What did he say next? Did he say, you're an inconceivable idiot, I'm not going to bomb people indiscriminately? I find McCain to be a wingnut,

I don't know the answers to your questions, but to be clear, I see it simply as a soundbite, and I don't hold it against McCain. I try to stay big picture in candidate evaluation. I was making a little joke. My guess is some of the righties can answer those questions.

I agree, mostly, with rr on the "big picture" business. In this case, I try to imagine someone who can joke about this kind of thing, about bombing a country, which action would kill other human beings. I'm not saying this means McCain is a lunatic, but I know many strong, capable people who aren't anyone's pushovers, and who aren't pacifists, but to whom it would simply never occur that this could be funny, or the subject of levity. I put this in the context of McCain's "Dukakis moment", when McCain wore the flak jacket in a Baghdad market, with 100 soldiers guarding him, and U.S. gunships flying over head, and when he announced that, yup, Baghdad was getting safer all the time. And McCain's indifference to the differences between Sunni and Shia, and to what who is doing to whom. There's something missing from the man--I don't know if it's empathy, or compassion, or an understanding of the complexity of being human--perhaps it's a combination of these, as they are probably not entirely separable. In all events, it's troubling.

You, like a great many people, have difficulty fathoming the motives of people who are, at a minimum, borderline sociopaths.

I'm starting to think arkitekton really is a conservative.

And that's only food vending machines. But, hey, it's not your money, so you're happy to spend it freely.

Just like you're not handicapped, so you're happy to see those people struggle with everything from getting into bathrooms to recognizing money. My father was just mentioning that they had Braille on money in Belgium when he was there 30 years ago, so it's not like this is some new-fangled lefty cause like everything else you're fond of shitting on.

If you were more secure in your own strength, maybe you could tolerate raising people up a bit. But you've obviously benefited from having an unlevel playing field, so you want to keep it this way, where equality exists only on a theoretical level divorced completely from real-world conditions. I'm just glad the people fighting on your side are so bad at it...

you do need possibly an entirely new mechanism inside, since the thing is actually designed for bills of a certain size.

Which isn't the same as replacing the whole machine. The government could split the costs of the upgrades so that private businesses wouldn't have to bear the whole cost. Or we could go with some other form of tactile differentiation- foil, Braille, notching- that won't require new machines.

One more alternative is to invest further in development of hand-held scanning devices to read the money for them, but in the long run changing the money makes more sense.

As for property rights, I think it's structurally different because (contra dp) I don't believe that property rights derive from government

I believe they come from, on a pragmatic level, whatever structure is in place to ensure their protection. I also believe in defining things by referring to more than a dictionary, which may be another thing that sets us apart, and that these definitions are products of the specific cultural contexts they emerge from. This gets us beyond fighting over staunch and absolute first principles, recognizing that as long as we're in a society we're always going to be impinging on one another in some way, shape or form. Every conversation around the topic of access has come back to the fact that you don't believe anyone should have the right to infringe on the boundaries you've drawn arbitrarily around what you imagine to be your property in all its manifold forms, extensions and abstractions, emphasizing the need to protect the rights of those with property while not acknowledging any difference between those who start out advantaged by this system and those who start out disadvantaged by it. Your comment on opting not to work if your wage dropped was the perfect encapsulation of this view. Some people have their right to autonomy infringed on from the day they're born into this world. I'd like to live in a society that at least tries to balance the needs of those two groups, recognizing that people who succeed in this system don't do it entirely on their own, nor do the people who fail. People who succeed do so through a combination of skill and luck; it's arrogant to pretend otherwise. As much as you've determined there is a "natural" right to property (derived from somewhere, but I'm not sure where- nature just begs the question of what you mean by nature...), there's also evidence to suggest that we are hard-wired for types of behavior other than the unrestrained pursuit of property, so I'm not sure why it makes sense to legislate based on one and not the other. From this natural right to property, you jump to a contractual definition of property that involves "freely" giving, as if it's impossible to compromise anyone's freedom using language.

But who determines ownership of property? Who recognizes and defends that right?

Good luck getting anything resembling a decent answer on this one...we still don't have a good answer for what property is, let alone any discussion of where it came from and how it was originally came to be in the hands of those who possess it now.

It isn't really about whose "weltanschauung" is more "noble."

Mine's not more noble but it's definitely wider...

Anyone remember the Iron Sheik? Always felt bad for the guy, he had to get his ass kicked by Sgt. Slaughter pretty much on a consistent basis...

Telepathic Clinical Psychologist

Had I realized that was a job, I would have gone to school for it...

I believe they come from, on a pragmatic level, whatever structure is in place to ensure their protection.

Do you believe that this applies to all "rights"? Or, if not, where do those other "rights" come from, and what is it about property rights specifically that causes them to differ?

Ark, the problem with the debate:
"George W. Bush: Evil or Stupid?" is that no one will take the other side (joey?)

I'm sure joey, or Dan, or David will stoop to the occasion.

I know you're joshing to some degree, but I'll make the small point that I typically don't see a sociopath as "evil".* That's a way of constructing the world that doesn't entirely make sense to me. I see it rather as something essential missing, particularly when it involves someone born to privilege, and whatever it is that's missing lets the sociopath see other people as means, and not as ends. It lets them cause death by the thousands as part of some global game of Risk. It lets a Cheney say with all seriousness in regard to Iraq, "no one has suffered more than the President". Imagine being able to say that with a straight face.

*and I see the term, generally, as descriptive, rather than perjorative

I'm not so sure the repercussions would necessarily be as bad as you think. They just did it with Syria a few months ago, and for all intents and purposes absolutely nothing happened.

The two situations aren't comparable.

1) Syria is weak.
2) Syria has no ability to project power, outside of Lebanon.
3) Syria couldn't make a big deal of it because then Syria would have to admit it had a nuclear program.
4) Israel can wipe the floor with Syria, so Syria can't escalate things. (Maybe #1, #2, and #4 are all saying the same thing.)
5) The Syrian government isn't overly popular in Syria; while there would probably be some rallying-round-the-flag in a conflict with Israel, instability could also lead to the fall of the government, so the Syrian government needs to be careful.

None of those are true of Iran. Iran is weak compared to the U.S., of course, but much stronger than Syria. Iran has Hezbollah as a proxy, and it has lots of oil. It could also threaten oil production throughout the gulf, if it chose. Iran has admitted it has a nuclear program (though not a weapons program, of course), so it doesn't need to cover up the incident. The Iranian government is not going to topple in a conflict. And while Israel can bomb Iran, it can't fight Iran.

An Israeli attack on an Iranian nuclear facility could conceivably lead to a widespread regional war.

And we get to the heart of the matter: nycfan, like most leftists, doesn't really care if anyone violates the NPT or if Iran gets nuclear weapons

The United States has been in violation of the NPT for at least 7 years.

Ark, the problem with the debate:
"George W. Bush: Evil or Stupid?" is that no one will take the other side (joey?)

I won't take part in a debate on the subject, but I think he's neither evil nor stupid*, though I'm not a fan...


[* I mean by regular standards, not necessarily in comparison to other presidents.]

Another interesting news note: Robert Byrd endorses Barack Obama.

Does this mean that Obama is a plant by the early 20th century KKK to destroy America?

Just like you're not handicapped, so you're happy to see those people struggle with everything from getting into bathrooms to recognizing money.

Happy to see someone struggle? Not at all. I don't want to see them struggle, and I'm happy to help people who ask for it. But not people who demand it as some sort of "right." I don't expect people to accommodate any of my weaknesses (*)-- I might be grateful if they do, but I don't expect it -- and nobody else ought to expect it for themselves, either.

(*) Mine aren't as serious as blindness or being stuck in a wheelchair, but the principle doesn't change.

