighting this crusade against slavery."

Thank goodness they won, people should not be able to secede from a nation's authority on the grounds of protecting fundamental violations of others civil rights.

Sure, the same way club members should not allow you to leave on the grounds that you cannot go home to beat your wife... right?

What I love about you is how you conflate states' rights with slavery: They wanted to secede, they were slavers, ergo, secession is the slaver's refuge.

[MNG]

"They wanted to secede to preserve slavery, ergo secession was the slaver's refuge."

FTFY

Your statement of it was monumentally disingeneous, like most Neo-Confederates nicely omitting any link between the South's secession and what motivated it, the intent to preserve slavery.

[Shorter MNG]

"I am impervious to irony."

[Restoras]

I'm stealing this.

[Fluffy]

While it is true that the Confederacy secession was motivated by the desire to preserve slavery, had the Civil War never happened I think the principle of secession would remain a critical one to honor.

There is nothing magical about the current borders of the United States.

Were the Kosovars right to secede from the Serbs?

The constant threat that a component unit of a large polity will break away and declare independence if the metropole goes too far would be a highly useful check on the natural authoritarian impulses of centralized states.

You've talked at length about Confederate apologists, but you know what I've noticed about Union worshipping historians? That their main beef against the Confederacy isn't even that they were pro-slavery - it's that if they had succeeded the resulting two-nation system would not have fulfilled US "manifest destiny" as well. There would not have been as powerful a US imperial state. There would not have been a US superpower. That's the real beef here. If I could flip a switch and have history be changed so that the Confederacy achieved independence but then ended slavery on its own, the average US historian would still go berserk about it, because even with slavery not an issue they would be unwilling to accept smaller and weaker successor states.

[MNG]

Imagine Germany was a federal state and rather than becoming Chancellor Hitler only became the governor of a large part of Germany. He established the laws we are familiar with divseting Jews of rights and rounding them into concentration camps. But he and his fellow Nazis thought the federal German government would interfere with this process so they declared they were going to secede and form their own state, Nazi-land, motivated by their explicit desire to protect these institutions. If the federal German government rebuked their right to secede and invaded them would you defend the right to secede?

I hate to Godwin, but I actually think the CSA was as fundamentally evil as Nazi Germany.

[Fluffy]

The problem with this particular fundamental evil argument is that the Union also had slavery.

And that slavery was commonplace in many other parts of the world.

And that even the "advanced" parts of the world had only gotten rid of slavery legally within the living memory of Americans at the time of the Civil War.

The Confederacy was late in its defense of slavery. Nazi Germany made the decision to undertake a new and unprecedented set of atrocities.

To me, the outrage directed at the Confederacy is a lot like the outrage currently visited on some Islamic nations that don't have the same rights for women and gays that we have. Um, those rights we only gave women a few decades ago, and to gays basically yesterday? Those Muslims sure are monstrously evil, being a few decades behind us in handing out political rights!

[MNG]

"The problem with this particular fundamental evil argument is that the Union also had slavery."

To a much lesser degree, and a far less ardent attachment for it (as evidence of this you have the fact that they were not willing to secede to protect it like the South was), and the South itself seemed to acknoweldge that their institution was going to be dealt severe blows by the Union if they stayed in it.

[prolefeed]

I hate to Godwin, but I actually think the CSA was as fundamentally evil as Nazi Germany.

Owning people, evil as that is, is not as evil as not owning people because you have killed them by the millions.

Life imprisonment is not as bad as the death penalty.

[crossofcrimson]

" If the federal German government rebuked their right to secede and invaded them would you defend the right to secede?"

Yes, separately. And people in the North, likewise, would still be morally defensible in the act of freeing individual slaves. They are two separate things (contrary to popular belief).

What's amazing, albeit blatantly non-subtle, is that in your hypothetical there would at least be a half of Germany which was free from the horrible from the horrible anguish that was actually brought upon them under the consolidated federal power which Hitler assumed control over. This is why the "one-size-fits-all" model of government sucks.

In any case, making general observations about the immorality of one thing does not exclude entertaining the immorality of another. Believe it or not, slavery and political secession are not mutually inclusive ideas - if anything there exists a philosophic friction between the two.

[Old Mexican]

Re: MNG,

Your statement of it was monumentally disingeneous,

Excuse me? You don't seem to get it: You are the one making the claim that secession = keeping slavery. The reasons for secession are not germaine to the morality of secession itself.

Even if you were the most despicable being on the Earth, that would not suddenly make the act of keeping you in a club, by force, against your will, any less immoral.

like most Neo-Confederates nicely omitting any link between the South's secession and what motivated it, the intent to preserve slavery.

That's because it is irrelevant. If the South wanted to secede because the North cracked their eggs from the thin side instead of the fat side, why would that be germaine to the cause of secession itself? You conflate the intention with the act itself.

[Old Mexican]

Sorry: it's germane, not "germaine"

[MNG]

"The reasons for secession are not germaine to the morality of secession itself."

Of course it is. Like many things secession is good or bad in large part on the motivation behind it. Seceding to escape tyranny=ok, seceding to perpetuate it=bad.

[crossofcrimson]

"Like many things secession is good or bad in large part on the motivation behind it"

No, it isn't. Much in the same way your right to speak freely isn't "good" or "bad" based on what you say.

[Zeb]

Agree with MNG. In my public school education, I certainly got the point that the Confederacy fought to preserve slavery and the North fought to keep the Union intact and was very divided over the slavery issue.
One thing I wish we learned more about is the politics of the Confederacy.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Zeb,

Agree with MNG. In my public school education, I certainly got the point that the Confederacy fought to preserve slavery and the North fought to keep the Union intact and was very divided over the slavery issue.

The text books and teachers of the Amerikan Pulbic Skool Sestim certainly left out that the Federal government was the aggressor in said war, and that such made any other motives for fighting the Union forces, besides self-preservation, utterly meaningless.

[MNG]

That's silly, if someone is the aggressor in getting someone to submit to an authority that the latter resists because they fear that authority will stop them from perpetuating a fundamental evil then that matters.

[prolefeed]

Thank goodness they won, people should not be able to secede from a nation's authority on the grounds of protecting fundamental violations of others civil rights.

People should be able to secede from the Union for any goddamn reason they want. They should be able to secede because they think regulations on minimum diameters of apples are too harsh.

If you let the federal government decide who has cause to secede or not, the invariable answer will be "Not this time. Not this time. Oh, and not this time, either."

If you can't walk away from a negotiating table and take your business elsewhere, you will get hosed.

[MNG]

"People should be able to secede from the Union for any goddamn reason they want."

So if New Jersey decided to round up all Jews into concentration camps, and, fearing the federal government would act to stop this they declared they were seceded from the union, you would defend this secession?

It's not about letting the federal government decide when it is right to secede and when it is not. It's about secession to escape tyranny=good while secession to perpetuate it=bad.

[crossofcrimson]

"So if New Jersey decided to round up all Jews into concentration camps, and, fearing the federal government would act to stop this they declared they were seceded from the union, you would defend this secession?"

I'll bite (again). Yes. And I would also defend anyone who went into Jersey freeing those in concentration camps. Again, these are not mutually inclusive issues. Trying to force perceived association through hypotheticals doesn't dismiss that point.

[Fluffy]

This is a really, really empty distinction.

Nobody ever tried to take away Washington or Jefferson's slaves. Had anyone tried to, we would have seen the result.

Washington in particular was a "I will cut your fucking throat right here, Mr. French Dude" type of guy when you got in his face.

If Washington or Jefferson would have summoned a constable if one of their slaves had run away, there is really no distinction to be made between them and Lee.

I tend to think Lee is slightly overrated as a general, but only slightly. The Confederacy lasted two years longer than it should have based mainly on generalship and elan.

John is also quite right above when he talks about Lee's instrumentality in ending the war. The difference between the grudging reconciliation of Reconstruction and a long-term brutalization of the South on the Basque or Northern Irish model boils down to the personal decisions of a handful of men, Lee among them. Our post Civil War history could have been much, much, MUCH worse, if the North had been just a little bit more determined to punish and the South had been just a little bit more determined to resist after Appomattox.

[MNG]

Lee is known to history for one main thing: his choosing to lead (and lead well) the fight to preserve a move to secede to protect slavery. Washington and Jefferson are not known for that one thing. They held slaves but also struck major blows for freedom in other areas, so their record is far more mixed.

[Brett L]

We get that you hate Lee. Not everyone does.

[Fluffy]

I wonder if Washington's slaves valued the distinction you're drawing here.

I wonder if at night, in their slave shanties, they talked to one another in low voices about all the great things Washington was doing for freedom in other areas.

I tend to doubt it.

