RE: the Princeton bashing, I think I may have started it and if so, it's a reference to that department's neolithic clinging to logical positivism as the sole means to truth. Or something like that.

MikeHampton, I'll try to come back to your question when I have time for something more than a one off.

the 1986 tax reform, which involved cutting rates -- but in exchange for removing loopholes

That's one way of spinning the '86 tax legislation. The cut to the top bracket was staggering, and I doubt that high-bracket taxpayers watched passively as their "loopholes" were "closed." The 1986 act was very much in the spirit of the Reagan Revolution – as witness the seething anger from the right when the tax rates became a tiny bit more progressive again under Bush 41 and Clinton.

people are able to work out charters of rights and agree to them.

Precisely. This means exactly, that reasonable people can dispute a libertarian idea of absolute property rights.

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?

It's wrong because we (meaning basically everyone) agree that it's wrong. In 1860 US - what % of people in the North agreed it was wrong? In the South? What ever the number it's way less than the ~100% it is now. Were the "pro" % insane? evil? stupid?

I mean - at some level you have to agree with David (and other libertatians) that taxation is slavery. But on the other hand, ONLY if you make the absolutist statement "slavery is wrong by first principles" does it then follow that taxation is wrong. On the gripping hand - at some point along the taxation/slavery scale - it becomes wrong.

Just like with a fetus - at some point it becomes not OK to kill it.

Going back to your question why 1860 Black slavery is wrong while being both legal and not a violation of rights - it's wrong both because it's discriminatory (defines a subclass of humans that are essentially outside of society's protection) and is matter of degree (total as opposed to say 25% of your wages)

Is universal military/civil service (many perfectly reasonable countries have this) slavery? Is is wrong by first principles? Is it a "violation of human rights?"

I think I might get a 'hells yeah' from the Libertarians that it IS exactly that - but that just proves the point - that reasonable people can disagree on what is a human right.

Which MEANS (getting back to the original point) - that "this or that law violates my rights as a property owner" is NOT a valid argument! It *may* violate your rights (depending on the severity of the imposition), but not merely because it's a "restriction on your free will"

I mean - at some level you have to agree with David (and other libertatians) that taxation is slavery.

No I don't. Taxation is not enslavement.

Just like with a fetus - at some point it becomes not OK to kill it.

At no point do I believe it ok to kill a human being, including the fetus.

It's wrong because we (meaning basically everyone) agree that it's wrong.

No; it would be wrong if no one saw that it was wrong, and it was wrong when a majority of people thought it was right.

Is universal military/civil service (many perfectly reasonable countries have this) slavery? Is is wrong by first principles? Is it a "violation of human rights?"

No. No. No.

... reasonable people can disagree on what is a human right

Of course they can and do, but that's neither here nor there regarding whether something is a right or injustice.

Going back to your question why 1860 Black slavery is wrong while being both legal and not a violation of rights - it's wrong both because it's discriminatory (defines a subclass of humans that are essentially outside of society's protection) and is matter of degree (total as opposed to say 25% of your wages)

I really don't understand what you're saying. You said (and I quoted you saying) slavery's wrong (only?) because we agree it's wrong, and now you say it's wrong b/c of discrimination and degree. Aren't these in tension?

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.

Sorry about the italics. I normally proofread but in this case I'd just read Mike's question and was concentrating on that.

As for the substance of what you're saying: I would hope that after all these years you'd learn to respond to the person you're responding to, and to his actual words, and not to some abstract conception you have of positions held by his sometimes allies. It was just laziness on your part, but it also caused your response to be a complete non sequitur. It's as if I responded to you as if you were one of Ron Paul's far out racist pals. Beyond the implicit slur, it's just lazy and stupid.

At no point do I believe it ok to kill a human being, including the fetus.

This willfully muddies the debate waters, though. The question re: the fetus isn't "what are the basic human rights it deserves" but "when does it become human and thus deserve those basic human rights?" Two completely separate questions.

First of all - I can tell that I am not being very coherent. For this I apologize.

I really don't understand what you're saying. You said (and I quoted you saying) slavery's wrong (only?) because we agree it's wrong, and now you say it's wrong b/c of discrimination and degree. Aren't these in tension?

Let's just drop the discrimination, because I think we can all agree that antebellum southern slavery would be bad/wrong/immoral whatever even if it wasn't essentially racist.

Tension is resolved in that we agree that slavery is wrong BECAUSE it of the degree.

Next up:

Andy claiming that when someone says "everyone and their mother thinks X," that person literally means everyone and their mother thinks X.

This willfully muddies the debate waters, though.

No, it doesn't, not in this debate. I'm not sure what zenbitz is getting at, but his position seems to be some kind of positivism (or nominalism): things are wrong only when or if people agree they're wrong. But I'm hesitant to conclude anything, as I'm not sure of his view.

Tension is resolved in that we agree that slavery is wrong BECAUSE it of the degree.

Degree of what? I'm pretty sure I disagree w/you regardless of that. The tension in your position exists b/c, OTOH, you claim slavery is wrong only b/c we now think it's wrong (overwhelmingly); and yet, OTOH, you say it's wrong b/c of degree (of something). Those are different warrants for the wrongness of the thing. Which is it: popular opinion or degree?

Could someone provide me with teh pros/cons of the "Fair Tax"? Is that covered in this thread? Yes, I could google it, but the people in this thread have opinions I can respect, whereas google may give me all sorts of nonsense. I also ask because it is likely to have been thoroughly evaluated by some here.

TIA

the 1986 tax reform, which involved cutting rates -- but in exchange for removing loopholes

That's one way of spinning the '86 tax legislation. The cut to the top bracket was staggering,

Yes, but nobody paid anything close to that, because of all the available shelters. It doesn't matter what the "bracket" is; it matters what marginal rate people actually pay. By eliminating most passive losses, and by eliminating the deductibility of interest (other than mortgage interest) it significantly raised the marginal rate upper income people were actually paying.

and I doubt that high-bracket taxpayers watched passively as their "loopholes" were "closed."