If you were more secure in your own strength, maybe you could tolerate raising people up a bit. But you've obviously benefited from having an unlevel playing field, so you want to keep it this way,

Maybe you should have gone to Telepathic Clinical Psychologist school, because you really need some training; you're quite bad at it.

where equality exists only on a theoretical level divorced completely from real-world conditions. I'm just glad the people fighting on your side are so bad at it...

I don't believe in your Harrison Bergeron version of "equality" at all; in the "real world," we're not equal and only an authoritarian can make us equal. You're okay with that. I'm not.

As for property rights, I think it's structurally different because (contra dp) I don't believe that property rights derive from government

I believe they come from, on a pragmatic level, whatever structure is in place to ensure their protection.

Yes, that's what I said.

I also believe in defining things by referring to more than a dictionary, which may be another thing that sets us apart, and that these definitions are products of the specific cultural contexts they emerge from.

Right, whereas I'm not a relativist. I don't think rights are contingent on "cultural contexts."

Do you believe that this applies to all "rights"? Or, if not, where do those other "rights" come from, and what is it about property rights specifically that causes them to differ?

I am not sure I really speak Deconstructuralist or Foucaultese or whatever it is that f_dp does, but the issue (in my view is this).

The universe does not grant you any rights. Just as a whale, flower, or oxygen molecule doesn't have any rights.

ALL rights - even the most basic - "the right to not get your head bashed in for no reason" - is merely a mutual agreement among humans - typically (in the last few K years or so) codified into law.

David seems to think that people have an intrinsic "Right" to keep what they "Own" (including, but not limited to, their labor). But what they own is just what they have - and what the rest of society agrees not to take. We can argue about which takings are just and which are theft - but in the end, you only own what is not taken from you.

To summarize like 1500 posts - "Does the government has the right to do 'X'" where X is something you either like or don't like? The answer is - the government has a mandate to do anything codified in it's laws!

The problem people have with the ADA (just a for instance) is that they don't agree with the LAW.


In no way should this above post be construed as saying Laws and Governments are always, or even ON THE BALANCE good. That's just the way things are. Also governments (and it's representatives) can act OUTSIDE the law... this is a separate issue.

Mine's not more noble but it's definitely wider...

So's your mom.

I won't take part in a debate on the subject, but I think he's neither evil nor stupid*,...

Which is essentially my position, DK.

I'm starting to think arkitekton really is a conservative.

My plan to capture the intelligent swing vote may be working...

Does this mean that Obama is a plant by the early 20th century KKK to destroy America?

Yup. The Rev. Wright was a ruse, intended only to mask Obama's secret white agenda.

And we get to the heart of the matter: nycfan, like most leftists, doesn't really care if anyone violates the NPT or if Iran gets nuclear weapons

Did someone really write this? Seriously? No. C'mon...

With 2/3 of precincts counted, Hillary wins huge in Kentucky -- 2-1, just as in West Virginia. Not a surprise, and obviously has zero effect on her chances of catching Obama, but it has to be a little worrisome for him for the general election. Not that Kentucky is a swing state or anything, but just the fact that even as the presumptive nominee, lots of people in his own party are rejecting him in some areas.

Of course, McCain has weaknesses of his own; even after winning the nomination, he's only racking up 75% of the vote in these past several primaries.

ALL rights - even the most basic - "the right to not get your head bashed in for no reason" - is merely a mutual agreement among humans - typically (in the last few K years or so) codified into law.

Making sure I understand you correctly, this viewpoint seems to imply that there is nothing a government can do that is a violation of a person's "rights" provided that the government's charter permits it?

Do you believe this in both the pragmatic and moral senses, or just the pragmatic?

we're not equal and only an authoritarian can make us equal. You're okay with that. I'm not.

Our posts crossed in the night - it DOES not follow that because the government can and does restrict freedom (for example, the freedom to have a restaurant without wheelchair access) that it can/will/should restrict everything ad infinitum (ala 'road to serfdom' slide show - btw sponsored by GM) resulting in a totalitarian gov't?!?!

This is a slipperly slope! Why not just start with the first law! Government restricts my right to kill everyone named David! Next they will restrict my right to walk down the street with no shoes!

Zenbitz: so you think that slavery -- and by that I mean the old American South, cotton plantation version -- didn't violate the rights of slaves, because it was "codified in the law"? Since there was no "mutual agreement among humans" that slavery was wrong, it didn't violate their rights?

Which is essentially my position, DK.
And most peoples here, I presume - I thought ratcheting down the rhetoric a smidge might help.

Bulls got the #1 pick in the NBA draft. Miami #2, Minnesota #3.

Of course, McCain has weaknesses of his own; even after winning the nomination, he's only racking up 75% of the vote in these past several primaries.
I'm not reading too much into that - protest votes are common at this stage in the game.

Pragmatic only, Mike. The point is that one can argue whether or not a given law is just or unjust - there are just no first principals to fall back on - just collective opinion.

The issue is not whether a government has the right to enforce some unjust law - but rather whether that law is just or unjust in the first place.

Take the constitution. A bunch of words, laws, guidelines written down by a bunch of heroes/white patriarchs 220 odd years ago. They are not magic dogma handed down by god. They are only as valid as the society that supports them says they are. That is why we have amendments.

Do you believe that this applies to all "rights"?

MH#1F, I'd like to think that there are some rights beyond question, but what I think doesn't really matter- if there's no structure in place to protect them, the right might as well not exist. Was there a right to property in Iraq? How does one assert that right without a structure in place to recognize it? If you're screaming about your absolute right to property in a language that the person violating your right doesn't understand, it doesn't really do you much good.

FMJ:
Right, whereas I'm not a relativist. I don't think rights are contingent on "cultural contexts."

Which is why your philosophy will remain stuck in the 19th century. If you don't recognize that there are more ways to define concepts than the ones you've learned in your culture, you're going to either 1) wind up pushing your conception of private property, natural right, ect. on people, 2) having a breakdown of discussion and resort to the use of force b/c one group won't recognize the validity of the other group's claim, in which case you've violated the other group's right to way more than just property. I brought up the differences between European and Native American conceptions of property as one example of this upthread, but that didn't warrant a response. Do you think that your conception of private property is the only valid one in any culture anywhere in the world, and if so how did you come to encounter this superior conception, and when did you recognize its superiority? This speaks to transmission, which is central to articulating, communicating and recognizing rights...

Maybe you should have gone to Telepathic Clinical Psychologist school, because you really need some training; you're quite bad at it.

I'm assuming if you went to Princeton the system that's in place served you pretty damn well. I'm also assuming if can afford not to work while you wait for wages to go back up to an acceptable level, things are working out pretty well.

in the "real world," we're not equal

Yes, and your conception of property helps to make sure that inequality will be as pronounced as slickly-worded contracts allow.

So's your mom.

I was wondering when that would get here...

Of course, McCain has weaknesses of his own; even after winning the nomination, he's only racking up 75% of the vote in these past several primaries.

It's not super odd. Arbitrarily selecting the last 6 primaries:

Kerry '04: 60, 81, 75, 82, 68, 92
Gore '00: 70, 74, 72, 69, 71, 74
Bush '00: 83, 84, 78, 84, 83, 78
Dole '96: 62, 74, 76, 61, 82, 76

Can't find detailed primary results for '92, so I'll stop there.

This is a slipperly slope! Why not just start with the first law! Government restricts my right to kill everyone named David! Next they will restrict my right to walk down the street with no shoes!

You're the one who set up the slope and slid down it by declaring the only rights people have are ones the majority pushes the government to allow. By your conception of rights, blacks in the US had no rights that were violated by slavery.

Slavery was obviously an unjust law that hurt people. Whether it "violated their rights" is immaterial.

Slavery was obviously an unjust law that hurt people. Whether it "violated their rights" is immaterial.

So, you don't feel that they actually had rights to not be slaves?

(Actually, I think I got you confused with dp, sorry)

Without natural rights, justice becomes nothing other than whether one likes or dislikes an outcome. The Patriot Act no longer becomes a violation of rights, it simply becomes government policy some people don't like. Bans on gay marriage are no longer violations of rights, simply government policy some people don't like.