I think the bottom line is that the modern insistence that being on the wrong side politically makes the individual an unredeemable moral wretch is pretty much a function of the way Orwellian "Two Minutes Hate" style thinking has come to dominate us.

It is possible for Lee to have possessed admirable personal characteristics despite choosing the wrong side in the Civil War, just as it's possible for Jefferson to have admirable personal characteristics despite the way he routinely raped women he owned as chattel. Cicero owned slaves, too, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a great rhetorician.

[John]

It probably depended on the slaves. Slavery, like any human subject is complex and contains all sorts of whacked out outliers. Some slaves liked being slaves. It was a career. They moved up the ladder into better and better jobs and better standards of living. And they wouldn't have dreamed of running away. That sounds fucked up because it is. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[prolefeed]

I'm having a hard time buying the notion that ANY slave, if offering their papers to become a free man or woman, would have shredded them.

They may have wanted to continue working for the same master. They may even have been OK with getting paid just room and board. But that's not the same thing as wanting to be owned.

[Gus]

THIS IS WHAT MNG ACTUALLY BELIEVES

[Zeb]

I don't see anything wrong with it. Seems like a fair enough analysis.

[Heroic Mulatto]

Observe how Washington acted when one of his slaves ran away.

[MNG]

I hope everyone here realizes that at best this line of argument means Lee, Washington and Jefferson should not be honored, not that Lee is worthy of any honor.

[Fluffy]

No, it doesn't.

The Roman Colosseum was the site of gruesome murders and the use of slaves for entertainment on a vast scale.

But that doesn't mean it should be blown up.

At times watching MNG I can definitely understand how the Taliban came to blow up those Buddha statues. Ritual iconoclasm as symbolic atonement for or mastery over the past is not something that is unique to them. Not by a long shot.

[MNG]

Your analogy fails as the colosseum is an object incapable of moral choice and hence moral judgment. Lee was capable of opposing the horrible evil that was slavery, instead he went to arms to preserve it. Indeed, the one thing he is admired for, his martial skills, were used in furtherance of this evil cause! At least when you celebrate Washington or Jefferson you can say you celebrate the latter's protection of religious freedom or the former's abdication of monarchy, Lee's claim was that he fought very well for an evil, evil cause. It's like celebrating an especially skilled serial killer because he evaded police so well.

[prolefeed]

I hope everyone here realizes that at best this line of argument means Lee, Washington and Jefferson should not be honored, not that Lee is worthy of any honor.

No, it means that if you're an honest historian, you honor them for the honorable things they did, and condemn them for the ignoble things they did.

[MNG]

Do you declare holidays in their name, erect monuments and name schools after them?

[crossofcrimson]

"Do you declare holidays in their name, erect monuments and name schools after them?"

Ironically, I think a good deal of libertarians wouldn't support any of that - but it has little to do with the legacy of the men in question.

[cynical]

"Unlike Jefferson and Washington Lee made a conscious decision to fight a war based on keeping slaves."

No, they made a conscious decision to fight a war to defend one land (which they lived in) from the attempts of another land to rule the former by force. That the former was socially drenched in coercion only makes it ironic, but it doesn't make the imperial nation any less imperial.

[Zeb]

Oh, come on. The South fought to keep slavery, and they were wrong in so doing. The North may have been wrong about many things, but there is no defense for the South and why they fought the war.

[zoltan]

The South fought against a Northern army invading their land. Keep in mind slaveholders were nowhere near the majority of the population. The poor whites and non-slave-owning businessmen had a great reason to defend themselves against the North.

Don't forget also, that the North and South also implemented slavery against their white male populations in the form of the draft and slavery patrols. The North did not fight the war to stop slavery; they fought the war because they didn't want the South to secede--it was all based on pure power. Lincoln didn't even care about slavery when he started the war, and in his inaugural address he showed is support for the Corwin Amendment which would make slavery constitutional.

Whoever here thinks the North fought to end slavery is simply ignorant of history. Abolitionists made up about 2% of the population and of those people many were non-violent.

[creech]

We all accept that a minority of Southerners owned slaves. However, even non-slave holders benefitted from the slave economy. In fact, historical studies show that most farmers and merchants hired out slaves owned by others at one point or another during the year. In fact, there are documented cases of free black farmers hiring slave laborers.
You do understand that Lincoln's 75,000 volunteers were not "invading" the South in the sense they'd be marching through the countryside shooting civilians and destroying property. They were going to arrest secessionists and their supporters and return (or impose, if you will) new state governments which would renounce secession. Unionists had nothing to fear.

[MNG]

"Whoever here thinks the North fought to end slavery is simply ignorant of history."

Condemnations of the CSA do not rest on the assertion that the North fought to end slavery, they rest on the fact that the South seceded to preserve it.

[Anonymous Coward]

The South fought against a Northern army invading their land. Keep in mind slaveholders were nowhere near the majority of the population. The poor whites and non-slave-owning businessmen had a great reason to defend themselves against the North.

They had great reasons for fighting: they couldn't dodge the conscription officers and they didn't own 20 negroes (later reduced to 15) that would have allowed to be exempt from conscription.

[Zeb]

I never said the North fought to end slavery. Only that the South fought to preserve it.

[Fluffy]

Strictly speaking, in the technical sense I believe the southern states were correct: the states had made the Union, and that meant they could unmake it if they chose.

Of course, the moment they did unmake it, and made a new state based on the institution of slavery, that new state automatically became illegitimate and anyone who wanted to destroy it had the moral right to do so.

The Union said, "States have no right to secede, so we will act to end this rebellion," and I don't think they had the right to say that.

Had they said, instead, "Your new state was properly founded, but it is inherently illegitimate, so we have decided to conquer you just because it amuses us to do so," that I would have to support.

[prolefeed]

Of course, the moment they did unmake it, and made a new state based on the institution of slavery, that new state automatically became illegitimate and anyone who wanted to destroy it had the moral right to do so.

Including places like the North that also permitted the same immoral practice, and had laws that required returning escaped slaves to their owners?

And, the U.S. after the Revolutionary War permitted slaves, so did everyone on earth, living in less free countries, have a moral right to destroy it?

[CrackertyAssCracker]

And, the U.S. after the Revolutionary War permitted slaves, so did everyone on earth, living in less free countries, have a moral right to destroy it?

you've cracked the code man. self determination is allowed only to countries made up of 100% moral people, with special exceptions granted on an as-needed basis by our progressive betters.

[Fluffy]

self determination is allowed only to countries made up of 100% moral people

Self determination is actually an irrelevant concept.

If a state has tyrannical features, any resident of that state has the moral right to attempt to destroy that state, and any outsider to the system has the moral right to assist them, or undertake action on their behalf.

Usually there were will prudential reasons why the vast majority of people will not do either or these things - but they still would have the right to do it.

If we get in a time machine right now and go back to July, 1776, if we bust in on the Continental Congress and whack everyone who's a slave owner, it might not be the best plan prudentially for liberty overall, but we certainly would not be morally in the wrong. You own slaves? I can kill you and be morally right. Period. End of discussion.

[MNG]

Notice how some of the most shrill uber-libertarians who full throatedly call things like minimum wage laws "slavery!" go to lengths to defend a governmental system built on actual, undebatable slavery.

[crossofcrimson]

"Notice how some of the most shrill uber-libertarians who full throatedly call things like minimum wage laws "slavery!" go to lengths to defend a governmental system built on actual, undebatable slavery."

By that argument we shouldn't defend democracy itself.

[Fluffy]

And, the U.S. after the Revolutionary War permitted slaves, so did everyone on earth, living in less free countries, have a moral right to destroy it?

Yes, of course.

When people were fighting Nazi Germany, the Nazis had no right to stand up and say, "You there, US soldier serial number 01030394939. You committed forgery and fraud and were never convicted. You get out of the battle line right now and go home. Only morally spotless people can fight us."

A state either has moral legitimacy or it doesn't.

It possesses moral legitimacy solely on the basis of its own policies and practices and not those of any other state or any other individual.

FDR was more moral than Hitler and the US in 1941 was more moral than Nazi Germany, but if some of the interred Japanese had escaped and had broken into the Oval Office and beaten FDR to death with pipes, they would have been morally in the right 100%.

[DJF]

Here is what the same Richard Cohen thinks about the freedom proclaimed in the Constitution

"""''This fatuous infatuation with the Constitution, particularly the 10th amendment, is clearly the work of witches, Wiccans and wackos. It has nothing to do with America's real problems and, if taken too seriously, would cause an economic and political calamity. """"

http://thetimes-tribune.com/op.....z1KdQhiCLE

[cynical]

Wait a second, I thought that besieging and shelling a rebel city in a civil war, even if the rebels hold uncouth ideals (say, theocratic Islamic fundamentalism) was how we identified the bad guys?

