since WV has gone GOP at least the past 3 elections, I'm not surprised it's considered safe

I thought Clinton won it both times - at least that's what Hillary seemed to be saying. Didn't she say something like no Democrat's been elected without winning WV since 1916?

Interesting. So you believe a person's intelligence is 100% determined at the time of conception? I believe that people born into wealth have many advantages with respect to their intellectual development over people born into poverty. As usual, you see what you want to see in my comments rather than what I actually said, or even implied.

As I said earlier, intelligence is (obviously) a multifaceted, complicated thing. Hard to measure, and more contextual than people realize. So while the advantages you suggest are real, I would label that situation as something other than "smarter", which is a blunt, loaded word to describe a complex, nuanced reality.

Why that's exactly what I said with respect to your support for teachers having sex with young schoolchildren! IF that is in fact what you believe. I've given you the chance to correct the suggestion, but you haven't done so yet. My original post was not addressed to you... you chose to wear that shoe, apparently because you felt it fit you. Which it does.

You might want to ditch the child molestation references, particularly in view of the fact that you scolded Andy for his PMS joke. There are more clever (and less ugly) ways to make fun of teachers, or of me.

As to the other point, let's try a question: you said in the post in question that "people here" are "consumed with envy of the rich" and should have "the courage of their convictions" rather than hiding behind "cowardly" statements about inheritance taxes. While that was not addressed to me specifically, perhaps, it would seem to have been addressed to those who share some of my beliefs and as I explained suggests that you hold a pretty negative view of what you see as the motivations for that set of beliefs. So, is it your experience/opinion that these are the main reasons that people who tend to lean liberal on economic policy tend to do so? Or is that just a small sub group? As I said, I don't feel any envy towards rich folks--I make pretty good money and really like my job.

Robin, are you unfamiliar with the magic underwear question?

I was. And am better for the new knowledge.

Bill won WV in both 92 and 96. Bush won WV in 00 and 04.

1996 - Clinton 51.5, Dole 36.8, Perot 11.3
1992 - Clinton 48.5, Bush 35.5, Perot 16.0

WV also went for Dukakis in 1988. They went for Reagan in 1984, but so did practically everyone else.

WV's still gotta be a swing state. I think Obama made a mistake by not campaigning aggressively in WV. Not a lot of electoral votes, but it has that perfect Clinton demographic that he'd like to keep away from McCain. He had a ton of money and while he probably would not have won, he had the luxury of only having to campaign to the type of voters he wants to keep from McCain in November. Getting within 10 points in WV would have been a crushing blow to Clinton. Doing well with WV voters also helps you with Ohio, western Pennsylvania, and Kentucky.

I think Obama made a mistake by not campaigning aggressively in WV

Maybe. I suggested this possibility to Andy in an email. Obama is fighting on a lot of fronts at the moment.

I believe that people born into wealth have many advantages with respect to their intellectual development over people born into poverty.

Hank Steinbrenner and Paris Hilton have delivered the one-two punch tbat destroyed this hypothesis.

This libertarian "compromise" consists of two parts: Arresting whites who commit violence against blacks entering restaurants that were voluntarily integrated;

Or against the establishments themselves or anybody else. Or who threaten to commit violence.

and arresting blacks for trespass if they refuse to leave privately owned segregated restaurants.

No, those are two of the "parts," but you left out plenty of other "parts" of what you have dubbed the "libertarian compromise." Like desegregating all public facilities. And enforcing voting rights. And opening up jury service to blacks.

In the first case, there would be little need for any sort of force, because there would have been so few cases of voluntary integration. Outside of a tiny handful of liberal enclaves, the social mores (including impossible to prove threats of job loss, night visits, etc.) would have seen to that.

The problem here is your stubborn need to pretend that the world is Permanent Selma. I suspect it arises from a desire to think of your social activism as the true key to saving the country from the sin of racism; that's why you focus more on sit-ins than boycotts. But the real "fantasy" here is your notion that social mores were fixed and unchanging, even when the government support for those mores was eliminated. There was a reason for the elaborate network of Jim Crow laws established across the South; it was because they knew that without government enforcement, the mores were ultimately untenable.

Nobody is saying that it would happen immediately; for instance, it took baseball a decade+ to fully integrate after Jackie Robinson. But it did happen, because as soon as the agreement not to employ blacks was breached, it became unsustainable.

Obama is fighting on a lot of fronts at the moment.

As will happen in a national campaign.

As will happen in a national campaign.

Sure, but his situation is a little different than what we have seen recently. Obviously, no one should feel sorry for him or anything, but the protracted battle with Clinton, the fact that the Repubs have focused on him much more than on her, and the FL/MICH thing in the background have made it an unusual situation.

I see DMN is ignoring the 101st Airborne comment.

I see DMN is ignoring the 101st Airborne comment.

? EDIT: found it--#4374.

He had a ton of money and while he probably would not have won, he had the luxury of only having to campaign to the type of voters he wants to keep from McCain in November. Getting within 10 points in WV would have been a crushing blow to Clinton. Doing well with WV voters also helps you with Ohio, western Pennsylvania, and Kentucky.

On the other hand, as you say, it's the absolute perfect state for Hillary Clinton. By essentially ignoring the state, he can totally downplay the results. The pre-primary polls showed Clinton leading by 30-40 points and she beat him by 30-40 points despite her putting forth a huge effort and him putting in no effort at all.

What if he'd poured more money into the state than she did and he still ended up losing by 25 points - 63-38 or something like that? Hillary would have spun that the same way she spun PA - he outspent me and still got crushed, even though, in both cases, he would have reduced the expected gap by probably 10 points (she was leading in PA polling by 20 as late as early April).

WV went exactly as expected, which is why the superdelegates are still moving toward Obama. The polls showed him getting crushed; he got crushed. I don't necessarily share David's comment on the previous page that this raises any new issues about Obama (which is not to say that there aren't issues, just that they were already there).

In terms of white working class Democrats, do folks think Edwards' endorsement will help? Wasn't that basically the group he targeted in his campaign (of course, he lost, so I'm not sure how big his appeal ended up being to those folks)?

Nonetheless, there are probably hundreds of distinct components of functional intelligence that have little to do with genetics, even if a certain potential or aptitude is determinable at birth.

I think this is probably true. One thing that happens is that intelligence is generally discussed and measured in linear terms, and it is pretty clear that it is not linear.

On the other hand, as you say, it's the absolute perfect state for Hillary Clinton. By essentially ignoring the state, he can totally downplay the results. The pre-primary polls showed Clinton leading by 30-40 points and she beat him by 30-40 points despite her putting forth a huge effort and him putting in no effort at all.
What if he'd poured more money into the state than she did and he still ended up losing by 25 points - 63-38 or something like that?

My guess is that was the reasoning, and I can certainly see it. But I also think there would have been some merit to saying, "Yes, we are way behind, but I want to meet these folks and talk to them, see what they are about, and let them see what I'm about."