Happy to see someone struggle? Not at all. I don't want to see them struggle, and I'm happy to help people who ask for it. But not people who demand it as some sort of "right." I don't expect people to accommodate any of my weaknesses (*)-- I might be grateful if they do, but I don't expect it -- and nobody else ought to expect it for themselves, either.

DMN: I'm going to give you a pass on this stuff, but re-read what you wrote, b/c to me it comes across as petty and punitive. You won't help people who need help if they "demand it as some sort of 'right?'" Really? Nobody ought to expect others help? Really? So, is the problem with the blind that they "expect others to help" or "demand help as some kind of 'right'?" I'm sure you don't think that.

Whether someone has a mistaken sense of "right" or expectation really ought to be immaterial to the question whether, as a country, we're better when we come to the aid of classes of people in need. Now, we certainly can argue about the mechanisms of aiding such people; whether the state or federal gov't, or private institutions, and so on ought to help them in this or that case. But surely only the most petty would w/hold aid from others b/c of their contestable claims, right?

Slavery was obviously an unjust law that hurt people. Whether it "violated their rights" is immaterial.

This is so philosophically and historically wrong it makes my brain hurt.

Slavery was obviously an unjust law that hurt people. Whether it "violated their rights" is immaterial.

I don't understand what distinction you're drawing between "unjust" and "violated their rights." How do those phrases differ?

Right, whereas I'm not a relativist. I don't think rights are contingent on "cultural contexts."

Which is why your philosophy will remain stuck in the 19th century.

Actually, I'm not really sure what that means; I know it's supposed to be biting criticism, but I don't see how. I understand why, say, technology would be bad if it were "stuck in the 19th century." But why would philosophy be? Was the 19th century a particularly bad century for philosophy, the way some vintages are bad for wine?

If you don't recognize that there are more ways to define concepts than the ones you've learned in your culture,

Of course not; if you "define" a concept differently, it's a different concept. If you're asking me whether I recognize that some cultures claim to recognize some rights but don't do so, of course I do; that's an empirical statement. So? They're wrong. Or, maybe I'm wrong, and I need to be convinced of that. But we're not both right because we come from different "cultural contexts."

you're going to either 1) wind up pushing your conception of private property, natural right, ect. on people, 2) having a breakdown of discussion and resort to the use of force b/c one group won't recognize the validity of the other group's claim, in which case you've violated the other group's right to way more than just property.

Brings to mind the famous quote attributed to Charles Napier, when Indians complained about the British prohibition on suttee: "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

I brought up the differences between European and Native American conceptions of property as one example of this upthread, but that didn't warrant a response. Do you think that your conception of private property is the only valid one in any culture anywhere in the world,

Yes. By the way, you keep picking on "property" because it's easy, because it allows you to fit in with the left-wing cheering section here at BTF. But how about, as I asked zenbitz above, "real" slavery, of the American South variety? Was that wrong? Do you have any basis for saying it wrong besides your "cultural context"? Was it right for them in their "cultural context"? If it was wrong for them, how did you come to this conclusion? Is being anti-slavery just one "conception" of freedom?

and if so how did you come to encounter this superior conception, and when did you recognize its superiority? This speaks to transmission, which is central to articulating, communicating and recognizing rights...

How does anybody come to recognize the superiority of any concept? We have brains, and we use them to reason. Hopefully.

I'm really disappointed you guys didn't come up with more Iran lyrics.

And kudos to robinred for the best use of "So's your mom" i've yet read.

Of course, McCain has weaknesses of his own; even after winning the nomination, he's only racking up 75% of the vote in these past several primaries.

It's not super odd. Arbitrarily selecting the last 6 primaries:

Kerry '04: 60, 81, 75, 82, 68, 92
Gore '00: 70, 74, 72, 69, 71, 74
Bush '00: 83, 84, 78, 84, 83, 78
Dole '96: 62, 74, 76, 61, 82, 76

Uh, Dan? None of the four of them cracked 50% of the popular vote; I don't think they're exactly the models McCain wants to follow. I didn't say that it was unprecedented; I said it was a sign of weakness. I'm pretty sure McCain will be pretty unhappy if he ends up doing as badly as the four you named. How many winning candidates (I'm excluding 2000 here, where both candidates were pretty pathetic) did that poorly?

Am I the only one who now simply turns off a netcast when Bill or Hillary Clinton begins to speak? It's like listening to Bush, in that they'll say, literally, anything. "I didn't run over the cat, it committed suicide by leaping in front of my limo." I mean, what's the point?

Yes. By the way, you keep picking on "property" because it's easy, because it allows you to fit in with the left-wing cheering section here at BTF.

Ah, yes, the great "left-wing cheering section here at BTF," where each of the many self-described libertarians is a besieged one man minority, and statists apply the jackboot to all dissenters. Martyrdom brings such sweet sorrow....

But how about, as I asked zenbitz above, "real" slavery, of the American South variety? Was that wrong? Do you have any basis for saying it wrong besides your "cultural context"? Was it right for them in their "cultural context"? If it was wrong for them, how did you come to this conclusion? Is being anti-slavery just one "conception" of freedom?

Obviously there are certain axiomatic concepts that need no "cultural context" to justify them: the right not to be enslaved; the right not to be murdered. Of course these "rights" are dependent on a specific culture's rule of law to be enforced, which you might refer to as cultural context, but I don't think that the underlying sentiment is contested in these parts.

But once you go much beyond that, then we are talking much more about "cultural context," and all the points that formerly dp and zenbitz have been raising. There's absolutely nothing inherently wrong with believing in a system of values where an absolute and essentially unregulated right to property is up there in the same pantheon as the right not to be enslaved or murdered, but once you step outside the bubble of your fellow libertarians, the bubble bursts, and your equation becomes mere assertion. Its moral weight is considerable, but so are other competing moral claims. There are times when I don't think you quite understand this, though it's really more a lack of acknowledgment than understanding. But of course if you did ever break down and admit that someone other than yourself occasionally had a legitimate competing point, this thread would likely be only half as long, as half as entertaining. So there's much to be said for your perserverance.

Was the 19th century a particularly bad century for philosophy, the way some vintages are bad for wine?

There's something for everyone when it comes to 19th century philosophy. Marxists, for instance -- crypto or otherwise -- are stuck in the 19th century almost by definition. There's Bakunin for the anarchists, Nietzsche for the ... well ... Nietzscheans, Frege for the logicians, Mill for the Utilitarians, and Hegel for people who enjoy reading dense and incomprehensible Germans.

Not that Kentucky is a swing state or anything, but just the fact that even as the presumptive nominee, lots of people in his own party are rejecting him in some areas.

Meh. Obama's big losses have been almost exclusively in Appalachia. Not that his total inability to collect votes in those areas is a GOOD thing for him, but I don't think it's fatal. Where it'll matter the most is in Ohio and Pennsylvania, which are demographically diverse but include big portions of Appalachia. (I think Obama wins PA anyway; Ohio's more doubtful, and is the one major swing state where I think Clinton would likely fare better against McCain, largely because of the Appalachian vote.)

The numbers of Clinton supporters in those areas who say they won't vote for Obama in November is cause for concern, but I also imagine those numbers will drop between now and then.

It lets a Cheney say with all seriousness in regard to Iraq, "no one has suffered more than the President". Imagine being able to say that with a straight face.

Very powerful comment, arky. I wanted to jump through the TV screen and strangle that ############# Cheney for saying that.

Very powerful comment, arky. I wanted to jump through the TV screen and strangle that ############# Cheney for saying that.

But he gave up golf!

And candy.

OK, he bagged the candy thing.

But he gave up golf!

OK, he didn't do it for good until after his knee was so damaged he couldn't play it anymore.

But still, he gave up golf!

