The Neil Noesen case may be the one Andy is thinking about. No filling of the prescription, no referral to another pharmacy. I'm not sure how many alternate drugstore options there are in Menomonie, but in any case the woman was put through considerable hassle. And I understand, David, that this is not technically "discrimination," but how many men get contraceptive prescriptions? Basically, Noesen couldn't stop a man from buying condoms, because those are OTC, but he could harass and mortify a woman with a perfectly valid prescription.

Probably not a huge deal if the Neil Noesens of the world are rare, but interesting nonetheless.

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.

Even assuming one agrees to the concept of licensing pharmacists, the purpose of doing so is safety -- making sure that when they whip up a particular prescription, they do it correctly -- not running their business for them. There's no justification for going from one to the other, any more than there's a justification for saying that if you have a driver's license, you should have to drive poor people to the pharmacy when they need a ride, and if you don't like it, you can walk.

This is why liberals and libertarians can't find common ground. Liberals conjure up these horror stories about people being poisoned by drugs because it happened in 1890, and use that as a justification for regulation -- but then immediately bootstrap on that regulation to show their true colors.

In the Noelsen case, however, he actually refused to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy. There was an alternate option for the woman, but Noelsen kept something that didn't belong to him, which is a different matter. He had a right to refuse to sell a product (assuming that he had the authority to make that decision), but he had no right to prevent the woman from obtaining it from another party freely willing to sell it.

The pharmacist could just not carry condoms, if they wished. There was a pharmacy where I grew up that didn't have them. And a chain of grocery stores but I can't recall the one. That was in Stillwater. All the other stores carried them but not this one closest to campus.

So, perhaps people are willing to put principle above dollars. I'd have to think beer and condoms next to a huge state college campus would be money makers.

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.

But as a factual matter, their employer has no such obligation, even under the big government scheme you favor. If the pharmacist wants to only have his store open from 9-12 every morning and shut down for the day after that, he's free to do so. He has no obligation to "maintain services at all times."

So basing a purported obligation to sell contraception on a purported "obligation to maintain services at all times" is faulty.

Jumping back to the blind money thing, here's another one of those quotes that only an ideologically blind person could say: "James A. Kutsch, the president of the Seeing Eye Inc. of Morristown, N.J., a nonprofit guide dog school, said the court decision would mean greater independence for people with vision loss." We see quotes like this from liberals all the time, not just about the handicapped, but about other recipients of government largesse -- say, welfare families or the like. Apparently being dependent on the government is actually "independence."

The pharmacist could just not carry condoms, if they wished

wants to only have his store open from 9-12 every morning

Both true enough. Actually I don't know that I would object to the Foursquare Bible Pharmacy, open 9-12 weekdays, explicitly stating it will sell no drugs that could be morally ruinous, as long as they made it clear which drugs those were. Or perhaps a Christian Science Pharmacy that would sell no drugs at all. These are all fine business models. The problems seem to arise when you get an employee whose policies are different than the employer, and whose morals are different from that of the medical community who are his/her colleagues.

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.

Well, I'm a libertarian because I am pro- free market, would like the government to be perhaps 1% smaller than it is today, think the USA is more than a little overextended in its military commitments, would like the option of eating or smoking anything I want, and prefer not to be searched at the airport. If that makes me an anti-government extremist then I guess that's just the way it is. I am open to any more reasonable ideological options that fit within this general framework.

Apparently being dependent on the government is actually "independence."

Oh, please. U.S. coins are different sizes, right? You can tell them apart by touch without removing them from your pocket? Does that make you "dependent on the government?"

would like the government to be perhaps 1% smaller than it is today

Heh, not the most ambitious libertarian, I'd have to say!

We see quotes like this from liberals all the time, not just about the handicapped, but about other recipients of government largesse -- say, welfare families or the like. Apparently being dependent on the government is actually "independence."

I get newsletters from my banking trade association that state that keeping Wal-Mart, Home Depot, et. al. from engaging in banking activities is necessary to protect our free enterprise system.

I don't know if I'd put the blind dollar thing in the same category, to be honest. I think there's a responsibility to make reasonable accomodation for those that can't see since it's a public thing and blind people don't have the option to order their own money from the government with raised dots or slightly defacing the bills themselves with bumps.

Now, if Pizza Hut was being sued for not putting braille on their coupons, or Campbell's soup being sued for not having braille on their ingredients list, that would be a different matter.

The problems seem to arise when you get an employee whose policies are different than the employer, and whose morals are different from that of the medical community who are his/her colleagues.

Those are two cases. In the first, would it be okay with you if the employer fired the employee? It seems to me if an employee wishes to engage in different business practices than the employer, they should part company. I don't think an individual pharmacist should be able to decide which prescriptions get filled and which don't, but a pharmacist who owns her own store should. But my interpretation of the liberal playbook is that an employee shouldn't be fired over a religious belief. So, if that is true, how do you guys square this one? You say the pharmacist shouldn't be able to refuse service even if that violates her religious beliefs, but you also say that pharmacist shouldn't be fired because her religious beliefs should be protected. I don't get it. (note that I may have constructed a strawman. if so, it wasn't my intent - that is just my interpretation of the views here).

On the second, who cares? There are plenty of doctors who have a minority opinion amongst doctors on a range of issues. that's a GOOD thing, isn't it?

Heh, not the most ambitious libertarian, I'd have to say!

Dan, if it makes you feel better I definitely see the merit in the POV of the anarch-capitalists. However, a 1% reduction in govt spending would be a big step. CNN would be running weeks of stories about the victims of such draconian budget cuts. My greater point is that if you think government should be smaller than it is today, there is nowhere else to go.

