38, happily married with a wife and kids, unlike you.

Correct. 36, happily unmarried (though attached), extremely happily childless, and not prone to brag about my prowess at kicking the asses of people I disagree with, unlike you in all of the above respects.

We're close, aren't we?

Correct. 36, happily unmarried (though attached), extremely happily childless

Outstanding. That's my favorite thing about you liberals, is that you're reproducing less and less, which will only benefit society.

<I>I don't really think I have ever doubted you had charity in you personally. (Although I am glad I got those "wedding photos" before our partisanship broke out.)</I.

Ha! I guess they worked?

If you are giving to charities that help out people who can't work or need public assistance, I apologize.

Wow. Lassus, I had given you the benefit of the doubt and had assumed that you were just joking, rather than talking out of your ass about how much people you don't know help others.

Are liberals really this presumptuous?

You're essentially given a choice: pay this tax that the majority, though not you, voted for or we put you in jail or take even more of your property. Those last two things are accomplished because the state has a near monopoly on the power of violence

I see the point, bunyon, though I tend to agree with zenbitz that the argument comes down in practice to the tax rate, which in democracies is highly negotiable.

Sorry, JC, but this is more than a bit disingenuous. You seem far more interested in berating my "condescension" than you are in actually engaging the topic at hand. I feel like I'm trying to grab hold of an eel.

Uh, ########? The topic was your casual dismissal of a view you oppose and your disrespectful characterization of people who hold that view. And I don't have to read your mind when you place "Christian" in scare quotes and pretend they regard people as trollopes and otherwise insult them. Why can't you just acknowledge that you engaged in the same kind of smearing of others' views you've shown the nasty Republicans to favor?

JC, my "mind reading" and "smearing" was no such thing. You're engaging in more than a bit of mind reading yourself here. I was seeing the lack of respect in the CO pharmacists' ACTIONS, not their inner thoughts. I'm not INTERESTED in reading their minds. I'm just interested, as a matter of public policy, in having them fill the prescription, or having the professional respect to refer the customer to someone who will. And whether the pharmacist is a "Christian" or a "Jew" or an "agnostic used book dealer in a new career" doesn't have a damn thing to do with anything.

As I said, their inner respect for their unserved customers---whether they think of them as whores or simply misguided souls, and you don't know this any more than I do---matters to them, but I'm not sure why it should matter to that customer who just wants a goddam prescription filled by a professional licensed pharmacist.

As to the particular issue, as I said, I'm not sure what I think. I can see both sides to this, even the one that may conclude eventually Christians (or similarly disposed folk) of this kind may not be able to be pharmacists.

To me it's a pretty simple issue: The profession of a pharmacist is that of filling prescriptions.

That said, as long as either the pharmacist---or even just a great big sign at the pharmacy counter---tells the customer where a nearby pharmacy may be where the customer may fill his or her prescription without undue delay, then I have no issue with the CO pharmacist. I'm not objecting to the CO per se---what I'm objecting to is leaving the prescription refusal as the only stated choice. To me that's a blatant violation of what I would think would be considered professional ethics.

And if it's the only pharmacy in town, and the CO is the town's only pharmacist, I wouldn't even object to that, as long as the town put a sign in front of the pharmacy warning customers of this pharmacy's policy, and gave them a clear and equally accessible location where the verboten RX's could be filled. You can't let "tough shlt" be the effective final answer to a simple prescription request.

To me that's as fair a compromise as you can get. The only alternative I wouldn't allow is no alternative at all. Is that so unreasonable?

I see the point, bunyon, though I tend to agree with zenbitz that the argument comes down in practice to the tax rate, which in democracies is highly negotiable.

On the ground, you're no doubt right. Again, though, we all presumably start with a set of principles. And when the principle is the government only gets what it absolutely needs and that it has inherent limits in its power, you're likely to not even see a vote like the one you lost come up and, if it does, it will likely lose. If the starting principle is that the government owns everything and we're just haggling over what comes back to us, you'll get votes like stadium deals all the time.

In fact, I'd argue that the rich have always had a disproportionate share of government power and that to give the government power is to give the rich power.

___

Seriously - what is the Katrina record?

bunyon - it may be a natural law that you die if you don't eat - that wasn't the argument. It's is NOT a natural law that if you don't WORK you won't get food and therefore cannot eat! That's a human "law"

In fact, the "natural law" is that if I am hungry, I eat you, or your kids, or your eggs, or your house (if I am, say, a termite)

Cool on that, zenbitz, it's nice to see you arguing for anarchy. ;)

Still, I'm going to scramble your brains if you don't tell me what the thread record is.

Now that we've passed (Ryan and) the alltime thread record, what career baseball records are we shooting for now?

5,929 Times on Base (Rose)
6,856 Total Bases (Aaron)
7,092 Hits Alowed (Young)
7,354.6 Innings Pitched (Young)
10,328 Outs (Rose)
14,053 At Bats (Rose)
15,861 Plate Appearances (Rose)
30,058 Batters Faced (Young)

For Bunyon, the record was 5,801.

Question - Anyone know why the post total is 13 more than the number at the top of the page?

'having an Obamagasm'

If I were more of a BO fan, I'd probably make that my new handle.

So we broke the record? When. Damn, my search capability sucks.

You can't ignore the circumstances that brought about that consent. You consent to pay taxes when you open a business. If you don't want to, you're free not to open the business. No one has dealt with the Native American question- this was the ultimate swindle, and the legitimacy of anyone's claim to land (and thus the profit that they made on that land, t/f, their property) comes from the legitimacy of that original contract, and the freedom of both parties involved. I'm saying those conditions are important and just can't be washed away...

I am not ignoring the circumstances at all. I am distinguishing cases where the circumstances are caused by the other party (extortion) from those where the other party is free from blame (opportunism). These are distinct moral situations.