I don't understand what this means.

The 1986 act was very much in the spirit of the Reagan Revolution – as witness the seething anger from the right when the tax rates became a tiny bit more progressive again under Bush 41 and Clinton.

No, it wasn't; "the right" opposed the 1986 Tax Reform, and the left supported it. See, e.g., this info sheet by Citizens for Tax Justice, which has never met a tax it didn't like, endorsing the 1986 bill. (And again, one of the key players was Bradley, who opposed the 1981 cuts. In the House, Dick Gephardt -- nobody's idea of a right-winger "in the spirit of the Reagan Revolution" -- was a key player.)

Is universal military/civil service (many perfectly reasonable countries have this) slavery? Is is wrong by first principles? Is it a "violation of human rights?"

I think I might get a 'hells yeah' from the Libertarians that it IS exactly that

Of course. Conscription is slavery, wrong by first principles, and a violation of human rights. It's no accident that it was Milton Friedman who led the charge against the draft in the U.S.

Conscription is slavery

Again, I disagree (though this has no bearing on my disagreement w/zenbitz, whose position I continue not to understand). Conscription may be wrong, but it's not wrong b/c it's "slavery."

It's short-term slavery?

Critical to slavery is not merely the notion that a person is doing something they don't want to do and are coerced to do (otherwise, marriage or parenthood might indeed be a form of slavery), but the notion of holding the other man as property and thus legally reducing him to a "thing" before the law. The property holding is so complete the person has no standing before the law and arguably no standing in society. The conscript is not in that position, and certainly the taxpayer is not, either.

If the definition of slavery includes "can never be freed" conscription wouldn't pass. But, of course, what we call American Slavery wouldn't either, as a slaveowner could free his slaves if he chose.

EDIT: hadn't read 5515 yet. Can't argue with it.

Well, we'll agree to disagree about '86, David. I think that the Democrats got snookered in '86; wanting to avoid their historical image as confiscatory "tax and spenders," they presented themselves as clever cutters of rates. The effect, as far as I can tell, has been to exacerbate the first-Reagan-term tax cut's tendency to enrich the richest.

Conscription: presumably those conscripted got to vote on the law that conscripted them? That might be a wee difference from slavery.

Fair Tax: this is a national sales tax proposed to replace all income taxes, payroll taxes, and miscellaneous federal taxes. In some ways it resembles a national value-added tax, as is used in the EU and many individual European countries, except that a VAT is imposed, as the name suggests, on the value added to a good at every stage of its economic path, while the Fair Tax is just a simple sales tax collected at the final retail point. The pro argument would seem to be that it's simple and "revenue-neutral." The con argument would seem to be that sales taxes are regressive right now, and despite various schemes, it's hard to think of a sales tax not being regressive.

I don't know if there's any ultimate moral justification for a progressive tax system, but there are certainly two practical arguments: the rich tend to benefit more from the government (if only in just protecting their stuff against the poor), and the poor don't have any extra money to give the government.

If you had to break down the Ivy League schools in terms or liberality or conservatism, this is how how I would do it (most liberal at top):

Harvard
Columbia
Cornell
Brown
Dartmouth
Pennsylvania
Yale
Princeton

I would draw the liberal/conservative demarcation line between Dartmouth and Penn, I think.

If the definition of slavery includes "can never be freed" conscription wouldn't pass. But, of course, what we call American Slavery wouldn't either, as a slaveowner could free his slaves if he chose.

On its own terms, this is silly enough to be [philosophically, I mean, not personally] offensive. The conscript is legally conscripted for a set time and that time only. The conscript has rights before the law including the stipulation of the length of his service. A slave "could be freed" (or not) at the whim of his slave owner; no law stipulated that slavery could endure only for some duration after which the slaveowner must free his slave.

Could someone provide me with teh pros/cons of the "Fair Tax"? Is that covered in this thread? Yes, I could google it, but the people in this thread have opinions I can respect, whereas google may give me all sorts of nonsense. I also ask because it is likely to have been thoroughly evaluated by some here.

Economist Bruce Bartlett takes it apart (PDF) here. It's thorough but not overly long. I favor a consumption tax, but Bartlett explains very clearly why the FairTax ain't the right answer.

To give you an idea of Bartlett's perspective, he's a conservative economist who recently wrote a book called Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy. He supports tax cuts, but thinks the FairTax is being sold misleadingly and is designed badly.

The conscript has rights before the law including the stipulation of the length of his service

I also don't recall any slaves being 4-F for flat feet or asthma.

re 5519, JC I was musing as to what differences you were referring to up above. I didn't think it through very well and missed the big picture.

In fact, I'm not even all that anti-conscription given a true existential threat. Like I say, in the face of true crisis, I'll take pragmatism.

I also don't recall any slaves being 4-F for flat feet or asthma.

Well, they just dealt with 4F slaves differently than during the draft.

Seriously, AFAIC, JC squashed the draft = slavery issue.

Seriously, AFAIC, JC squashed the draft = slavery issue

OK, sorry for overkill. So I shouldn't go on about the lack of conscript soldier children following their moms and dads into battle carrying ammunition belts? :)

Seriously, AFAIC, JC squashed the draft = slavery issue.

Well, thanks, though I'm confident in DMN's intelligence and commitment to his views and thus anticipate a rejoinder.

Nonetheless, I grant that conscription is clearly a limitation of someone's freedom and as such potentially wrong unless there's adequate justification for it.

From a libertarian p.o.v, is not defense of nation (or vital nat'l interests) something that gov'ts legitimately do? If so, is not conscription sometimes necessary to that (as, for instance, in WWI or WWII)?