Tom, I'm just teasing you. If us libertarians don't have a sense of humor, we'd all need to be on depression medication. Assuming, of course, the pharmacist feels the need to take money from depressed people.

After some thought, I'd think raised dots (or lines or something) on the bills is the way to go. The bills still fit in the machines and it would be little noticed by anyone else. I'd think it would also be fairly easy to do.

And, like Dan says, this is a public service. I do think the government has the obligation to accomodate it's citizens.

I think there's a responsibility to make reasonable accomodation for those that can't see since it's a public thing and blind people don't have the option to order their own money from the government with raised dots or slightly defacing the bills themselves with bumps.

There was a show in which James Franciscus played a blind guy and I remember that he could tell the bills apart.

Even assuming one agrees to the concept of licensing pharmacists, the purpose of doing so is safety -- making sure that when they whip up a particular prescription, they do it correctly -- not running their business for them. There's no justification for going from one to the other, any more than there's a justification for saying that if you have a driver's license, you should have to drive poor people to the pharmacy when they need a ride, and if you don't like it, you can walk.

There is a secondary issue that you're neglecting here (perhaps because you don't recognize it as legitimate). It's restricting access to certain medication. Because we have a system which artificially compels people to obtain medication only from a certain group of people, allowing members of that group to decide arbitrarily whether or not to distribute certain of those medications can effectively deny people access to legal medication.

I don't like compelling the private business owners any more than you do, but I don't see how you resolve that problem so long as you have controlled substances at all.

This particular issue disappears entirely if people could obtain oral contraceptives without a prescription, like they do for condoms or vitamins.

Both true enough. Actually I don't know that I would object to the Foursquare Bible Pharmacy, open 9-12 weekdays, explicitly stating it will sell no drugs that could be morally ruinous, as long as they made it clear which drugs those were. Or perhaps a Christian Science Pharmacy that would sell no drugs at all. These are all fine business models. The problems seem to arise when you get an employee whose policies are different than the employer,

That may be the problem if you actually wouldn't object to those things, but of course many liberals do object to them.

And when they do, well, it's funny you should mention that; I was going to bring it up. The class of employees who want the legal right to accommodations isn't limited to handicapped people; it includes religious people as well. It has also come up in the context of store clerks who don't want to sell adult magazines. And recently in Minnesota, there was a controversy over Muslim cab drivers who didn't want to accept passengers carrying alcohol, and another controversy over a bus driver who didn't want to drive buses that had gay-themed ads on the side of the bus.

The libertarian approach offers a way to resolve these supposedly-competing interests: your property, your rules. If you own the bus, cab, or pharmacy, you decide who you want to do business with and how. If you agree to work for the owner, you agree to follow his rules. An accommodation is a matter of agreement, not a matter of "right."

Of course, liberals don't like that, because it doesn't allow them to pick and choose who to favor. Member of unpopular religion claiming to be picked on by majority religion -- favor the member of the unpopular religion. Member of popular religion claiming to be picked on by secular people -- favor secular people. Handicapped person claiming to be picked on by unhandicapped people -- favor handicapped person. Rights depend on how sympathetic your story is.

You say the pharmacist shouldn't be able to refuse service even if that violates her religious beliefs, but you also say that pharmacist shouldn't be fired because her religious beliefs should be protected

You're right, I don't think the latter follows. I wouldn't protect religious beliefs if someone is expressing them inappropriately in a secular setting. It's analogous to proselytizing by public-school teachers, perhaps, at least distantly.

There are plenty of doctors who have a minority opinion amongst doctors on a range of issues. that's a GOOD thing, isn't it?

And it's great to choose an OB/GYN who doesn't believe contraception is moral, and refuses to prescribe it; presumably you agree with him/her wholeheartedly. The problem is, having gotten that prescription in confidence, you don't expect a pharmacist to disapprove of it. Any more than you expect a nurse or tech to say "I can't administer this blood transfusion that the doctor ordered, it's against my religion."

show in which James Franciscus played a blind guy

Longstreet, yeah, Longstreet could do anything. He could have been the first blind major-league umpire. No, wait ...

many liberals do object

Fair enough, but I am not many liberals. And I left the playbook at home this morning :)

Tom, I'm just teasing you. If us libertarians don't have a sense of humor, we'd all need to be on depression medication. Assuming, of course, the pharmacist doesn't feel the need to refuse money from depressed people.

So as to not compromise my libertarian principles, I'll only take an antidepressant I can make myself. So far, so good... I'm thinking of calling it "beer".

Well, what you expect is irrelevant. A pharmacist isn't your or your doctor's servant.

I hadn't thought about what Crosbybird pointed out. If these materials weren't regulated, there would be no issue. Which is another good point to limited government. Once you let government into an area, it claims (and somewhat legitimately given the first principle) that it can pick and choose who gets favored. In essence, by the first regulation (of the pharmaceutical) government puts itself in position where it either has to instruct someone to violate his/her religious belief or tell someone they can't have a legal product. There is no clear, clean answer because the first principle is wrong.

I think there's a responsibility to make reasonable accomodation for those that can't see since it's a public thing and blind people don't have the option to order their own money from the government with raised dots or slightly defacing the bills themselves with bumps.

The government does have protection in place for those without sight. If someone gives them a bill and misrepresents its denomination, that's fraud. If someone shorts them on change, that's theft.

We can argue about whether such protection is sufficient, but that's very different from saying that the current policy with unchanged currency does nothing to protect blind people.

Any more than you expect a nurse or tech to say "I can't administer this blood transfusion that the doctor ordered, it's against my religion."