Also, if I offer to hire you for a crappy wage, you may choose to take my offer or take someone else's. You can go to multiple employers and choose the one that gives you the best deal for your circumstances. On the other hand, if you open a business, you do not have a choice of whom to bargain with. There is no competition that could offer lower taxes, and/or a different set of benefits that you might find more pleasing to you.

In the employment situation, you may not particularly like your choices, but you do have a meaningful freedom to choose among alternate options. A freedom that is not comparable to the illusory freedom of "comply or be jailed."

I'm not sure what you mean re: Native Americans. Some of the land we possess was simply taken outright from them. Some was taken through unfair bargain. Some was bargained for and purchased legitimately. I wouldn't defend the first two as legitimate action, and I'd consider the third to be reasonable. We can certainly discuss reasonable ways to correct the injustices, but I don't see an awful lot of disagreement on right or wrong here.

I see the Israelis almost shot down Tony Blair's plane. Would the Brits be sad or happy?

30,058 Batters Faced (Young)

Peanuts. We need to catch Bob Watson.

It's not figurative, it's literal

When have you had a gun pointed at you by a police officer?

then there really is no point in our debating the issue. He thinks he's entitled to tell me how to live my life and I think he's not.Any debate by someone who values freedom and a marxist can only end one way.

If you think that, you're right, there can be no conversation, especially if this goes down like "no point talking morals with an atheist" conversations. But one need not be an "ist" to find Marx's writing valuable and insightful (or inciteful). His points about the links between definitions and domination, what 20th C Marxists picked up on in discussing ideology, I find to be highly useful tools in analyzing unseen mechanisms of domination. Marxism v. libertarianism played out in the 19th C. We've got a pretty well-mixed democracy that involves blending the two. Trying to go back to a state (condition) where business was absolutely free to dominate labor has shown itself to be incompatible with the values of a democratic society, which recognizes other competing claims to right other than the right to free contract. My point in raising the Marx's argument is to undermine the claim that the contractual notion of the bounds of private property is adequate, and to illustrate that contracts are always between two parties of compromised autonomy. The property owner who is benefiting from the person's compromised autonomy is preying upon a weakness exposed not by nature but by the social conditions the contract occurs within; to the extent that the game has already been fixed in their favor, I don't think it makes any sense pretend as if it's a fair arrangement, except by the most narrow and pig-headed definition of the word "fair."

I see the aesthetic appeal of a libertarian mafioso-style "self-regulating" economic arrangement. I wouldn't want to live in one, but they do make for great TV.

Everyone on your side will hate me for this, but I've always liked Keynes, at least the thesis I took away from reading him years ago- shrink the pyramid enough and people with capital won't be in a position to take advantage of people without it. That hasn't worked out particularly well globally, but I don't think (like many of these systems) it has been applied particularly well...

We're already past Katrina though, and I'm content to give up this discussion.

GTA is no joke FWIW- when I walked out onto the street after playing all night, I wanted to elbow the guy on his motorcycle, jump on, and start doing wheelies...thumb kept trying to press the Y button but nothing happened.

Wow, that would have been really bad indeed. There's more than enough antisemitism to go around in the U.K. as it is.

Nieporent may work with the illiterate

Lassus, I was actually making a serious response. I believe David has posted that he does that work at a local community college. I didn't intend for it to be a joke at all. I must say it did turn out funny.

when the principle is the government only gets what it absolutely needs and that it has inherent limits in its power, you're likely to not even see a vote like the one you lost come up and, if it does, it will likely lose. If the starting principle is that the government owns everything and we're just haggling over what comes back to us, you'll get votes like stadium deals all the time

Again, fair enough. I guess I do see much taxation as the kind of "voluntary association" praised so often in this thread. Texas is one of the reddest places on the electoral map, and Texans viscerally hate not just taxation but social services and public improvements. "Smoky" Joe Barton is our local congressman, devoted to tax cuts and rampant deregulation. Arlington had defeated several public-transit initiatives (we have no public transit in a city of a third of a million) and even defeated a parks initiative that would have contained flooding in a creek that borders rich and poor districts alike. But we love our football.

When have you had a gun pointed at you by a police officer?

What do you think happens when you don't comply with a law that the government wants enforced?

Last!
(it was worth a shot)

I see the aesthetic appeal of a libertarian mafioso-style "self-regulating" economic arrangement. I wouldn't want to live in one, but they do make for great TV.

Perhaps I misunderstand your views. But given this sentence, it is clear that you misunderstand mine. Ah, well.

But we love our football.

The state building the Cowboys a stadium is right there with the state building the Yankees a stadium.

As a practical matter, though, I'm much happier about state taxes over federal and local over state. You've got a much better chance of having a true debate and say in a local election than in a federal election. Someone mentioned the farm bill above and it is, indeed, illustrative of the problems in Washington. No one outside of a few small groups likes that bill and it sailed through.

EDIT: sorry, zenbitz.

Have a safe and happy Memorial Day everyone.

What do you think happens when you don't comply with a law that the government wants enforced?

I've been pulled over for speeding but don't recall the officer drawing his weapon (and asked to turn down the music at a party, etc, etc.)

Lassus, I was actually making a serious response. I believe David has posted that he does that work at a local community college. I didn't intend for it to be a joke at all. I must say it did turn out funny.

After Joey threatened me, I got all skeered. Sorry about that, Chris. ;-)

I've been pulled over for speeding but don't recall the officer drawing his weapon (and asked to turn down the music at a party, etc, etc.)

Sure, but why would the officer pull his/her gun if you'd stopped speeding and/or turned down the noise already? He asked you to comply and you complied, right? No need for him/her to use any direct force. Had you refused to stop speeding, it's not difficult to imagine his/her drawing his/her gun, right?