In terms of white working class Democrats, do folks think Edwards' endorsement will help?

Maybe. One thing to remember is that the general hasn't really started yet--the picture will look different in October than it does now.

David, I've been here long enough to see that you resort to this condescending, mocking tone when you don't have an actual counterargument. "It's reality, duh!" doesn't address the substance of the claims. This should be especially important for someone who mobilizes an entire ideology that's not rooted in reality, but rather in the deployment of a hypothetical as the basis for their "natural" rights to never be interfered with by anyone.

If you're resorting to a statistical definition of reality to define normal, you're so far away from any idea of "naturalness" that it's comical to pretend otherwise. And then, as we're dealing (in the US at least) with an increasing number of mobility-impaired people (due to increased life expectancy, war injuries, ect) you might find that normal doesn't look the way you thought, and as such the way we define of normal must be at least called into question. Let me ask a more basic question- do you think there should be building codes for businesses at all? Because that's most of what ADA is- a set of codes that changes the parameters of an already regulated set of practices. If you put a bathroom in your business, there's already a set of guidelines that structure the way you build it. ADA changes those guidelines, but it doesn't invent them. It isn't a question of regulation versus non-regulation, it's a question of changing already regulated practices.

I think it was Andy who summed up your views best upthread: "many questions, one answer" (if it wasn't Andy, I'm sorry, it several thousand posts ago!).

I made no agreements with anybody except my wife and my landlord, about anything. I explicitly reject these "limits on my freedom." You may impose them on me with guns, but I didn't agree at any point.

When you invite others into your business, they have a compelling interest in how it's run- are you deliberately harming people in running it, are you a fair businessperson, ect.

Well, I see you're changing your claim from the assertion that I "agreed" to do this to the claim that you don't care whether I agreed because you have an "interest" in forcing me to do it even if I didn't agree. At least it's more honest, if no more accurate; nobody has a "compelling interest" in how my business is run. They have a compelling interest in getting what they pay for, to be sure. In terms of "deliberately harming people," I can't commit assault, but that doesn't turn on me opening a business; I can't commit assault while planting petunias in my garden, either.

The right to absolute dominion over your property without interference from others, if it ever existed in a state of isolation, is one that you compromised when you decided to rely on others for your livelihood.

Crap; I thought we had made progress. Now you're back to claiming I agreed. I didn't "compromise" at all. A compromise requires agreement, and I didn't agree.

From here on out, it's a process of negotiating the limits of that compromised autonomy,

Negotiating requires agreement too. It's interesting that you want to create a "narrative" -- to use your language -- where I'm voluntarily doing these things rather than the one where you simply force them on me because you've got bigger guns backing you up. But "narratives" can't change reality, and I'm not voluntarily doing them.

and balancing it against the rights of those whom you've volunteered to interact with. But even engaging with you on this point is acknowledging the validity of your founding myth where we all just materialized into this world with a plot of land, some money, the ability to reason, a set of skills that makes us economically useful, and the natural right to control over all our stuff. Anyone else can go #### themselves.

The only thing we materialize with is our own bodies, and we do have the natural right to control them, and anybody who thinks otherwise can go #### themselves (not "anyone else.") Everything else flows from that basic principle of self-ownership.

I see DMN is ignoring the 101st Airborne comment.

I'm not "ignoring" it; it didn't require a response because that's exactly what I was trying to say to Andy.

There's really no evidence that anything has happened to change people's votes during this primary process.

I think one of the strongest pieces of evidence is the way that the "538" site nailed the Indiana and North Carolina results (Indiana, North Carolina) using not recent polling numbers, but merely extrapolating the results from demographic facts about the states and previous results by demographics.

He was, enjoyably enough, mocked by Mickey Kaus for not taking into account the Wright controversy and all the new new news that happened in between Super Tuesday and the IN/NC primaries.

People, for the most part, don't appear to have had their votes swayed one way or the other by Wright or the Tuzla thing or most any of the weird little mini-scandals that have dominated news coverage. This is reflected by this thread as well, where everyone bringing up their honest concerns about the electability of candidate X, or the troubling implications of candidate Y's associations has been someone whose vote was already decided. It's not that there aren't undecided voters out there, but ultimately people make their decisions based on a set of calculations that are pretty far removed from MSNBC's news cycle, and depend much more on ideology and identity.

Hillary Clinton has a strong base of support that constitutes nearly 50% of the Democratic party, but not quite 50%. This base is found everywhere, but in its highest concentrations in Appalachia - poor white people in Oregon seem to dig Obama quite nicely - and it's hardly surprising that the single most Appalachian state in the union went heavily for Clinton. My take is that her very traditional center-left politics, offering clear proposals to assuage economic and social pain, is most effective in the old union / mining country. Further, it's an older, whiter population, and for (partially) identity reasons, Hillary does better with those demographics.

Nothing's changed since Super Tuesday. The same demographic and ideological trends have played themselves out, and the irresistible conclusion remains an Obama victory around the end of the month.

Once we get into the general election, the numbers change, but there's very little evidence that general election polling shows any change in Obama's numbers from two months ago. For the most part, it will be economy, war, and identity that determine this election, and we need to approach things analytically, smooth out the bumps. Worrying about Obama after West Virginia is sort of like worrying about Josh Beckett after his first start - making way too much of a small sample without adjusting for context.

I see DMN is ignoring the 101st Airborne comment.

Was that your unit?

Let me ask a more basic question- do you think there should be building codes for businesses at all?

Sure, absolutely. Voluntary ones, put out by private organizations. A business can apply to one of these organizations for certification, if it chooses.

Because that's most of what ADA is- a set of codes that changes the parameters of an already regulated set of practices. If you put a bathroom in your business, there's already a set of guidelines that structure the way you build it. ADA changes those guidelines, but it doesn't invent them. It isn't a question of regulation versus non-regulation, it's a question of changing already regulated practices.

The ADA covers far more than building codes. It covers employment, it covers the provision of services, it covers sporting events. ("What is golf," anybody?)

This libertarian "compromise" consists of two parts: Arresting whites who commit violence against blacks entering restaurants that were voluntarily integrated;

Or against the establishments themselves or anybody else. Or who threaten to commit violence.

And who would have enforced those laws? The same local officials who refused to protect blacks against previous acts of racial violence? The FBI, which was infamous for its collaboration with those same officials? Or a newly created federal police force, specifically charged with prosecuting local criminal acts that would otherwise go unpunished?

and arresting blacks for trespass if they refuse to leave privately owned segregated restaurants.

No, those are two of the "parts," but you left out plenty of other "parts" of what you have dubbed the "libertarian compromise." Like desegregating all public facilities. And enforcing voting rights. And opening up jury service to blacks.

First, we're not talking about government cafeterias and all-white jury and voting rolls.

Second, I've already made this distinction on several occasions when I specifically addressed public accommodations laws that deal with private establishments.