Nobody ought to expect others help? Really? So, is the problem with the blind that they "expect others to help" or "demand help as some kind of 'right'?"

Actually, most handicapped people don't demand others to help, or even expect it; it's advocacy groups who are driving these types of lawsuits, and they find a few willing plaintiffs to sign on.

Actually, most handicapped people don't demand others to help, or even expect it; it's advocacy groups who are driving these types of lawsuits, and they find a few willing plaintiffs to sign on.

The National Federation for the Blind opposed this lawsuit, btw.


To answer JC:

DMN: I'm going to give you a pass on this stuff, but re-read what you wrote, b/c to me it comes across as petty and punitive. You won't help people who need help if they "demand it as some sort of 'right?'" Really? Nobody ought to expect others help? Really? So, is the problem with the blind that they "expect others to help" or "demand help as some kind of 'right'?" I'm sure you don't think that.

Is that "the problem with the blind"? Of course not; that's the problem with a few people.

Yes, it sounds petty, but it's also natural; if you encountered a blind person -- say, while you're out shopping -- and he asked you for help with something, you'd probably do it, assuming it wasn't too onerous, right? But if he said, "Hey, you! Get over here! I demand you do this for me!" you probably wouldn't, even though it was the same thing and required the same amount of effort on your part.

Since there was no "mutual agreement among humans" that slavery was wrong, it didn't violate their rights?

Having this discussion in retrospect, we can all say that it was wrong, how terrible slavery was, ect. Where does that get us? It is more productive to look at how, in the midst of a culture that in the process of granting a set of "natural" human rights to all people, could slavery be so widespread? What were the conditions that allowed this to happen? One does not have to be a dyed in the wool relativist to benefit from this type of analysis. Through contractual positioning, slavery as a practice was legitimated, and slaves were robbed of their "right to property" in the midst of a society that believed strongly in this right. This is why paying attention to transmission and circulation of ideas is crucial if you want to do anything other than Monday morning quarterback history. Somehow, people managed to get defined as property. We can assert that as a first principle, this should never be allowed to happen, but how do you systematize this principle without telling people what they can and can't do? In early industrial capitalism, people were as free to starve as they were to surrender their labor. Slaves were as free to be beaten as they were not to work. Where do we draw the line at impinged autonomy? This is why the definitional questions are essential, and why it is possible to justify drawing different lines to argue for different conceptions of right. Rights will never be articulated outside of a linguistic and contextual framework- they have to be parsed in the language of the group you're trying to articulate them within, or they have to be imposed on that group by force.

So, you don't feel that they actually had rights to not be slaves?

Does it matter? What matters is that they were positioned within a system that did not allow them to articulate rights because it treated them as less than human. What were the conditions that allowed that to happen, and how would we keep it from happening again are more important questions.

FMJ:
"real" slavery, of the American South variety? Was that wrong?

Here's where we can meet- you equate taxation and building ramps with slavery, I think working conditions in some forms of capitalism are slavery. We draw different borders because of our notion of freedom. Had I been alive at the time would I have thought slavery was wrong? I hope so, but I honestly can't say. If I was a slave, for sure. If I was a slave owner, I might have thought it but had difficulty expressing it b/c I was so deeply embedded in my cultural context. Let me put the question to you- attending Princeton in the 18th century, do you think you would have come to the conclusion that slavery was wrong? If you owned slaves, would you have had the courage to release them? IOW, you can try to reason as a subject outside of history, but it presents some difficulty, at least for me, as it requires you to imagine yourself as a mind that exists totally detached from its context.

I am very sympathetic to the issues faced by disabled people b/c I was forced to confront them at a very young age. As I've had that experience and others haven't, I try to get them to see the often hidden obstacles they face (like not being able to tell the difference between their bills). Given a society that recognizes a plurality of values (such as ours), I'll argue that their special circumstances justify the application of a different set of values, a set that trumps other competing values in some instances but not in others. It's a complex issue, especially because people with disabilities get lumped together as an advocating/agitating body, but don't all have the same needs and interests- like any community, there's stratification and division within it, and even a reluctance to be identified as a member of it. IOW, they have many of the same problems as other groups engaging in "identity politics." I think in a lot of cases, people aren't educated about disabled issues simply b/c they haven't seen the world from their perspective (as a simple example, I always yield to anyone with a wheeled vehicle in a curb cutout b/c it's easier for me to step up the curb than it is for them to bump up it- when I'm pushing my sister around NYC, people never get out of the way of the curb cutout, and act like she can just walk around them and go up the curb). That's why the expectations of disabled people need to be framed as rational appeals to existing conceptions of rights, dignity and justice, rather than as some handicapped utopia where restaurant owners bound by chains and held hostage at gunpoint do nothing but build ramps and serve them food for free.

Brings to mind the famous quote attributed to Charles Napier, when Indians complained about the British prohibition on suttee: "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

Nice, you blew a hole through that one...so taking their property was OK too? This is what I'm talking about- by framing their system as beyond the bounds of rationality, it was considered just to take their property from them.

These are the same Brits who burned 'witches' if they survived being drowned, or are these different ones?

By the way, you keep picking on "property" because it's easy, because it allows you to fit in with the left-wing cheering section here at BTF.

No, I keep picking on it b/c it's the only right you care about at the expense of any other conception. That guy counting the left-wing cheering section here is up to 15 after 5500 posts; if they're here, they're not cheering loudly...

I'm saying that the right to property is not absolute, especially your idea of property, and that we need to balance this with other competing rights through discussion. That means, at least IMO, that it's absurd to ##### and invoke slavery every time you're asked to build a business according to a standard that was decided on by the community you operate that business within, which allows you to have a voice in the formation of those regulations.

Ray (I think it was Ray, sorry if it wasn't) joked he'd pretend to be blind if they were gonna start giving blind people free money. Let's take this a step further- would you rather be the "disadvantaged" business owner "enslaved" by ADA regulations or the person in the wheelchair who has to overcome 8 steps when she wants to meet her friends for dinner? Is that really too high a price to pay for living in this society? My guess is even if being blind meant you could get money out of any ATM anywhere, and didn't have to worry about getting ripped off because you could always get more, no one in this room would trade their eyesight for that.

How does anybody come to recognize the superiority of any concept? We have brains, and we use them to reason.

Again, nice dodge. Where did your concept of property come from? How did you receive it, and on what basis do you claim that it's better than all others?

They're wrong. Or, maybe I'm wrong, and I need to be convinced of that.

I think you're wrong. I think your property rights do not extend as far as you want them to. That's what I've been driving at- when you insist that paying for something is the equivalent of doing it, this is a leap in abstraction that assumes you labored for the money in the first place, and challenges your claim to absolute dominion over your rights to that labor once it has changed form and circulated.

most handicapped people don't demand others to help, or even expect it

Ray, in my experience, most want society set up so they don't have to ask for it- creating infrastructure conducive to their needs, for example. They want the disability to disappear so they can act and be treated as equal members of society.

I'm really disappointed you guys didn't come up with more Iran lyrics.

Bunyon, I gave you a picture of the Iron Sheik; that's got to counter for something.

There's something for everyone when it comes to 19th century philosophy

MH#1F, second half, I'd agree with you, but it only emerges in the process of overturning the grand theories of the Enlightenment...

Is that "the problem with the blind"? Of course not; that's the problem with a few people.

Yes, it sounds petty, but it's also natural; if you encountered a blind person -- say, while you're out shopping -- and he asked you for help with something, you'd probably do it, assuming it wasn't too onerous, right? But if he said, "Hey, you! Get over here! I demand you do this for me!" you probably wouldn't, even though it was the same thing and required the same amount of effort on your part.

Fine, but we're talking about making public policy, aren't we?

Obviously there are certain axiomatic concepts that need no "cultural context" to justify them: the right not to be enslaved; the right not to be murdered. Of course these "rights" are dependent on a specific culture's rule of law to be enforced, which you might refer to as cultural context, but I don't think that the underlying sentiment is contested in these parts.

