Is this another attempt at a Spider-man hijack? The last one didn't go anywhere.

We're rebooting the hijack. It'll be huge!

Granted, I'm not the best at emotion-reading even off the Internets, but I didn't take Sam's post as sneering. (It seemed more...I don't know, gleeful.)

The line "random lurkers I've never seen before" is very dismissive. Maybe "sneering" isn't exactly the right word, but you see what I mean, right?

If you believe that slaves have no right to not be enslaved, what's wrong with slavery? Why can't you answer it?

It made the slave owners too rich.

Duh.

The line "random lurkers I've never seen before" is very dismissive. Maybe "sneering" isn't exactly the right word, but you see what I mean, right?

I guess I was so shocked that he didn't recognize my handle that I didn't even consider that. I mean, I suppose there are, factually, lurkers who literally never post here, so I wasn't offended by that part. I suppose "random" is a little pejorative under the circumstances...so yes, I see your point. Still not offended, though.

Sorry to interrupt the meta, but here's a political note. I think I posted this once before, but we have two new data points since. Ages of Presidential candidates in the last 50 years (so that 1964 is the first campaign represented, by party and ordered highest to lowest, as if we were comparing careers in order of best WAR seasons or something like that:

GOP: 73, 73, 72, 69, 68, 65, 64, 63, 59, 58, 55, 55, 54
DEM: 60, 57, 56, 56, 56, 55, 52, 52, 51, 50, 50, 47, 46

That's very interesting to me, and not easy to explain. Granted that the Republicans have been the conservative party, conservative doesn't have to mean "old" (in fact, Barry Goldwater at 55 is one of the youngest Republicans on the list). There seems a strong tendency for the Republican nominee to be somebody who's run a campaign for President before and lost, and it's simply his turn now – and I can see that being a philosophy of party "actors," but why would it be that of the primary voters, who now have significant power? Whereas Democrats are delighted to nominate somebody who's never run before and has little national experience. The younger candidate doesn't always win, of course, so the Republicans aren't running a futile strategy here. But in the past half-century, only three Democratic candidates have been older than their Republican opponents: Johnson a year older than Goldwater, Humphrey two years older than Nixon, and Kerry two years older than W. And of course Kennedy and Stevenson were younger than their opponents, too. The last time the GOP nominated a significantly younger candidate than the Democrats' was 1944 and '48 (Thomas Dewey).

Still not offended, though.

That's okay. This is the Internet, so I'm fully authorized to be outraged on your behalf. Outraged!

or lizards?
and what if the wrong lizard got in?

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

That's very interesting to me, and not easy to explain. Granted that the Republicans have been the conservative party, conservative doesn't have to mean "old" (in fact, Barry Goldwater at 55 is one of the youngest Republicans on the list). There seems a strong tendency for the Republican nominee to be somebody who's run a campaign for President before and lost, and it's simply his turn now – and I can see that being a philosophy of party "actors," but why would it be that of the primary voters, who now have significant power? Whereas Democrats are delighted to nominate somebody who's never run before and has little national experience. The younger candidate doesn't always win, of course, so the Republicans aren't running a futile strategy here. But in the past half-century, only three Democratic candidates have been older than their Republican opponents: Johnson a year older than Goldwater, Humphrey two years older than Nixon, and Kerry two years older than W. And of course Kennedy and Stevenson were younger than their opponents, too. The last time the GOP nominated a significantly younger candidate than the Democrats' was 1944 and '48 (Thomas Dewey).

That's always been the GOP CW -- "his turn" -- only W. really broke that mold (I suppose you could make a case for Reagan, depending on how you view the 76 challenge to Ford). After W, it was back to "his turn" with McCain.

Further, though -- with an aging US population and given the relative voting participation by age demographics, I'm not sure the part that nominates the older candidate isn't generally better off.... I think that is likely to become even more true in the near-term as seniors who actually remember FDR fondly pass away and the senior vote is made up more of people who view FDR through an ideological lens.*

*while this is a subjective judgement - I think you will find that among those 80-90+, FDR is still pretty beloved due to direct experience....

To both statements, I say: the amount you post does not give you special status.

Sure it does. In the Lounge we even keep score of such things.

Sneering at people on the grounds of their not posting as often as you is rude. Stop being rude to people you don't even know.

I wasn't sneering at Mark. I was noting how much it entertained me to have this double internet life as a BTF meme. Dear lord, son. When I sneer I'm not exactly subtle about it. I'm not sure how you could mistake that.

What if it was a government made up of robots?