Third, I have acknowledged these "other parts" of your solution, the last time in # 4339, where I wrote:

David, kindly lay off this "dishonest" BS. First, I've several times specifically referred to the public accommodations law. And I've never once accused you of not favoring voting rights enforcement, equal selection for jury duty, etc., etc., etc. I know exactly the kind of distinctions between public and private discrimination you've been making all these years. I know you're not a paleolib. And you know that I've never said you were, or implied it in any way.

You're an honorable libertarian with a typical libertarian's disregard for the social consequences of your philosophy when extended to its apparent logical conclusion, as in the example under discussion here. That's bad enough. I'm not making it personal.

Stick to the issue at hand. This is not about government cafeterias. I know you would have banned segregation in those, and I've never said or implied otherwise. It's about the tens of thousands of Pickrick restaurants and the thousands of Dixie Motels and other Jim Crow places of business.

In the first case, there would be little need for any sort of force, because there would have been so few cases of voluntary integration. Outside of a tiny handful of liberal enclaves, the social mores (including impossible to prove threats of job loss, night visits, etc.) would have seen to that.

The problem here is your stubborn need to pretend that the world is Permanent Selma. I suspect it arises from a desire to think of your social activism as the true key to saving the country from the sin of racism; that's why you focus more on sit-ins than boycotts.

Well, boycotts are great, too. But how do you "boycott" an establishment that doesn't want your business to begin with? Martin Luther King Announces Boycott of All-White McComb (Miss.) Diner might not have had quite the effect you seem to imagine.

But the real "fantasy" here is your notion that social mores were fixed and unchanging, even when the government support for those mores was eliminated. There was a reason for the elaborate network of Jim Crow laws established across the South; it was because they knew that without government enforcement, the mores were ultimately untenable.

David, when have I ever said that "social mores are fixed and unchanging"? Would Barack Obama be a serious contender for the presidency if that were the case? Again you exaggerate my position in order to "refute" it.

Of course social mores change, and often in dramatic fashion, as they have in the past 50 years. But the relevant question is how and why those mores changed.

To answer that, you might have asked the late Ivan Allen, the former mayor of Atlanta, why he testified in favor of the PA bill at the time.

It isn't very complicated. Being a man of common sense, he knew that the public accommodations law would give protective cover for those white establishments who were willing to go along, but who feared both economic and physical reprisals were they to do so. The sort of laws you're talking about wouldn't have accomplished that, because it would have isolated those restaurants, and singled them out for reprisal. And there wouldn't have been enough federal force in the entire country to protect them.

Whereas with a law requiring all restaurants to integrate, such isolation was impossible. And with that law---and the other laws which you've supported yourself---the "economic forces" you so often mention HAD ROOM TO BREATHE.

You could call the 1964 public accommodations law an act of artificial respiration, a disruptive but absolutely necessary act to ensure the region's long range health and survival. And I doubt if you'll find too many people of the non-paleo persuasion (of which you're not one) who wouldn't in retrospect acknowledge that essential truth.

The South was not going to "fix itself" without that law. Lester Maddox didn't need Jackie Robinson to thrive.

The only thing we materialize with is our own bodies,

That's the problem. In isolation from anyone, this works fine. But your body is comingling with the bodies of others, and with the products of their body's labor. This autonomy you assert never really exists. When you're born all alone in the woods I guess it exists (assuming you were born able to survive on your own, but the second another person gets involved, you are compromising, either voluntarily or involuntarily. But even those notions are problematic (you can deny this if you want) because autonomy requires you to be able to recognize yourself as such. It assumes a subject unimpinged by any regime of domination. Such a subject has never existed. You can try to will it into existence, your pointless efforts to that end are admirable if only for their futility in the face of logic, but you definitely can't claim that you're it.

The ADA covers far more than building codes.

I didn't say it didn't cover more than that, I said that's much of what it is.

Worrying about Obama after West Virginia is sort of like worrying about Josh Beckett after his first start - making way too much of a small sample without adjusting for context.

I'm not saying that Obama is in trouble or anything after West Virginia, simply that he could've turned it into a good opportunity. Hillary could claim anything she wants, any claim she makes at this point is a fart in the wind. She can claim the outspent thing on a general basis anyway, nobody cares.

As you said, look at the demographics of WV. It's like an entire state of swing voters in an Obama/McCain contest. And with all the attention on the Democratic primary, he essentially had them all to himself from a general election standpoint. Why spend time talking to college kids in Oregon, who are voting for you anyway in the general election, when you have such an opportunity to pull actual swing votes away from McCain?

McCain has more work to do ensuring the loyalty of the right-wing base than Obama does with the left-wing. Now's the best time to peel off moderates and independents from McCain, like Appalachian-region whites, while McCain has to say things to appease the right.

Whatever the Democrats think about McCain, the fact is that he does have a great amount of appeal among swing voters and you can't just count on simply tying McCain, a person that is generally liked, to a person that nobody really likes, Bush, down the road and suddenly change the minds of his moderate/independent supporters.

Take away the middle and McCain's down by 20 after the conventions even if the right-wing all falls in love with him.

dp and Andy,

Just wanted to say you're both doing a great job of demonstrating the incoherence of libertarianism on both practical and theoretical levels.

It is precisely DN's inability to recognize that humans never exist except embedded, enabled and constrained within the social world, and that we are never wholly autonomous, that leaves him arguing that people in the South would have suddenly become antiracists if we had let market forces play out.

As you said, look at the demographics of WV. It's like an entire state of swing voters in an Obama/McCain contest.

It really isn't. Obama polls exceptionally poorly in Appalachia - these are the Democrats who voted 30% for Bush in 2004, these are not Obama's voters.

The swing states, if Obama runs, are Ohio and Florida and Colorado and Michigan and Nevada and New Mexico - much more the rust belt and the new west than Appalachia. Clinton would put Appalachia in play, run stronger in Fl, turn the midwest into a swing area (MN/IA/WI) and lose the southwest.

And, again, campaigning doesn't appear to have had all that much effect on votes - people figured out what Obama and Clinton were about and where their interests lay without much reference to the campaign itself. The minutiae of campaigning are to political analysis what the good face is to scouting - a way of creating a narrative for a desired point that has little to do with any analytical account of how elections happen.

EDIT: another way of putting it - if Obama were competing with McCain for swing votes in Appalachia, it would be a sign he had already won in a landslide.

Just wanted to say you're both doing a great job of demonstrating the incoherence of libertarianism on both practical and theoretical levels.

11 and 12.

It is precisely DN's inability to recognize that humans never exist except embedded, enabled and constrained within the social world, and that we are never wholly autonomous, that leaves him arguing that people in the South would have suddenly become antiracists if we had let market forces play out.

dp and andy are also nicely showing that liberals (and, increasingly, conservatives) view government as an agency that can do anything it likes, so long as a majority of the public supports it. If the government has the power to make one group live by another's morality, the only question left is which group (and its attendent morality) is ascendent.