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


FMJ, thanks for the new handle...!

Maybe a more productive discussion- how do we deal with slavery today? Do we define these practices as slavery, and if so, what measures do we take to stop them? What do we do to stop it abroad? What can we learn from the mechanisms that allowed it to happen in the past to inform our actions in the present? Maybe this is completely the wrong direction for this thread to go.

Already calling OR for Obama.

Maybe a more productive discussion- how do we deal with slavery today?

That story you linked to has an odd usage of the phrase "forced labor" and of the word "slavery"(*). As in, some of the things listed aren't. But for the real types of crimes identified, those can be prosecuted.

(*) I just don't see the following as "forced":

Even if victims can escape, they often fear leaving because they do not speak English, are unfamiliar with U.S. currency, and are unsure of how to use local transport.

Um, "unfamiliar with U.S. currency"? "Unsure of how to use local transport"? These people are working in such horrid conditions and yet don't choose to leave because they... don't know how to use a dollar bill? This is said with a straight face?

Also:

The new study documents how modern slavery operates in the United States. Perpetrators use a range of crimes - fraud, coercion, physical and psychological violence - to hold their victims captive. They confiscate passports and threaten to turn their captives over to the authorities if they refuse to obey.

Psychological violence?

Um, "unfamiliar with U.S. currency"? "Unsure of how to use local transport"? These people are working in such horrid conditions and yet don't choose to leave because they... don't know how to use a dollar bill? This is said with a straight face?

There are also people on internet websites who would post less nasty crap, but they are unfamiliar with empathy, and unsure of how to express it. You might think, "How could that be? They are living in such a light less existence and they still don't bother to work on such basic skills?"

You might think that, but we must empathize.

You have to admit, E-X, that not knowing how to use money doesn't pass the giggle test.

EDIT: And what you miss is that my comment ("This is said with a straight face?") was not directed towards the people who allegedly don't know how to use money -- since I don't believe that any such people exist (well, not unless they are mentally disabled). It was directed towards the people _claiming_ that these people exist.

Already calling OR for Obama.

YAY!!!!!

Psychological violence?

Do you think that the only way trauma can be inflicted is with a whip? What would you tell people suffering from PTSD who don't have a scratch on them? Toughen up?

That story you linked to has an odd usage of the phrase "forced labor" and of the word "slavery"(*). As in, some of the things listed aren't. But for the real types of crimes identified, those can be prosecuted.

How you define "forced" and "coerced" definitely matters. And the fact that it's illegal- not supported by an institutional framework- certainly makes it less insidious than legal slavery in the US. But I don't think it's a stretch to call it slavery. Do you define freedom by the ability to bust through a door and onto a street where as far as you know you'll be immediately captured and subjected to worse conditions than the ones you're living in, or returned to your captor? It's easy for you (not me- I don't know what I'd do) to imagine from the outside in what you'd do in that situation, but in a controlled mental environment, you might not have the perfect information you need to make a "rational" decision.

not knowing how to use money doesn't pass the giggle test.

Ray, let's plop you down on a random street in Guatemala without a passport and see how long it takes you to get home. Bear in mind that you've got a government with some pull in almost every country in the world that might go to bat for you, so you've already got a leg up. And you can read at least in your native language, which goes a long way too.

Actually, that sounds like the next Fox reality show.

The Conservative Nanny State, or, speaking of relatives...

What irks me is simply the sheer fraud that is most libertarianism. I've never met one lib lawyer who wouldn't suck himself fat on the government t!t. Let me put it this way: has anyone ever met a lib lawyer who correctly resigned as a matter of principle from his state bar association on the ground that bar associations use government power to fraudulently limit the number of licensed lawyers? One name will do.

Ray (I think it was Ray, sorry if it wasn't) joked he'd pretend to be blind if they were gonna start giving blind people free money.

Oooh... I forgot to reply to Ray. This will do. If Ray wants to pretend to be blind to get his, then he won't mind if I still icepicks in his eyes.

he won't mind if I still icepicks in his eyes.

Just because you're blind doesn't mean an icepick in the eye won't kill you...figured I'd point that out before you do anything drastic.

Didn't want anyone to think I fled due to superior rhetoric... I was just away from a computer for a few hours.

I was going to try to back track on the slavery question and admit some "rights"... but I thought about it some more. Slaves in the antebellum south - by definition, did not have their rights violated. This does not mean that because their rights weren't violated, what was done to them was OK. What it means is that rights are mutable, not absolute. This does not mean that slavery was OK because it was accepted and lawful. It just means that... it was accepted and lawful (to some, obviously to others - even contemporaneous - it was a heinous crime against humanity.

Lets take some modern examples - the rights of the unborn. (for the record, I am a pro-abortion atheist). I am pretty damn sure that a fetus - even a fertilized egg - is alive and human. Usually "terminating" living humans is considered bad. AT SOME POINT it becomes taboo to kill that fetus.

Consider the Death Penalty - most Americans think that it's just peachy to execute murderers. Many other nations think not. Do Murderers have rights? Is executing them "violating their rights"?

Consider Animals. (For the record, I am a meat-loving, leather-wearing pet owner) - I think that in a century or two, eating meat and owning animals will be considered barbaric and illegal. I think the PETA people are forward thinkers! I also don't agree with them. Whether or not this actually comes to pass (and I admit I have no evidence - just a gut feeling) it's clear that IT COULD - and animal experimentation/farming/owning will be looked on with the same scorn as we enlightened people look on the antebellum south.

So, do any of us have "property rights" - of course! They are codified in laws and generally accepted by US citizens, etc. But it's perfectly legitimate social change (the word evolution is too loaded here) to "erode" your property rights at the expense of other "rights". It's also perfectly legitimate (as David pleads) for your property rights or privacy rights or marriage rights to be EXPANDED and enhanced.

Jeeze... I didn't mean ALL THE WAY INTO HIS BRAIN.
Replace "ice picks" with "thumbtacks" - that probably won't kill him (barring infection). I'll even supply the morphine.

EDIT: And what you miss is that my comment ("This is said with a straight face?") was not directed towards the people who allegedly don't know how to use money -- since I don't believe that any such people exist (well, not unless they are mentally disabled). It was directed towards the people _claiming_ that these people exist.

No I didn't miss that.
I was simply suggesting that you going all smirky and claiming people don't exist is insulting to those people.

Well, clearly our currency needs to be redesigned so as to accommodate exploited workers who could otherwise escape, if only they understood how our money worked. I suggest an implanted chip that broadcasts instructions in 17 languages* when the stress level of the holder of said currency rises above a certain limit.

* Not including imprinted Braille and that the money will broadcast the instructions in sign language by folding upon itself, origamy style.

Let me put it this way: has anyone ever met a lib lawyer who correctly resigned as a matter of principle from his state bar association on the ground that bar associations use government power to fraudulently limit the number of licensed lawyers? One name will do.

So the only principled libertarian is one who has renounced his/her livelihood. Surely such a principled libertarian will also not go to a doctor who attended public school or eat subsidized food. The principled libertarian is therefore a dead libertarian - which is something that I suspect Arky may find appealing.

Zenbitz what you say is utterly unhelpful unless you can come up with some other rationale for why slavery was "a heinous crime against humanity," why abortion is OK but killing newborn babies is wrong, etc. You may not agree with a rights-based conception of justice on a philosophical level, but it has big advantages. One, it provides a clear guide to decision-making - if we accept I have a right to yodel as loudly as I like at 3 am, then no-one gets to stop me yodelling. And two, within socities and communities, people are able to work out charters of rights and agree to them. You may say that these rights don't really come from God or nature, but if the people accept that they do, that's good enough.