Seriously, AFAIC, JC squashed the draft = slavery issue

OK, sorry for overkill. So I shouldn't go on about the lack of conscript soldier children following their moms and dads into battle carrying ammunition belts? :)

Yeah, to add that only beats the dead horse. It would be like adding that the conscript's marriage has no standing before the law, either, and that his kids and wife could be transferred into someone else's possession while he was away. Utterly unnecessary to make the point.

I would draw the liberal/conservative demarcation line between Dartmouth and Penn, I think.

Dartmouth didn't seem that close to conservativism when I was there, though, admittedly, this was a while ago.

There are some conservatives at Dartmouth who make a lot of noise (at least, there were; everyone here's old enough to remember when the Review was in the news); but they are, I would say, fairly marginalized in the college at large.

Thanks, DMN.

Also, really, JC busting out on the topic of slavery. What's next - Paul Wenthold taking someone down over TWoO?

Again, I disagree (though this has no bearing on my disagreement w/zenbitz, whose position I continue not to understand). Conscription may be wrong, but it's not wrong b/c it's "slavery."

Involuntary servitude. I don't see how that's not slavery. I agree that there are features of it very different from "slavery" if by "slavery" you mean American-South-style-slavery, but I don't see why that's the archetype. That's one type of slavery, a very bad type, but not the only type.

Critical to slavery is not merely the notion that a person is doing something they don't want to do and are coerced to do (otherwise, marriage or parenthood might indeed be a form of slavery), but the notion of holding the other man as property and thus legally reducing him to a "thing" before the law. The property holding is so complete the person has no standing before the law and arguably no standing in society. The conscript is not in that position, and certainly the taxpayer is not, either.

I don't agree that critical to slavery is that the slave have no standing before the law; that makes it a worse form of slavery, but not the only form. Serfdom was a form of slavery in which slaves were not pure chattel.

That having been said about "worse form," keep in mind that while conscripted soldiers (at least in the U.S.) have some rights, they in at least one important way were treated worse than chattel slaves. Chattel slaves were valuable property, whereas conscripts were, often literally, cannon fodder. You wouldn't order a slave to his death -- but soldiers could/can be so ordered, and it was/is illegal for them to refuse to comply.

From a libertarian p.o.v, is not defense of nation (or vital nat'l interests) something that gov'ts legitimately do? If so, is not conscription sometimes necessary to that (as, for instance, in WWI or WWII)?

The libertarian position is that defense is a legitimate function of government, but that by itself doesn't justify conscription. (I believe the short version of what libertarians I know say of conscription is this: "a nation whose people won't volunteer to defend it probably isn't worth defending.")

don't agree that critical to slavery is that the slave have no standing before the law; that makes it a worse form of slavery, but not the only form. Serfdom was a form of slavery in which slaves were not pure chattel.

That having been said about "worse form," keep in mind that while conscripted soldiers (at least in the U.S.) have some rights, they in at least one important way were treated worse than chattel slaves. Chattel slaves were valuable property, whereas conscripts were, often literally, cannon fodder. You wouldn't order a slave to his death -- but soldiers could/can be so ordered, and it was/is illegal for them to refuse to comply.

Well, good points all. In the biz, however, the umbrella term is "unfree labor" of which there are species. Slavery differs from serfdom, for instance, precisely b/c of the emerging standing of the serf before the law.

You're right about the treatment of the slave vis a vis the treatment of the conscript, or (and you'll hate this) the treatment of the contract employee. The latter was an argument made by Archbishop Hughes in NYC in the 19th century: Why all the fuss about slavery when the Irish immigrant is treated worse up here in the North - treated like "cannon fodder" b/c he'll be replaced more cheaply by the next mick off the boat? So, the argument against slavery is not about "treatment of the slave", as many have pointed out, but about the standing of the slave morally and legally as a non-entity.

Sure, conscription is unfree service; I don't deny that. But it's not thereby slavery.

On its own terms, this is silly enough to be [philosophically, I mean, not personally] offensive. The conscript is legally conscripted for a set time and that time only. The conscript has rights before the law including the stipulation of the length of his service. A slave "could be freed" (or not) at the whim of his slave owner; no law stipulated that slavery could endure only for some duration after which the slaveowner must free his slave.

I don't see how that by itself distinguishes the two at all; no law stipulates that conscription can endure only for some duration. There may be practical reasons why the government does limit one's tour of duty, but if it can conscript you for a year, it can conscript you for ten years or 100 years.

And while children of conscripts aren't automatically conscripts at the time of birth, the way children of slaves were, they're subject to conscription by dint of being born, subject only to the "whim" of the government in power.

The libertarian position is that defense is a legitimate function of government, but that by itself doesn't justify conscription. (I believe the short version of what libertarians I know say of conscription is this: "a nation whose people won't volunteer to defend it probably isn't worth defending.")

I anticipated that reply, DMN, but surely you don't think that that principle holds always; iow, you probably would agree that in some urgent situations it is more efficient not to ask consent, but to conscript the young man, to save a nation worth defending? (And I'm aware of but not impressed by Friedman's argument about efficiency here.)

"a nation whose people won't volunteer to defend it probably isn't worth defending."

The other side of that coin would be that a nation whose people object to conscription doesn't want to fight the wars it is fighting – particularly when those wars are not defensive in nature.

I don't see how that by itself distinguishes the two at all; no law stipulates that conscription can endure only for some duration. There may be practical reasons why the government does limit one's tour of duty, but if it can conscript you for a year, it can conscript you for ten years or 100 years.

And while children of conscripts aren't automatically conscripts at the time of birth, the way children of slaves were, they're subject to conscription by dint of being born, subject only to the "whim" of the government in power.

There were no laws that stipulated how long service lasted? Is that your position? Of course there were. And conscripts could appeal to those laws for exemptions and for redress, and did. No such laws existed for slaves.

And, of course, slaves and their descendants were excluded entirely from the law-making process, unlike conscripts and their children.

I can almost hear DMN typing.