The single-thread post record is 5801. I think we can make it if we keep DMN and Andy focused and involved.

dp and Andy,

Just wanted to say you're both doing a great job of demonstrating the incoherence of libertarianism on both practical and theoretical levels.

It is precisely DN's inability to recognize that humans never exist except embedded, enabled and constrained within the social world, and that we are never wholly autonomous, that leaves him arguing that people in the South would have suddenly become antiracists if we had let market forces play out.

Thanks, Matt. It's nothing personal with David, but the truth is I heard that record being worn out 45 years ago, and the tune hasn't changed one note.

It is precisely DN's inability to recognize that humans never exist except embedded, enabled and constrained within the social world, and that we are never wholly autonomous, that leaves him arguing that people in the South would have suddenly become antiracists if we had let market forces play out.

Matt, he specifically says in #4408 that nothing would have happened "suddenly."

If this thread breaks the record thanks to 1400+ posts made simply to make it 5802, there better be a big ol' asterisk slapped on this bad boy.

Matt, he specifically says in #4408 that nothing would have happened "suddenly."

Take "suddenly" to mean, as quickly as integration occurred under government intervention. Or if his point is that market forces would have integrated the south 15-20 years later, his point is a moral nightmare.

EDIT: I guess that is what DN is arguing, looking more closely. I think I missed it because it's just so shocking - he thinks that 15-20 more years of de facto Jim Crow would be a fair price to pay for the protection of the property rights of lunch counters. Which again speaks to the basic incoherence of the libertarian theory of society, in which one weighs property rights far, far above integration and human dignity.

Arresting whites who commit violence against blacks entering restaurants that were voluntarily integrated;

Or against the establishments themselves or anybody else. Or who threaten to commit violence.

And who would have enforced those laws? The same local officials who refused to protect blacks against previous acts of racial violence? The FBI, which was infamous for its collaboration with those same officials? Or a newly created federal police force, specifically charged with prosecuting local criminal acts that would otherwise go unpunished?

Uh, who protected blacks against racial violence after the Civil Rights Act</i>, Andy? The Civil Rights Act didn't create a federal police force, or a new FBI, or new local officials. When a black person sat down in a formerly all-white restaurant (Lester Maddox's, perhaps) or rented a room in a formerly all-white hotel (maybe the Heart of Atlanta motel), who prevented a mob of whites from assaulting him? Not the Civil Rights Act.

No, those are two of the "parts," but you left out plenty of other "parts" of what you have dubbed the "libertarian compromise." Like desegregating all public facilities. And enforcing voting rights. And opening up jury service to blacks.

First, we're not talking about government cafeterias and all-white jury and voting rolls.

Yes, we are. We're talking about southern society and its social mores, as well as the governmental remedies available to blacks. It's a package deal. You can't draw a line and say that desegregating public facilities doesn't have an effect on social mores. Or that giving blacks the ability to participate in government doesn't have an effect on the behavior of local officials.

Stick to the issue at hand. This is not about government cafeterias. I know you would have banned segregation in those, and I've never said or implied otherwise. It's about the tens of thousands of Pickrick restaurants and the thousands of Dixie Motels and other Jim Crow places of business.

But you've ignored the effect of doing these things, which is relevant to the issue at hand. When people routinely eat in racially mixed settings at public facilities, it starts to be become silly for them to react violently to the thought of their private restaurants being integrated.

Well, boycotts are great, too. But how do you "boycott" an establishment that doesn't want your business to begin with? Martin Luther King Announces Boycott of All-White McComb (Miss.) Diner might not have had quite the effect you seem to imagine.

1. You boycott it because "you" includes whites, whose business the diners did want.
2. You boycott it because lots of "all-white" establishments were happy to sell to blacks and take black money; they just didn't want black people darkening their front doorsteps, pun intended. Just because you couldn't sit at the lunch counter didn't mean you couldn't buy food there.

It isn't very complicated. Being a man of common sense, he knew that the public accommodations law would give protective cover for those white establishments who were willing to go along, but who feared both economic and physical reprisals were they to do so. The sort of laws you're talking about wouldn't have accomplished that, because it would have isolated those restaurants, and singled them out for reprisal. And there wouldn't have been enough federal force in the entire country to protect them.

I think what you mean, Andy, is "There's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches." But he was wrong, and you're wrong. And now we're back to Kevin's comment about the 101st Airborne. It didn't take that much federal force; it took a few shows of federal force. Once people saw that the federal government was serious -- and yes, it took a while, because the federal government wasn't particularly serious for a while -- the violence abated.

It is precisely DN's inability to recognize that humans never exist except embedded, enabled and constrained within the social world, and that we are never wholly autonomous, that leaves him arguing that people in the South would have suddenly become antiracists if we had let market forces play out.

Nice. Nice and dishonest. I've certainly never said "suddenly," I did not say "if we had let market forces play out," and I would never use an abomination of a word like "antiracists."

(To be precise: as to the "market forces" part of it, that implies that I'm saying that if the CRA had not been passed, and everything continued as it was, that the South would integrate as MLB did. But that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if the government stopped encouraging, explicitly or implicitly, segregation, if all the legal edifice of segregation disappears, and only market forces support it, that it would have disappeared.)

What I'm saying is that if the government stopped encouraging, explicitly or implicitly, segregation, if all the legal edifice of segregation disappears, and only market forces support it, that it would have disappeared.

I recognize that. In that scenario, in your understanding, the only thing moving sentiment is market forces, and you are content to let them play out over 15-20 years of de facto Jim Crow in private businesses in order to preserve the property rights of those businesses.

EDIT: for what it's worth, I think it would take a lot longer than 15-20 years, but those were your numbers (decade+) drawn from your analogy to professional baseball.

EDIT: for what it's worth, I think it would take a lot longer than 15-20 years, but those were your numbers (decade+) drawn from your analogy to professional baseball.

I was about to say that as well. If you look at how deeply entrenched and visceral it was for so many people, I think it would have taken/would take a couple of generations--40 or 50 years.

Isn't this what it boils down to? Liberals think that non-liberals are mean?

Pretty much. Reference DMN Autism comment.

Laws like the ADA, or CRA enforce a moral standard on people. I am generally not in favor of such laws, and in fact, no one is in favor of them when then contradict their own moral standards.

But all laws - "Thou shalt not kill" - are basically enforcements of moral standards.

None of these laws (Murder, ADA, CRA) would be necessary if people did the right thing anyway.

Example: Lawless, Anarchic society**,
Wheelchair bound person "Ray" comes up to David's famous restaurant -
"Gee, Dave, I'd really like to have some of your famous FREE-range chicken - but I can't get in the building".
"Sorry, Ray I just don't have the cash to make you a ramp - how about I just comp you a take out dinner?"
"Wouldn't that be theft? - Just kidding, I'll take it. But I would really appreciate some access"
"I'll see what I can do, Ray".

** Note: In this dramatization, everyone is armed to the teeth, and hence extraordinarily nice to each other.

Let this thread die already, its degenerated into an attempt to goad DMN into saying something actually outrageous rather than what merely appears outrageous....