A government of the Ray, by the Ray, for the Ray is sort of terrifying. In fact, I think that's what half of this thread is arguing against.

The point is that Andy's statement should have been rejected out of hand by anyone who cared about anything. Instead, we heard "I disliked Andy's statement, but but but." The sentence
should have ended before the buts. (With a Period.Period.Period.Endofstory if necessary.)

As I've said many a time, you can say what you want about my reaction to Good Face's offhanded indifference to the fate of people without the means to pay for their own health care, but I love the way you view that utterly callous and contemptuous statement of his as nothing but "words", whereas mine were....what, a promise to stab him in the neck?

Both his statement and mine were expressions of our feelings towards certain people. In my case, it was limited to one loathsome individual. In his case, it extended to anyone unfortunate enough to be in the position of not being able to afford health care, or have other privately funded means of paying for it.

You and anyone else are perfectly free to express a judgment about which of these two expressions of contempt deserves greater contempt in return. But then you've already made it perfectly clear where you stand on the broader issue.

P.S. Not that I need your protection, but I also notice that when Good Face made a similar "death wish" directed towards me on that thread I linked to this morning, you posted repeatedly on that page and never uttered a peep of protest. Perhaps then, as opposed to now, you understood that words are different than actions, and wishes are different than threats.

When I sneer I'm not exactly subtle about it. I'm not sure how you could mistake that.

Look, this whole thread is about taking people's words out of context and deliberately misunderstanding their points for the purposes of grandstanding. I just wanted to fit in!

(Meta-disclaimer: now you say "that's not what this thread's about" and I respond with "well, I came to that conclusion by deliberately misreading it")

If you believe that slaves have no right to not be enslaved, what's wrong with slavery? Why can't you answer it?

For thousands and thousands of years of human history, slavery was not wrong.

(Meta-disclaimer: now you say "that's not what this thread's about" and I respond with "well, I came to that conclusion by deliberately misreading it")

Can we just skip to the part where we wish each other dead?

In my case, it was limited to one loathsome individual.

We've gone up to the replay booth and they've overturned the call on the field. It was all people with TGF's "attitude" who should be shot and left to die, and the world in which that occurred would be perfect.

For thousands and thousands of years of human history, slavery was not wrong.

And it "wouldn't be wrong" if the US reinstituted it today, so I'm not sure why you spend so much time on politics, morals, and ethics. You're wasting it.

And it wouldn't be wrong if the US reinstituted it today

You seem to think that morality exists outside of human consideration of right and wrong.

Both his statement and mine were expressions of our feelings towards certain people. In my case, it was limited to one loathsome individual. In his case, it extended to anyone unfortunate enough to be in the position of not being able to afford health care, or have other privately funded means of paying for it.

The defense of "it was limited to one person" has been destroyed even if your statement was limited to one person. But you've given no explanation why anyone holding that same attitude that GF expressed should not suffer the same fate.

EDIT: Or, what SugarBear said in #2115.

I can't believe the amount of energy being devoted on this thread to silly semantic arguments. Of course a human right still exists if it is suppressed, otherwise the very definition of a human right is tautological and meaningless.

If it existed to begin with. But it doesn't. Rights only exist in a context. In a non-social/no-governmental context, you have the right to try to out-distance your predator, no more, no less. In a social context, you have the right everyone agrees on you having, for by allowing that, they agree to defend the violation of that right, to extent they agree--as you do them. Without the agree-upon remedy, you got nothing but dreams. You can masturbate all you want to Jessica Biel or whomever--that's not an affair. In reality you got nothing putz in your hand.

You seem to think that morality exists outside of human consideration of right and wrong.

And also that humans exist outside of human considerations.

Foucault would be really disappointed-- dude spent his whole career showing the long process by which the human as a category was invented and deified, and then 30+ years later there's a discussion about human rights where people act like the human is some sort of transcendent and self-evidently given thing. You can't just pretend huge historical categories like "human" have no history, especially when the scientific and medical discourses that defined the category were/are so thoroughly permeated by politics.

Can we just skip to the part where we wish each other dead?

Oh, sure. That's always an option!

What does any of that have to do with OTHER things Andy has said and their validity? Your claim was his own statement invalidated everything else he has said on other subjects, and to that I say nonsense.


So you see no credibility problem with him saying (1) "It's inhumane not to give everyone health care" and (2) "I wouldn't mind seeing him shot for disagreeing with that"?

The second statement washes away any idea that the first statement should be taken seriously.