I wouldn't have a problem there, either. The nurse or tech should be free to refuse that and then the employer should be free to keep or fire them. The nurse has a contract, written or oral, with their superior, but no such contract with the individual patients.

would like the government to be perhaps 1% smaller than it is today

If there is anything at all that libertarian leaners can look forward to, it is the good news is that our Rooseveltian welfare uber-state is going to collapse someday. It isn't a question of if, it is simply a question of when. It's inevitable, because it's bankrupting and destroying the country, and it's mathematically unsustainable.

I don't look forward to a collapse. I'd like a general, gentle, continuous erosion of the welfare state, not a sudden, complete breakdown of society.

There was a show in which James Franciscus played a blind guy and I remember that he could tell the bills apart.

Many blind people fold their bills in different ways to easily distinguish them by touch. A $1 bill might be unfolded, a $5 bill lengthwise, a $10 bill widthwise, etc. It takes a small amount of preparation in advance, but it's not a difficult system to learn.

Longstreet, yeah, Longstreet could do anything.

Oh yeah? Then how come he couldn't convince Lee to disengage at Gettysburg and force a fight further south nearer to Washington?

It takes a small amount of preparation in advance, but it's not a difficult system to learn.

Don't you have to know what the bills are in the first place before you fold them?

Don't you have to know what the bills are in the first place before you fold them?

Yeah, but the other methods involve trusting someone too. You have to trust people not to make their own raised dots and trust people to not alter the size of bills.

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.

My respect for religious CO pharmacists is roughly equal to those pharmacists' respect for the wishes of the customers they refuse to fill prescriptions for.

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

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

Just call me Simon Legree. My only question is whether you throw that word around more than Al Sharpton throws around "racism," or more than Johnny Appleseed throws around apple seeds.

(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 didn't apply the CRA to this case, so as usual, you're arguing with yourself.

As for your point that I would force pharmacies to open 24/7, that's a rather literalist reading of what I've said, but if it makes you feel any better, I wouldn't do any such thing.

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

The pharmacist could just not carry condoms, if they wished. There was a pharmacy where I grew up that didn't have them. And a chain of grocery stores but I can't recall the one. That was in Stillwater. All the other stores carried them but not this one closest to campus.

Since condoms aren't prescribed by anyone other than their manufacturers, that doesn't bother me any more than if they refused to carry Hustler or National Review. My generic point is that licensed pharmacies should be required to carry all categories (not all brand names) of prescriptions, and in the case where a prescription should happen to be out of stock, to be willing to call around and refer the customer to an alternate source of supply. No pharmacy should be allowed to have a final answer of "f*ck you, you babykiller." And if that makes me a slavedriving statist babykiller, so be it.

If an individual pharmacist wants to refuse to fill a prescription, fine, just so long as there's a reasonable provided backup. The bottom line is the customer's health, not the sensibility of the pharmacist.

Oh yeah? Then how come he couldn't convince Lee to disengage at Gettysburg and force a fight further south nearer to Washington?

Longstreet deserves a lot of blame, too. His movements were slow and the attacks by his soldiers were completely uncoordinated. Go with Longstreet's idea and transfer a bunch of soldiers from Lee to Bragg and Richmond falls in '64.

I don't know if I'd put the blind dollar thing in the same category, to be honest. I think there's a responsibility to make reasonable accomodation for those that can't see since it's a public thing and blind people don't have the option to order their own money from the government with raised dots or slightly defacing the bills themselves with bumps.

Dan, I agree with this generally; I did say originally that I didn't think that the government presented the same issues as private establishments.

At the same time, the key word is "reasonable" in "reasonable accommodation." I don't even get the sense that some people -- dp, for instance -- think that there ought to be any limits based on reasonableness. I suggested that the cost of this may not be worth it, and he threw a tantrum and accused me of everything short of wanting to feed the blind into woodchippers.

I don't look forward to a collapse. I'd like a general, gentle, continuous erosion of the welfare state, not a sudden, complete breakdown of society.

A collapse isn't pretty. I was at the final Mets game last year.

I'd like a general, gentle, continuous erosion of the welfare state, not a sudden, complete breakdown of society.

So you'd like a slow, gentle breakdown of society instead? Gotcha.

I suggested that the cost of this may not be worth it, and he threw a tantrum and accused me of everything short of wanting to feed the blind into woodchippers.

What if it's economically sound to feed libertarians into woodchippers?

Welfare reform in the 90s was one step of "general, gentle, continuous erosion of the welfare state". Most agree is has been a good thing; you can disgaree, but the data and pop opinion would seem to be agin ya. Of course this doesn't mean MORE is NECESSARILY better. But I'd be in favor of further reform efforts that would again reward work (expanding the EIC) and thus de facto de-reward non-work.

Hey, and how about that 7-2 SC ruling on child porn? Are Souter and Ginsberg totally out of whack with vast majority of lawyers and citizens or WHAT?

After some thought, I'd think raised dots (or lines or something) on the bills is the way to go. The bills still fit in the machines and it would be little noticed by anyone else. I'd think it would also be fairly easy to do.

The issue there is durability; to be useful, they have to be prominent enough that, e.g., running them through the laundry doesn't damage them. (If you feel new bills, you'll feel that the printing is already slightly raised and you can tell what bill is what by touch. But after a while, they wear down.)

But certainly if one can do that, it makes a lot more sense than making them different sizes, in that it would be less disruptive.

I don't look forward to a collapse. I'd like a general, gentle, continuous erosion of the welfare state, not a sudden, complete breakdown of society.

I agree that would be far preferable for society. A gentle drawdown just might actually encourage Americans to relearn the wisdom of things like (gasp) saving money for their future, instead of wasting it on unnecessary bullcrap like expensive cars and luxurious vacations around the world.