Of course DMN always takes the bait

I recognize that. In that scenario, in your understanding, the only thing moving sentiment is market forces, and you are content to let them play out over 15-20 years of de facto Jim Crow in private businesses in order to preserve the property rights of those businesses.

MLB would have also been integrated faster if they had been forced to, but it would have reduced racist feelings slower. In all aspects of human life, people change in their hearts when they live life and see the error of their ways for themselves. People harden their hearts when change is forced upon them.

Same thing as gay marriage. If it wasn't for many people, because of their fear of change and their ingrown biases, suddenly feeling that homosexuals were forced upon them, we'd be significantly farther along towards recognizing gay marriages than we are today. Civil unions would be widespread and the homophobes would be able to see for themselves that homosexuals can have productive relationships and raise children just as well as heterosexual couples. But instead, advocates decided to force the issue rather than changing hearts, so the people against them hardened and now we have a lot of states even banning civil unions.

So, what should have been the better goal of the civil rights era? For a black man to eat in Bill's restaurant in 1968 against Bill's will or for that black man to be friends with Bill in 1988?

But all laws - "Thou shalt not kill" - are basically enforcements of moral standards.

No.

There are laws against murder because murder constitutes a violation of someone's (namely, the victim) rights. It has nothing to do with moral standards.

If it wasn't for many people, because of their fear of change and their ingrown biases, suddenly feeling that homosexuals were forced upon them, we'd be significantly farther along towards recognizing gay marriages than we are today.

The data simply doesn't support this. Acceptance of gay marriage grew in Massachusetts at a much higher rate following the Supreme Court decision than it had been rising before.

I expect a similar outcome to the California Supreme Court's decision today!

I gotta say, I've lost my desire to rip back and forth with libertarians. This is a really, really happy day, and I didn't expect it at all. I just want to be happy right now. Wow.

Violating my own request:

Poly Sci 101 taken 20+ years ago (see if you can guess the Univ. or at least the geographical region)

Professor:
Conservative = those with power and/or status and/or wealth, who therefore think present society is just and want to keep it that way.

Liberal = those with power and/or status and/or wealth, but who feel guilty because they think it's unjust, and accordingly want to take the conservatives down a notch or two- but no so much as to actually destabilize society.

Classical Liberal = no longer really exist, but if you had a compassionate libertarian you might be able to recreate one.

Socialist = A liberal who actually is willing to see present day society destabilized

Lumpen Proletariat = Those who are without power and/or status and/or wealth, but are willing to do anything to attain it for themselves- anyone else be damned.

Non-Colonized Peoples = Those of European Descent* + honorary members like the Japanese

The oppressed = All peoples except those of European Descent, and the Japanese... and the Jews...

Fascist = Anyone who voted for someone the Prof didn't like




*European Descent apparently meant those who look white. A typical latino would not be regarded as European even with 80%+ European ancestry. A typical Africa American... well you get the idea.

You can design some physical structure another way such that a handicapped person can successfully use it

Yes, but David, "handicapped" is a relative and indeed entirely artificial term. You say that the handicapped are physically inferior. To me (a still-walking 49-year-old) I reckon that a wheelchair user is physically inferior. In turn, I am inferior to Carl Lewis. If the gap between the train and the subway platform were 20 feet, Carl would skip along to work and I would be either be killed every morning or just stay home. That's why the term "differently abled" is not a euphemism or a sentimentality. There are people to whom a flight of stairs is what a 12-foot pole vault would be for me. They are "disabled" in everyday practice only because we draw lines that say they are.

Edit: formerly_dp is saying this infinitely better than I can, I just don't want him to be the only one saying it :)

if the government stopped encouraging, explicitly or implicitly, segregation, if all the legal edifice of segregation disappears, and only market forces support it, that it would have disappeared

People stop oppressing people they hate just because they can make more money without the oppression? History has a bunch of counterexamples, I should think; to say nothing of the economic advantages of ripping off the oppressed.

The data simply doesn't support this. Acceptance of gay marriage grew in Massachusetts at a much higher rate following the Supreme Court decision than it had been rising before.

Yeah, in Massachusetts. How did all those other referendums get passed?

I gotta say, I've lost my desire to rip back and forth with libertarians. This is a really, really happy day, and I didn't expect it at all. I just want to be happy right now. Wow.

In other words, you want to go into your selective bubble and high-five people that agree with you and not talk to anyone else.

Hey! That makes you qualified for a job in the Bush administration!

We'll see how happy you are now that the right wing idiots now have an effective wedge issue on gay marriage again.

What those rights are is a moral standard.
What constitutes "violation" is a moral standard.

In other words, you want to go into your selective bubble and high-five people that agree with you and not talk to anyone else.

Seriously, #### you. This is something I've fought for, something that matters deeply to me and to people I love. I want to celebrate it as much as I can, which means disengaging from internet debates today

Again, #### you.

cheers, to the rest

People stop oppressing people they hate just because they can make more money without the oppression?

People stop oppressing people when they discover for themselves their error of their ways, not when they're forced to.

Gandhi certainly wasn't a libertarian or an objectivist as some try to claim, but he knew better than anyone exactly how you change hearts.

Seriously, #### you. This is something I've fought for, something that matters deeply to me and to people I love. I want to celebrate it as much as I can, which means disengaging from internet debates today

Then disengage. Are you some sort of royalty that has to proclaim your entrance and exit? You jump in this thread halfway through, congratulate others on their beliefs and declare you are tired of listening to people with other beliefs. Is this the Kingdom of Matt, where discussions are held for Matt's benefit?

Ask Jim nicely and maybe you can put out an ad for your cupbearer and the keeper of your Royal Privy Seal.

So, what should have been the better goal of the civil rights era? For a black man to eat in Bill's restaurant in 1968 against Bill's will or for that black man to be friends with Bill in 1988?

see 4443,

I gotta say it's quite unlikely that "Bill" would be friends with a black man in 1988, if "bill" hadn't been forced into contact with a black man in 1968.

In all aspects of human life, people change in their hearts when they live life and see the error of their ways for themselves. People harden their hearts when change is forced upon them.

For most people, the hardening of hearts is only temporary. for most people the advent of Civil Unions will, overtime, make people less hostile to the idea, the sun still comes up in the morning, the sky didn't fall, god didn't strike the supreme court justices dead...

Then there are the grown men and woman, who are OBSESSED with preventing gay marriage/civil unions/ any recognition of homosexuality.
Those people creep me out far more than the thought of male homosexuality (and let me tell you, as a straight man, the thought of sexual contact with another man creeps me out)

For most people, the hardening of hearts is only temporary. for most people the advent of Civil Unions will, overtime, make people less hostile to the idea, the sun still comes up in the morning, the sky didn't fall, god didn't strike the supreme court justices dead...


Except the advent of civil unions has been ending around the country as a result.