Really? Except you did not state that. You stated:

If he would say "serves you right" after you are shot to death because you expressed a viewpoint he found abhorrent, then everything he has ever said here about protecting people and providing for them and caring about them is meaningless.

He can express extreme anger at a person and still care about the welfare of people. There is no contradiction. Had he said "I am a pacifist and I'll kill anyone who disagrees" then there is a direct contradiction. Stating "Everyone should have healthcare and anyone who would work for a state where people without healthcare are allowed to die in the street should die" is NOT self contradictory. It is not laudable, but nothing he said somehow negates the case for universal healthcare or his statement in support of it.

Anyone who threatens other people I take less seriously in general, but I still try to evaluate their individual statements for merit.

Do you really think everyone should strictly be evaluated by the dumbest thing they ever said, and all statements they make seen through that lens?

Foucault would be really disappointed

Well that settles it then.

Foucault would be really disappointed

Good. I hate that bastard.

If the southern governments weren't depriving the slaves of their human rights, what precisely is it they were doing wrong?

This, and SBB's #2018, helps clarify why it's possible, even necessary, for rights to exist even where they are being denied.

No, it doesn't. What they were doing was what they were doing. In some ways, this was good (or better) for the slaves than the alternative, which others elsewhere and next door and at other times suffered worse. In some ways it was worse. At some point, the dominant class was persuaded those in the subservient class deserved similarly social terms as they, and so it came to be--painfully, slowly, half-heartedly. Why does some members the dominant class, so to speak, work against itself and the others members of its class. They don't see it as they themselves losing. Others (i.e., poor whites, no-good southerners who don't revere the union, yahoos out-west are losing, and they deserve it--see, how simple it is? They create terms of artifice, of higher cultural definition to replace the beastly tribal. This is always shaky because kin selection and next door reciprocal altruism is very strong compared to higher principle. But enough people can be made to recognize the value. At least in some ways to some extent.

The defense of "it was limited to one person" has been destroyed even if your statement was limited to one person. But you've given no explanation why anyone holding that same attitude that GF expressed should not suffer the same fate.

Let's just say that he exhibited a rather colorful way of expressing his contempt for those less fortunate than most of us, and I reacted in a way that reflected my honest opinion. I didn't weep over Jesse Helms' demise, either; too bad it didn't happen about 50 years earlier.

To the extent that I see attitudes like GF's openly expressed the way he expressed them, my own response is about as likely to be equally blunt, even if I don't come out and say it every time. I'm terribly sorry if you feel your Marquis of Queensbury rules have been violated, but I think we'll both somehow manage to survive this tempest in a teapot.

Of course if you would care to defend what GF said in terms of substance, and not simply brush it off with "that's his opinion", I'll be all ears. If only your sense of social responsibility towards anonymous people who fall through the net matched your demonstrated sense of personal responsibility to similar people whom by chance you know personally, you might make a pretty good citizen.

In the future, when everyone agrees that ANIMALS have the right to not be enslaved and eaten by humans - the future people WILL look back on us and tut-tut our immoral, unjust treatment of animals. So, are animal rights in some kind of quantum state where they do or do not exist depending on the decisions of those not-yet-born?

This is nearly an exact parallel to Slavery in the US of blacks in the early 19th Century.

Yes. Moreover, does it mean that animals are entitled to reparations? Those person who hunted and ate animals in 1900, 1800, 1100, year one, 30K BCE--were they evil for denying these rights; were they all equally evil?

I have avoided the philosophical rights talk, but I guess I will throw my hat in the ring.

When I think of human rights I think of things that the society I want to live in should provide for its people as a matter of course. What is the minimum that society should provide for and enforce? Those things I call human rights in the context of the political discussions we have. It is a practical and not philosophical definition, and as such good shorthand.

We can also talk of more generalized human rights, which is where this went when it got all philosophy. I have only a passing knowledge of such things. Personally I believe that slavery is wrong, was always wrong and will always be wrong. I also recognize that is a belief that is standing firmly on the perspective of my place and time in history and it is foolish to state that all slaveholders are evil or some such.

Everyone is a product (to some degree or another) of their place and time in history and it is unfair to judge them from my perspective (just as it will be unfair when I am judged in the future for the barbarity of eating animal flesh).

So did 1850s blacks in the south have the right to be free? Even if they did, in a de facto sense they did not, so the question is somewhat moot.

Of course if you would care to defend what GF said in terms of substance, and not simply brush it off with "that's his opinion", I'll be all ears.