However, it's obvious that the spoiled, needy, infantile left in America has no intention of going the responsible route. Therefore, their welfare is going to have to eventually be taken away from them kicking and screaming, much like the recalcitrant crying child has his lollipop taken away by the parent.

Refusal for a civil service person to CO to same sex unions - granted no effect on customer - this is an internal place of employment issue. If issuing same-sex licenses was a substantial part of the job (>10%??), or she was the only one working a particularly then she could (should?) probably be fired. Otherwise, it's a matter of just being the employee that the other employees don't like.

The pharmacist refusing to dispense on moral grounds... I think this is a violation of professional ethics (not sure what "oaths" pharmacists swear). Pharmacist should probably lose their license/certification. Note that if the product is OTC (i.e, can buy it at 7/11) - like say condoms - it is likely that there is 'no harm no foul'.

It's also a market efficiency question. In the free market jesus world, there is a 24hour pharamacy next store who will give you your abortion pills, 100% of the time, no hassle or extra cost to you - and it would even be at the idealized internet price.

I am going to side with the libertarians here - if there were no DEA/prescription meds, then this would basically never be an issue (barring market inefficiency questions - "can't get that here yet")

You guys need to start taking care of your woodchippers - you can very easily void the warranty.

I tried to add "Does the government have the duty to correct market inefficiencies? Including monetary policy, anti-trust laws, etc.?" to my previous comment

I think I crashed the server...

In the free market jesus world

I think you simplify or misunderstand libertarianism. (Well, actually, I'm sure of it). Free markets are a result, not a goal, of libertarianism. The goal is as much freedom as possible. My libertarianism isn't based on economics at all, really. And I readily admit that in a completely free economic market, gross injustices will occur. I do favor government intervention to prevent those. It's just that where I'd draw that line is a few light-years from where a conservative would and it's not in the same galaxy as where a liberal would.



For your reading pleasure.

I think you simplify or misunderstand libertarianism. (Well, actually, I'm sure of it).

I am not even *claiming* I understand libertarianism.

But consider it a snipe at unrestricted capitalism then.

I think you simplify or misunderstand libertarianism. (Well, actually, I'm sure of it).

Well I think the problem is that no two "libertarians" actually believe in the exact same thing or anything really close. Too individualistic and idiosyncratic I guess.

You libs need to engage in some groupthink :-)

I think you simplify or misunderstand libertarianism.

Probably. But I have seen you--and others--do the same with "liberalism" throughout the thread. This is a wide gap to yell across, although this thread is a good example of doing so in a reasonable way in most cases.

Probably. But I have seen you--and others--do the same with "liberalism" throughout the thread. This is a wide gap to yell across, although this thread is a good example of doing so in a reasonable way in most cases.

No doubt we all simplify too much our opponent's arguments. But I was specifically responding to the FMJ crap which gets invoked to explain everything libertarian. My gripe isn't that "libertarianism" becomes a wide tent underwhich many different ideas get placed, but that the marketplace and money is the central theme. Freedom is the central theme and economic ideas come out of that, not the other way around.

Free Market Jesus (AKA DMN*) lives to bait liberal strawmen, and I'm not falling back into it. But I do want to clear my already questionable name on this one issue b/c it is important to me on a personal level.

*Hundreds of posts ago, DMN claimed that the only thing causing hunger in Africa is lack of free markets. Henceforth, he became Free Market Jesus. I don't think the other libertarians here (as JPWF pointed out in 5646) share his messianic vision.

FMJ in 5633,
At the same time, the key word is "reasonable" in "reasonable accommodation." I don't even get the sense that some people -- dp, for instance -- think that there ought to be any limits based on reasonableness. I suggested that the cost of this may not be worth it, and he threw a tantrum and accused me of everything short of wanting to feed the blind into woodchippers.

My initial response was to compare it to other costly changes in standards that the government has made- switch to exclusively digital TV signals, in which it is giving a rebate to anyone who needs to purchase a converter box. In a later post (#5403), I said this:

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.

And I've maintained all along that I think there are "reasonable" standards that we can agree on. But reasonable involves giving up on the first absolute principle that no business owner should ever have to adhere to a standard they don't agree with. Just like reasonable from my perspective involves giving up on the standard of absolute equality of access. I know what your ideal is, you know what my ideal is, let's try to strike a balance between these two positions. You keep insisting that there's no merit to the side that wants equal access b/c it comes at a cost to society that business owners must partially bear, and no business owner should ever have to bear a cost or obligation they don't want to. But they already do. So we're starting in a system that has already violated your first principle- the size and design of your bathroom already has to adhere to certain standards when you build a business. You have to make it a safe place if you plan to invite the public in. I don't think that all claims made by all handicapped people ever are right and reasonable. But I do think that the principle of equal access is a reasonable one. You don't agree.

In terms of the argument that it is non-handicapped people in organizations arguing to advance the rights of the handicapped, I'll admit that this is absolutely true. I think this is a non-starter though. These are organizations, and they are staffed by a range of people, handicapped and non-handicapped. A lot of times, those who go into those organizations who aren't themselves handicapped have some personal connection that drew them to it. My sister is wheeelchair-bound and works with autistic children. She will probably advocate at some point for particular forms of autism education over others. She will be a non-austic person advocating for autistic people, which makes her immediately suspect in your opinion. She is sympathetic to those kids b/c of her personal experience, despite not sharing their affliction.

Also, and I shouldn't have to point this out, but you don't see how stupid it is to keep mentioning it as if it matters, people advocate for other people all the time (we have several professional classes who specialize in this...I think you may be familiar with them). Organizations advocate for classes of people. Not everyone who works at the batter women's shelter is a battered woman, and not everyone who does cancer research has/had cancer. Similarly, just because a blind person opposes a measure that other blind people (or blind people's organizations) claim will help them, that doesn't automatically make it a bad idea.