Then there are the grown men and woman, who are OBSESSED with preventing gay marriage/civil unions/ any recognition of homosexuality.

And those idiots are a minority, but events gave them a voice rather than deserved irrelevance.

People harden their hearts when change is forced upon them

Sure, but in both Massachusetts and California the principle has been that gay people have constitutional rights that are the same as those of straight people. (Fancy that.) You can harden your heart against someone else's basic rights, but I don't see why they should forbear from asserting those rights just because you might get peeved.

Edit: and by "you" I do not mean "you, Dan Szymborski," just the generic "somebody."

Is it time for another civility reminder yet?

You can harden your heart against someone else's basic rights, but I don't see why they should forbear from asserting those rights just because you might get peeved.

They should take the path to finally end the injustice for all. If they pushed civil unions from the start, they'd probably have them now in most, if not all states, and could now be rightfully transitioning that into full, recognized marriage.

EDIT: I guess that is what DN is arguing, looking more closely. I think I missed it because it's just so shocking - he thinks that 15-20 more years of de facto Jim Crow would be a fair price to pay for the protection of the property rights of lunch counters. Which again speaks to the basic incoherence of the libertarian theory of society, in which one weighs property rights far, far above integration and human dignity.

What you call "property rights" are human dignity. Part of the problem is calling them "property rights." In casual conversation, we generally know what it refers to, so it's fine to use the phrase. But it implies, incorrectly, that the rights belong to the property. In fact, they're not "property rights"; they're the rights of property owners. Humans. Human dignity. Theirs is just as important as anybody else's. To compel someone to work for someone else, no matter how good you think your motives are, is repugnant.

Yes, we may not approve of how they exercise their freedom, but that's no more an excuse for restricting it in the case of their property than in the case of their speech. To censor someone because we think their speech is racist is an affront to their human dignity, even if we don't think much of them as people.

I thought Clinton won it both times - at least that's what Hillary seemed to be saying. Didn't she say something like no Democrat's been elected without winning WV since 1916?

I'd love to see those arguments made at BTF... you can hear the "SAMPLE SIZE!" scream from here.

All of these "so and so must win X because no GOP/Dem President has been elected without X" are completely ludicrous.

I actually wish I didn't have a partisan investment in the fall outcome, because strictly from a political junkie's perspective, the dynamic ought to be fascinating.

Obama should run stronger in the south than the Dems have run in a decade, while the south figures to be a McCain weakness.

It'll be a real test as to whether the GOP's innate home field advantage keeps the south GOP solid.

Interesting dynamics in the midwest, too (perhaps on the flip side).

Where exactly IS McCain's geographic strength?

I don't think he's nearly as popular in the west as I'd expect him or any generic GOPer to be. I know he runs stronger on the Pacific coast than most GOPers, but I still think it's stronger as is in "single digits loss", as opposed to double digits... sorta like some of the Obama longshots down south.

Well said to #4456. Property belongs to the owner absolutely, uti et abuti. I don't agree with the libertarians on everything (gay marriage is a contradiction in terms and should be outlawed with constitutional amendment if necessary) but generally speaking I think most are on the side of the angels most of the time, if BTF is any clue.

zonk, I agree. Most of the CW goes out the window in an Obama/McCain race. That, in and of itself, should be cool. We've really pretty much reached a stalemate D/R. It would be nice for two guys who don't quite fit what their party wants/expects and can reach into the independents well to go head to head and shake things up a bit. It isn't quite what a serious 3rd party candidate could do, but it could flush the system. I'm hoping anyway.

Yes, we may not approve of how they exercise their freedom, but that's no more an excuse for restricting it in the case of their property than in the case of their speech. To censor someone because we think their speech is racist is an affront to their human dignity, even if we don't think much of them as people.

But David, all laws exist to resolve CONFLICTS in these rights. There is a moral conflict - racist speech is an affront to human dignity AND censoring that speech is ALSO as affront to human dignity.

Forcing someone to add a ramp to their restaurant is an affront to human dignity AND denying access to someone in a wheel chair is ALSO an affront to human dignity.

We are all just making moral arguments as to what should be controlled or not.

All of these "so and so must win X because no GOP/Dem President has been elected without X" are completely ludicrous.


Yeah. Before Clinton, the last time West Virginia went for a Republican when the Democrat was within 15% of the Republican in the popular vote was 1916. None of the Republicans who won and who WV voted for needed WV anyway.

All of these "so and so must win X because no GOP/Dem President has been elected without X" are completely ludicrous

Yes. It used to be that winning a World Series after losing the first two games at home was impossible, till it happened in 1985 and 1986 and there turned out to be no good reason why not. It used to be that no-one could be elected President without winning the New Hampshire primary, till that happened in 1992 and 2000, ditto.

Property belongs to the owner absolutely

The government is the entity that enforces this. Hence, the government has some say over what you do with said property. Luckily for you, it's a representative democracy.

(gay marriage is a contradiction in terms and should be outlawed with constitutional amendment if necessary)

I think all marriage should be outlawed. It has always puzzled me why the state has to sanctify whom I live with/sleep with/have a joint bank account with.

That's why the term "differently abled" is not a euphemism or a sentimentality.

Of course it's a euphemism; it's true that (as you correctly assert) physical abilities are a spectrum rather than a simple dichotomy, but "differently" is chosen specifically to obscure where on the spectrum the person is -- that is, on the less able side. And nobody would have any qualms about saying that you or I are less physically able than Carl Lewis; it's only when we talk about people in wheelchairs that the euphemisms start being trotted out.

And outside of a few college campuses, nobody has any trouble recognizing that "differently abled" is silly pcness; after all, nobody campaigned to pass the Americans with Different Abilities Act, and the law itself doesn't protect "different" abilities, but "impairment." Although, true, Harrison Bergeron is looking less and less like reductio ad absurdum.

It used to be that winning a World Series after losing the first two games at home was impossible, till it happened in 1985 and 1986 and there turned out to be no good reason why not.

God damn Jim Leyritz.

People stop oppressing people when they discover for themselves their error of their ways, not when they're forced to.

Go read a few history books

Although, true, Harrison Bergeron is looking less and less like reductio ad absurdum.

In fact, BTF was created specifically to keep this, our fine group of geniuses, from being as productive as "average" people.

Joey,

Serious question. Do you have a position on the gay marriage issue?

Go read a few history books

Right back at ya.

Do real people actually use the phrase, "differently abled?" I thought that was a joke. (Indeed, it is a joke.)

I think all marriage should be outlawed. It has always puzzled me why the state has to sanctify whom I live with/sleep with/have a joint bank account with.

Marriage shouldn't be "outlawed"- the Government should simply get out of the marriage "business".

Personally I think all people should have the same rights- for tax and inheritance purposes you should be able top have civil unions between men and woman
men and men
women and women
sister/sister
sister/brother
etc.