He defended it himself:

(1) People are responsible for their own affairs
(2) People aren't going to die in the streets even if they aren't given health insurance by the state -- they haven't in the United States or elsewhere
(3) Public policy choices in other spheres also cause deaths

Regarding the whole animal thing (not be enslaved, not be eaten) I am pretty darn sure this will come to pass. Probably only after the technology to grow meat in a vat comes to pass, but it will happen.

And the bit about presidential ages, that is neat. It also fits in with the larger narrative of conservative versus progressive.

I certainly have no problem asserting that animals have certain rights, and several of them have been codified into law, i.e., prohibitions against animal cruelty. Michael Vick was sent to prison for violating them.

Their rights are broader than currently recognized by law.

Good. I hate that bastard.

That History of Sexuality trilogy was worse than Twilight.

Let's just say that he exhibited a rather colorful way of expressing his contempt for those less fortunate than most of us

actually it wasn't colorful at all, rather bland and matter of fact

I'm not going to defend GF's statement, I disagree rather strongly, but he is far from alone in holding those beliefs, and unlike some others is willing to state them openly.

As far as sincerely wishing death on someone? I try to reserve that for, oh, serial killers, war criminals and the like.

GF is a rational thinking person OTOH, it is quite possible that he could one day experience an event that could profoundly alter the view he expressed that you found so contemptible, but I honestly do not wish such an event on anyone, let alone death.

And as I asked earlier - what are the other objections to corporate "personhood"?

It's not the creation of corporate personhood per se. It's the elevation of corporate personhood to an equal status (a superior one in some ways) to human personhood in a US Constitutional setting, which insures a mystical inviolateness that is stupid, detrimental, and counter-productive to good government.

I believe in inalienable rights,

Belief is not proof of existence.

Of course if you would care to defend what GF said in terms of substance, and not simply brush it off with "that's his opinion", I'll be all ears.

He defended it himself:

(1) People are responsible for their own affairs
(2) People aren't going to die in the streets even if they aren't given health insurance by the state -- they haven't in the United States or elsewhere

I'm sorry, but here's what he actually wrote in #758. Nothing in there about wanting to provide free emergency room care. Even Ray's never gone that far.

I believe that people who can't afford medical care and can't find anybody willing to volunteer to provide it or pay for it should go without.

He's never qualified that statement, and until he does, I see no reason to qualify mine. When someone is willing to make statements like that, not everyone is going to simply shrug and say "Well, that's your opinion".

GF is a rational thinking person OTOH, it is quite possible that he could one day experience an event that could profoundly alter the view he expressed that you found so contemptible, but I honestly do not wish such an event on anyone, let alone death.

This is reasonable. Just because I think he's a common, self-important troll doesn't mean he needs to die for it. I may want to shoot tailgaters in the face (and I'd be shocked beyond words if GF doesn't tailgate. If he knows how to drive.), but it's the fact that I don't - or encourage others to do so - that makes me a human being.

He defended it himself:

(1) People are responsible for their own affairs

Not disagreeing, but I would add that people are not always at fault for what befalls them

(2) People aren't going to die in the streets even if they aren't given health insurance by the state -- they haven't in the United States or elsewhere

This is simply not true...*

(3) Public policy choices in other spheres also cause deaths

Yes, yes they do


* Around 1930/31 one prominent periodical ran an editorial which ended up something like this: "afterall, its; not like people are really dying in the streets"
a couple weeks later another prominent periodical ran a rebuttal, cataloging incidents where people were in fact literally dying in the streets... conditions in the US in 2012 are of course not as harsh as then.

Has Andy since said that his statement was abhorrent, a mistake, shouldn't have been made, and was now being disavowed by Andy completely? I haven't seen that.

That because his statements aren't abhorrent. He was threatened; he let it be known that that re-drew the boundaries not only of discourse with the creature in question but also as to their relationship within the socio-political context. What's abhorrent is how you ride this bete noire like Yosemite Sam on his camel yelling "hwyah, mule, hyway" whipping it until it drops. Give it rest.

The human right of freedom of conscience is possessed by Saudi Arabians even though their government suppresses it.

This really isn't difficult.

Of course it is. Those schooled in the Jeffersonian tradition contend that human rights are inherent to human beings--that they are self-evident and axiomatic--while our friends across the aisle believe that they are social constructs born of debate (presumably by their favored philosophers). There's no way we're going to bridge that chasm, which is why these discussions lead precisely nowhere in the grand tradition of atheist vs. theist debates.

That's why I keep him locked in my closet. (With Uncle Leon.)

Our political differences aside, that's a magnificent song by a criminally underappreciated artist.