However, my hyperbole got the best of me as far as lining up ALL libertarians as unwilling to help those not able to get up the ramps on their own, if they were even there. My apologies.

It isn't hyperbole. It's a morally bankrupt method of argumentation, where you shift focus from the merits of an individual's position to some proposed character defect. Whether a person is the most callous, selfish bastard or the most generous spirit is immaterial.

Right now, I'm doing landlord-tenant law for a non-profit in Brooklyn, making much less than I could elsewhere. A year ago, I was doing insurance defense. Five years ago, I was working in the computer industry in a non-legal capacity and making a much better living. In some years, I've given substantial charitable donations. In others, I've given nothing. I've tutored for money, and I've tutored without charging. I've ignored homeless people and given money to the homeless. I've helped a stranger lift a stroller up a flight of stairs on the subway, but I don't always do it.

Are the circumstances of my life at all significant to whether libertarianism is a moral or immoral philosophy? Is it okay to be a libertarian now but not when I was making three times the salary?

Outstanding. That's my favorite thing about you liberals, is that you're reproducing less and less, which will only benefit society.

Yeah, if there's one thing wrong with society, it's that there aren't enough of you running around.

For the record, I fear Joey B's reproducing not because he's a conservative, but because he's an a$$hole. And no, I don't view them as synonymous.

it's not difficult to imagine his/her drawing his/her gun, right?

Oh, I have had it pulled on me. But I'm just saying they don't always pull it. And in England they don't even carry, yet speeders still stop.

Wow. Lassus, I had given you the benefit of the doubt and had assumed that you were just joking, rather than talking out of your ass about how much people you don't know help others.
Are liberals really this presumptuous?

Oh please, Ray, stop being such a drama queen. If you want to presume - based on my posts - that I'm not contributing to church charities, go right ahead. You'd be right, based on my posts. And I made a point to lay out a prostrated apology if I was incorrect.

Outstanding. That's my favorite thing about you liberals, is that you're reproducing less and less, which will only benefit society.

Actually, as a good liberal, I've long been torn as to whether I should knock up a bunch of women I'm not married to and then have the fetuses aborted, or have them be carried to term so I can collect welfare. Quite the conundrum.

Oh please, Ray, stop being such a drama queen. If you want to presume - based on my posts - that I'm not contributing to church charities, go right ahead.

Why would I want to do that? I don't presume to know anything about people I haven't met.

Or even much about people I have.

5,929 Times on Base (Rose)
6,856 Total Bases (Aaron)
7,092 Hits Alowed (Young)
7,354.6 Innings Pitched (Young)
10,328 Outs (Rose)
14,053 At Bats (Rose)
15,861 Plate Appearances (Rose)
30,058 Batters Faced (Young)

Not limiting this to baseball, we find Wilt Chamberlain between Rose and Young at 20,000 trolloppes tagged.

the philosophy is that just because the majority decide on an action shouldn't compel the minority to comply

Well, how the hell else are you supposed to run a democracy?

Oh, I have had it pulled on me. But I'm just saying they don't always pull it. And in England they don't even carry, yet speeders still stop.

Chris, if they want to enforce a law badly enough, they'll pull the gun. They might ask nicely the first time -- such as if you don't pay enough in taxes -- but eventually they'll pull the gun if you don't comply. So, yes, Dan's statement can be read quite literally; even if we don't always see the gun, it's always there.

'The state building the Cowboys a stadium is right there with the state building the Yankees a stadium.'

With all of the pork in goverment these days, my personal justification for voting for all of the proposations for Houston's current big league ballpark/stadium/arena was: Since government keeps wasting money on stuff I don't care about, at least this way they'll be wasting it on something I do care about.

even if we don't always see the gun, it's always there

GUTMAN: "Well, sir, there are other means of persuasion besides killing and threatening to kill."

SPADE: "Sure, but they're not much good unless the threat of death is behind them to hold the victim down."

Chris, if they want to enforce a law badly enough, they'll pull the gun. They might ask nicely the first time -- such as if you don't pay enough in taxes -- but eventually they'll pull the gun if you don't comply. So, yes, Dan's statement can be read quite literally; even if we don't always see the gun, it's always there.

Sidenote: coming home from a Reverend Horton Heat concert several years ago; I had had the misfortune of standing next to the speakers. I could hardly hear anything and I was sweaty from the concert (ok, I was dripping sweat because I was really fat then and it was a warm concert hall). I sat in the back seat of my friend's car and we were pulled over because he had a busted tail light. He rolled down the window when the officer came by; she asked us all to step out of the car. I couldn't hear her so I leaned forward and asked her to repeat (I probably was talking too loud since my ears were ringing). She stepped back, drew her gun, pointed it at me, and told me to keep my hands where she could see them.

Needless to say, freaked the crap out of me. After being accused of being on drugs a couple times, to which I tried to explain what happened, she let us go with a warning to fix the tail light.

Occasionally, the gun gets drawn even if you're trying to comply. I'm sure this is pretty basic info, but just thought I should mention it. I think the gun is generally there "in case crap happens," and the threat of it being drawn tends to defuse a lot of situations.

I see the Israelis almost shot down Tony Blair's plane. Would the Brits be sad or happy?

I hadn't heard this story. Quite apart from the fact that it's wrong to wish anyone harm, I like Blair being alive. He is an albatross.

Wow, that would have been really bad indeed. There's more than enough antisemitism to go around in the U.K. as it is.

Oh what the hell do you know. It's your own brains that have been scrambled, no doubt.

It's funny how the libertarian critique of state power overlaps with the radical critique of power manifested in the state.