A rights-based conception of justice obviously has a big flaw philosophically - "yeah, where do these rights come from?" But compare it to the other popular conceptions of justice - it's no more flawed than utilitarianism, and it's positively watertight philosophically as compared to the "veil of ignorance." And given that no-one is really a nihilist, given that we want ideas like justice and morality to guide public policy (and private morality) decisions, you need some sort of basis to work out what's just and what's unjust. And the big difference between a rights-based framework and things like utilitarianism and a Rawlsian conception of justice is that the rights-based framework can provide answers to questions. The others (almost) never give an answer, so what good are they? Should we intervene in Burma for humanitarian reasons? How would a utilitarian approach the question?

Well, greatest good for greatest number, he'll think. So giving aid to starving people, that would create good. But causing a war, that would destroy good. And undermining the rule of international law, that would destroy good too. But establishing a consensus in international law to allow relief of suffering, that would create good. But spending money, that would destroy good. And utility would best be served if governments looked after their own citizens primarily... so in which circumstances can they depart from that? More generally we have no way of knowing the future consequences of our actions, we have no way of measuring "good," and different goods are incommensurable, so you never get an answer. As for how we are supposed to know which inequalities benefit the least well-off, and how this helps us answer questions about intervening in Burma, the good Lord only knows. "Burma is a sovereign state, we have no right to interfere" - well, at least that answers the question.

I'm not crazy about rights-based arguments either. But rather than keep bashing David over the head for making them, consider that your responses are even less satisfactory. And this goes a hundred times over for formerly_dp.

Zenbitz what you say is utterly unhelpful unless you can come up with some other rationale for why slavery was "a heinous crime against humanity," why abortion is OK but killing newborn babies is wrong, etc. You may not agree with a rights-based conception of justice on a philosophical level, but it has big advantages. One, it provides a clear guide to decision-making - if we accept I have a right to yodel as loudly as I like at 3 am, then no-one gets to stop me yodelling.

I used to have a problem with 3 am yodelers asserting their rights on a basketball court underneath my Kalorama Park apartment window, but fortunately I still reserved the right to draw the blinds and lob soda bottles and fruit jars onto their heads. That seemed to make them consider the virtues of utilitarianism.

If principled libertarians shouldn't become lawyers because of state associations with the bar, the by the same degree, principled progressives shouldn't use private health insurance because there's no universal health coverage.

Will they activate their terrorist sleeper cells here and around the world to wreak mayhem? That's a possibility, but I'm not so sure they have as many anymore as people might think. I think most of their agents and terrorists are in Iraq, and languishing in prison down in Guantanamo Bay. If they've got more here, we can deal with them if necessary

Is their even one Iranian in Gitmo? And where do you get the idea that they have terrorist sleeper cells around the world? Or the idea that there are Iranians fighting in Iraq? There is absolutely no evidence for any of these claims.

zenbitz:

Let's stick w/slavery for a second. In the antebellum South, slavery was obviously permissible, and thus, though "wrong" in some odd sense according to you, it did not violate the slaves' rights.

If an abolitionist stood up, as many did, and argued that slavery was wrong b/c it violates others' rights to enslave them, what kind of claim was he making? Something nonsensical, or something else?

Also, I don't have a sense of what you mean when you say while it didn't violate the rights of slaves, that "does not mean that slavery was OK". Isn't that exactly what it means? If you say that an action is both lawful and does not violate another's rights, aren't you effectively claiming that action is OK?

Finally, if that conclusion is right, why not just draw the obvious conclusion: It's your view that slavery (then) was ok?

I'm not crazy about rights-based arguments either. But rather than keep bashing David over the head for making them, consider that your responses are even less satisfactory. And this goes a hundred times over for formerly_dp.

You're the person who claimed homesexuals don't have the right to get married, or am I confusing you with someone else? Where's your "rights-based" argument there?

If you can find where I said that people shouldn't have rights, please point it out. I said that it doesn't make sense to talk about rights independent of the framework within which they get expressed b/c they always get expressed with one. The question is if there can be competing notions of right or if the right to property owners to absolute control over their property always trumps any competing concept of right. Let's go with FMJ's utopia- we've privatized everything incl roads, schools, parks, ect- where do I have the "right" to exercise free speech? Currently, you don't have the right to free expression in a mall. If the owner has decided that while you're on their property it runs counter to their interests for you to exercise free speech, and their rights are absolute, your right to free speech can only be enjoyed on your property. If you own property. By subordinating that right to the rights of property owners, we've effectively eradicated it, or at least pushed it so far to the margins that it will be useless. All speech that doesn't impede commerce is tolerated, but any speech that disrupts people's ability to make and spend money has been banned by those who own the property on which that speech would otherwise occur. In that wickedly awesome society, I would want to recognize some instances where the right to free speech trumped the property owner's rights. But as his take on it is absolutist- no authority is allowed to compel the property owner to recognize another's rights on his property. If another's free speech impedes my business, I have to labor to make up for the lost business, t/f your free speech has forced me to labor, and I will not be a slave to your free speech. This is why me and the rest of BTFLWCS find his attempts to adhere to the absolutist position so deranged and dystopian.

But more I think it's just an excuse to ##### about people he considers whiners and tell them to just suck it up like he would if he was in their position. I don't think he actaully buys what he's selling. FMJ just doesn't like complainers, unless they complain about how government restrictions are the only thing keeping their business from succeeding.

FMJ?

Just speaking for myself, I don't see what's wrong with rights, particularly those enumerated by the American and French Revolutions and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Universal Declaration may be philosophically untenable, or a convenient fiction; the UN may have been desperately cynical in invoking it or ignoring it over the years; the whole concept may be a flawed extended metaphor of the type humanity = family. But it seems quite reasonable as a practical document. The Universal Declaration is very strong on civil liberties and social security, not so much on property rights (which as BTFLWCS notes, tend to infringe on both civil liberties and social security).

So the only principled libertarian is one who has renounced his/her livelihood. Surely such a principled libertarian will also not go to a doctor who attended public school or eat subsidized food. The principled libertarian is therefore a dead libertarian - which is something that I suspect Arky may find appealing.

You've inadvertently put your finger on the dead pulse of libertarianism there, Tom. In order to be faithful to the idealogy, you have to ruin not only your own life, but all of those around you.

Libertarianism has the same problem that feminism, socialism and communism have: they ignore the reality of everyday problems and the foibles of human nature.

i KNEW the money ruling would be hollered at here. hahaha.

We're gonna have eurotrashesque dollars soon! yaaaay!

Kevin: please, that's true of every single system out there, including capitalism. or do you really think a free market is autocorrecting and not prone to abuse?

Libertarianism has the same problem that feminism, socialism and communism have: they ignore the reality of everyday problems and the foibles of human nature.

It's not that they "ignore" them- its that their adherents all believe that their path is the one true insight into such things.

If you ask a Libertarian or a feminist or a communist why all the others are pie in the sky utopian fanatsies and their ...ism isn't- they will all give the same [false] answer- a variation of which one of our Primate Libertarians recited for us somewhere earlier when he claimed libertarianism wasn't Utopianist.

You're the person who claimed homesexuals don't have the right to get married, or am I confusing you with someone else? Where's your "rights-based" argument there?

The fact that I don't automatically reject rights-based arguments doesn't mean that I assert that EVERY POSSIBLE ACTION is a right.

where do I have the "right" to exercise free speech?

The word "right" has many possible meanings. The "right" to free speech is not a claim-right it's a liberty. Whereas the "right" to property is a parcel of rights, mostly claim-rights and power-rights. This is a fundamental confusion you seem to have.

Maybe a more productive discussion- how do we deal with slavery today? Do we define these practices as slavery, and if so, what measures do we take to stop them? What do we do to stop it abroad? What can we learn from the mechanisms that allowed it to happen in the past to inform our actions in the present? Maybe this is completely the wrong direction for this thread to go.