So did 1850s blacks in the south have the right to be free? Even if they did, in a de facto sense they did not, so the question is somewhat moot.

This has bubbled back to the CSA, Civil War and West African slaves a few times (Dan's little Easter egg for us all in his absence) so I think it bears mentioning that:

1) The Civil War was not fought to "defend the rights of slaves." The Civil War was fought to preserve the Union. Lincoln quite famously is on record as saying if he could end the war and preserve the Union without freeing a single slave, he would do that.

2) Insofar as the Civil War was "about" the "rights of slaves," the open question at the time was not "do slaves have rights," but rather "are West African slaves properly considered 'humans?'" The position of the CSA was that Africans were not fully human, and thus had no claim to the "natural rights" enshrined in the Constitution.

3) The War, then, was not about defending or freeing a group of humans whose "rights were suppressed," so much as it was about instantiating rights in a class of humanity who up until that time (and well beyond it in fact) many people considered to be sub-human. The War, then, was about *creating rights,* not defending them.

Of course it is. Those schooled in the Jeffersonian tradition contend that human rights are inherent to human beings--that they are self-evident and axiomatic--while our friends across the aisle believe that they are social constructs born of debate (presumably by their favored philosophers).

And if our Jeffersonian friends would at least cop to the religious thinking inherent in this belief of 'inherent' rights we might be able to move to the next stage of the conversation.

I'm not going to defend GF's statement, I disagree rather strongly, but he is far from alone in holding those beliefs, and unlike some others is willing to state them openly.

Which is pretty much what I've been doing here myself---how open can I get?---though somehow I don't seem to be accorded the same granting of brownie points. (smile)

Of course GF is far from alone is holding his contemptible beliefs, and I'm hardly the only one who's wished that the mothers of people like that should have considered abortion. This is what can happen when people express honest opinions, but at least I can solemnly swear that I have no means of implementing my wishes. I wish I could say the same thing about Good Face, who can implement his wishes by casting a ballot.

So you see no credibility problem with him saying (1) "It's inhumane not to give everyone health care" and (2) "I wouldn't mind seeing him shot for disagreeing with that"?

What exactly is wrong with wishing someone be killed who wishes someone be killed? Mere reciprocation.

That's always been the GOP CW -- "his turn" -- only W. really broke that mold

Yes, W was unusual for the Republicans in that he hadn't run before, was young, and had little experience on the national stage. And when you have to be the son of a President to break that mold, it tends to show how strong the mold is.

Neither Reagan nor Romney held federal office before being nominated, but one could argue that their previous attempts at the nomination gave them a lot of national exposure and experience. By contrast W was something of a joke outside of Texas … heck, inside of Texas too … and IIRC had never even traveled overseas before his nomination.

(Reagan also made a serious run for the 1968 nomination, though he didn't win very many delegates in the end; so yes, I would count him as a "my turn" candidate. The party was more ideologically divided then, but Reagan waited patiently but alertly till his wing became dominant.)

(Reagan also made a serious run for the 1968 nomination, though he didn't win very many delegates in the end; so yes, I would count him as a "my turn" candidate. The party was more ideologically divided then, but Reagan waited patiently but alertly till his wing became dominant.)

In 1976 Reagan was in it until the convention, 1980 was most definitely "his turn"

1) The Civil War was not fought to "defend the rights of slaves." The Civil War was fought to preserve the Union. Lincoln quite famously is on record as saying if he could end the war and preserve the Union without freeing a single slave, he would do that.

I hear this a bunch and find it somewhat disingenuous. What the war began as and what the war became and what the war means now are all three different things. However, looking at the writings of the time (from soldiers and what not) the war even at the time, even very early, was very much about slavery. Not entirely and not by every actor in the war, but slavery was central to the fighting of the civil war and to pretend otherwise is wrong.

What exactly is wrong with wishing someone be killed who wishes someone be killed? Mere reciprocation.

Two wrongs don't make a right?

And on the question of animal rights and how subsequent centuries will look back on our meat-eating selves: a lot depends, doesn't it, on whether there were significant contemporary voices recognizing a right that the majority still rejected. In the antebellum period, there were many, many black people who asserted their right to be free – practically by escaping when they could, theoretically by writing and speaking when they could. And they had white allies. It wasn't a situation like that of ancient Greece or Rome, where being a slave was (more or less) just one of the many ways that life sucked, not as bad as some other ways, with the possibility of becoming a freedman built into the system, and not a whole lot of general consciousness that the entire system was basically unjust. But nobody could live through 1820-1860 and not be aware of abolitionism, and of the general moral objection to slavery. A whole Southern rhetoric rose to defend slavery from those pressures.