[TrickyVic]

Burn Atlanta to the ground! If they are worthy, god will not let them burn!

[Red Rocks Rockin]

There really wasn't much of a "cult of Lee" outside the South until the Dunning school gained influence on post-Civil War historical studies, along with the publication of Doug Freeman's autobiography of the man. I think he's remained a figure of sympathy because his torn loyalties and overall personal character make him someone that people can identify with on a more personal level, even if they can't accept him fighting for the Confederacy and what it represented.

I don't necessarily agree with MSL's comment that Lee's legend was due to blundering Union generals, although that certainly played a factor. It's not really his fault that Lincoln didn't put anyone in charge that was willing to go toe-to-toe with him, until Grant was appointed the head of the Army. An argument can be made that a good general will spot those weaknesses and exploit them--for example, McClellan being tricked by the fake log "cannons" during the Peninsula Campaign.

[SugarFree]

The return of the dreaded male gaze...

Heterosexual man voices opinion on attractive clothing styles for women, becomes history's greatest monster.

[Rich]

This article reminds me of that guy talking about his idea of a perfect woman-- you know, the one who rolls out of bed with beautiful hair and only takes five minutes to get ready, because making an effort to look good is kind of unattractive? She's got a slammin' body but totally eats cheeseburgers every day-- she's just naturally thin (but also has a great rack)! Oh yeah, she's smart, but she doesn't make it tooo obvious (she's not uppity!). She teaches Sunday school to orphans, but she's a tiger in the sack! She's the girl you bring home to Mom, not the skank you bang in an alley. She's effortlessly! Naturally! Born! Perfect! And the best part is, she doesn't even realize how beautiful she is!

Also, she doesn't poop.

Aside from the Sunday school and pooping parts, that's Mrs. Rich! 😎

[Fluffy]

All of those things would, in fact, make a woman highly attractive.

The fact that they may be unattainable for the commenter is really kind of irrelevant.

If I was Superman, I would be cooler. If I don't like that, tough shit for me. So tough shit for her, too.

[AU H20]

But Fluffy, every woman should feel beautiful in her own body! Especially if she's fat!

[Jersey Patriot]

Superman is a dork.

[Fluffy]

Yes, but if I had Superman's powers, none would dare call me dork.

There is no useful distinction to be drawn between actually being cool, and having superpowers that terrify people into calling you cool.

My subjective experience of coolness would be the same in either case.

[TrickyVic]

""Yes, but if I had Superman's powers, none would dare call me dork.""

They could call me a dork all they wanted. I'd be the dork banging their girlfriends. What are they going to do about it?

[db]

Miss TESSMACHER!!

[Zeb]

I have no problem accepting that other people are more attractive than I am. Where did people get this idea that being considered attractive is a right due to to everyone? Some people are better looking and more physically appealing than others, just like some people are smarter, taller, stronger, etc. Tough titties.

[zoltan]

That woman is pathetic. The Cult of the Inferior rears its ugly head.

[SIV]

I offer fashion advice daily in this bog I'm whoring.

[Warty]

Mmmmm...sundresses...

[SIV]

Sundress underpinnings

[West Texas]

Poll: Gas prices costing Barack Obama in popularity

I am of two minds here:

1.) Hooray! This might be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

or conversely...

2.) WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE THAT OF ALL THE SHIT HE'S DONE SO FAR, IT'S ONLY $4 GASOLINE THAT FINALLY OPENS THEIR EYES? ARE MOST AMERICANS THAT STUPID AND MYOPIC???

[Scruffy Nerd Herder]

Answer to #2 - Yes they are

[Tim]

yes.

[MNG]

Sadly most people don't pay attention to much of what goes on in DC, but they do get gas regularly. It's like when milk prices were a pain for George H.

[MOST AMERICANS]

I understand we're temporarily in difficult times, so I'll just drive a little less until the economy turns around.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

ARE MOST AMERICANS THAT STUPID AND MYOPIC???

Yes. The answer is always yes, whatever this question is in relation to. Whatever the context, whatever the issue, you'll always be quite safe in concluding that yes, most Americans are that stupid and myopic.

[Mike M.]

This is why American presidents always have to lower themselves to kiss that dirtbag Saudi Arabian's ring all the time. He controls their fate to a significant extent.

[Timon19]

Not to mention that the President has as much to do with gas prices as I do with the orbital period of Neptune.

[cynical]

Well, actively waging envirojihad on domestic oil production is probably not helping.

[Big Oil]

which explains why we routinely cap-off active wells in the gulf

[Jersey Patriot]

That explains why US oil production is up 1.5 million barrels per day from its lows a few years ago, right? Fuckhead.

[DesigNate]

^THIS^

[DesigNate]

Damn, that was actually in response to cynical. And JP, just because you are squeezing as much juice out of the lemon as you can possibly get doesn't mean that other people are too.

[Mike M.]

Not much, but the illegal moratorium on offshore drilling that Obama and his EPA stooge have put in place aren't helping at all, that's for sure.

[Jersey Patriot]

It doesn't matter. Open the spigots on US oil production, and the Saudis close theirs to keep oil prices where they want. You can't win.

[cynical]

Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but you can't say the president can't have an impact on prices when his policies can have a significant impact on supply.

[Fist of Etiquette]

The Saudis don't care if another group profits from higher oil prices, just as long as someone is getting that target price per barrel?

[Tulpa]

I think the point is that the Saudis have a bigger spigot with bigger ball valves than we do.

[wylie]

Giant Brass Ball Valves

On tour this summer...

[SIV]

Are you saying the US Treasury has a strong dollar policy? And Obama regrets all his Fed appointments?

He fucking owns high gas prices.

[West Texas]

Yeah, I would say that Obama is probably responsible in the form of loose monetary policy. And, to a lesser extent, drilling and environmental restrictions.

That said, he's not responsible in the way that "Most Americans" think he is: that he's somehow allowing "greedy" oil companies to arbitrarily charge high prices.

[Tulpa]

Considering the loose monetary policy is almost certain to lead OPEC to dump the dollar as its currency, it's going to be even more responsible for high gas prices in the future, when we need to buy euros or renmibi to buy oil.

[OO]

who's "we"?

[Fluffy]

Actually, I pretty much HATE the public for making this the thing they're most angry about.

If they were angry about it because they make the connection between fiscal and monetary policy and commodity inflation, that would be one thing. But they don't make that connection, not most of them.

No, they just see higher prices for gas and think, "Obama should DO SOMETHING!"

They're like the people in Third World nations where there are foodstuff price limits crushing domestic agriculture who riot whenever the government tries to fix that situation by raising the price of rice.

[Mongo]

If the Suit-n-Ties at work aren't bitching about their fat wives, they're bitching about gas prices.

[SugarFree]

Cars that run on rendered wife-fat. Win-win.

[Brett L]

Sorry, I can only do jet fuel.

[AU H20]

But Fluffy, we have a strategic oil reserve!

Seriously, I am of belief that the only thing that has preserved this Republic is the fact that most of its citizens don't vote.

[zoltan]

Over 90% of the public voted until after 1896, when the parties coalesce and ideologies cease to differ extraordinarily.

[Zeb]

Well, over 90% of those eligible to vote perhaps.

[gaijin97]

No offense, but perhaps there is a third mind you might consider?

#3 Polls tend to ovesimplify the complex and are generally used to make points by those who prefer to think everyone else is an idiot.

[Restoras]

Substitute 'people' for 'Americans' and you are DOBA.

[Anonymous Coward]

ARE MOST AMERICANS THAT STUPID AND MYOPIC???

The fact that you need to ask this question forces me to doubt your fitness as a commissar of the commentariat.

[John]

Behold crony capitalist welfare queen NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell in today's Wall Street Journal. If the players get what the want, the following parade of horribles will occur.

? No draft. "Why should there even be a draft?" said player agent Brian Ayrault. "Players should be able to choose who they work for. Markets should determine the value of all contracts. Competitive balance is a fallacy."

? No minimum team payroll. Some teams could have $200 million payrolls while others spend $50 million or less.

? No minimum player salary. Many players could earn substantially less than today's minimums.

? No standard guarantee to compensate players who suffer season- or career-ending injuries. Players would instead negotiate whatever compensation they could.

? No league-wide agreements on benefits. The generous benefit programs now available to players throughout the league would become a matter of individual club choice and individual player negotiation.

? No limits on free agency. Players and agents would team up to direct top players to a handful of elite teams. Other teams, perpetually out of the running for the playoffs, would serve essentially as farm teams for the elites.

? No league-wide rule limiting the length of training camp or required off-season workout obligations. Each club would have its own policies.

? No league-wide testing program for drugs of abuse or performance enhancing substances. Each club could have its own program?or not.