Chris, if they want to enforce a law badly enough, they'll pull the gun. They might ask nicely the first time -- such as if you don't pay enough in taxes -- but eventually they'll pull the gun if you don't comply. So, yes, Dan's statement can be read quite literally; even if we don't always see the gun, it's always there.

...

It is the cop's job to use physical force. Anyone who opposes cops must not, therefore, let them maintain the hypocrisy of disguising this force behind orders that have to be immediately obeyed.

I actually agree with Ray pretty significantly about the threat of force and violence that is necessary to state power. I just don't understand how one could critique state power in this way and miss utterly the way in which such situations of unequal power underlie all contractual agreements as well.

In fact, I'd argue that the rich have always had a disproportionate share of government power and that to give the government power is to give the rich power.
Of course, the rich have a disproportionate share of power in the absence of government as well - apparently, wealth has its perks.

Nice debate going here - I keep wanting to pipe in, but others are doing a better job of making my points than I would (CrosbyBird in particular, which is amusing given that I'm generally a progressive with a utilitarian streak).

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of being told how selfish I am, simply because I('m libertarian).

You should be - it's ######## that people make assumptions about how generous people are with their money or time based on their philosophical/political beliefs.
<forgive the alteration in the quote - I didn't want to derail the above comment>

I hadn't heard this story. Quite apart from the fact that it's wrong to wish anyone harm, I like Blair being alive. He is an albatross.

I should learn from Huckabee - if you're going to make a joke about a political figure getting killed, it has to be funny.

Wow, that would have been really bad indeed. There's more than enough antisemitism to go around in the U.K. as it is.

From my time in England, I've gotten the impression that the English like Jews a lot better than Muslims, Blacks, or the Indian subcontinent.

Outstanding. That's my favorite thing about you liberals, is that you're reproducing less and less, which will only benefit society.

Ah, this old winger chestnut ... Politics aren't heritable. I know very few people whose politics align with those of their parents. If your experience has been different, then you and your friends are probably sheltered poindexters.

Sure, but why would the officer pull his/her gun if you'd stopped speeding and/or turned down the noise already? He asked you to comply and you complied, right? No need for him/her to use any direct force. Had you refused to stop speeding, it's not difficult to imagine his/her drawing his/her gun, right?

Bob, while I of course agree with you on substance, I object to the form of your answer with respect to this his/her business. I'm afraid I'm going to have to pull rank on you and demand -- I'll do it at gunpoint if need be -- that you dispense at once with this his/her PCness and just go with "his" or "her." Choose "her" if you like, but for the love of god, man, pick one. This has gone far enough.

Politics aren't heritable

Really? I mean, I know there are differences, but generally I find if your parents are liberal so are you, it's just a matter of degree. Now, this may be more an effect of the environment a liberal or conservative family would raise their child in, but that's something that still comes from the parents.

GUTMAN: "Well, sir, there are other means of persuasion besides killing and threatening to kill."

SPADE: "Sure, but they're not much good unless the threat of death is behind them to hold the victim down."

"THE BOSS" IN REEFER MADNESS: "You know what my policy's always been. If the boys are unhappy, I'm always willing to let them retire....retire PERMANENTLY."

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

5,929 Times on Base (Rose)
6,856 Total Bases (Aaron)
7,092 Hits Alowed (Young)
7,354.6 Innings Pitched (Young)
10,328 Outs (Rose)
14,053 At Bats (Rose)
15,861 Plate Appearances (Rose)
30,058 Batters Faced (Young)

Colorado Rockies: 4,483,350 attendance (1993)

I find if your parents are liberal so are you, it's just a matter of degree.

Ahh, no. My father is a freakin' fascist (literally, an actual Mussolini supporter in his earlier real life), and I consider myself pretty damned moderate. My siblings are all over the political map. One of my sisters is quite liberal, and married someone to her left. They have a daughter who is the biggest bleeding heart you could ever imagine, and a son who thinks Rush Limbaugh is a lefty. The apples may not fall far from the tree, but sometimes they roll quite a distance.

Oops:

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton quickly apologized Friday after citing the June 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy as a reason to remain in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination despite increasingly long odds.

...

Responding to a question from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board about calls for her to drop out of the race, she said: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it," she said, dismissing the idea of abandoning the race.

5,929 Times on Base (Rose)
6,856 Total Bases (Aaron)
7,092 Hits Alowed (Young)
7,354.6 Innings Pitched (Young)
10,328 Outs (Rose)
14,053 At Bats (Rose)
15,861 Plate Appearances (Rose)
30,058 Batters Faced (Young)

Colorado Rockies: 4,483,350 attendance (1993)

Yankee payroll 207,108,489 (2008)

This may have gotten missed on the flip from page 58 to 59, or maybe it didn't interest anyone enough to respond. (Bunyon acknowledged it, but no one else did, I believe). I'll try reposting/rewording the gist of what I wrote in 5775:

the above implies an efficient market. What if every photographer refuses to photograph the gay wedding? What if no contraceptives are available?

If I understand libertarians correctly (and it's very possible I don't), they'd argue that it's a "minor injustice" that the wedding apparently has no photographer or that contraceptives apparently aren't available, but that this injustice would pale compare to the "major injustice" that they'd see in forcing someone (whether photographer or store) to sell time/labor to someone to whom s/he/it isn't interested in selling.

Honestly, I have less trouble seeing the consistency in the libertarian argument (as I understand it) than I do in those arguing against them (as I understand their arguments). Those arguing against the libertarians sometimes seem to value the will of the majority (depending on what that majority wishes), and sometimes seem to value the will of a minority (depending on what that minority wishes). That someone is being forced to do something against his/her will is tolerable so long as the ends justify the means (within "reasonable" standards that are sometimes to be defined by the majority and sometimes defined by a righteous minority). Meanwhile the libertarians (so far as I can read it) simply say "The ends cannot justify compulsion (with some exceptions noted such as law enforcement)." Don't have consensus? "Can't do it -- whatever 'it' is," say the libertarians, with the exceptions to that compulsion being fewer and farther between than the "is this a time when the minority's view should hold, or is this a time when the majority's view should hold" mental gymnastics that the anti-libertarians seem to need to go through on every issue.