Animals, barring some weird Dr Dolittle scenario, are not going to press to become free in ways that we understand. But they have human allies (Peter Singer being the most famous), and again, there's a sense in which a future generation will be able to point to those allies and say, "folks, you knew about this issue, and you went right on with the Whataburgers." Whereas it will be pretty hard for them to judge the 18th century by the same yardstick.

#2141 It's semantically tricky as to whether they were legally persons. The actual language that the sainted FF agreed on:

Article I, Section. 2 Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Article I, Section. 9, clause 1. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Article IV, Section. 2. No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Article V ...No Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article.

I mean it does anticipate that Congress could attempt to ban slavery and there is the repeated use of person.

I'd also go further to your point. The only organized group that would have supported a war expressly to free the slaves were the Radical Republicans. A powerful group within the party but a long ways away from a majority position within the party.

the war even at the time, even very early, was very much about slavery

No doubt whatsoever. "As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free" was the big windup to the most popular Unionist song, after all. (The "Battle Hymn" was first published in early 1862.) And Lincoln, wherever he started from, would ultimately characterize the war effort in these terms: "until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword."

Two wrongs don't make a right?

Two wrongs make a right, Lisa.

I hear this a bunch and find it somewhat disingenuous. What the war began as and what the war became and what the war means now are all three different things. However, looking at the writings of the time (from soldiers and what not) the war even at the time, even very early, was very much about slavery. Not entirely and not by every actor in the war, but slavery was central to the fighting of the civil war and to pretend otherwise is wrong.

Th war was about secession, which was about slavery, and certainly the rallying cries of the war were quickly and inevitably about slavery. But we know Lincoln would have left every slave in chains if it had preserved the Union without war. When the CSA forced the issue and seceded (due to their fervent belief in white supremacy) the die were cast. But it's still the case that the war itself was fought to decree full, legal personhood onto a population previously decreed to be 3/5s of a person by all available metrics.

Geez, everyone is acting like wanting Good Face to be shot dead is a bad thing, or needs some kind of justification.

It's really nothing more than the junction of the First and Second Amendments.

Next thing you know, people will be condemned for wanting to see the Turing Test formerly known as Ray disconnected.

SBB - I was specific about the rights of animals not to be bred for slaughter for human consumption. Specifically. But you could also add medical/commercial experimentation etc.

And I already said. Slavery was wrong because it was mean. Just like Rape and Murder are wrong because they are mean. [However, not all "mean" things are to be equally abhorred, there is a scale]. This, by the way, also resolves the "Taxes are Slavery". Taxes are mean too - no one likes to have their hard earned lucre taken away to be spent of stuff they don't think they need or want. It's just that Slavery is MEANER, and Taxes are not really THAT mean.

Of course one can also define some Black and White (har) Rights and say that it Violated them. And, in fact, most people who are into creating documents that define rights (at least since about 1880) would agree with you.

The point is that it is tautological and meaningless. Outside of power to protect it. Ray's right to "contract freely" exists only insofar as Ray, or a society which Ray leans on for protection, defends that right. You can't have a regime of "human rights" unless you have a government or society or warlord willing and able to protect them. This is the libertarian's great lament. They want the "rights" to be natural and self-evident, while railing against the only powers in the 'verse that actually give a #### about protecting them.

This is largely backwards. The government doesn't protect my right to free speech, my right to free speech is protected *from* the government. Yes, the government protects my life and property through laws that make murder and theft illegal (except when undertaken by the government itself, of course), but I do not need the government in order to have those rights, and if someone tried to take them from me I would be morally entitled to defend myself in the absence of government.

And that's the problem with your conception of "rights" -- it leads to a world in which there is no morality, just the status quo as determined by who has the biggest guns.

The other problem with saying that none of these things are actual "rights" is that it then just comes down to a question of utility and what is best for the majority. If 98% of the country could be made significantly better off by enslaving 2% of the population, what basis do you have for saying it's wrong to do so? If you're going to say that certain things are just wrong, you're effectively relying on a concept of inherent "rights" whether you acknowledge it or not.

What do we know about Lincoln and slavery? Well, we know that the South seceded because he won the presidential election; if he was such a fanatical unionist, the best way to preserve the Union would have been for him not to run for President :) A paragraph from the Ottawa debate with Douglas is often quoted to show that Lincoln was a racist (he says some pretty repugnant things about black people), and Lincoln also says that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists." (But remember, in the light of Dred Scott, there was legitimate apprehension that slavery couldn't keep existing in the South without becoming a federal institution.)