Oh nos!!! Freedom and a fair system. The humanity!!

[West Texas]

This could ultimately push football (and eventually baseball and basketball) towards a system that's more like European soccer where it's every team (and man) for himself. I am constantly amazed that, at least in soccer, Europeans are much more capitalistic than American sports leagues.

[John]

I love their system where the loser teams get kicked down to the minor leagues. Wouldn't it be great to see the Dan Schneider and his Redskins playing in the minor leagues?

[Montani Semper Liberi]

Except Snyder and the Redskins are more likely to be like Man United or Barcelona, finishing first or second nearly every year in perpetuity, than a bottom feeder. Only 4 teams have won the Premier League, and three teams have won 17 of 18 titles. Man United has 11 by themselves. And people think MLB has no parity.

[John]

You underestimate the Dan's stupidity. That little midget could fuck up a cup of coffee. And it is not like the Redskins are the only big money club in the NFL. Even under and open system any team owned by Schneider would be a perpetual also ran.

[West Texas]

I dunno. The NFL - as it was, with the salary cap and revenue sharing - is pretty socialistic. The Redskins would definitely be one of the "haves" if that all went away and they could easily become the Yankees (or Man U or Real Madrid) of the NFL.

Look at Arsenal - they're a bunch of fuckups who can't seem to win hardware regularly, but they're also a rich team in London with lots of supporters and are able to basically buy a spot in the top 4 every year by circumstance alone.

[Brett L]

You watch your mouth about my Goonners. One day, one day, we're not going to do things like blow 2 goal leads and then UEFA and the Premier League will be ours.

[AU H20]

Counterpoint: Dan Synder is like a retarded George Steinbrener. Mid-80s Steinbrener.

[Jersey Patriot]

In fairness, Arsenal is much more about player development and ground-up building than they are about buying the biggest players on the market. They have a much bigger war chest than they use. Hell, they badly need a real goalkeeper, and they refuse to go out and get him.

[West Texas]

Point taken about player development.

[West Texas]

It might be hard for football to do it just because of how few games there are, but a relegation system would be great for baseball. Just like in MLB, the richest European soccer clubs sit at the top of the table every year, but unlike MLB, the poorer teams towards the bottom are constantly slugging it out to avoid getting dropped.

As it is now, once an owner gets admitted to the the MLB club, he doesn't have to do anything but sit back and count his money because there's no one else to take his place thanks to the antitrust exemption.

I'd love to see the Astros and Pirates and Mets still trying hard at the end of the year. It would be like the affirmative action playoffs.

[John]

It would be. And if a city like San Antonio or Buffalo wanted a MLB team, they could get one by having a great AAA team. I love it.

[West Texas]

Exactly. And since an extensive minor league system is already in place, all it would really take is Congress repealing the antitrust exemption and we'd likely get there pretty fast.

Fucking rent seeking screws up EVERYTHING it touches.

[John]

It would work well in hockey to. Cities like Winepeg and Hartford who lost their teams could get back in the game. And big money teams who don't care about their product because they always make money (I am looking at you Toronto) would have to try to win. How funny would it be to see the Maple Leafs or the Islanders playing in the bus leagues?

[AU H20]

As a Mets fan... I can't say I'm against this. ANYTHING to get the motherfucking Wilpons outta our hair.

[Restoras]

I could not agree more. Throw in the Dolans while you're at it.

[Brett L]

Eh. They don't have free agency. You're always owned by a club from about the age of 15 until you retire.

[West Texas]

It depends on the contract you sign. Everyone is a free agent once his contract expires.

What happens is that players always negotiate new contracts with new teams and get transferred before their old contracts expire, much like a sign and trade in the NBA.

[Brett L]

I guess I think of it like the old MLB where teams pay each other to buy contracts. That may be just a result of lack of parity though, whereas in NFL and the new MLB, trades are more likely if players aren't at the end of their contract.

[Jerry]

It works for the large teams, but the small teams generally are in financial ruin, and tend to get bailed out by the local governments. Also, the cities tend to supply to police force outside the stadiums, which can be quite expensive as well, as the hooligans can travel around the continent quite cheaply.

[MNG]

Yeah, I'm not buying much of this. Remarkably similar ndustry wide standards can occur without direct coordination. Anywas its rich to see Goodell bemoan that there will not be a CBA allowing them to dodge antitrust action when they were going to lock out the union rather than reach a CBA with them.

I do think there could be a problem if there is no overall salary cap. I don't want to see the NFL go the way of the MLB.

[SFC B]

I do think there could be a problem if there is no overall salary cap. I don't want to see the NFL go the way of the MLB.

The MLB has had more variety in its playoff teams and is a far more affordable stadium experience than your run-of-the-mill NFL team. In everything except for TV hype professional baseball is a superior product compared to professional football.

[Tulpa]

The MLB has had more variety in its playoff teams

Sorry, no. When 25% of the spots are taken immediately by two teams (NYY and BOS), that's not going to happen.

[Zeb]

But it works out great if you like NYY or BOS.
The thing I really like about baseball is that they play nearly every day. Football season is way too short in terns of number of games. I am not convinced that playing each team once or twice in a season is sufficient to really determine which is the best team.

[DesigNate]

Baseball is fucking boring to watch unless you are actually in the stadium. Just my humble opinion.

[Fluffy]

John, a correction:

This is NOT freedom and a fair system.

Freedom and a fair system would allow the owners to combine to re-create all the features of today's league if they wanted to do so.

You really can't point to any set of outcomes based in part on antitrust or the threat of antitrust and say, "Hey, freedom and a fair system!"

[Ted S.]

It depends on whether you look at the teams as independent operators, or the league as the independent operator (competing with other leagues) and the individual teams being franchises just as much as your local McDonald's is a franchise.

The players, or anybody else (Lamar Hunt), is welcome to start a new league.

[Timon19]

Guys, all this "we should have pro/rel in US sports" would be all fine and dandy if European soccer weren't moving inexorably toward a more US-like cartel model with closed leagues and salary caps.

Promotion/relegation was a creature born of circumstance, not as some essential, meritocratic ideal. That it's stuck around as long as it has is more of a wonder. The Premiership breakaway and the transformation of the European Championship into the UEFA Champions League have been two big steps away from the old pro/rel, totally free-spending model.

[MNG]

Many Americans believe that the First Amendment's separation of church and state safeguards religious liberty. But when the First Amendment was ratified in 1791, it did not apply to the states and would not until well into the 20th century. As a result, the First Amendment did not prevent states from paying churches out of the public treasury, as Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and South Carolina did when that amendment was written. And those states that did not fund churches still favored Christianity. Blasphemy was forbidden in Delaware in 1826, and officeholders in Pennsylvania had to swear that they believed in "the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments."

American federalism gave states enormous power to regulate the health, welfare and morals of their citizens. Because many thought religion was the foundation of American society, they used their power to imprint their moral ideals on state constitutions and judicial opinions for much of American history.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....story.html

[MNG]

I like this for several reasons,, it shows:

1. States rights ain't always so great
2. Religion dominating goverment sucks
3. How ratifiers of provisions of the Constitution thought they would be applied should not control, instead the plain meaning of the words they ratified should

[Fist of Etiquette]

Federal government rights shouldn't trump states rights, and neither should trump individuals rights. Trump for President!

MNG, if your links aren't about Golden Girls or HBO serieses, then you shouldn't be doing this.

[Chinny Chin Chin]

If you can't see how this directly relates to the Golden Girls, Fist, then you're beyond help.

[Fist of Etiquette]

As I suspected.

[Scruffy Nerd Herder]

I didn't understand your meaning in #3

[MNG]

People often make the argument "clause X could not apply to y because the ratifiers never thought it would." If that were true then the First Amendment probably should never have been incorporated (I'm not aware of any debate over the 14th about protecting religious rights).

[Shorter MNG]

Abuse of individual rights in the past justify abuse of individual rights in the present.

[Zeb]

Actually, that is pretty much the opposite of what MNG is saying.

[Scruffy Nerd Herder]

I agree with you. If the courts have to judge intent, then the law was improperly written. The classic example would be "WTF is a well-regulated militia?"

[Old Mexican]

Re: Scruffy Nerd Herder,

The classic example would be "WTF is a well-regulated militia?"
Well, it meant a well-drilled one - oh, I see what you're getting at.

[Scruffy Nerd Herder]

Clarification: When I say "judge intent", I mean that the law is not clear enough for even legal minds to decipher consistently. I do understand there is almost always some room for disagreement, but the current system where meaning fluctuates heavily tends to devolve to a tyranny of the unelected elite (Supreme Court).

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

If that were true then the First Amendment probably should never have been incorporated (I'm not aware of any debate over the 14th about protecting religious rights).