Libertarians seem to acknowledge that injustices will occur (regrettably), but that using the government to compel people to be more just is inherently unjust because these means can not justify any ends. Which sucks for the people who are the brunt of such injustice, but if you or I really are bothered by the injustice person X is feeling, no one is prevented from giving as much of our time/money/labor to help address the injustice personally. (And what makes it "unjust" in the first place? Is any difference in means or station inherently unjust? How far towards l'Engle's Camazotz are we willing to let our government take us in the interest of making sure no one's life is unjustly lacking anything someone else has?)

What am I misunderstanding? (Plenty I'm sure).

Great, now I've got verses of Dona stuck in my head, though I have no idea whether it's espousing a pro- or anti-libertarian position.

EDITED FOR TYPOS

Bob, while I of course agree with you on substance, I object to the form of your answer with respect to this his/her business. I'm afraid I'm going to have to pull rank on you and demand -- I'll do it at gunpoint if need be -- that you dispense at once with this his/her PCness and just go with "his" or "her." Choose "her" if you like, but for the love of god, man, pick one. This has gone far enough.

Nah. It doesn't bother me to type and, like you, I don't like making assumptions about people I haven't met. I understand your distress over it, and I will try to keep it in mind, but you will not compel me to act otherwise at this point.

I don't really have a response, Robert, but I enjoyed reading it. :)

In fact I'm sorry I didn't write "S/he" to start the second sentence of the bit that you quoted.

Of course, I could probably include "/it" in all of those pronoun gymnastics for the purpose of acknowledging people whose sex and/or sexual identity is not even self-established, but at this point, I'll stick to what I, personally as a private actor, find is reasonable. Your mileage may vary.

Of course, I could probably include "/it" in all of those pronoun gymnastics for the purpose of acknowledging people whose sex and/or sexual identity is not even self-established, but at this point, I'll stick to what I, personally as a private actor, find is reasonable. Your mileage may vary.

You could use "hir" instead of "his/her"; I do that sometimes when I feel like gently teasing someone. :)

But the real irony is that the sex of the person being referred to was established; Dial's original post clearly referred to "his" weapon.

Nah. It doesn't bother me to type and, like you, I don't like making assumptions about people I haven't met.

Good one :-)

I was of course joking, but the serious point I would make is that dispensing with the his/her convention does make it easier for the reader, and allows the reader to more fully absorb whatever point the writer is making, without being bogged down by technical wording.

Besides, I think the practice of using one of "him" and "her" is less out of assumption and more out of simplicity. PC groups complained, but I don't think anyone really minds using "her" rather than "him."

But the real irony is that the sex of the person being referred to was established; Dial's original post clearly referred to "his" weapon.

Did it? Then I don't know that my actions were, or this discussion is, ironic so much as I'm just a poor reader. My bad.

I'm glad to have given Ray a chuckle, however. :)

Honestly, Ray, I don't love it as a convention for me to follow. (It's like a Mets/Yankees World Series -- I don't like any of the options). Would that English had a good gender-unspecified 3rd-person pronoun!

What am I misunderstanding? (Plenty I'm sure).

I'm not considering the asymptotes of "complete liberty" or "complete subservience to societal will." I've never met anyone truly representative of either position. I think someone who doesn't acknowledge any possible situation where individual freedom should be restricted is as much on a different planet as someone who doesn't acknowledge any value to individual freedoms.

A shorthand way to look at this is to say that in general, libertarians favor the imposition of societal rules that restrict individual freedom only when they address a compelling need, while liberals favor the imposition of such rules when they address a reasonable concern.

I would say that the consequence in the case of the exclusive photographer is not sufficiently terrible to justify the wrong of restricting individual freedom with the will of society. The pharmacist is a more complicated issue because of the governmentally imposed barriers to access to medication. A consumer has a limited access to medication because only licensed people may dispense it, and once you assume that the monopolistic power the government has given these people isn't going away, there may be a justified restriction on their freedom. I'm not sure precisely how I feel about this but I lean towards forced distribution. I see the pharmacist, through his regulated license, acting effectively as an agent of the government, and not a private actor. It's a pretty murky issue that wouldn't exist if distribution of oral contraceptives were to be unrestricted.

It isn't that libertarians never go through mental gymnastics over what constitutes "compelling." However, there are fewer hard decisions simply because "compelling" is a narrower band, even with differing opinions among people, than "reasonable" will be.

David (and others), which "compelling needs" (I admit this is CrosbyBird's phrase, but it seems apt enough) do you see? In what areas and under what circumstances would you allow the government to restrict freedom? For what expenses are you okay with a government's taxing its populace?

David (and others), which "compelling needs" (I admit this is CrosbyBird's phrase, but it seems apt enough) do you see? In what areas and under what circumstances would you allow the government to restrict freedom? For what expenses are you okay with a government's taxing its populace?

Judicial system, funded by land value taxes. Of course, I think I'm the most Georgist of the libertarians here.

I give plenty to charity, in money and time.

I wasn't talking about the Cato Institute. The National Association of Landlords or whatever doesn't count either.

If you are giving to charities that help out people who can't work or need public assistance, I apologize.

I'm not going to itemize all my private life here, but in addition to (yes) Cato -- I support several libertarian organizations -- one of my charities is an organization for the blind.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton quickly apologized Friday after citing the June 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy as a reason to remain in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination despite increasingly long odds.