And then there's Lincoln's windup:

There is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects—certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.

That's a really important statement about human rights however embedded in racism it may have been, from a man whom most Radicals found insufficiently radical. A whole lot of Northerners were coming around to Lincoln's opinion. To the South, those were fighting words, and the war was fought largely in response to them.

#2147 I assume you're referring particularly to the Emancipation Proclamation. Surely worth noting that it didn't apply in Kentucky or Maryland. Equally worthy of note was the rioting in New York.

If your point is that there were plenty of people who were fighting to free the slaves, fair enough. But the war had to be framed as one to preserve the Union in order to draw sufficient support to prosecute it.

And that's the problem with your conception of "rights" -- it leads to a world in which there is no morality, just the status quo as determined by who has the biggest guns.

Otherwise known as the real world.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

Only, if there ain't no creator, there ain't nobody to endow them.

Of course, if you go by the maxim that Man created God in His own image, then these rights are defined by men, endowed by men, and protected by men -- "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Well, the abolition of slavery became more of a possibility as the war progressed, thus an issue capable of a resolution, but it's undeniable that at the beginning of the conflict the primary overriding issue was preservation of the union. The reason for the South violating the compact, for secession, was inextricably entwined with preservation of the slave system, and its belief that with Lincoln it was in dire jeopardy (although why poor whites would fight for that needs some thinking over). Thus, in a way, Lincoln and the North averred they would not go to the wall on the slavery issue, but the South didn’t believe him or it—and of course, events proved they had pegged right. Once there was a real chance to abolish slavery, it was taken. Of course, if people like Ray were living then in the South, they'd claim since they had Lincoln and the North pegged right, they were justified in their rebellion. Heads I win, tails you lose.

3/5s of a person

And I do have to correct this assumption whenever I see it. It's oft-cited, and almost always as if being 3/5 of a person were a hideous injustice. But it was far worse (and you may be using it ironically here, Sam, so I'm not criticizing you). Slaves had almost no legal personhood. Slaves would have been overjoyed to have 3/5 of a vote, for instance. They could have emancipated themselves in many counties, and even some states, at that rate. If a jury of 20 black people could have had equal standing with a jury of 12 whites, that would have been a great first step toward justice.

The 3/5 rule was of course another way of saying that a man who owned one slave counted as 8/5 of a person, in terms of federal representation, compared to a free Northerner. It had nothing to do with black personhood.

And that's the problem with your conception of "rights" -- it leads to a world in which there is no morality, just the status quo as determined by who has the biggest guns.

Oh, there's morality, if you must talk in those terms. It's just relative. Your survival and status in this world is relative.

It's not the creation of corporate personhood per se. It's the elevation of corporate personhood to an equal status (a superior one in some ways) to human personhood in a US Constitutional setting, which insures a mystical inviolateness that is stupid, detrimental, and counter-productive to good government.

This is vaugue. The special status ... beyond limited liability? Are there other distinctions between Corporations and partnerships etc. Because it has not been addressed (to my satisfaction) that corporate speech - as a special case of "groups and organizations of people" speech isn't or should not be protected. And obviously Corporations and partnerships have a special status that an individual doesn't... otherwise, why would you need them? And even if you ban LLPs etc. from political speech or severely limit them... it's not the speech that matters at all is it? It's PAYING for speech. They can just contract with an individual to speak on their behalf? Now that is going to be made illegal?

To me, corporate speech (political and commercial) is like Nazi speech, or Andy's Deathwish speech. I disagree with it, but I defend to the death their right to say it.


I have always said that if the Constitution is wrong, it should be amended/rewritten/destroyed. But altering the 1st Amendment is not a step I am willing to take.

the Emancipation Proclamation. Surely worth noting that it didn't apply in Kentucky or Maryland

It didn't apply in any Confederate county under Union occupation at the time it was pronounced, either. That sometimes gives the impression that it was disingenuous and superficial; after the ink was dry, not a single slave was de facto any freer than before.

But the Emancipation Proclamation freed great numbers of slaves as the war went on. Sherman's march through Georgia would have been a stunt without it. With it, the March completely dissolved the infrastructure of slavery in its path.

I do completely concede the point that Unionist rhetoric was widespread, often without even much implicit recognition of emancipation as an aim. It was a complicated alignment of motives, and pure Unionism deserves attention as one of the factors that led Northerners to war.