You really express a pathological disdain for those you perceive to be living off of your hard work.* You've done that ever since I've been here at BTF. In this thread you've directed your scorn at blind, wheelchair-bound slave drivers forcing you to build ramps and rebuild vending machines. I find you to be a reasonable person when you aren't ridiculing people for their daring to ask for help with their misfortune. You want to abandon everyone who has any need of assistance to the random whims of kind strangers, rather than imposing a burden on the more fortunate. Fortunately for the rest of us, society does impose costs on those who benefit most from its existence. We can disagree on what those costs should be, but as it stands now they exist and they're not going away any time soon. So rather than argue from absurd and inflexible first principles(all restaurants should be able to accommodate all types of disabilities), I think it's more productive to discuss how we can balance competing notions of rights.

*5606: Apparently being dependent on the government is actually "independence."
Having a ramp so that someone doesn't need to be carry you up stairs is actually independence. Having your employer provide you with a magnification device for your computer screen so that you can write software and thus earn a living is independence. The goal is to erase the disability as the limiting thing in a person's life, so that their fortune is not dependent on the state of their bodies. Having a working elevator in your company's building so that you can get to your office is not "being dependent" on the government to provide for you. It's being dependent on society to provide conditions within which you can compete with others to succeed, but we're all dependent on some framework to provide these conditions for us (see Princeton comments below). If it was anyone else, I'd say "you can't possibly be this self-righteous"...

Re: Princeton- all kidding aside, anyone who has attended an Ivy League school has been served very well by this existing system, and probably would not have had the opportunity to do so without some assistance along the way. I've attended some good schools myself, but would not have been able to if the structures hadn't been in place to aid me along the way. Recognizing a debt to a set of circumstances beyond your control and creation means that you cannot claim your success as entirely a product of your own hard work and acumen. This destabilizes your moral right to claim absolute and total dominion over the products of that success. And this is the problem with your core belief- it is based on a moral right to contract, but once the contract is established, it subsumes and erases all other moral consideration. Applying your morality produces amorality.

Re: Princeton/slavery- I don't want to bash Princeton alone for this, only to point out that elite members of the University advocated and owned slaves, and only saw fit to release these slaves once they were no longer capable of benefiting from their labor. So how would a student at Princeton in the late 1700s have felt about slavery? What arguments and counter-arguments would their environment exposed them to? Unless you believe that our views are shaped entirely apart from our environment, these are important questions to consider. (And if our views aren't shaped by our environment, why argue with anyone about what their views are? Aren't you trying to create an environment for someone that allows them to consider and adopt your views?)

Can't really catch up on everything, but wanted to give kudos to JC for making a lot of really sensible and insightful points in this discussion.

Who are these "most" who agree that causing millions of children to be raised by "care providers" instead of their own mothers, while lowering their overall standard of living, was a good thing?

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.

My respect for religious CO pharmacists is roughly equal to those pharmacists' respect for the wishes of the customers they refuse to fill prescriptions for.

Two points to be made here:

(1) You of course have no idea the level of respect the CO pharmacists have for people they refuse to serve, but your disrespect for them is evident;

(2) For a guy who lauds the civility of Obama and hammers the Republicans and Rove for their incivility, it's instructive to see the very real limitations of your respect for people whose positions differ from yours.

McCain rejects... but does he denounce?

CNN) -- In the face of mounting controversy over headline-grabbing statements from the Rev. John Hagee, CNN has learned that presumptive Republican nominee John McCain decided Thursday to reject his endorsement.

McCain told CNN's Brian Todd that he rejected the endorsement after Todd brought to his attention Hagee's comments that Adolf Hitler had been fulfilling God's will by hastening the desire of Jews to return to Israel in accordance with biblical prophecy.

"Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them. I did not know of them before Rev. Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well," McCain said in a statement to CNN on Thursday.

...

"I have said I do not believe Sen. Obama shares Rev. Wright's extreme views. But let me also be clear, Rev. Hagee was not and is not my pastor or spiritual adviser, and I did not attend his church for 20 years. I have denounced statements he made immediately upon learning of them, as I do again today," McCain said.

how would a student at Princeton in the late 1700s have felt about slavery?

James Madison '71:

We must deny the fact, that slaves are considered merely as property, and in no respect whatever as persons. The true state of the case is, that they partake of both these qualities: being considered by our laws, in some respects, as persons, and in other respects as property. In being compelled to labor, not for himself, but for a master; in being vendible by one master to another master; and in being subject at all times to be restrained in his liberty and chastised in his body, by the capricious will of another -- the slave may appear to be degraded from the human rank, and classed with those irrational animals which fall under the legal denomination of property. In being protected, on the other hand, in his life and in his limbs, against the violence of all others, even the master of his labor and his liberty; and in being punishable himself for all violence committed against others -- the slave is no less evidently regarded by the law as a member of the society, not as a part of the irrational creation; as a moral person, not as a mere article of property. The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of persons and of property. This is in fact their true character. (Federalist 54)

Rev. Hagee was not and is not my pastor or spiritual adviser

But is he McCain's moral compass and spiritual guide? :)

I don't look forward to a collapse. I'd like a general, gentle, continuous erosion of the welfare state, not a sudden, complete breakdown of society.

Good thinking. Let's starting by limiting, then ending, the granting of new corporate charters. Over time, we'll revoke those in currently existence. Depreciation schedules, etc., all the welfare breaks businesses currently get, will have to go, though I'm okay with some sort of timetable. All "business" income will have to be taxed at personal rates, of course. Also, to rid business of its welfare stigma, no more loopholes, deductions, and shelters, and certainly we'll demand a cessation of legal protections for manslaughter, etc., committed for profit.