Holy cow, that is one sick, demented woman. Thank goodness the odds of her ever getting in the White House have sunk to slim and none.

What would happen if I don't pay my taxes? Well, I'd be arrested. If I resisted arrest an officer of the law would remove his weapon and compel me to surrender. I could continue resisting and die or go with them to jail.

PJ O'Rourke once put it this way:

The other secret to balancing the budget is to remember that all tax revenue is the result of holding a gun to somebody's head. Not paying taxes is against the law. If you don't pay your taxes, you'll be fined. If you don't pay the fine, you'll be jailed. If you try to escape from jail, you'll be shot. Thus, I -- in my role as citizen and voter -- am going to shoot you -- in your role as taxpayer and ripe suck -- if you don't pay your share of the national tab. Therefore, every time the government spends money on anything, you have to ask yourself, "Would I kill, my kindly, gray-haired mother for this?"

O'Rourke is libertarianish, anyway.

You argue that if I pay taxes under this system that "I'm agreeing to pay taxes" and yet you think that someone who goes to work for someone else so as to earn money for food has been compelled somehow. You're logic is absurd.

You noticed that minor contradiction, huh? And that's from the guy that complains about my definitions.

The other secret to balancing the budget is to remember that all tax revenue is the result of holding a gun to somebody's head. Not paying taxes is against the law. If you don't pay your taxes, you'll be fined. If you don't pay the fine, you'll be jailed. If you try to escape from jail, you'll be shot. Thus, I -- in my role as citizen and voter -- am going to shoot you -- in your role as taxpayer and ripe suck -- if you don't pay your share of the national tab. Therefore, every time the government spends money on anything, you have to ask yourself, "Would I kill, my kindly, gray-haired mother for this?"

Granted, the gun (really, the threat of fines and/or jail time) isn't the reason I pay taxes - it's simple civic duty, doing what I'm supposed to do. What does O'Rourke want, a cookie?

bunyon - what does it matter whom or what compells you, as long as you are compelled? You are compelled to eat lest you die; you are compelled to pay your taxes lest you be imprisoned.

Well, it matters in the same way that there's a difference between falling to one's death while mountain climbing and being pushed off a cliff by an enraged BTF poster. You may be dead either way, but one is a law of physics and one is murder.

David, are you contending that the current economic plight of Africa is due to lack of current Free Markets? Or Past Free markets?

Well, to an extent both, but mostly the former. Lack of them in the past made these countries poor, but as innumerable countries outside of Africa demonstrate, implementing markets can reasonably-quickly allow a country to recover from lack of markets in the past.

But as I clarified later, "free markets" is being used as an umbrella term to include things like property rights; you can't have truly free markets if the government can seize your property on a whim.

Well, then I am a libertarian who thinks health care, basic necessities (food/clothing/shelter/water/heat), and education are compelling needs (in addition to the judicial system, which I suppose is necessary)

There is probably a fair amount of Environmental protection tied into the above, but I am not a Nazi about it.


I heard McCain arguing for cap-and-trade on a clip replayed on the Daily Show. Surreal.

Well, it matters in the same way that there's a difference between falling to one's death while mountain climbing and being pushed off a cliff by an enraged BTF poster. You may be dead either way, but one is a law of physics and one is murder.

I apologize AGAIN for skipping the obvious (so I thought) leap between the not eating = dying and not working = not eating = dying.

But a better analogy is that the only job available to you to feed yourself is to walk tightropes over mountains, vs. being drafted by the army and pressed into tightrope walking (either resulting in your death by gravity)

Lassus, I was actually making a serious response. I believe David has posted that he does that work at a local community college. I didn't intend for it to be a joke at all. I must say it did turn out funny.

Since I don't take blame for things I don't deserve, I won't take credit for them, either. I don't work with illiterates at a community college; I've tried tutoring in other contexts, but I make a lousy teacher, because I have no patience.

(And since I don't do this, I too thought Chris was making a very funny joke.)

Adding on to the trans-fat bans, Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings.

Firstenberg and dozens of other electro-sensitive people in Santa Fe claim that putting up Wi-Fi in public places is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The city attorney is now checking to see if putting up Wi-Fi could be considered discrimination.

There go cell phones.

Arthur Firstenberg says he is highly sensitive to certain types of electric fields, including wireless Internet and cell phones.

"I get chest pain and it doesn't go away right away," he said.

If true, I truly feel sorry for this man, as he will likely live the rest of his life in constant pain unless he removes himself to a Tibetan Monastery.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton quickly apologized Friday after citing the June 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy as a reason to remain in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination despite increasingly long odds.

Holy cow, that is one sick, demented woman. Thank goodness the odds of her ever getting in the White House have sunk to slim and none.

Clinton Explains RFK Assasination Reference

Earlier today, I was discussing the Democratic primary history and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns that both my husband and Sen. Kennedy waged in California in June in 1992 and 1968, and I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nominating primary contests that go into June. That's an historic fact."

What a weasel The key points in 1968 and 1992 is not June but California. If 1992 had the same primary schedule as this year, Slick Willie would have wrapped up the nomination in April.

I'm going to stay in this thread because even though I am losing, there was that one time that Backlasher was losing and then everyone else in the thread was torn apart by wild dogs. I'm not saying that I hope the libertarian contingent is torn apart by wild dogs--I'm just stating a historical fact that would only be revisited if all of my opponents become dog chow, and I win thread, which is of course what I want to have happen.

Earlier today, I was discussing the Democratic primary history and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns that both my husband and Sen. Kennedy waged in California in June in 1992 and 1968, and I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nominating primary contests that go into June. That's an historic fact."