Private Institutions should be perfectly free on the other hand to sanctify what they see as "marriage" (within reason- if someone is being compelled to "marry" someone- they should still be allowed to go to the state for help, no matter what their church or mosque says on the subject)

Do real people actually use the phrase, "differently abled?" I thought that was a joke. (Indeed, it is a joke.)

I was told by someone that the phrase's origin WAS a joke, but people took it seriously- including advocates for the rights of the disabled...

Property belongs to the owner absolutely

The government is the entity that enforces this. Hence, the government has some say over what you do with said property. Luckily for you, it's a representative democracy.

Well as a matter of power, I'd agree. The government has an army and I don't, so they can rob me, kill me, torture me, do whatever they like and I can't stop them. As a matter of rights, I don't agree. I don't think that whoever has the biggest army has the right to do whatever they like.

Go read a few history books

Right back at ya.

how about we trade, I'll read yours and you read mine, I suspect we have every little overlap, it would greatly expand both our libraries

I've thought the solution is to give each person one legal "partner" in a civil union. That could be a spouse, a gay partner, a live-in partner, a relative, a friend or just some guy off the streets. (And, of course, this doesn't count dependent children). So, me and my wife and McOA and his partner have the same legal rights.

But, yes, religious marriage has no business in state business. In fact, they really aren't tied. You can legally marry with a justice of the peace. And, if you chose, you could have a church that was willing "marry" you without telling the state. When you get married in a church there is the religious ceremony and then, while everyone else is getting started on the reception, you go off and sign legal papers.

In fact, BTF was created specifically to keep this, our fine group of geniuses, from being as productive as "average" people.

Damn! You're onto us. The only thing between America and a Nieporent administration is his BTF post count.

how about we trade, I'll read yours and you read mine, I suspect we have every little overlap, it would greatly expand both our libraries

I got several hundred, but I can put together a list. I'm also currently writing a book on the early Scots Stewarts.

Since when has marriage been a purely "religious" thing? And since when has the purpose or primary function of marriage been to grant inheritance or tax benefits? If you (bizarrely) think marriage is a religious deal that for archaic reasons has been given some tax breaks, I can see why you might be confused on the issue. Marriage may or may not have religious benefits depending on your religious beliefs, but it's the underpinning of society and community.

I find it downright hilarious that upthread we have people bemoaning that schools can't cope with poor educational standards and lack of opportunity caused by broken families and poor parenting - and then these same people want to (further) destroy the institution of marriage. Not exactly joined-up thinking.

You agreed to limit your absolute freedom when you opened a business. You can open your business elsewhere, in a place without such restrictions.

If we carry this thought process out to its logical extension, every restriction on operating a business is justifiable. You don't need me to come up with snarky examples to make the point. I'm sure you don't really support this line of reasoning except in cases where you agree with the restrictions as reasonable.

And that's really the whole point of libertarian philosophy. It isn't my place to determine which restrictions are reasonable for you, and it isn't your place to do the same for me. Building a ramp that costs $15,000 may seem like a perfectly reasonable expense to you, but if it takes 10 years to recover that investment from the twelve handicapped people that attend, it may not seem so reasonable to the restaurant owner. You're not privy to his finances and you don't know how much it's going to hurt him. Even if you were, it wouldn't be your place to tell him that he can afford it.

What always amazes me is the perception that libertarians are selfish. Those opposed to the philosophy are always rephrasing it, but the reality is that the opponents are claiming more entitlement. A right to have things provided at the expense of others seems a lot more selfish to me than expecting that others won't take from you what is yours without permission.

If I owned a restaurant, I'd build a handicapped ramp even if it wasn't required by law. I'd have a special stall in the restroom. I know what people who can't walk struggle with, and I'm sympathetic. I even would morally judge those who chose not to be as accomodating. But I wouldn't transform my moral judgment of what is decent to do into law.

not being in favor of equal access for the disabled is just being a dick.

Putting aside the question of what you're favoring over that, I agree with you. I just don't think it should be against the law to be a dick.

and then these same people want to (further) destroy the institution of marriage.

In what way(s) will allowing gays to marry "destroy the institution of marriage"?

I'm also currently writing a book on the early Scots Stewarts.

Aha, you're not really a libertarian, you're a closet Jacobite
I should have known!!!!!!

Aaargh, I should not have used the term "differently abled," which allowed various scoffers to go off on the PC-terminology tangent. Particularly since I'm fine with DMN's notion that wheelchair users, amputees, the elderly, and so forth are less able than middle-aged me, who is less able than the 23-year-old law student, who in turn is less able than Xiang Liu.

Physical ability is indeed a continuum. Which means that "disability" is an arbitrary line along that continuum. From what I can tell, the Nieporent Line (see #4397) is drawn below "what the majority of the species can do," which includes climb stairs and such. The point is, we always draw it somewhere; our bodies are natural, but that line is not. It's not much different from drawing lines around suffrage or other arbitrarily-defined categories. You either like inclusiveness, or you like to have a few hurdles around to trip up the stragglers. YMMV.

Afterthought: one would think that the arbitrariness of the physical-ability continuum would be especially apparent to students of baseball. Is Neifi Perez able, or unable, to hit in the major leagues? It depends entirely on how big the major leagues are.

You either like inclusiveness, or you like to have a few hurdles around to trip up the stragglers. YMMV.

Read what the bird says. It isn't liking inclusiveness or not. It's liking enforced inclusiveness.

Put it this way: I now have to put a ramp and special stall in the bathrooom for handicapped folks. Once they're inside, am I allowed to make fun of them if I like? If I wish to be a dick (and, like crosbybird says, being a dick shouldn't be illegal) but have to make my place of business accessible, does this also mean I have to be nice? How far do you take "inclusivenss" because, to me, it means more than simply doing as I'm told.

(And, just to be clear, I agree with preety much everything crosbybird says.)

I don't think anyone will disagree with some sort of spectrum of physical ability. But that's really beside the point. The point of contention is whether government should be able to force business owners to provide special treatment for those "stragglers," at the business owner's expense. I say no, and I honestly can't wrap my head around the contortions I'd have to undergo to say otherwise.

Is Neifi Perez able, or unable, to hit in the major leagues? It depends entirely on how big the major leagues are.

By the time they get to 64 teams, he'll probably be too old.

It's liking enforced inclusiveness

But as others have said, nearly any kind of business is regulated to enforce inclusiveness of one kind or another. It's just a matter of where to draw the line.

Afterthought: one would think that the arbitrariness of the physical-ability continuum would be especially apparent to students of baseball. Is Neifi Perez able, or unable, to hit in the major leagues? It depends entirely on how big the major leagues are.

There are 6.6 billion people in the world
There are literally millions of people in the world between the ages of 18-45 who have played baseball enough to be called "baseball players"

Neifi is in the upper 99.9% of all baseball player in the world.

and yet Neifi is clearly a below average (mean or median- it doesn't matter) player relative to the players who have played regularly in the MLB during Neifi's career. (which doesn't mean he's not good enough to "play" in the MLB in some capacity)

That's how good the MLB is.