Well then you need to go back and read the Congressional Record and floor debates from the introduction of the 14th Amendment.

The framers of the 14th expressly and explicitly stated that it was intended to apply, at a minimum, the protections of the first eight amendments to the Constitution against the states, just as they applied against the government.

The SCOTUS in the Slaughterhouse Cases conveniently "overlooked" not only the plain meaning of the words used in the 14th Amendment, but also the very recent record of the debates and context in which it was ratified. The Court then later had to invent from whole cloth the baseless "selective incorporation" doctrine and the nonsensical notion of "substantive due process".

It is quite clear from its history - as the amici laid out in McDonald v. Chicago and Justice Thomas reviewed in his concurring opinion - that the 14th Amendment was not only intended to but also understood by those who ratified it as applying the protections of the Bill of Rights against the state governments. The SCOTUS, of course, fucked that up shortly thereafter and for generations to come.

[MNG]

Now wait a minute, that was the view pushed by liberal Justice Hugo Black a while back and iirc that view was heavily rebuked not only by nearly every conservative theorist of jurisprudence but most every scholar thought it didn't hold water.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

most every scholar thought it didn't hold water.

Well, perhaps at a time when it was expedient and popular to reach that conclusion. I'd like to see what you're referring to, though. If you would take the time to actually read some of the amici briefs to McDonald v. Chicago and the opinion itself, you'll see that within the past 20 years or so, "most every scholar" has concluded that the SCOTUS wrongly decided The Slaughterhouse Cases based on a disingenous and expedient reading of the 14th Amendment. A cynical and politically-motivated court essentially gutted the privileges or immunities clause, much to the detriment of the individual liberties of generations of American citizens.

I don't know how much reading of law reviews and legal journals you've done, but I've read more than my fair share over the past several years. Hell, I was a Manuscripts Editor on my law review.

Law Review articles rarely are true works of "scholarly analysis" and more often are works of someone with an agenda, out to prove his position as that which is ordained by the heavens themselves.

There was a time when "legal scholars" thought that "separate but equal" as set up by Plessy v. Ferguson also was correct.

[MNG]

You really should look up the discussion of the idea of total incorporation that surrounded Black's opinion in Adamson v. California.

[Scruffy Nerd Herder]

I think their decision makes much more sense if you just change it to the Slaughterhouse Five Cases.

[Fluffy]

I wholeheartedly agree with #3.

The textual meaning of the Constitution protects liberty much better than a historical or intentional reading.

"But - but - but - we really didn't mean that Congress couldn't make ANY law!" is an argument that should always be answered with "Tough shit."

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

3. How ratifiers of provisions of the Constitution thought they would be applied should not control, instead the plain meaning of the words they ratified should.

What if the generally understood meaning of the words used has evolved and changed over the intervening 220 years?

By applying the modern understanding of the "plain meaning of the words used" to words that originally were used over two centuries ago, it is quite possible (and probable) that you will end up with a different result.

There is a difference between the "original understanding" method of constitutional interpretation and the "original intent" method. I am a big-time advocate of original understanding. It's not what any individual Framer "intended" or thought they were doing; it's a matter of what the words generally were understood to mean at the time, in the context of the existing circumstance.

The Constitution sets forth certain principles that were meant to be immutable except by amendment. This consistency provides stability and predictability in the law. By applying whatever the current general understanding of a word's meaning is, it becomes a fluid document, not founded on immutable principles, but meaning whatever the current generating thinks it should mean, and adaptable to meet whatever perceived exigencies exist at the moment. As Jefferson warned, it becomes nothing more than a "ball of wax" to be molded.

So to understand the fundamental, foundational principles established by the Constitution, it is necessary to understand the generally understood meaning of the words used and the context and circumstances in which the system and principles were established.

[MNG]

I'm not against looking to the times to see how a word was used and understood at the time. I'm against the line of thinking that says "even though it was common at the time to think of women or white people as "persons" and the 14th promises equal protection of the law to all persons the ratifiers never expected this would be applied to strike down laws that favored men or black people because at the time they endorsed such laws etc., etc"

[cynical]

#1: Nor is the absence of pluralism.
#2: Unlike, say, ideology? The First Amendment's church/state provisions are too limited for the modern world and its new religion substitutes.
#3: Uh, yeah, when there's an amendment explictly updating the ratifiers' words, that sort of goes without saying.

[crossofcrimson]

"1. States rights ain't always so great"

What any body with state-power does isn't always great. And that's exactly why dividing that power is preferable to consolidating it. It gives smaller groups with less power greater flexibility.

Unified power is a double-edged sword. Maybe a unified world government under Plan X would be great. The corollary world of a unified world government under late 1930s Germany would not be.

"2. Religion dominating goverment sucks"

This is why I like the "less government" approach as opposed to the "let's hope and pray well-minded people obtain a democratic plurality" approach.

"3. How ratifiers of provisions of the Constitution thought they would be applied should not control, instead the plain meaning of the words they ratified should"

Fair enough, but then why a Constitution at all? Let's not dance around the issue then. People like you (which includes many before you) validate Spooner's quibbles to the letter. Smart guy.

[Old Mexican]

Re: MNG,

American federalism gave states enormous power to regulate the health, welfare and morals of their citizens.

Pray tell, what exactly is wrong with that?

[MNG]

I think it would be better for an uber-libertarian like you to tell what exactly is right about that. You don't mind enormous government power to regulate health, welfare and morals over individuals as long as it is states not nations doing it?

[Old Mexican]

No, no my friend - *I* am NOT the one espousing total state control over our lives - YOU have been the one. Tell me, what is the difference between letting the states do it and letting the Federal government do it?

[MNG]

Oh, that's easy, I don't espouse total state control over our lives.

[Old Mexican]

Re: MNG,

Oh, that's easy, I don't espouse total state control over our lives.

Really, Mr. "cost-benefit analysis"?

[MNG]

Cost-benefit analysis doesn't lead to total state control over lives.

Read On Liberty.

[Old Mexican]

Re: MNG,

Cost-benefit analysis doesn't lead to total state control over lives.

It does if the people you purport to "help" do not agree with the analysis.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0902k.asp

[Zeb]

Oh give it a rest. There are states of affairs between anarchy and total state control over people's lives. Even the worst totalitarian governments have not managed total control over very many people's lives and there is no one proposing that here.
We all have disagreements with MNG, but if he were the typical liberal, we would be doing a whole lot better than we are now.

[Brett L]

Did ALL states have these laws? If not, you can see why it is attractive to devolve the power down. I can always move to Texas or Colorado or Oregon if I don't like Florida's laws. Emigrating is a different kettle of fish all together.

[MNG]

I see your point, but mine is that in our history there have been many times where the national standard would have been more liberty-promoting than leaving it up to the various states. Had the national standard been adopted here you wouldn't have people in those states be faced with the choice of moving or staying under the restrictions.

Currently the national standard on 2nd Amendment rights is better than state and local ones.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

Currently the national standard on 2nd Amendment rights is better than state and local ones.

This is only because the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution and applied to the states by the 14th Amendment. Not the same as protecting the general health, safety, welfare and morals of the people.

[MNG]

So its OK to have a national standard on REALLY IMPORTANT things, but not on lesser matters, that would be tyranny.

C'mon TAO, we've gone over this.

[TrickyVic]

""This is only because the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution and applied to the states by the 14th Amendment.""

So is that to say, if every state banned firearms prior to the 14th amendment, you still had a federally protected right to keep them where?

[crossofcrimson]

"So is that to say, if every state banned firearms prior to the 14th amendment, you still had a federally protected right to keep them where?"

The Bill of Rights does not grant rights - it enshrines commonly acknowledged rights by elaborating the point that the original Constitution did not grant the federal government explicit power(s) to usurp those rights. Previous to the 14th amendment (regardless of your view on that particular amendment) it had little to say about how states maintained or deviated away from that common understanding.

[Brett L]

Maybe. Depends on your locality. I'm pretty pleased with Florida's progress over the last 25 years. If the open-carry for permit holders goes through, pretty much anyone who isn't a felon can get a permit to carry without being hassled by the cops in public (though not public buildings). Disney and schools are the only places you can't possess a gun even in your vehicle.

[Zeb]

I fucking hate this argument. A state government should no more be able to trample my rights than the Federal government. And I sure as hell should not have to leave the land that I have owned and lived on for years in order to have my rights respected. I have no problem whatsoever with the fed forcing states to respect rights.

[Zeb]

If people want restrictive laws and everyone to have the same religion, they should form voluntary communities with whatever rules they want.

[MNG]

+1

[crossofcrimson]

"I fucking hate this argument. A state government should no more be able to trample my rights than the Federal government."