Well, Jack Shafer pointed out a few years ago in Slate how uncredible Free the Slaves is, in the sense that their numbers seem to be wildly overinflated and based on virtually no hard evidence at all. (It's the worst sort of media groupthink, where activists pick a random number, and since nobody has a right number, the media reports it as an "estimate." And since nobody ever has a right number, reporters keep using the estimate -- except now they can source it to other media outlets rather than an activist group. And then the activists start citing media reports as though those reports represented independent estimates rather than their own guesses, recycled.) But obviously nobody, including Shafer, denies that slavery occurs.

As to whether the practices described in the article and the accompanying report are forms of slavery, it seems like a stretch to call some of them slavery, but others clearly are. What measures do we take to stop them? We prosecute the people who do these things. It would help to legalize prostitution, too. We can liberalize immigration rules, but that's more complex. (As for what to do abroad, I think the U.S. population has come to the consensus that the U.S. ought not to be the world's policeman.)

If an abolitionist stood up, as many did, and argued that slavery was wrong b/c it violates others' rights to enslave them, what kind of claim was he making? Something nonsensical, or something else?

I didn't fully follow his argument, but that claim "that slavery was wrong b/c it violates others' rights to enslave them" would have been nonsensical in a lot of southern contexts- it would not fit into what were the "common-sense" beliefs of the community within which it was made. The irony is that part of the dehumanizing rhetoric that allowed that common-sense perception to exist was based on asserting a diminished capacity for reason b/c they were unable to grasp our concept of it.

The term "common sense" has meant wildly different things at different times in western history- is the sensus communis the sense common to the community, and what does community mean? If you mean community of man, then you're claiming that it is a sensibility accessible to everyone by dint of being human. If you mean common to the community of sense-makers, its specific to the accepted beliefs of a particular community of language-users. (at one point, the term even referred to an agreement between all of the five sense organs, the "facts" about the world that the senses were able to corroborate as such...yeah, this meaning didn't last very long)

Libertarianism has the same problem that feminism, socialism and communism have: they ignore the reality of everyday problems and the foibles of human nature.

For someone who's sometimes tagged as a shoot first, think later primate, Kevin's just hit the nail on the head. It's not that you can't pick up valuable insights from any of these "isms," it's when you try to fit every real life round peg into these ideologies' square holes that you start running into big time trouble.

Hillary's supporters blame her defeat on "sexism." Communists blame famines on "wreckers." Libertarians blame every other problem on "government." There's a pattern there to be noted.

Kevin: please, that's true of every single system out there, including capitalism. or do you really think a free market is autocorrecting and not prone to abuse?

OK, then add capitalism in there too, Scott.

Hillary's supporters blame her defeat on "sexism." Communists blame famines on "wreckers." Libertarians blame every other problem on "government."

Conservatives and Liberals blame things on each other. :)

The word "right" has many possible meanings.

Sure, I agree.

The "right" to free speech is not a claim-right it's a liberty. Whereas the "right" to property is a parcel of rights, mostly claim-rights and power-rights.

Or not.

it seems like a stretch to call some of them slavery

Which is why articulating a robust theory of slavery might make sense- this would allow us to see what it is and what it isn't. Does it have to be backed up by a formalized institutional framework? Is it defined only by the use of brute force to ensure subordination?

It would help to legalize prostitution

This is a really thorny issue. If you're going to do it, you've got to do it right, or it's just going to bring about a worse set of problems. IMO, it has to be heavily regulated by an agency not subordinate to the police, and the tax revenue should to mostly go into 1) trying to create safe working conditions for those in the profession, and 2) ensuring that those in the profession want to be there (mostly, active policing to prevent teenage runaways from being recruited at a young age) and making sure that the ones who want to get out can. If you go with private regulation on this one (and this is a risk with public regulation as well, but not as much) everything I've read says you're assuring a bifurcated system where some people have the luxury of testing, mandatory condom use, ect, but then a second class of women won't be able to expect those same protections. This is obviously a huge problem from a public health standpoint. I'm hoping we won't get the "there is no public health, if you don't want to be exposed to STDs don't become a prostitute" argument here, but I wouldn't be shocked if someone made it....

I gotta head to the hospital in a bit so I'll miss the rest of the day's postings (no WiFi there :<) but I'm sure we'll get some great discussion around this one...I'll be disappointed by anything less than 5700 by the time I get back...

Shhhh. Everyone be quiet until f_dp gets back.

What irks me is simply the sheer fraud that is most libertarianism.

Says the left-winger pretending to be a conservative who's too cowardly to actually debate any libertarians.

I've never met one lib lawyer who wouldn't suck himself fat on the government t!t. Let me put it this way: has anyone ever met a lib lawyer who correctly resigned as a matter of principle from his state bar association on the ground that bar associations use government power to fraudulently limit the number of licensed lawyers? One name will do.

You're confused about what a bar association is, but setting that aside some of us libertarian lawyers do oppose government licensing of our profession. But "resigning" certainly won't help eliminate such licensing.

That's the supposed "gotcha" libertarians always run into from leftists (such as Arkitekton): "You claim to be libertarian, but you don't go live in a shack in Montana." (E.g., "You claim to be opposed to government programs, but you use public roads! Hypocrite!") Putting aside the almost complete uselessness of the "hypocrite" ad hominem argument as a debating tactic, it's misplaced here. If I didn't pay taxes, I would be a hypocrite to not use roads. But my money is used, in part, to build those roads. Why should I not take advantage of my own money, especially if it was taken from me involuntarily for that purpose?

Otherwise, what one is saying is that a libertarian must forgo 40% of his income for nothing in order to be consistent with his ideology -- but that's nonsensical. There's nothing in libertarianism which suggests that.

No, I don't think lawyers should be required to be licensed. I routinely make that argument, here and elsewhere, even though it isn't in my self-interest to do so. But spiting myself by quitting neither benefits me nor advances my preferred position.

so basically Nieporent is a libertarian until those beliefs have an effect on his life and livelihood. You're so brave!

so basically Nieporent is a libertarian until those beliefs have an effect on his life and livelihood. You're so brave!

Oh give it a rest. His reply is coherent and correct, it seems to me. I oppose tenure, but benefit from it and would be foolish to renounce the benefits of it so long tenure persists. Now, I oppose libertarianism as well, but see nothing inconsistent in a lib arguing in its behalf and also benefitting from gov't programs he opposes.

Oh for crying out loud. I'm a liberal and I will cash my Economic Stimulus Check (whenever it comes). I'm anti-capitalist and my retirement funds are invested in various markets. Give the man a break; he lives in the real world, and occasionally admits it.

And BTFLWCS f_dp, when you return, enough with the Princeton-bashing already :) It has been a nursery of neocon heroes in the past half-century, but it also graduated Adlai Stevenson and Ralph Nader ...

Edit: I owe JC at least part of a Coke :)

I'd like to see the people calling DMN a hypocrite answer the question JCCR proposed. Those that are criticizing DMN, how are you not also hypocrites for advocating single-payer health care while participating in multiple-payer health care?

If David has to sacrifice his career in order to be true to his belief, why do none of you have to sacrifice your health in order to be true to yours?

Hillary's supporters blame her defeat on "sexism." Communists blame famines on "wreckers." Libertarians blame every other problem on "government." There's a pattern there to be noted.

The pattern is that libertarians keep getting described mistakenly. Libertarians do not blame everything on government; libertarians often argue that government makes problems worse (or creates new ones) when it attempts to solve problems, but we don't say that government creates all the problems.

And that helps illustrate why JPWF13 (and others, I don't mean to single him out) is wrong to say that libertarianism is utopian. Libertarians do not claim that all problems will be solved if our philosophy is adopted. We think that the world will be better if our views are adopted (*), but that's not "utopian." Everyone thinks that the world would be better if their views were adopted.


(*) But to be clear, most libertarians are not utilitarian-libertarians; the majority argument for libertarianism is rights-based. IOW, while we may indeed think free markets are generally more efficient, that's not our motive for supporting them; our motive for supporting free markets is that it's wrong to restrict freedom of contract.