Why is Petraeus revealing our military plans to the terrorists? I mean, other than for political gain?

WASHINGTON - Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Thursday that a decision on Iraq troop levels is likely by September, and that he is likely to recommend a further reduction after a 45-day pause in withdrawals that begins in mid-July.

Freedom is the central theme and economic ideas come out of that, not the other way around.

This is concisely stated, and it raises a couple of points:

1. "Freedom" is a pretty broad concept, and as fdp has pointed out WRT labor, may be defined/shaded differently by different types of people with different competing interests.
2. I would suggest that when you apply this concept to a multinational, industrial/service capitalist-based economy, that it does manifest primarily as an economic construct, at least in terms of how it conflicts with what Libertarians and Republicans label as "big government liberalism." Libs and Libs are often in relative accord on issues such as gay marriage, abortion etc, but then part company acrimoniously on taxation, and, indeed, in this thread both Nieporent and Szymborski have characterized themselves as being in a serf-like relationship with the government's various taxation apparati.

I am not saying your rhetorical construct is invalid; rather, that it is complicated and shaped in some respects by the reality of the society on which it would be transposed and to which it would be applied.

And again, for the record, FWIW, I don't care about McCain and Hagee, or about where McCain goes to church. I care about his proposed policies.

Why is Petraeus revealing our military plans to the terrorists? I mean, other than for political gain?

You mean Admiral A. Petreaus?

IT'S A TRAP!

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.

My respect for religious CO pharmacists is roughly equal to those pharmacists' respect for the wishes of the customers they refuse to fill prescriptions for.

Two points to be made here:

(1) You of course have no idea the level of respect the CO pharmacists have for people they refuse to serve, but your disrespect for them is evident;

JC, respect is as respect does. There is no prima facie evidence that a CO pharmacist who refuses a contraceptive prescription has any respect for any point of view on the subject but his or her own. Praying for the eternal soul of the trollope is not what most laypeople would mean by respect.

(2) For a guy who lauds the civility of Obama and hammers the Republicans and Rove for their incivility, it's instructive to see the very real limitations of your respect for people whose positions differ from yours.

Respect is a two way street. As far as I can tell, you see it as Rock Creek Parkway during the rush hour.

I've spent more than a few threads here defending the sincerity and integrity of Right to Lifers, and I'll continue to do so, but that doesn't mean that as a matter of public policy I want them to have a veto power over the availability of prescriptions. I've said that as long as they're willing to give their customers a reasonable alternative means of supply, I'm fine with their personal refusal, but that doesn't seem to be enough from your point of view. But perhaps you're willing to elaborate on what you'd recommend to your CO friends beyond a big mouth of mum.

This is a serious topic, JC, and the moral seriousness is not all on the side of the CO. And in a secular society, public policy decisions have to be weighted towards secular concerns, among them the primacy of a doctor's prescription over the private concerns of a publicly licensed pharmacist, especially one practicing in a non-sectarian pharmacy.

"I have said I do not believe Sen. Obama shares Rev. Wright's extreme views. But let me also be clear, Rev. Hagee was not and is not my pastor or spiritual adviser, and I did not attend his church for 20 years. I have denounced statements he made immediately upon learning of them, as I do again today," McCain said.

Riiiight, Teflon John. In other words, this wasn't a long time friend whose pecularities you learned to accept out of abiding love and friendship, but instead some nutball with whom you voluntarily associated because you hoped his lust for the rapture would suck in a few votes. Color me unimpressed.

I'm extremely skeptical that McCain didn't know what Hagee was, the same way, oops, he didn't know that his campaign guy was fronting the regime in Myanmar.

I've said that as long as they're willing to give their customers a reasonable alternative means of supply,

I think my comments in 5585 come back when you say this. Any thoughts?

140 to tie the record, yes?

I've said that as long as they're willing to give their customers a reasonable alternative means of supply,

I think my comments in 5585 come back when you say this. Any thoughts?

mange, I already partly addressed that when I said that I wouldn't (duh) expect any pharmacy to operate 24/7. But as to your main point, I look at it more from a public policy POV than anything else, and as a practical matter, I'd be a lot harder on a pharmacist of last resort than I would be on one CO pharmacist in a block full of drug stores. To me the bottom line is the health requirements of the customer, and if the religious sensibilities of a CO pharmacist don't impinge on that, then let them indulge their scruples. I'm looking at this whole question far more from the POV of a prospective customer than I am from the POV of a philosopher, which I'm clearly not.

140 to tie the record, yes?

And what record would that be, the number of times that FMJ has equated "government" with "slavery"? I kind of lost count back around 4000.

140 to tie the record, yes?

Unless someone plugs too many woodchippers into the power strip and crashes the server again, yes.

I'd be a lot harder on a pharmacist of last resort than I would be on one CO pharmacist in a block full of drug stores.

Fair enough. I can't agree on that point, so we agree to disagree. Thanks.

And what record would that be, the number of times that FMJ has equated "government" with "slavery?"

If you are really asking, the all-time BTF thread post record--5801.

The other extreme, is of course, to nationalize the entire health care industry (including pharmacists) which makes the question rather moot, as they are no longer private citizens selling their wares but rather government employees.

Interesting column from Beliefnet (via a link from Josh Marshall) that expains how Hagee represents McCain's "ham handed approach to dealing with the Christian Right." It's on a par with his approach to economics: doesn't know or care much about the subject, tries to exploit for reasons of political expediency (flip-flopping on his previous views), and then ends up looking the fool.

Refusal for a civil service person to CO to same sex unions - granted no effect on customer - this is an internal place of employment issue. If issuing same-sex licenses was a substantial part of the job (>10%??), or she was the only one working a particularly then she could (should?) probably be fired. Otherwise, it's a matter of just being the employee that the other employees don't like.