And while children of conscripts aren't automatically conscripts at the time of birth, the way children of slaves were, they're subject to conscription by dint of being born, subject only to the "whim" of the government in power.

The whole conscription debate is a good example why I find abstract philosophical questions so irrelevant at times.

What would the anti-draft people have done during World War II? Waited for volunteers? Of course there would have been plenty of those once Pearl Harbor came along, but without having had the draft for the preceding year we would have been even less prepared than we were to fight the Axis.

And when you have a draft in place, it also gives a healthy check on certain types of "optional" warfare, or at least optional warfare that gets dragged out ad infinitum. It's hard to imagine that the opposition to this current quagmire would't have crystallized a lot faster if the sons and daughters of more than a handful of legislators and cabinet members--and perhaps even Princess Jenna herself---had been called upon to bear a bit more of the burden.

These are questions that are far more important than some silly abstract debate about conscription being "slavery." It is always going to depend on the context: A "conscripted" American draftee in World War II is not the same thing as a "conscripted" teenager in Somalia.

I have no problem with conscription in principle. I do have a problem with 20th century mass-conscription, and I have a huge problem with national service, which really is just forced labour (whether it amounts to slavery is really a sophistic question). People being conscripted and sent overseas is wrong. People being conscripted for the specific duration of an emergency* for the defence of their local area is quite reasonable.

*and by that I don't mean "we're at war," I mean "invasion is imminent."

whether it amounts to slavery is really a sophistic question

some silly abstract debate about conscription being "slavery."

I couldn't disagree more about the importance of making distinctions.

OTOH, I agree in substance w/both of you, on the assumption my reading is correct (and that you both are in general agreement).

How do you account for cultures that don't acknowledge some of these concepts? A citizen of, e.g., the Roman Republic would not have said that there was anything unusual or immoral about slavery. Do you think that he believed that slavery was immoral, and was simply expressing an opinion in line with the dominant cultural paradigm under which he lived? Or that he was in some way unable to perceive the essential immorality of slavery despite it being "known" to him? (Or something else?) In either case, how can we be sure which moral concepts are genuinely basic to the mammalian brainpan and which are erroneously based in self-deception, cultural influence, or moral ignorance?


It's not a simple question, but I'll try to answer it, at least according to my philosophy. The problem with the Romans is not that they didn't recognize the right so much as they didn't extend the right to all people. A Roman senator would object to the deprivation of his freedom as a moral wrong.

It isn't a coincidence that every society recognizes the Golden Rule, stated in one way or another. We choose which entities are members of our society, and therefore entitled to the application of the rule, but we all start there if we are a society at all. We don't hold broccoli in the same regard as a fellow human being. People differ in how much regard an insect, a cow, a dog, a chimpanzee, or a dolphin should be given. At our worst, we hold other humans in lower regard because they are different.

The most fundamental right is the right to exist as a free being, a right that every capable being naturally acknowledges for itself. All morality extends from this basic right. It is the same first principle from which the libertarian or the communist derives his philosophy.

Where philosophies differ will be in the way they address conflict between entities that are exercising this right. The libertarian may claim that without the right to control one's environment, which includes possessions, one cannot truly be free. A communist might claim that without equality, the weaker are subject to the whims of the stronger and therefore are not free.

Both have merit as moral arguments. Being an equal being is better than being a lesser being. Controlling one's environment is better than being controlled. Different cultures/societies/philosophies will have different weightings of those "betters" when forced to handle a conflict between them.

I have a certain moral code, but I recognize that other people will differ. I am reluctant to relinquish my freedom to act on my personal moral code to any agency, and I respect that others have that same desire. Therefore, I am highly resistant to efforts by society to enforce a specific moral code on everyone. The larger the society, and the more culturally diverse it is, the more restrictive such efforts are on individuals.

I'm not an anarchist. I recognize that there will be some cases where it's just necessary in order to function as a society to give up some of that complete freedom to observe one's own moral code. It isn't that I don't recognize a value in equal access for the disabled, or providing resources to those who are without certain basic needs. It's that I don't think it's appropriate to subject those around me to my perception of how much value those things have.

That's my moral reasoning for the libertarian philosophy. I have pragmatic reasons as well but this is already a very long post in a very long thread.

some silly abstract debate about conscription being "slavery."

I couldn't disagree more about the importance of making distinctions.

OTOH, I agree in substance w/both of you, on the assumption my reading is correct (and that you both are in general agreement).

Not quite sure what you mean by this, JC. My point was only that the question of military conscription can't be seriously considered outside the context of time and place. A military draft can range on the moral spectrum all the way from "necessary to a country's survival" all the way down to "virtual slavery," such as you used to read about in Vietnam on the VC side, and as you can clearly see in the case of many of the recent African civil wars fought largely by boy soldiers.

And to me there's an equally valid point in the other direction, which is contained the old-time cliche---but a true one, nevertheless---about the huge discrepancy of sacrifice between volunteer soldiers and volunteer non-soldiers, a discrepancy that can't be papered over by such half-truths (not a lie, but not the whole truth) about "free choice." And while in some ways that's a separate question, in other ways it's a major factor in considering the "morality" of conscription.

Taxation is not enslavement.

I think you're defining enslavement far too narrowly. We use expressions like "a slave to his job" recognizing that the person isn't being reduced to property. The opposite of slavery is freedom, not equality. All restrictions on a person's freedom are a form of enslavement.

There's a very reasonable argument that calling taxation "slavery" is making a mountain out of a molehill, but even a molehill is higher than flat ground. A slap is as much a battery as a punch, despite significant differences in how much damage each causes.

At no point do I believe it ok to kill a human being, including the fetus.

I'm not sure how literally you mean this. Do you mean it's never a net positive good, or simply that even when circumstances render it a legitimate moral action that it still is something that should cause us discomfort?

I don't agree with the former, but I do agree with the latter.