Zeb, to be fair, you might get a more solid framing of some of our arguments if you view it as a contention about "methodology" as opposed to "method" (they are two different things). Libertarians who defend "states' rights" generally do not defend states violating liberty any more than they would defend the federal government violating liberty.

The argument is over which method of government protects liberty, over-all, better. Having a huge omnipotent government defending your rights is great...when that's what they're doing. On the other hand having a huge omnipotent government violating your rights is crappy.

You may disagree, but please don't misunderstand the argument being made. Many people believe that individual rights are best protected when power is kept closest to the individual. This subsumes even the faux state/federal dichotomy. Some believe that if we're talking about a division of power, the most should go to the individual, with some going to the city/local governments, less to state governments, and even less to federal and beyond.

If you disagree with such a "methodology", that's fine. But you can't work through the logical benefits and constraints of the two systems by just assuming, hypothetically, that any individual source of power, at any level, is going to be just and adjacent powers aren't. That's the whole point of finding an optimal path.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

You don't mind enormous government power to regulate health, welfare and morals over individuals as long as it is states not nations doing it?

Yes, exactly. That is the model of federalism. Each state was understood to be a sovereign state - in effect, each was its own nation. But each state yielded a certain measure of national sovereignty by joining under the Constitution to create the new federal government.

In doing so, however, each state yielded only that measure of sovereignty expressly delegated to the federal government - which is what the 10th Amendment explicitly says. Take a look at the Federalist. Hamilton himself, one of the most ardent Federalists in favor of a strong central government, makes it clear that the federal government has only those limited, enumerated powers that the states gave it.

And yes, it always was the understanding that "the police power", as it was known, remained with the states - that is the power to protect the health, safety, welfare and morals of the people. This makes perfect sense - the control of such common values is more localized, at the state level, where those who are most affected by such regulation can have most influence over it. Why should the people of Montana have imposed upon them the morality or other sensibilities of the people of New York?

If a state had an official religion, it was because some majority of the people who lived there wanted it that way. If you didn't like that, the beauty of the Union of States is that you are free to travel and can move to a different state that has different laws.

[MNG]

So let me get this straight, if Canada and Mexico had loose immigration rules so we could move there easily, you would suddenly be cool with massive federal powers over health, morals and welfare? Cuz that's where your reasoning leads...

I would think a libertarian would be for restrictions on state and federal power, it's all government, guys with guns and stuff.

[Old Mexican]

Re: MNG,

So let me get this straight, if Canada and Mexico had loose immigration rules so we could move there easily, you would suddenly be cool with massive federal powers over health, morals and welfare?

Would prisons have lousy guards and food if the prisoners could leave at will?

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

I would think a libertarian would be for restrictions on state and federal power

I consider myself a constitutional libertarian. I am for applying the Constitution as it is written and was intended and understood to apply by the framers and their contemporaries. This meaans NOT simply assuming that the federal government has some kind of plenary power to "solve" every "problem" that some people might find themselves faced with.

I also don't believe that every societal ill can be solved by resort to the Constitution. The Constitution established the framework for federalism and the division of powers between the state and federal government. It did not set up a civil code that provides an answer to every public policy issue.

So if there is a debate over a public policy issue that does not affect a fundamental liberty expressly protected against government infringement, I would rather that debate take place at the state and local level than having to deal with some remote and distant federal government.

If I really want to create new protections against encroachments on individual liberties, I would be able to be much more effective working with the Virginia General Assembly (whose building I can see out of my office window) than I could trying to get some kind of influence in the U.S. Congress.

[Free2Booze]

If I really want to create new protections against encroachments on individual liberties, I would be able to be much more effective working with the Virginia General Assembly (whose building I can see out of my office window) than I could trying to get some kind of influence in the U.S. Congress.

Great point. Ideas have a way of gaining momentum. If Virginia ratifies it's constitution, so that it's citizens have greater liberty, eventually the citizens of North Carolina, Maryland and West Virginia demand the same liberties.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

So let me get this straight, if Canada and Mexico had loose immigration rules so we could move there easily, you would suddenly be cool with massive federal powers over health, morals and welfare? Cuz that's where your reasoning leads.

Um, no. That's completely non-sequitur.

You evidently don't have a very good grasp of the notion of sovereignty and the source of the just powers of a government.

[MNG]

I thought the argument was that states rights were better because you could more easily move from one state to another, vote with your feet so to speak.

But now you seem to be making an argument based on some quasi-mystical notion of the sovriegnty of the states. I can dig that as a constitutional argument, but it surely seems strange to see a libertarian heartily defending enormous state power of health, morals and welfare of its citizens based on the notion of the original sovereignty of the states...

[MNG]

"If I really want to create new protections against encroachments on individual liberties, I would be able to be much more effective working with the Virginia General Assembly"

And this argument that it is easier to enact change at the state level than the federal level seems unpersuasive given I started this discussion with actual historical examples where the national standard was better on liberty than the state ones. Supporting states rights in those circumstances would seem to be putting a means for getting liberty ahead of the liberty itself.

[Brett L]

Not states' rights. State power. Ideally it should devolve down as low as possible. The Federal government should be very tightly constrained and, with possible exception of defense of the realm, change slowly and deliberately.

States should be more flexible, with more direct influence in the daily life. I would expect in a rigidly federalist system that states would actually have a higher tax burden than the federals. Each state would have the power to set mandatory education, etc.

As hinted above, the reason for this is that there is more access for citizens at lower levels. If I call my state senator, who represents 3 counties, about something there is a 50% chance I can get an appointment with him and a 100% that I will talk to his chief aide if I make a fuss. I can't get the same service out of Bill Nelson and Marco Rubio without knowing a fixer. Margins in state representative races are in the 400-1000 range. You only need to change 300 people's mind in a district to change the official. It makes money less important, and cheating harder.

[MNG]

Dude, I see that as a general argument, but I'm talking about specific cases in which the federal standard was more protective of liberty.

Also, it strikes me that if you follow this logic small nations with easy emigration options should be free to go nuts.

[Brett L]

The federal standard should always be more protective of liberty. That's how federalism works. I've also got no problem defending incorporation. If the People in their wisdom have decided that these rights were so important that they should be guaranteed against ANY government, I don't disagree. But you can't say that before the 14th Amendment was passed and case law began to incorporate the 1st Amendment's religion clause that people were abusing the power of the states in the examples that started all of this.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

I'm talking about specific cases in which the federal standard was more protective of liberty.

The question is not which standard is "more protective"; the question is what legitimate powers have the governed bestowed upon their government.

It's not that the federal government has "granted" greater rights to the people than the state governments, making the "federal standard" preferable to the state. It's that "the people," who, after all, created the federal government, simply did not give that government the power to do a lot of things. And the people made that even clearer by also including statements regarding certain rights that the people retained and against which the government has no power.

At the time of ratification of the original Constitution, the people largely were content with their individual states, but were suspicious of others and of a powerful, centralized national government. By the time of the ratification of the 14th, the circumstances had changed, and "the people" felt that state governments should be made to respect at least the same limits on power that the federal government had to. So we apply the same protections of freedom of speech, religion, etc. against the states as we do against the fed guv.

But that does not mean that the state's legitimate powers to enact legislation and regulations are still not different than the federal government's powers. The federal government has only those powers delegated to it in the U.S. Constitution. Each state government has whatever powers are set forth in the state's own constitution and which are not denied the states by the U.S. Constitution. Any other sovereign powers are retained by the people themselves.

If a state attempts to impose some kind of draconion social morality code, which seems to be what you're on about, well then the people of that state can determine among themselves if that's what they want to live with. See, e.g., California's proposition regarding same-sex marriage.

If it's something covered under the Bill of Rights, as applicable to the states by the 14th, then the state can't do it, just like the fed gov can't do it. Other than that, yes, the states do, in fact, have power to legislate health, safety, welfare and morality, which the fed gov does not.

[MNG]

"The question is not which standard is "more protective"; the question is what legitimate powers have the governed bestowed upon their government."

That seems like an odd argument for a libertarian to make. So where the governed bestow powers on their government that are restrictive of liberty you are OK with that. I can dig that, but you seem like a State's Rightarian rather than a libertarian. It seems the latter would simply prefer more liberty whether that came from a federal or state standard would be a pretty second order question...

[Free2Booze]

States rights are better, because the closer government is to the people, the easier it becomes for the people to influence government.

If anything, the federal government is the biggest obstacle to individual freedom. It's the feds who are standing in the way of issues, such as gay marriage, marijuana legalization and economic freedom. If individual states were free to decide on these issues, with out interference from the feds, their should be no doubt that the states would act.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

it surely seems strange to see a libertarian heartily defending enormous state power of health, morals and welfare of its citizens based on the notion of the original sovereignty of the states.