I agree with the above.

There was just a case in New Mexico in which a wedding photographer -- a private individual, not a government employee -- was punished by the state Human Rights Commission for declining to photograph a gay wedding ceremony on the grounds that her religion doesn't recognize that as a valid wedding ceremony. Even though the state itself doesn't consider the gay wedding to be a wedding, the HRC treated it as discrimination, and is punishing the photographer and compelling her to photograph gay weddings in the future.

It's on a par with his approach to economics: doesn't know or care much about the subject, tries to exploit for reasons of political expediency (flip-flopping on his previous views), and then ends up looking the fool.

Given that the approach of the candidates that supposedly do know and care about economics is to push for increased trade protectionism and a farm bill filled with enough pork to clog the arteries of every person in the U.S., knowing and caring seems to be overrated and McCain will win my vote if he displays just as much a lack of knowing and caring on other issues.

McCain will win my vote

Stunning.

What if it's economically sound to feed libertarians into woodchippers?

Which reminds me, that when you start up Ex's Junior Short Circuit Woodchippers, a subsidiary of Librul Substandardard Stuff, any fataliities resulting from your purely profit calculation to minimally insulate the power cord had better occur among the children of libertarians. After all, as Milo Minderbinder said upon bombing his own air field in a business deal with the Germans and killing whatshisname, whose parents happened to be rich, "they'll understand."

Speaking of objectors (conscientious or otherwise), what do the teachers here think of this interesting item:

Bronx 8th-graders boycott practice exam but teacher may get ax

what do the teachers here think of this interesting item:

This would be better answered by someone still in the system--andrewberg or E-X. I have heard people on the ground say that the standardized testing schedule is too long these days.

knowing and caring seems to be overrated and McCain will win my vote if he displays just as much a lack of knowing and caring on other issues.

This is the attitude that gave you 8 years of George Bush. And Medicare Part D.

If you're someone concerned about overreaching, or unfunded, or poorly crafted government programs, go ahead, vote for ignorant. Then you get the Bush approach to prescription drugs, which is 1000 times worse than this particular bad farm bill.

This is the attitude that gave you 8 years of George Bush. And Medicare Part D.

Oh, so the candidates other than McCain aren't planning huge new government programs?

Ha ha ha!

Oh, so the candidates other than McCain aren't planning huge new government programs?

Ha ha ha!

I think Chip is arguing that even if the other candidates are planning such huge new government programs, we can rest assured that those programs will be eminently more sensible and not be poorly crafted from a position of ignorance.

Speaking of objectors (conscientious or otherwise), what do the teachers here think of this interesting item:

Our Juniors take their fourth standardized test of the year tomorrow. My kids are planning on starting trouble. I hope I have a job on Tuesday.

Thanks for the free-write article. Maybe I'll have them read it tomorrow while I'm out of the building ;P

Oh, so the candidates other than McCain aren't planning huge new government programs?

Ha ha ha!

Did I say they weren't? I said that if you vote for the ignorant-on-economics guy, you get government programs that are poorly designed, and poorly managed, and far more wasteful as a result. That's how the Bush years ended up being the porkiest in U.S. history, especially when the Republicans controlled Congress.

In other news (that of course! we discussed earlier in this glorious thread), liberal alarmist Pat Buchanan is saying "...we're being set up for...probable air strikes on the... Qud's bases in Iran."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24782514#24779415

Brzezinski's take on the consequences of same is also interesting.

Our Juniors take their fourth standardized test of the year tomorrow. My kids are planning on starting trouble. I hope I have a job on Tuesday.

Where are the kids getting their marching orders from? When I was in school the biggest thing I worried about with regard to standardized testing was whether I had at least a dozen No. 2 pencils on hand, in case the first 8 or 9 of them all broke or went dull and my pencil sharpener wasn't up to the task.

When I was in school the biggest thing I worried about with regard to standardized testing was whether I had at least a dozen No. 2 pencils on hand, in case the first 8 or 9 of them all broke or went dull and my pencil sharpener wasn't up to the task.

How many miles did you walk in the snow to get there?

Excuse me a minute. Is anybody seriously arguing here that pharmacists should be in the business of co-opting the doctor/patient relationship and inserting themselves into making medical decisions for the both of them?

If pharmacists have a problem doing their job, they should get another job.

Where are the kids getting their marching orders from? When I was in school the biggest thing I worried about with regard to standardized testing was whether I had at least a dozen No. 2 pencils on hand, in case the first 8 or 9 of them all broke or went dull and my pencil sharpener wasn't up to the task.

They are not soldiers, they are students. They design their own strategies. Some of the teaching staff give them potential outcomes advice (for example, "If you do that, you may be suspended"), then they choose what to do.

This isn't meant to be condescending--I identify with what you have said--but the last line merely speaks to our academic privilege. Many of my students are a lot more worried about dodging bullets and lack of school resources than they are about test scores.

Where are the kids getting their marching orders from? When I was in school the biggest thing I worried about with regard to standardized testing was whether I had at least a dozen No. 2 pencils on hand, in case the first 8 or 9 of them all broke or went dull and my pencil sharpener wasn't up to the task.

Marching orders? When I was 11 I organized a paperboy's union in order to try to increase wages. In my 8th grade homeroom an African-American boy named Michael B. refused to stand for the pledge of allegiance because, as he said, the liberty and justice for all part wasn't true, and it wasn't being honored. Other examples abound. There are a lot of kids who are capable of taking principled stands. I'm delighted they do so.

There are a lot of kids who are capable of taking principled stands. I'm delighted they do so.

There's also something to be said for sitting around and getting stoned.