There were no laws that stipulated how long service lasted? Is that your position? Of course there were.

No; my position is that there was no law that stipulated that conscription could last for only a certain time. The length of time that the government could take from one's life was limited only by the length of time that the government wanted to take from one's life.

At no point do I believe it ok to kill a human being, including the fetus.

I'm not sure how literally you mean this. Do you mean it's never a net positive good, or simply that even when circumstances render it a legitimate moral action that it still is something that should cause us discomfort?

Depends if we're talking about a Yankees fan.

All restrictions on a person's freedom are a form of enslavement.

No they aren't. They're "restrictions on a person's freedom." That's adequate to describe them.

I'm not defining slavery narrowly, I'm defining it precisely, in a manner that can make sense of certain kinds of slavery as historically practiced (say, in the US or Rome) and that can distinguish it from more benign forms of unfree labor and that can distinguish it from nonsensical uses of the term ("taxation = slavery").

At no point do I believe it ok to kill a human being, including the fetus.

I'm not sure how literally you mean this. Do you mean it's never a net positive good, or simply that even when circumstances render it a legitimate moral action that it still is something that should cause us discomfort?

Fair point: At no point do I believe it ok to intend to kill an innocent human being.

Fair point: At no point do I believe it ok to intend to kill an innocent human being.

So Yankees fans are fair game. Gotcha.

I agree that "restrictions on freedom" is too broad a definition of slavery, because some restrictions on freedom are "merely" negative -- i.e. "You can't do such-and-such." That's not slavery. Slavery carries with it the connotation of positive restrictions -- i.e. "You must do such-and-such." It's compelled labor that is the broadest definition of slavery, with American slavery on one end of the spectrum, serfdom near that end, conscription a little farther away for many of the reasons stated above.


And as long as we're discussing it, and since my last cartoon link went over so big, here's The Philosophy of Liberty in a Flash animation.

What I am saying is really not much different from CrosbyBird, except I am rambling and incoherent.

The most fundamental right is the right to exist as a free being

I might quibble with this technically being a human mental construct - I mean - there is no physical law of freedom (vis-a-vis gravity). But it's as reasonable a fiat as anything.

It's that I don't think it's appropriate to subject those around me to my perception of how much value those things have.

This is really the crux of being a libertarian vs. anything else. Someone, or someones, or something has to decide this value. Otherwise, conflicts cannot be resolved. If you say "no comment" you are just rubber stamping the rule of whomever can exercise his or her rights "more efficiently" - i.e., who has more power at that moment.

No they aren't. They're "restrictions on a person's freedom." That's adequate to describe them.

One of the joys of the English language is that we have the ability to express a concept in more than one way, and we don't need to settle for what you might call merely adequate. Aside from the awkwardness of using the longer phrase, it doesn't carry the emphasis the speaker intends. The word slavery concisely sends the message that the problem comes from lack of free choice.

I'm not defining slavery narrowly, I'm defining it precisely, in a manner that can make sense of certain kinds of slavery as historically practiced (say, in the US or Rome) and that can distinguish it from more benign forms of unfree labor and that can distinguish it from nonsensical uses of the term ("taxation = slavery").

Your "precision" cuts out legitimate (and non-bizarre) definitions of the word, such as "involuntary servitude" or "submission to a dominating influence." It's worse than a narrow definition. It's an inaccurate definition.

Nor is it necessary for you to rewrite the dictionary out of confusion. You can distinguish quite easily from context. Clearly, you understand that when libertarians use the word slavery that they aren't equating it with the worst forms of the institution in human history.

Calling taxation and conscription slavery is accurate. It's an emotional word to choose, but it's not a false one. That you don't like the emotion it evokes doesn't render it unclear.

I just wanted to thank Andy and CrosbyBird for thoughtful responses to my questions -- I'm not posting much today partly because I'm very busy and partly because I want to remain inquisitive rather than argumentative, but I'm reading and appreciate the time you put into replying.

So Yankees fans are fair game. Gotcha.

What about Angelos?

I just wanted to thank Andy and CrosbyBird for thoughtful responses to my questions -- I'm not posting much today partly because I'm very busy and partly because I want to remain inquisitive rather than argumentative, but I'm reading and appreciate the time you put into replying.

I appreciate that, Mike, and when you get some time I'd like to know what you thought about this particular sentiment:

But as a philosophy question, I've always thought you could far better infer a person's true philosophy by asking them what their 50 favorite movies were (it's a large enough sample size), or who are the 50 people they most admire, than you can by asking them to express their philosophy in abstract concepts. Which is probably why I barely made it out of freshman philosophy in one piece.

To me those simple questions can smoke people out a lot better than reading their senior honors thesis. Of course the followup question is how you live your life.

DMN:
I agree that "restrictions on freedom" is too broad a definition of slavery, because some restrictions on freedom are "merely" negative -- i.e. "You can't do such-and-such." That's not slavery. Slavery carries with it the connotation of positive restrictions -- i.e. "You must do such-and-such."

That seems to me a distinction without a difference. Every negative restriction can be phrased as a positive one; "you can't do X" is not distinct from "you must do A-W, Y, or Z." (In the context of A-Z being the entire universe, of course.)


JC:
Fair point: At no point do I believe it ok to intend to kill an innocent human being.

Are you sure about that?

Would it never be acceptable to kill an innocent human being in order to end otherwise unavoidable suffering? Example: Jack is crushed beneath a collapsed crane. As soon as the crane is lifted, the release of pressure will result in him almost instantly passing out from blood loss. If the crane is not lifted, he will slowly and painfully bleed to death.

Would it never be acceptable to kill an innocent human being who wished to sacrifice himself so that others might live? Example: Jack and three friends have been trapped in a cave, and the rescue team will break through in two hours. There are only six man-hours worth of oxygen in the cave. Jack is injured and cannot take his own life. He expresses to the others that they should kill him and live, rather than die with him, painfully, of suffocation.