What a weasel The key points in 1968 and 1992 is not June but California. If 1992 had the same primary schedule as this year, Slick Willie would have wrapped up the nomination in April.

Also, if the California primary this year were being held in June instead of in early February, there's a pretty strong chance that Obama rather than Clinton would have won it, since his name recognition among Democrats is far higher now.

And WRT 1968, Robert Kennedy's first primary was in Indiana, on May 7th. He had only been in the race for two months at the point of his California win. The more appropriate 1968 analogy to Clinton isn't Robert Kennedy, but Eugene McCarthy, who like Clinton entered the race the year before and had zero chance of winning the nomination after his loss in California, but stayed in the race nevertheless, and out of the same sort of pigheaded vanity that Clinton is demonstrating now.

A group in Santa Fe says the city is discriminating against them because they say that they're allergic to the wireless Internet signal

Dang, New Mexico offers some funky cases for this thread to study.

FWIW, New Mexico is the center of anxiety over electromagnetic anomalies, like the famous "Taos Hum." At first glance this case seems like the cell-phone egg recipe, but who knows. If people can pick up radio waves in their dental fillings, then they just might be driven nuts by an æther full of Wi-Fi.

June 2009: President Hillary Clinton, in bilateral trade talks with Japan, reminded the Japanese Prime Minister today that it is important to reach agreement by early August. "It's a historic fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed in August," she said. She later explained: "I was just thinking about August and gosh, that neutral fact that has no connotations either good or bad happened to pop into my head."

Edit: despite being unable to resist that hanging curveball, I don't think Clinton meant any harm by her remark ... I'm just in disbelief that anyone could imagine saying such a thing if they did mean harm.

I don't think Clinton meant any harm by her remark

I still think the UN security council should vote for a weapons embargo against the Clinton campaign.

Oh, please. I carry no water for McCain

This dishonest criticism (the dishonest part being pretending the 20 year relationship isn't the difference) is a gnat that McCain is trying to brush away.

***

Is there going to be a thread about the guy who was traded for 10 bats?

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-tradedforbats&prov=ap&type=lgns

Oh, and working in adult developmental ed evenings at the CC level, I enjoyed the image of Nieporent doing the same thing.

Dan,

Now that I've cleaned off my keyboard after my latest Obamagasm, I too want to commend you on your charity work and say that all my disagreements with you are political--you seem to be a great guy on a personal level, and I benefit from reading your opinions.

It was observed upthread (around the time we passed the Babe) that the next logical step to the Clintons' race baiting and Muslim-suggesting was staged low-level violence at an Obama event.

And now we find out that the candidate herself has been fantasizing about a more direct idea -- an assassin's bullet delivering her just rewards. There's no other rational interpretation of these vile remarks, save for the parlor game we play around the Clintons (and no other adult public figures) regarding their inability to shed their inner demons when speaking publicly, even though each has been offering public rhetoric for four decades.

The most dark interpretation of this, of course, is that she wished to incite to murder. The absolute most favorable spin is that she's staying in because Obama might die. She has become unhinged.

Douglas Brinkley is a professor of even keel and objective temperament. Speaking last night, he suggested an intervention of the kind usually associated with the hopelessly drug-addicted.

Michael Goodwin is a liberal-leaning political columnist for the New York Daily News. He said, rightly, that we've witnessed "an X-ray into a very dark soul."

An SBB sighting. I was hoping you'd show up on this thread.

The most dark interpretation of this, of course, is that she wished to incite to murder. The absolute most favorable spin is that she's staying in because Obama might die. She has become unhinged.

I don't think the "dark interpretation" is at all valid. I think she was just expressing the "Hey, anything can happen" strategy of staying in (which is more favorable than your "absolute most favorable" take on it).

It was a clumsy comment, to be sure, but "wished to incite murder"? No.

Edit: despite being unable to resist that hanging curveball, I don't think Clinton meant any harm by her remark ... I'm just in disbelief that anyone could imagine saying such a thing if they did mean harm.

True, but nevertheless, intention is not really relevant in this case. She might not mean to suck at that area of the job, but we still have to evaluate her on that.

I don't think the "dark interpretation" is at all valid. I think she was just expressing the "Hey, anything can happen" strategy of staying in.

OK, but suppose Obama does meet an untimely end. Is Hillary any less likely to be the nominee if she is no longer actively campaigning? And if the dems could bypass her in that event (assuming she's out), why couldn't they also do that if she's still in? If she wins every remaining pledged delegate, she still doesn't get over the top. There is no doubt she knows that if Obama dies, she is the likely nominee whether she quits now or not, and thus it is reasonable to infer an ulterior motive from her commment.

Considering the possibility of assassination, Obama ought to pick Al Sharpton as his running mate. Of those likely to want to kill Obama, they'd be less inclined knowing that Rev. Al was a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Celtics still take it in 7, IMO. Rich?

An SBB sighting. I was hoping you'd show up on this thread.

This thread is like Ennis Delmar.

I think she was just expressing the "Hey, anything can happen" strategy of staying in (which is more favorable than your "absolute most favorable" take on it).

But I see no reason to consider what she was "expressing" when I can simply look at what she "said."

And what she said wasn't that "anything" could happen (which is easy enough to say if that's what you mean); she said "assassination" could happen. In direct response to a solicitation by her interlocutor of reasons she was staying in the race.

I'm going to stay in this thread because even though I am losing, there was that one time that Backlasher was losing and then everyone else in the thread was torn apart by wild dogs. I'm not saying that I hope the libertarian contingent is torn apart by wild dogs--I'm just stating a historical fact that would only be revisited if all of my opponents become dog chow, and I win thread, which is of course what I want to have happen.

Heh.

The most dark interpretation of this, of course, is that she wished to incite to murder. The absolute most favorable spin is that she's staying in because Obama might die. She has become unhinged.