I would add that most libs don't think ALL government should be eliminated. Certainly government to protect individual freedom is necessary. Libs don't believe in anarchy, they believe in a government with the power to protect and preserve freedom.


There are certainly arguments to be made against libertarianism. At times of extreme crisis, for instance, I think it perfectly legitimate that society band together to survive. I also don't believe any single philosophy has all the answers. But, increasingly in this thread, the arguments being put forward against libertarianism are non-sensical and in bad faith. or just made by morons, either way (I mean, arguing that slavery in antebellum south was ok? Jesus wept).

Hillary's supporters blame her defeat on "sexism." Communists blame famines on "wreckers." Libertarians blame every other problem on "government." There's a pattern there to be noted.

The pattern is that libertarians keep getting described mistakenly. Libertarians do not blame everything on government; libertarians often argue that government makes problems worse (or creates new ones) when it attempts to solve problems, but we don't say that government creates all the problems.

Of course that's why I was careful to write "every other problem" rather than "all problems" or "everything," even if you don't choose to note that. And heaven help that the WGL should ever "misrepresent" anyone's views himself. Perish the thought.

But to avoid any further confusion on your part, I'll just say "libertarians blame a wildly disproportionate number of problems on government," and leave it at that.

Obviously there are certain axiomatic concepts that need no "cultural context" to justify them: the right not to be enslaved; the right not to be murdered.

So, Andy, I've been wondering about this:

In your view, what rights (or axiomatic concepts, if you prefer) need no cultural context to be justified?

Why, absent cultural context, are they justified? What's the rationale for their universality?

Why this specific set of rights/concepts, i.e., how do we know this is the correct set, or is your view that there is no necessarily "correct" set and that this is just the most optimum (or "least pessimum")?

I'm not asking these questions in a gotcha sense -- my degree is in Philosophy, so I'm actually interested the answers.

At times of extreme crisis, for instance, I think it perfectly legitimate that society band together to survive.

And, as we know, that is exactly what happens, even moreso than during normal situations. All the donations that poured in after 9/11, all the people who gave blood, etc.

(Of course, it would help if the people entrusted with this money actually saw to it that the money was properly distributed, but I guess that's too much to ask.)

But to avoid any further confusion on your part, I'll just say "libertarians blame a wildly disproportionate number of problems on government," and leave it at that.

And liberals blame a wildly disproportionate number of problems on corporations. Wee!! This is fun.

In your view, what rights (or axiomatic concepts, if you prefer) need no cultural context to be justified?

Not directed at me, but I'd start with the UN's Declaration of Universal Human Rights. If you don't like the UN go back to the US Constitution with its "inalienable" rights "endowed by the Creator." I don't think you need the whole Creator bit but that's a good starting point for rights understood to be, well, inalienable.

What's the rationale for their universality?

The near universiality of human cognition and experience. Certain moral concepts are hardwired into the pre-mammalian brainpan.

[H]ow do we know this is the correct set, or is your view that there is no necessarily "correct" set and that this is just the most optimum (or "least pessimum")?

We don't "know" in the hard science sense of the term, but we have a very solid foundation in the hard social science sense of the term and the more we learn about neuro-psychology the more we're getting confirmation. Philosophical we can posit that a right understood to be worthwhile by most humans, regardless of cultural or political heritage, is inalienable.

And BTFLWCS f_dp, when you return, enough with the Princeton-bashing already :) It has been a nursery of neocon heroes in the past half-century, but it also graduated Adlai Stevenson and Ralph Nader ...

And I hang my head in shame every day at the latter. (What, no Bill Bradley?)

But as a serious question, which "neocon heroes" are you talking about? I can't think of a single prominent neoconservative from Princeton. (I may be forgetting someone, but none come to mind.) Hell, I'm having a hard time thinking of anyone who went to Princeton who's inaccurately described as a neoconservative. Okay, Don Rumsfeld went to Princeton; sometimes he's inaccurately called one. He's clearly not a neoconservative (let alone a "neoconservative hero"). Who else?

None of the Podhoretzes or Kristols or Brooks or Abrams or Wolfowitz, or Decter or Himmelfarb or Kirkpatrick (obviously), or Bennett... who are you thinking of?


EDIT: I think Perle got a graduate degree from Princeton. (Checking wiki... yep.) The grad school at Princeton is pretty marginalized from the rest of us.

Oh, and you guys on the other side of the barricades need to throw James Baker into the "appeasers" bucket after his appearance on Fox last night.

Hillary's supporters blame her defeat on "sexism." Communists blame famines on "wreckers." Libertarians blame every other problem on "government." There's a pattern there to be noted.

The pattern is that libertarians keep getting described mistakenly. Libertarians do not blame everything on government; libertarians often argue that government makes problems worse (or creates new ones) when it attempts to solve problems, but we don't say that government creates all the problems.

Of course that's why I was careful to write "every other problem" rather than "all problems" or "everything," even if you don't choose to note that. And heaven help that the WGL should ever "misrepresent" anyone's views himself. Perish the thought.

But to avoid any further confusion on your part, I'll just say "libertarians blame a wildly disproportionate number of problems on government," and leave it at that.

And liberals blame a wildly disproportionate number of problems on corporations. Wee!! This is fun.

Ray, the difference between what you just wrote and what David wrote is the difference between a debateable position and misrepresentation. It's the difference between saying that a wildly disproportionate number of racists call themselves "conservatives" (or "liberals") and saying that "all racists are conservatives" (or "liberals"). This goes way beyond debatable overgeneralizations, and gets into the realm of mindless mudslinging. I assume that you can understand the difference.

And of course in this case it's compounded by the fact that David had my words right there in front of him when he wrote what he did. It wasn't just a case of bad memory.

First, Andy, you're evil for not knowing how to close italics. Second, what you're actually criticizing me for is for not taking you overly literally. Yes, "every other" literally means half, but normally people don't use it that way.

Rumsfeld graduated in '54. Said graduated in '57. Wonder if they ever met while they were at Princeton? And what they talked about, if so.

I assume they chatted long about the subject they are both famous for being ignorant about - the Middle East.

Bill Bradley, I dunno; he sounds leftish nowadays but was a big Reagan-era tax cutter.

Bradley was not a tax cutter. The significant Reagan tax cuts were Kemp-Roth in 1981, and Bradley opposed them. He supported the 1986 tax reform, which involved cutting rates -- but in exchange for removing loopholes, so the tax revenues were not significantly changed (though different in shape).

And let's not forget Elliot Spitzer, or Norman Thomas, the only Socialist closely affiliated with Malcolm Forbes.

Anyway, yeah, none of the guys you just named were neoconservatives.

So, how about those Cubbies?

Obviously there are certain axiomatic concepts that need no "cultural context" to justify them: the right not to be enslaved; the right not to be murdered.

So, Andy, I've been wondering about this:

In your view, what rights (or axiomatic concepts, if you prefer) need no cultural context to be justified?

Why, absent cultural context, are they justified? What's the rationale for their universality?

Why this specific set of rights/concepts, i.e., how do we know this is the correct set, or is your view that there is no necessarily "correct" set and that this is just the most optimum (or "least pessimum")?

I'm not asking these questions in a gotcha sense -- my degree is in Philosophy, so I'm actually interested the answers.

And here's my honest answer, Mike:

I wasn't a philosophy major, and I don't know.

I can only tell you that my first instinct is against bullying of any sort, no matter what the source, be it government, corporations, or just Nelson Muntz. I'm defining "bullying" in the broad sense of a stronger person (or institution) gratuitously taking advantage over the weaker one, way out of proportion to his legitimate needs.

Obviously not all cases of bullying can be corrected, for many reasons: Lack of resources; competing societal or national priorities; the law of unintended consequences; etc. You can probably supply me with a much longer list. And of course in the above paragraph I've begged the question of who decides "legitmate." I'm not unaware of that.