I just wanted to thank Andy and CrosbyBird for thoughtful responses to my questions -- I'm not posting much today partly because I'm very busy and partly because I want to remain inquisitive rather than argumentative, but I'm reading and appreciate the time you put into replying.


My pleasure. Hopefully, you'll have time later to respond, and this thread will still be going strong.

Example: Jack is crushed beneath a collapsed crane. As soon as the crane is lifted, the release of pressure will result in him almost instantly passing out from blood loss. If the crane is not lifted, he will slowly and painfully bleed to death.

Wow. Jack is in quite a tight spot there.

Jack is in quite a tight spot there.

No doubt.

For the purpose of these hypotheticals, any similarities between this person named Jack and any actual BBTF posters are entirely coincidental, unless it's really funny to think otherwise.

Clinton may take delegate fight to convention

BOCA RATON, Fla. - Hillary Rodham Clinton says she is willing to take her fight to seat Florida and Michigan delegates to the convention if the two states want to go that far.

Rollicking good times...

Though she's basically been marginalized now anyway, since nobody gives her a chance to win the nomination anymore. Even McCain and Obama are talking past her now.

I agree that "restrictions on freedom" is too broad a definition of slavery, because some restrictions on freedom are "merely" negative -- i.e. "You can't do such-and-such." That's not slavery. Slavery carries with it the connotation of positive restrictions -- i.e. "You must do such-and-such."

That seems to me a distinction without a difference. Every negative restriction can be phrased as a positive one; "you can't do X" is not distinct from "you must do A-W, Y, or Z." (In the context of A-Z being the entire universe, of course.)

Mathematically, obviously "You can't do X" may be the same as "You must do ~X," but it seems a little odd in the real world to equate, "You can't criticize the president" with "You must do something other than criticize the president" and then call that slavery.

Mathematically, obviously "You can't do X" may be the same as "You must do ~X," but it seems a little odd in the real world to equate, "You can't criticize the president" with "You must do something other than criticize the president" and then call that slavery.

Agreed.

Example: Jack is crushed beneath a collapsed crane. As soon as the crane is lifted, the release of pressure will result in him almost instantly passing out from blood loss. If the crane is not lifted, he will slowly and painfully bleed to death.


Wow. Jack is in quite a tight spot there.

There is a third option. You could cauterize Jack's wounds and use his immobilized body for a poker table while you're waiting for the EMTs to arrive.

Though she's basically been marginalized now anyway, since nobody gives her a chance to win the nomination anymore. Even McCain and Obama are talking past her now.

Hillary has now officially co-opted the black knight, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" position vis a vis her professional circumstances.

Mathematically, obviously "You can't do X" may be the same as "You must do ~X," but it seems a little odd in the real world to equate, "You can't criticize the president" with "You must do something other than criticize the president" and then call that slavery.


How is "you can't say something critical regarding the president, but you can say anything else you want about him" different in terms of what you're allowed (and not allowed) to do from "you can say what you want about the president, as long as it isn't criticism"?

It seems functionally identical as well as logically identical.

Or more on point, how is "you must do what I command" functionally different from "you must not act in opposition to my command"? The first is phrased positively, the second negatively.

If you want to say that the distinction is not the positive or negative phrasing of the right so much as the type of right, that's a different point.

I am Jack's collapsed ribcage.

right now Clinton needs more than 100% of the remaining delegates to hit 2026. That number changes, but not substantially, if FL and MI are seated in full. MI and FL will be seated in some sense, and Obama is the nominee.

I am Jack's collapsed ribcage.

I am Jack's collapsed ribcage!

/spartacus

right now Clinton needs more than 100% of the remaining delegates to hit 2026. That number changes, but not substantially, if FL and MI are seated in full. MI and FL will be seated in some sense, and Obama is the nominee.

Hillary's futile quest for the nomination at this point reminds me of Jim Carrey making a play for Lauren Holly in Dumb & Dumber:

Lloyd: What are the chances of a guy like you and a girl like me... ending up together?

Mary: Well, that's pretty difficult to say.

Lloyd: Hit me with it! I've come a long way to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?

Mary: Not good.

Lloyd: You mean, not good like... one out of a hundred?

Mary: I'd say more like... one out of a million.

[Lloyd pauses and looks down, then slowly looks up and grins]

Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance.

Of course, in the movie, Lloyd did get Mary, and in real life, Jim Carrey married Lauren Holly, so maybe there's a chance for Hillary after all.

Of course, Carrey and Holly then got divorced...

Penalty kicks suck.

Lloyd didn't get Mary in the movie. She went with her husband, and he passed up the opportunity to become masseur to a competitive bikini team.

Really? Huh.

Looks like Hillary's last chance in a million just flew the coop.

Food for thought.

Notice that Ladele's boss tried to make some "miscegenation" comparison. Note: Ladele is black.

Should be interesting to see how it turns out.

Notice that Ladele's boss tried to make some "miscegenation" comparison. Note: Ladele is black.

The latter fact, of course, doesn't invalidate the comparison to past objections to miscegenation.

Food for thought.

Notice that Ladele's boss tried to make some "miscegenation" comparison. Note: Ladele is black.

Should be interesting to see how it turns out.

What's interesting here is that it was her colleagues, not any gay couples -- none of whom were prevented from civil unioning -- that complained. I'll be interested to see how our "employers should have to make accommodations" crowd at BTF will respond to this.

Been busy handling a power failure all afternoon, but because Andy asked specifically about it I wanted to come back to this:

But as a philosophy question, I've always thought you could far better infer a person's true philosophy by asking them what their 50 favorite movies were (it's a large enough sample size), or who are the 50 people they most admire, than you can by asking them to express their philosophy in abstract concepts. Which is probably why I barely made it out of freshman philosophy in one piece.