If you'll kindly show me where I "heartily defended" "enormous state power" over such things, I'd be obliged. Because I'm not finding it anywhere in this thread.

The point is that the the states did not delegate to the federal government what traditional was known as "the police power". That remains with the states. It therefore is up to the citizens of each state to decide how much power to give to the state government in protecting their health, safety, welfare and morals. In certain parts of Nevada, prostitution is legal and regulated. In most other states, it's not legal at all. In some states, you have to go to special, state-licensed stores to buy certain alcoholic beverages. In other states, you can buy beer and wine (but not booze) in the grocery store or convenience stores.

Recognizing the proper division and distribution of sovereign powers does not equate to "wholeheartedly endorsing" the notion of a state having "enormous" power over daily life.

And in any event, the states' power to regulate remains limited not only by the state's own constitution, but by the Bill of Rights as well.

See, the way it works is that sovereign powers are bestowed upon the government by those who create it - i.e., the people.

And yes, I can either work to change my state government, or, if I realize that I am in the tiny minority and my efforts have no hope, I can move elsewhere.

Case in point: I was born and spent the first 35 years of my life in New Jersey. I moved to Virginia in 2002, with no intent whatsoever of living in New Jersey ever again.

[MNG]

"Recognizing the proper division and distribution of sovereign powers does not equate to "wholeheartedly endorsing" the notion of a state having "enormous" power over daily life."

Well, it does when that "proper division" means that a more pro-liberty federal standard is thwarted by an adherence to states rights. For example, according to this view you should find the 14th Amendment to be a disaster as it placed rather severe federal limits on state police power.

[Free2Booze]

you should find the 14th Amendment to be a disaster as it placed rather severe federal limits on state police power.

In order to ratify the 14th amendment, 3/4 of the states had to give their consent. By making your statement, you're choosing to ignore BSG's later point:

See, the way it works is that sovereign powers are bestowed upon the government by those who create it - i.e., the people.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

You're continuing to try to find some dichotomy where one does not need to exist.

There is nothing in the system of federalism that requires "a more pro-liberty federal standard" to be "thwarted by an adherence to states rights."

First, I don't believe in the nonsensical term "states' rights." States governments are given certain powers; they do not have "rights."

The state governments retained the power to enact legislation as may be fit to protect the health, safety, morals and welfare of the citizenry. After the passage of the 14th Amendment, however, this power was tempered by the limitation that the state cannot infringe upon certain individual rights and liberties, just like the federal government cannot.

I'm trying to understand what it is you're having such a hard time with here. I'm looking back above, and if I may say so myself, I think I did a reasonable job of explaining where I'm coming from.

It doesn't have to be a matter of a "better" federal "standard" being "thwarted" by a more restrictive state "standard."

It sounds to me like you're shadow-boxing with hypotheticals and conjecture. Maybe if you would posit an actual example of what you're talkign about?

And I don't think the 14th Amendment was a "disaster" - theoretically, it represented the "will of the people", or at least a majority of them, through their elected representatives. The people of the several states agreed, through the constitutional amendment process, that the states should be limited in their power to infringe upon certain fundamental liberties just like the federal government was. This makes sense to me, and, as governments are instituted among people for the purpose of protecting their inalienable rights, and derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, I see nothing wrong with the people making such adjustments to the structure of their government as they deem necessary to suit the needs and concerns of their time.

[MNG]

Above you argue that the 14th essentially applied the Bill of Rights, a federal standard beforehand, to the state governments. A federal standard restricting the police powers of the states. That seems to contradict your previous assertions.

Are you arguing that this is OK because the states themselves agreed? What if they all did not, what if only the bare required super-majority ratified it with the other states opposing it. Is it now OK? If so how is that different than federal power in general (which is passed with a majority of the nation's elected representatives)?

[crossofcrimson]

"I would think a libertarian would be for restrictions on state and federal power, it's all government, guys with guns and stuff."

I think the call you're making is correct on this. But that's largely what distinguishes mainline libertarians with more marginal incarnations of it.

[Jersey Patriot]

The Constitution has no legitimate authority. As such, it should be interpreted in any way that leads to justice.

[Lysander Spooner]

+1

[crossofcrimson]

"Notice how some of the most shrill uber-libertarians who full throatedly call things like minimum wage laws "slavery!" go to lengths to defend a governmental system built on actual, undebatable slavery."

Yes, none of them did - because it was a FEDERAL constitution.

[John]

This is especially for Warty. It is bad enough to be some commie professor. But this goes beyond the pale.

The videos capture Judy Ancel, director of UM-Kansas City's Institute for Labor Studies, telling a class "violence is a tactic, and it's to be used when it's the appropriate tactic." She goes on to tell a story of a friend who worked for a utility company in Peru, where it's illegal to strike.

"They couldn't get access to" strike, "but they had a lot of cats and they succeeded in putting cats in powerhouses," she said. "And the cats ? now, don't think about the cats, OK? The cats would run around inside and short out the system and cause power blackouts. And that created enough chaos in the system" to get to "a negotiating position."

Plus, she joked, they "got rid of a lot of feral cats."

http://www.columbiatribune.com.....attention/

Evil commie bitch.

[SugarFree]

Ends justify the means, John. What's a few feral cats weighed against the worker's ability to exhort money from their employers?

[Labour]

or the employers ability to ignore health & safety

[SugarFree]

How healthy are those cats, Orrin? Such a small, furry price to pay, right?

Oh, and striking was illegal. I guess a nation can make any laws it wants to fuck over individual rights, but anti-union ones are fine to oppose with a little cat murder.

[Labour]

somtimes the ends justifie the meens i m sorry 4 teh kittees but it was nessassary

[SugarFree]

Drooling lackwit.

[Labour]

they dyed a quik death 4 a good cuase we kill milions of kities a year heer in amerca so dont judgee

[OO]

you dont seem to have a prob limiting freedom of association which is an individual right. feral cats & dogs are vermin

[Zeb]

I don't think any libertarian has ever proposed limiting the freedom of people to associate and form a union. I assume that was what dipshit was trying to say.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

See, these days, if you've got a problem with your employer's health and safety, we've got all kinds of recourse for you - starting with a little thing called "OSHA".

No need to go killing kitty cats. Just pick up the phone and call your friendly government regulator.

[Warty]

What a fucking cunt.

Violence is not only a part of union history, he said, violence and sabotage has its place.

And what a fucking cunt.

[MNG]

Now I doubt this woman was involved in such nuance, but I can surely see cases where violence or sabotage might have a correct place. Let's say the employees are the targets of violence and the plants are largely supported by rent-seeking agreements upheld via violence. Etc.

[John]

It is one thing to sabatoge the plant. It is another to kill a bunch of innocent animals doing it and then joke about it later. That woman is a sick bitch.

[affenkopf]

t. It is another to kill a bunch of innocent animals doing it

what if you kill them for food?

[Warty]

I can surely see cases where violence or sabotage might have a correct place.

Of course you do.

[John]

It is one thing to sabatoge the plant. It is another to kill a bunch of innocent animals doing it and then joke about it later. That woman is a sick bitch.

[Warty]

A 3 minute delay in your double post? I'm impressed.

[MNG]

I agree about the animals, it's the same sick mindset that Al Qaeda displayed asking their recruits to kill animals to show their dedication.

[Old Mexican]

Re: MNG,

[...]but I can surely see cases where violence or sabotage might have a correct place.

You mean acts of vandalism?

Let's say the employees are the targets of violence and the plants are largely supported by rent-seeking agreements upheld via violence.

Like in Russia circa 1930s, for instance?

Because the ONLY recorded instances where factories employed violence against workers were in defense of the factories, not as acts of aggression towards workers. Workers have been always the aggressors, not the defenders.

[MNG]

Are you crazy? There have been cases in many third world nations of employer thugs taking 'troublesome' workers out, beating them, and carrying them back in to finish their shifts.

[Shorter MNG]

"I hate cats."

[AU H20]

To be fair, cats suck, as Jezebel recently taught us with their inane March Madness ripoff.

[Old Mexican]

Re: MNG,

Are you crazy? There have been cases in many third world nations of employer thugs taking 'troublesome' workers out, beating them, and carrying them back in to finish their shifts.

Really, truthfully, private businesses do this in 3rd World countries?

Enlighten me: Linkey-link, please?

[Arcaster]

Yeah, but there is a big difference between violence to protect oneself and initiating violence against others.

[SugarFree]

Don't bother. He has consistently refused to recognize the distinction between aggression and retaliation.

[MNG]

No, I said both involve violence. Retaliation is violence you condone, aggression is violence you condemn, and my point in that discussion is EVERYONE makes such a distinction, they just use different criteria than libertarians do in sorting out which violent acts fall into which category.