If I were Obama, in the position of considering Clinton as my running mate, I'd worry about the Clinton clan bumping me off after winning the election as a means of getting Hillary into the white house if she were the VP. I'm dead serious. Might sound insane, but every time I think the Clinton camp can't sink any lower, they surprise me. In that respect, it really is striking how similar the behaviors of the Clinton bunch and the Bush bunch are, other than policy differences. And even a Bushie wouldn't have made the comments Clinton made yesterday; I think this apparent Freudian slip of hers speaks volumes.

I swear to god, even though I disagree with McCain on damn near everything, I'd vote for him against Clinton if for no other reason than to help ensure that Clinton's rank opportunism, blind ambition to the exclusion of all other values, and utterly repugnant power-grabbing tactics are punished. She is an absolutely disgusting human being.

If I were Obama, in the position of considering Clinton as my running mate, I'd worry about the Clinton clan bumping me off after winning the election as a means of getting Hillary into the white house if she were the VP. I'm dead serious. Might sound insane,

Fun to see liberals play the Vince Foster - Ron Brown style conspiracy game.

And, no, they don't look any more sane than conservatives looked when they were playing it.

Considering the possibility of assassination, Obama ought to pick Al Sharpton as his running mate. Of those likely to want to kill Obama, they'd be less inclined knowing that Rev. Al was a heartbeat away from the presidency.

The Charles II strategy.

Charles was accosted by a lunatic while walking, alone, in the gardens of St. James's. His brother and heir, the future James II, was concerned, and suggested Charles should take bodyguards in future. Charles told James that as long as you are my heir, there is not a man in England wishes me harm.

Fun to see liberals

And I have enjoyed seeing you and your pals spin HC as a gutsy heroine under duress. Strange bedfellows indeed.

Fun to see liberals play the Vince Foster - Ron Brown style conspiracy game.

And, no, they don't look any more sane than conservatives looked when they were playing it.

OK, Ray. Care to speculate as to what the limits of what Clinton would do to seize power are? 'Cause we sure as hell haven't seen 'em yet.

I think she was just expressing the "Hey, anything can happen" strategy of staying in (which is more favorable than your "absolute most favorable" take on it).

But I see no reason to consider what she was "expressing" when I can simply look at what she "said."

And what she said wasn't that "anything" could happen (which is easy enough to say if that's what you mean); she said "assassination" could happen. In direct response to a solicitation by her interlocutor of reasons she was staying in the race.

Since no one else has pointed it out, I'll mention that this seems to be at least the third time Clinton has brought up RFK's assassination as a justification for staying in the race.

And I have enjoyed seeing you and your pals spin HC as a gutsy heroine under duress. Strange bedfellows indeed.

Hmm. Ray... Rush ... Ray... Rush... Same number of syllables, both start with "R"... shall we connect the dots?

I think she was just expressing the "Hey, anything can happen" strategy of staying in (which is more favorable than your "absolute most favorable" take on it).

But I see no reason to consider what she was "expressing" when I can simply look at what she "said."

And what she said wasn't that "anything" could happen (which is easy enough to say if that's what you mean); she said "assassination" could happen. In direct response to a solicitation by her interlocutor of reasons she was staying in the race.

Actually, what she said was that races can last into June and suddenly change in June, and she cited an example of each. (That she wasn't acknowledging the differences between these three races is another matter.)

And I have enjoyed seeing you and your pals spin HC as a gutsy heroine under duress. Strange bedfellows indeed.

I have done no such thing. I'm the one who asked -- several hundred posts ago -- why she was refusing to drop out.

And when I speculated why she was still in, far from spinning her as a gutsy heroine, I speculated that she and Bill were probably just trying to call in all of their political favors (from the super delegates) before finally giving up.

Care to speculate as to what the limits of what Clinton would do to seize power are?

I'm not Ray, but I do recall what Caro said about LBJ, which was basically he would do ANYTHING EXCEPT physical violence to get a political opponent--that kind of stuff, according to Caro, was just not in the calculus. When Vol 4 comes out, I will be interested to see what Caro says about LBJ's mindset etc WRT the assassination of Kennedy.

It is my belief that there are strong paralllels between both Clintons and LBJ--that they share similar mindsets, traits, flaws, and talents.

I don't like HRC much either, but I don't believe for a moment that she wants Obama dead, is secretly planning to have him whacked, would slip a mickey into his Chardonnay if she was his VP, or anything remotely in that order.

The way I'd actually interpret it is almost as bad, though.

When it turned out that more Democrats wanted to vote for Obama than for her, Hillary tried several rhetorical tacks. He's too young and inexperienced. He's gonna be groggy at 3 AM. He doesn't appeal to hard-working white folks. He doesn't do shots and beers. He doesn't appeal to guys in trucks with guns. The common thread: He's not ready for us and we're not ready for him. If you're thinking tactically here, you realize the young man is toolsy, but he won't deliver. He is Gary Pettis and I am Brian Downing.

And then, when none of these worked, well, her mind reaches, don't guys like him get shot by lunatics? Who ever heard of a lunatic bothering to shoot the likes of me? IOW, her mind works much like Mike Huckabee's, yet another argument for a thorough audit of the drinking water in the state of Arkansas.

I have done no such thing.

Not directly, maybe, although a few of your ideological compadres have done so directly. But you do tend to spin her verbal gaffes--"the hard working Americans, white Americans" one earlier in the thread and now this one--in a very charitable manner.

Rightwingers make a legitimate point about many lefties seeing the bad side of the Clintons more clearly now (although I voted for Bill in part BECAUSE of his political ruthlessness, shrewdness and toughness and have not been at all surprised by HC's approach to trying to overtake Obama) but that awareness sword cuts both directions.