I think, in general, you can find out more about a person by talking to them about almost anything they're passionate about than you can by talking to them about abstract philosophical concepts. At least, assuming you don't know much about how they live their lives before you start talking to them. If you already know a fair bit about them, and have specific issues you're confused or uncertain on, it can be worth it to drill down to abstracts. But in general, I agree with your sentiment.

The dirty little not-very-secret about studying philosophy is that, unless you plan to go into academia (that is, teach other people about philosophy; or some areas of literature; or are studying some very very specific areas of philosophy that are meaningful to some equally specific areas of computer science), what you study is not really as important as how you study it. It is a cliche of liberal arts education that it teaches you how to think rather than what to think, but this cliche is, I think, pretty close to the mark when it comes to philosophy. Your grasp of Aristotelian ethics or Berkelian epistemology is not going to help you in any job you will ever get in the real world. And the kind of abstruse questions that are actually studied by modern-day philosophers are, as a rule, about as far from real-world applicability as you can get without a Saturn V. What is useful is the ability to pick up propositions, study them from different angles, see how they interconnect, how to develop an argument, how to dissect an argument -- that stuff.

Some people learn that without needing to study philosophy. Some people don't learn it regardless. I don't regret the time I spent studying it, but I'm under no illusions about how much it has to do with how I live my life.

Which brings me to my favorite joke. Q: How do you get a philosophy major off your porch? A: Pay for the pizza.

WARNING: SERIOUS NON SNARKY POST
I just want to to thank David Nieporent for that excellent article on the flat tax. It almost made me vaguely interested in economics.

Lots of good background stuff in there about money supply and inflation. Probably macroecon 101, but hey I was taking chemistry classes instead.

It sort of reminds me... can someone explain how lowering/rebating taxes stimulates the economy? I understand the relationship between spending and stimulation (har har) but wouldn't the government tax receipts be spent as well? It's not like we are running a surplus!

The Spurs am Jack's collapsed ribcage!

Ladele's case seems analogous to those of pharmacists who won't fill prescriptions for some kinds of contraception. She's entitled to her beliefs, but not to discriminate against certain members of the public she's supposed to serve.

Ladele's case seems analogous to those of pharmacists who won't fill prescriptions for some kinds of contraception. She's entitled to her beliefs, but not to discriminate against certain members of the public she's supposed to serve.

I think that is different. A private business owner shouldn't be forced to sell any product he doesn't want to.

Ladele's case seems analogous to those of pharmacists who won't fill prescriptions for some kinds of contraception. She's entitled to her beliefs, but not to discriminate against certain members of the public she's supposed to serve.

Though in Ladele's case it's important to note as a practical matter whether or not there were other clerks present who would have performed the ceremony without any delay. The biggest problem with some of those "Christian" pharmacists is that in some cases they're often the only ones on duty in the pharmacy, and in some cases in the entire town. That probably doesn't have anything to do with any constitutional question, but it bears enormously on whether or not their employer has an obligation to maintain services at all times.

The bottom line in both of these cases is that the availability of the offered services (marriage ceremony; contraception sales) can't be compromised on irrelevant religious grounds, but if it's just a matter of the Christian Objector saying "sorry, see that other guy over there ten feet away," then it shouldn't really be that big a deal.

Of course in the case of the Christian pharmacists, the most serious situation is when they not only refuse to fill a prescription, but they refuse to direct the customer to another pharmacist who would; or in the worst scenario, when there's no other available pharmacist in town. In that case they should be given about five minutes to reconsider, and then have their license revoked. Let them buy an island in the South Seas and refuse to sell contraceptives to the monkeys.

Of course in the case of the Christian pharmacists, the most serious situation is when they not only refuse to fill a prescription, but they refuse to direct the customer to another pharmacist who would; or in the worst scenario, when there's no other available pharmacist in town. In that case they should be given about five minutes to reconsider, and then have their license revoked. Let them buy an island in the South Seas and refuse to sell contraceptives to the monkeys.

And why? B/c Andy says so!

I think that is different. A private business owner shouldn't be forced to sell any product he doesn't want to.

But if he's granted a pharmaceutical license, then that part of his store is rightly subject to government control, and it's certainly a legitimate licensing demand that all prescribed medication classes be available. He can choose to close his pharmacy if he objects.

Of course if you object to the concept of licensing pharmacists, then there's not much to discuss.

Of course in the case of the Christian pharmacists, the most serious situation is when they not only refuse to fill a prescription, but they refuse to direct the customer to another pharmacist who would; or in the worst scenario, when there's no other available pharmacist in town. In that case they should be given about five minutes to reconsider, and then have their license revoked. Let them buy an island in the South Seas and refuse to sell contraceptives to the monkeys.

And why? B/c Andy says so!

Whereas JC counters, "Let the trollope hitchhike 200 miles to get her morning after pill. She should have thought of that before she started trolloping."

Of course if you object to the concept of licensing pharmacists, then there's not much to discuss.

I only support the licensing as it pertains to clear public safety issues. One can argue there's a compelling reason of licensing pharmacies for the purpose of ensuring that drugs, which can be quite dangerous, are obtained from a reputable source.

Otherwise, the government has no more business telling me what drugs to sell than they have in telling me what brands of cough drops to carry.

Whereas JC counters, "Let the trollope hitchhike 200 miles to get her morning after pill. She should have thought of that before she started trolloping."

Except of course I said no such thing, right? It's neat when you can impute things to people they didn't say.

but they refuse to direct the customer to another pharmacist who would; or in the worst scenario, when there's no other available pharmacist in town.

If you allow this (and I am not saying you should or shouldn't), then aren't you holding pharmacist "A" accountable for the fact that there isn't another pharmacist around? This doesn't make sense to me. Does he have different rules if the other pharmacy isn't open 24 hours? Does he have to look at the clock to know if he is required to dispense medication or not?

Either he has the right to refuse or he doesn't, but making it dependent on the proximity of another person is nonsensical, imo.