[crossofcrimson]

"Retaliation is violence you condone, aggression is violence you condemn, and my point in that discussion is EVERYONE makes such a distinction, they just use different criteria than libertarians do in sorting out which violent acts fall into which category."

Libertarians generally don't agree on "violence" or its justifications specifically (that is kind of a subtle point but it's generally true). More specifically what they are unified in is their stance against aggression - which is, most succinctly, violations of property rights. Hence the purview of justice is the restoration of those claims which have been disturbed.

This is a more clear understanding of "the initiation of force" through libertarian eyes. Not all violence is aggressive, and not all that is aggressive is violent. If it makes it easier for others to frame things explicitly in terms of property rights (as opposed to using vague and contested terms like "violence" and even "aggression"), I have no objections.

But it's important to point out that "aggression", as libertarians use the term, is a concept bourne out of something completely different than the concept of violence itself.

[TrickyVic]

""he said, violence and sabotage has its place.""

If it does not, what the hell is our military doing?

[Fluffy]

To be fair, I really don't see how I could possibly teach a political philosophy class that didn't dwell at some length on deciding what situations called for violence and what situations did not call for violence.

In fact, one might even say that is the central question from which all other questions flow.

I would probably talk about violence every day.

[Brett L]

"Plus, she joked, they 'got rid of a lot of feral cats.'"

Throwing sabots in power-looms and fighting with Pinkertons is one thing, sending cats to electrocute themselves is beyond the pale.

[SFC B]

I was wondering why you'd need to fire an anti-tank round at a loom, then I remember by Star Trek.

[John]

True. But talking about violence is different than advocating violence. I really couldn't teach a class on the history of Nazi Germany without talking about violence every day and when and how it was justified. But that wouldn't make it okay to talk about how the Germans were justified in making war for living space.

[cynical]

"To be fair, I really don't see how I could possibly teach a political philosophy class that didn't dwell at some length on deciding what situations called for violence and what situations did not call for violence."

To be fair, you can definitely get the questions wrong if you decide to answer them as an instructor. If you teach a legal ethics class and tell the class their obligation as defenders is to secretly work with prosecution to undermine their clients and help the state obtain convictions, you suck at your job.

[Fluffy]

That is true, but the feeding frenzy on this class appears to be of the "Oh my god they mentioned violence and you can never mention violence" variety, and not of the "Sure you can mention violence, but she picked the wrong cases to endorse when she did so" variety.

[John]

After a Saint Mary's College student reported she had been sexually assaulted by a football player at neighboring Notre Dame, a friend of the player texted her that "messing with Notre Dame football is a bad idea." Little more than a week later, she took her own life.

In a place that speaks of itself as the "Notre Dame family," the priest-president has refused to meet with the grieving mother and father, on the grounds that the school's disciplinary process would be "tainted." Meanwhile, the Department of Education is investigating the university's process for the way it responds to reports of sexual assault.

WTF? I haven't heard about this.

http://online.wsj.com/article/.....el_opinion

[Warty]

It's long past time for big-time college football to go away. Maybe Roger Goodell's list of horrors that you linked above would lead to a real minor league system happening and the NCAA dying. We can hope.

[Old Mexican]

Financiers Switch to GOP

"Hedge-Fund Titans Who Backed Democrats Open Their Wallets for Republicans."

Maybe they know something now that we knew all along for decades... you think?

[Brett L]

No. I think they're backing the ascendant power. Hopefully, running a hedge fun, they can identify trends.

[Brett L]

*hedge fund

[Old Mexican]

Washington to Gitmo defense attorneys: Those WikiLeaked files are still off-limits.
"You can read them, but you can't use them."

Or: "Obama was never serious about closing Gitmo."

[Warty]

I can't decide what's worse, the laws or the writing. At least one of the laws is good, I guess.

CLEVELAND? City Council is trying to make Cleveland a healthier place to live and work!

BLAUUUUGGGGH

[Solanum]

Cleveland: At Least We're not Detroit.

[Timon19]

Well, they at least didn't ban food trucks like the fuckers here in Akron.

My favorite line in that story was the first. Who the hell writes a story for an actual news site that contains open cheerleading and a goddamn exclamation point in the first sentence?

[DanD]

Thomas Sowell has a good article this morning about how a Trump nomination would be a truly horrible thing. His reasoning is sound, but the conspiracy theorist in me itches to take it one step further and ask "Is the whole Trump nomination thing a DNC setup?"

[JOhnny Nomo]

Wouldnt it be nice if for once, the US would mind its own business?

http://www.complete-privacy.edu.tc

[R C Dean]

I would think a libertarian would be for restrictions on state and federal power

Certainly. The federal government should be limited to its enumerated powers. State governments can have whatever constitutional limitations on their powers that their residents care to enshrine in their Constitutions.

And overriding it all is a set of human rights that no government at any level can abridge - freedom of speech, association and religion, property rights, the right to self-defense, etc.

MNG seems to be arguing that no True Libertarian could be a constitutionalist because the Constitution leaves a broad police power to the staes but not the federal government.

Limiting the fed's power as the Constitution does is libertarian, is it not? The guarantee of basic human rights in the Constitution is libertarian, is it not? Freedom of movement from states that get uppity is libertarian, is it not?

[Fist of Etiquette]

It's that et cetera that gets everyone into trouble.

[sloopyinca]

Worst breakfast links thread ever. How minge managed to hijack and dominate it is beyond me.

[P Brooks]

Maybe Roger Goodell's list of horrors that you linked above would lead to a real minor league system happening and the NCAA dying. We can hope.

This is an outcome I would wholeheartedly approve of. And, in the truly impossible best outcome, the new league structure could put the NFL out of business.

[P Brooks]

Worst breakfast links thread ever. How minge managed to hijack and dominate it is beyond me.

I did a lot of space bar pressing.

[SugarFree]

Is that some sort of masturbation euphemism?

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

An actual case in which police shooting a dog was justified and probably the right thing to do.

Four pit bulls attacked and mauled a woman who was out walking. Responding to a 911 call, cop shows up, shoots into the air to scare the dogs, one dog charges him, he shoots and kills it. The other three dogs run away. The mauled woman died from her injuries. They think the dogs had gotten loose from a nearby home.

[P Brooks]

Limiting the fed's power as the Constitution does is libertarian, is it not?

My amateur scholarship leads me to believe the Constitution should be treated as an upper limit on government power, while allowing individual states to assume responsibility for day-to-day administrative details.

Too bad that's not how it really works.

[P Brooks]

Four pit bulls attacked and mauled a woman who was out walking. Responding to a 911 call, cop shows up, shoots into the air to scare the dogs, one dog charges him, he shoots and kills it.

I have no problem with this.

In fact, if the owner of the dogs had attempted to intervene, I would have no objection to the cop shooting him.

[wylie]

I was pretty sure the typical objection to "cop shoots dog" is the part where the dog was in it's home, harming no one. This situation being completely different, and with a person actually being harmed by the dogs, your lack of objection is completely unsurprising.

[P Brooks]

Is that some sort of masturbation euphemism?

Isn't everything, according to some people?

*stabs Sugarfree doll in eye with mechanical pencil*

[SugarFree]

Please don't 'bate with a doll of me until you put it in a very pretty dress. Otherwise, it's sort of creepy.

[Ska]

The old Pentel P209 saves the day *yet again*.

[Warty]

McDonald's is having a bad PR week, isn't it?

[wylie]

1. The McDonalds seemed pretty irrelevant to the incident.

2. If you have a family, your responsibility is to them, not some fuckstick soccer hooligans. Get the fuck outta there, don't get involved. Frankly, I'm not buying the peacemaker bullshit.

3. eight kids....oh, now I'm getting it.

4. "Girlfriend Zoe, 24, who is pregnant with their third child..."

[P Brooks]

He was pistol-whipped and beaten before being shot in the chest, stomach and groin and left for dead.

Mr Mitchell was taken to hospital where doctors battled to save him but he died five hours after the attack at 6.50am last Sunday in Brixton, South London.

"Pistol-whipped"? "Shot"? Preposterous.

They don't even allow pistols in Jollye Olde Englande.

[Homer SImpson]

Hmm,...pistol whip....

[RyanXXX]

Saw a Trump interview on CNN where he made a complete ass of himself, as usual.

He talked a big talk about how he was gonna straighten out those guys at OPEC. "Look fellas, party's over. We need lower gas prices."

The interviewer asked how he would back that up, or get them to cooperate. Trump pressed ahead without answering, "It's all about the messenger. I know how to work with these guys."

As if the aura of being in the same room as the Trumpster is gonna shock and awe the Arabs into selling us gas at prices they aren't inclined to sell at. The guy is a fucking joke

[Lost_In_Translation]

What if he tells them "You're fired"? That always seems to shock people on his show.