Marriage shouldn't be "outlawed"- the Government should simply get out of the marriage "business".

Bad word choice on my part. I meant "removed from legal status".

Well as a matter of power, I'd agree. The government has an army and I don't, so they can rob me, kill me, torture me, do whatever they like and I can't stop them. As a matter of rights, I don't agree. I don't think that whoever has the biggest army has the right to do whatever they like.

No - the government (in a democracy) IS your army. It is the one telling _me_ not to kill your family and take your stuff. What gives you the right to stake out some land, build a house on it, walk around unmolested?

If you take away the governments' army (police force, etc.) - then the _2nd_ biggest army gets to tell you what to do.

I say no, and I honestly can't wrap my head around the contortions I'd have to undergo to say otherwise.

Sure, fair enough, and I think this is kind of what Matt meant and what I said earlier: it is a wide gap to shout across. Nothing wrong with doing it, but it is unlikely people are going to leap (or take one of those moving walkways they put in airports) to the other side.

The point is, we always draw it somewhere; our bodies are natural, but that line is not. It's not much different from drawing lines around suffrage or other arbitrarily-defined categories. You either like inclusiveness, or you like to have a few hurdles around to trip up the stragglers.

You concede that we always draw the line somewhere, so you clearly like a few hurdles yourself. After all, you're not advocating laws that require restaurants to have doors that allow access to folks in iron lungs, or seats that can support people over eight hundred pounds, are you?

It isn't about liking that some people are excluded. It's about not forcing people to expend more resources to include people who are disadvantaged. If someone wants to open a restaurant that requires all patrons to climb a ten foot pole in order to get in, why shouldn't they be able to? I wouldn't be able to enter, but I don't have a fundamental right to eat there.

And since when has the purpose or primary function of marriage been to grant inheritance or tax benefits?

It depends upon the culture.

Some cultures did (and do) in fact see the primary function of institutionalized marriage as a means of sorting through certain rights, like inheritance and taxes.

Some saw marriage as a religious institution.

In what way(s) will allowing gays to marry "destroy the institution of marriage"?

If you get a coherent/rational answer let me know.

Allowing divorce on demand, now that would tend to inflict damage on the institution, but allowing sue and Sally to marry, Bob and Ted? Has no effect on me or any married couple that I know, any family that I know.

But as others have said, nearly any kind of business is regulated to enforce inclusiveness of one kind or another. It's just a matter of where to draw the line.


The inherent assumption is that such regulation is appropriate, and I reject that assumption. Businesses should not be unregulated, but not for inclusiveness so much as certain warranties that business owners are in position to provide and consumers cannot easily obtain for themselves. It's not easy for me to check if my waiter brought me food containing rat poison, so regulations exist placing a burden on the owner to avoid serving such food. I'd have no way of knowing that this chair was built to collapse into a spiked pit, so the law gives owners responsibility to protect and warn me.

Bird, I do see what you're saying; I was actually reacting more to DMN's notion that wheelchair use was just sort of naturally beyond the pale of normality. Obviously there is a balance of inclusiveness in any society. And ours has, pretty much by consensus (to judge by bipartisan support for the ADA), more and more adopted the notion that wheelchair users and other people who walk with assistance are to be included. Our values have changed, and we no longer see the physical/social landscape in quite the same way we did 50 years ago. Possibly this is because a lot of baby-boomers are getting hip replacements. Possibly too it's because we have come to see arbitrary barriers as a form of discrimination that may one day discriminate against us. A lot of people think "Oh, I'll never be a Jew, I'll never be black, I'll never be a woman, I'll never be an Arab," but it takes some moxie to say "I'll never be in a wheelchair." And for better or worse, since so much of the argument seems to be economic, we feel that wheelchair users should be fully integrated into the economy: that they should work and earn productively, live independently, and is it too much to ask that they be able to buy a sandwich? :)

allowing sue and Sally to marry, Bob and Ted? Has no effect on me or any married couple that I know

John Smoltz is convinced that a lot of folks in California are now seeing their pets in a different light.

You don't think reducing marriage to purely a matter of tax and inheritance arrangements damages it? You don't think making a marriage equivalent to a contract with "just some guy off the streets" (bunyon's words) damages it?

No - the government (in a democracy) IS your army. It is the one telling _me_ not to kill your family and take your stuff. What gives you the right to stake out some land, build a house on it, walk around unmolested?

Well the government does all kinds of stuff in a democracy, good and bad. It interns on racial grounds, it tortures people, it confiscates their property, etc etc. It's not my army, although it may sometimes work to my benefit. As for where the right to walk around unmolested on my own land comes from, I don't find such a question the least interesting. I'm quite happy to assert that I do in fact have that right and that governments that don't respect it are capital B Bad.

You don't think reducing marriage to purely a matter of tax and inheritance arrangements damages it? You don't think making a marriage equivalent to a contract with "just some guy off the streets" (bunyon's words) damages it?

I don't really see it that way to begin with, but I was asking specifically about gay marriage.

One fine day long, long ago I looked at this thread and thought:
"29 posts? I thought this would explode, I guess epic threads are a thing of the past."

If you get a coherent/rational answer let me know.

I don't find either particularly compelling, but I've heard two main arguments:

1) Marriage has a traditional value in society that is diluted by inclusion of what is today considered non-traditional marriages, and the effect of that dilution is to open the door to future inclusions that ultimately will destroy the tradition. I'm deliberately avoiding the offensive comparisons to bestiality or parent-child incest (which is entirely different because of consent issues), but including issues such as polygamy and cousins marrying (primarily illegal because of ick factor).

2) Society should encourage relationships that result in reproduction, even if all such relationships do not necessarily result in children.

I reject the first argument because I don't think the government is the proper custodian of tradition. We've had some terrible government conduct in support of traditions like slavery in the past, and it continues in support of the tradition of drug prohibition.

I reject the second argument for libertarian reasons but also because I don't think it's appropriate to incentify reproduction in this particular society any more. People would not stop getting married and having children just because there weren't tax breaks involved.

You don't think reducing marriage to purely a matter of tax and inheritance arrangements damages it? You don't think making a marriage equivalent to a contract with "just some guy off the streets" (bunyon's words) damages it?

Not in any way that's bad. Marriage occupies a special place in society in a religious and cultural sense, and that shouldn't change. Nobody will force your church or synagogue to perform the ceremony. Nobody will force you to acknowledge the relationship as morally appropriate. It is only the legal and economic benefits of marriage that people suggest should be modified as not exclusive to a particular sort of relationship.

If you regard your marriage as more than the legal contract, as most people do, then it will still be just as special to you even if someone else doesn't. Those that object to changing the legal status of marriage are basically saying "those who have the sort of relationship that I endorse deserve preferential economic status."

If I was a gay activist, I'd endorse civil unions that are codified as giving the same legal rights as marriage. It's not the ideal solution but it does everything the government really needs to do on its end.