The biggest problem with some of those "Christian" pharmacists is that in some cases they're often the only ones on duty in the pharmacy, and in some cases in the entire town. That probably doesn't have anything to do with any constitutional question, but it bears enormously on whether or not their employer has an obligation to maintain services at all times.

You continually repeat over and over again that we can't talk about Rev. Wright unless we can show a specific instance in which Rev. Wright's extreme views directly affected a view that Obama has held.

By the same token, you shouldn't be able to complain about this situation unless you can show a single instance in which someone was denied by a Christian pharmacist and was unable to obtain what was needed elsewhere.

In fact, it was already ruled when the Washington law was passed that a pharmacist could refuse to sell the morning-after pill if another source was available. So the "government licensing" point is moot as well, since the government's already said that it's allowed. (Not that I agree with that requirement, but it invalidates the argument when you're looking at it from an "is" standpoing rather than "should")

So would Andy require my Walgreen's to always carry a supply of my insulin? ####### bastards.

So would Andy require my Walgreen's to always carry a supply of my insulin? ####### bastards.

With the prevalence of childhood obesity, insulin futures are a great investment.

I would think insulin would be awesome for drug stores anyway. Give someone an antibiotic or something and they'll generally get better and not be back for awhile. Insulin junkies, on the other hand, get hooked on that "not dying" side effect of insulin addiction.

Though it would be interesting to see some redneck blocking the aisle at Eckerd and telling someone in a lazy drawl "this store's only for them that gots a well-functioning pancreas."

Hey, man, I wasn't overweight until I was an adult. Well, except for before I was 15. But from 15 to 18, I was right at my ideal weight. So lay off. ;)

What the future may hold?

Though it would be interesting to see some redneck blocking the aisle at Eckerd and telling someone in a lazy drawl "this store's only for them that gots a well-functioning pancreas."

Not that it relates to anything here, but I have, several times, been advised to pray for a cure to my diabetes and told that if I were good with God, I wouldn't be diabetic. Which is hard to refute, I'll admit.

Hey, man, I wasn't overweight until I was an adult. Well, except for before I was 15. But from 15 to 18, I was right at my ideal weight. So lay off. ;)

Don't worry, I'm a beer-induced fatass myself!

Whereas JC counters, "Let the trollope hitchhike 200 miles to get her morning after pill. She should have thought of that before she started trolloping."

Except of course I said no such thing, right? It's neat when you can impute things to people they didn't say.

Of course I also said I have no objection to religious CO's, as long as they're a reasonable alternative for the client / customers.

-------------------

The biggest problem with some of those "Christian" pharmacists is that in some cases they're often the only ones on duty in the pharmacy, and in some cases in the entire town. That probably doesn't have anything to do with any constitutional question, but it bears enormously on whether or not their employer has an obligation to maintain services at all times.

You continually repeat over and over again that we can't talk about Rev. Wright unless we can show a specific instance in which Rev. Wright's extreme views directly affected a view that Obama has held.

By the same token, you shouldn't be able to complain about this situation unless you can show a single instance in which someone was denied by a Christian pharmacist and was unable to obtain what was needed elsewhere.

In fact, it was already ruled when the Washington law was passed that a pharmacist could refuse to sell the morning-after pill if another source was available. So the "government licensing" point is moot as well, since the government's already said that it's allowed. (Not that I agree with that requirement, but it invalidates the argument when you're looking at it from an "is" standpoing rather than "should")

I thought I had read about a case in South Dakota where the scenario I depicted had happened.

If I misremembered and this wasn't the case, and if there are no such cases, then as I said, I have no objection to religious CO's in either the pharmacy or the marriage bureau. No harm, no foul.

And unlike the Wright obsessors, I will now drop the subject.

Not that it relates to anything here, but I have, several times, been advised to pray for a cure to my diabetes and told that if I were good with God, I wouldn't be diabetic. Which is hard to refute, I'll admit.

See? God was just one prayer short of coming up with a cure for diabetes but you dropped the ball and blew it for everyone.

The bottom line in both of these cases is that the availability of the offered services (marriage ceremony; contraception sales) can't be compromised on irrelevant religious grounds, but if it's just a matter of the Christian Objector saying "sorry, see that other guy over there ten feet away," then it shouldn't really be that big a deal.

Of course in the case of the Christian pharmacists, the most serious situation is when they not only refuse to fill a prescription, but they refuse to direct the customer to another pharmacist who would; or in the worst scenario, when there's no other available pharmacist in town. In that case they should be given about five minutes to reconsider, and then have their license revoked. Let them buy an island in the South Seas and refuse to sell contraceptives to the monkeys.

See why I use the word slavery? Andy thinks people should be compelled by the government to work for other people.

(Note that, regardless of whether Andy mistakenly thinks the Civil Rights Act was the greatest thing since sliced bread, it's not at all analogous to the pharmacist situation, where there's no discrimination occurring. This is just the pharmacist declining to sell a particular product.)

I thought I had read about a case in South Dakota where the scenario I depicted had happened.


I was looking for something but didn't find it.

I did see the testimony of a woman with 3 grown kids (31, 28, 23) talking about how if she had known about emergency contraception, it could have "saved her" from one or two of her three pregnancies. If that were my mom, she'd definitely get a pretty shitty Mother's Day present.

They're probably all in jail anyway, Dan.

Whereas JC counters, "Let the trollope hitchhike 200 miles to get her morning after pill. She should have thought of that before she started trolloping."

Except of course I said no such thing, right? It's neat when you can impute things to people they didn't say.

Of course I also said I have no objection to religious CO's, as long as they're a reasonable alternative for the client / customers.

Which pretty much eviscerates the conscientious objection. And, of course, you were nothing but respectful in your characterization of people who have those objections and their grounds for them.

If my reference to Wright and DMN's reference to the Civil Rights Act doesn't spark this thread, there's no chance of it catching Katrina.