They are not soldiers, they are students. They design their own strategies. Some of the teaching staff give them potential outcomes advice (for example, "If you do that, you may be suspended"), then they choose what to do.

Speaking about kids generally who are engaged in these types of boycotts (and not your specific students), I don't buy that they're acting solely within their own province, without outside instigators of some sort. I don't claim that it necessarily has to be the teachers who are encouraging them (although teachers would be a logical place to look first), but it has to be someone, be it parents or outside groups or what not. Are the roles of most teachers who are involved in some way limited to merely the outcomes-based advice you refer to? (And do such teachers merely answer questions if asked, or do they _ask and answer_ the questions?)

This isn't meant to be condescending--I identify with what you have said--but the last line merely speaks to our academic privilege. Many of my students are a lot more worried about dodging bullets and lack of school resources than they are about test scores.

But they're certainly very focused on the tests, e.g., whether to take the tests.

I think Chip is arguing that even if the other candidates are planning such huge new government programs, we can rest assured that those programs will be eminently more sensible and not be poorly crafted from a position of ignorance.

And given how courageously Obama stood up to the special-interest groups with the farm bill, I'm totally expecting this to happen.

And given how courageously Obama stood up to the special-interest groups with the farm bill, I'm totally expecting this to happen.

And his vote in favor of the tariff on Brazilian ethanol shows his willingness to continue our wildly successful energy policies.

And his vote in favor of the tariff on Brazilian ethanol shows his willingness to continue our wildly successful energy policies.

If "Yes We Can" fades out as a good slogan, I nominate "Same Shitty Government, Different Party Mascot."

We have no right to use 25% of the world's energy when we are only 3% of the world's population! We have no right to keep our thermostats at 72 degrees all the time!

As far as I can tell, that's his "energy policy": allow other countries to control how much individual freedom we have.

Are the roles of most teachers who are involved in some way limited to merely the outcomes-based advice you refer to?

It depends what you mean by "involved". If you mean are their teachers in the building who tell the kids what they are supposed to think, then sure, but not on these issues--more like pushing homophobia and the like.

As far as those who teach them to critically address decisions, including those of authority, I would say that every last one understands that it is counterproductive to try to make the kids share your beliefs.


But they're certainly very focused on the tests, e.g., whether to take the tests.

I wouldn't say that they are "focused" on that. It is one of their areas of interests, but most are more interested in the violence in the school and surrounding community.

As to whether students are capable of creating actions on their own, I can certainly speak to their potential--last night one of my students was awarded the title of Chicago Public Schools Service Learning Underclass Student of the Year for developing her own social justice activist projects.

She's going to be presenting two workshops at a conference tomorrow though, so she's not going to be around to cause trouble.

If pharmacists have a problem doing their job, they should get another job.

Agreed. And a sentiment I've expressed often.

If pharmacists have a problem doing their job, they should get another job.

That's the employer's problem, not the government's.

JC, respect is as respect does. There is no prima facie evidence that a CO pharmacist who refuses a contraceptive prescription has any respect for any point of view on the subject but his or her own. Praying for the eternal soul of the trollope is not what most laypeople would mean by respect.

(2) For a guy who lauds the civility of Obama and hammers the Republicans and Rove for their incivility, it's instructive to see the very real limitations of your respect for people whose positions differ from yours.

Respect is a two way street. As far as I can tell, you see it as Rock Creek Parkway during the rush hour.

I've spent more than a few threads here defending the sincerity and integrity of Right to Lifers, and I'll continue to do so, but that doesn't mean that as a matter of public policy I want them to have a veto power over the availability of prescriptions. I've said that as long as they're willing to give their customers a reasonable alternative means of supply, I'm fine with their personal refusal, but that doesn't seem to be enough from your point of view. But perhaps you're willing to elaborate on what you'd recommend to your CO friends beyond a big mouth of mum.

This is a serious topic, JC, and the moral seriousness is not all on the side of the CO. And in a secular society, public policy decisions have to be weighted towards secular concerns, among them the primacy of a doctor's prescription over the private concerns of a publicly licensed pharmacist, especially one practicing in a non-sectarian pharmacy.

I'll ignore the condescension in this post that deigns to remind me this is a "serious" topic. For the record, I have not taken a position on this in our exchange, and yet you've obviously assmed I have one - which, in all honesty, I do not. More interesting to me, again, is the limitations of your civility: if someone disagrees with you on a fundamental issue, you'll continue to assume they view as "trollopes" people who find themselves in difficult pregnancies. You'll continue to diminish their perspective with scare quotes. You'll continue to assume someone cannot respect another view even as they passionately disagree with it. Well, of course, all that is nonsense, even though the nonsense may comfort your intolerance.

I know no pharmacist of the type we're describing, but I would not insult them by assuming that in conscientiously determining that they cannot dispense these few medications they fail to "respect" the customers who visit their pharmacies. I would not insult them by calling them "Christian" (your sarcastic emphasis), any more than I would countenance referring to Wilberforce or King as "Christian" b/c of their firm convictions about the consequences of Christian faith. Granted, these people may be wrong; but, as I said before, for a guy browbeating us all about Obama's moral superiority in the face of unjust critique, I find it more than telling that you yourself engage unapologetically in critique sewn from the same cloth. Next time, spare us all the moralizing.

You of course have no idea the level of respect the CO pharmacists have for people they refuse to serve...

If they refuse to serve them, to me it follows that their respect is low.

If they refuse to serve them, it follows that their respect is low.

No, it absolutely doesn't follow.

I'm glad that we've each given reasons for our stances, however. ;-)

To me, it follows. Respect is an opinion, not a fact. I interpret those actions as indicative of a lack of respect.

5,700!