And if our Jeffersonian friends would at least cop to the religious thinking inherent in this belief of 'inherent' rights we might be able to move to the next stage of the conversation.

My conception of them has nothing to do with God or religion, much as the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789) didn't. The rights adhere because of the humanity of their possessors and aren't really even "bestowed" in any serious sense.

This is largely backwards. The government doesn't protect my right to free speech, my right to free speech is protected *from* the government.

Protected by what? Apparently you're not looking to the courts for redress.

The rights adhere because of the humanity of their possessors and aren't really even "bestowed" in any serious sense.

They neither adhere nor inhere; they're bestowed in the performative act of their naming.

The special status ... beyond limited liability?

The special status that a Supreme Court confers. It can't be overturned or modified except by miracle.

Because it has not been addressed (to my satisfaction) that corporate speech - as a special case of "groups and organizations of people" speech isn't or should not be protected.

It should be protected--just like any law should be protected. It doesn't need constitutional status to be protected. It needs constitutional status to be etched in marble.

And obviously Corporations and partnerships have a special status that an individual doesn't... otherwise, why would you need them?

They don't have (or, rather, shouldn't have) a constitutional status. Why people think the entire political cosmos would come crashing down if things were treated in simple statutory fashion is beyond me. You've the got the example of many other free and democratic states as an example that this doesn't have to be so. In fact, before the magic of "incorporation" you had the example of all the states.

I have always said that if the Constitution is wrong, it should be amended/rewritten/destroyed. But altering the 1st Amendment is not a step I am willing to take.

The way constitutionality is determined so as make it the sole, holy preserved of the SC is wrong. It's also counter-productive, instrumental in making this country ungovernable.

If it existed to begin with. But it doesn't. Rights only exist in a context. In a non-social/no-governmental context, you have the right to try to out-distance your predator, no more, no less. In a social context, you have the right everyone agrees on you having, for by allowing that, they agree to defend the violation of that right, to extent they agree--as you do them.

But everyone doesn't agree on anything. So is it your position that the majority or the status quo determines morality?

On many of the biggest questions in this country you have relatively narrow majorities who would like to legislate on questions that will impact the lives of millions of people. We properly recognize that there are some basic rights that are above simple majority rule. Yes, if you have enough of a majority you can change even those, but we have made it extremely difficult for a reason.

The rights adhere because of the humanity of their possessors and aren't really even "bestowed" in any serious sense.

Ah, sexed-up atheistic materialism. Godliness without God.

But everyone doesn't agree on anything. So is it your position that the majority or the status quo determines morality?

As to public morality, yes. Social-political life is a #####. Anything else is much worse.

Again, morality is the term you insist on resting your case on. Not me. What I describe is the way I see it working. You validate that or you don't, but it will, for public life purposes, come out in relativistic terms. Whether you think that's moral or not is not pertinent to whether my description is accurate.

On many of the biggest questions in this country you have relatively narrow majorities who would like to legislate on questions that will impact the lives of millions of people. We properly recognize that there are some basic rights that are above simple majority rule. Yes, if you have enough of a majority you can change even those, but we have made it extremely difficult for a reason.

Yeah, you're right. It just doesn't work according to formula. There's reasons for that, too. And they aren't moral ones, if those as pretext they may be couched in those terms.

Otherwise known as the real world.

Yes, I am well aware of what the world is. Once again, this is just a defense of the status quo. Many people do not simply accept the world for what it is, they attempt to change it for the better. It is because of those people that you have the legal rights and protections that you have today.

The way constitutionality is determined so as make it the sole, holy preserved of the SC is wrong. It's also counter-productive, instrumental in making this country ungovernable.

The US is ungovernable? Really? I think this entire line of yours is a bit hyperbolic. SC decisions are changed and do evolve. The country is governed, or if it is not I would like to know how/why you are making this assertion.

The US was one of the earliest democracies. Our* constitution is amazing, but it is not perfect and I am willing to believe other countries - with the benefit of our example and their own knowledge and experiences - constructed a government "better" than ours. Still the mechanism of change is built into all layers of our government and as such is just as good as we can make it, so there is no sense in blaming the past.

*Apologies to any non-US types reading.

Two wrongs make a right, Lisa.

Funny, but wrong. I am a big believer in Gandhi, MLK, and Mandela. The whole "eye for an eye and soon the whole world is blind" thing resonates with me.

That is one reason I am slowly evolving into a "pox on both your houses" attitude on Israel/Palestine. I keep hoping for a visionary leader in the mold of the big three above to come to the fore, but alas not yet. Maybe someday, but in the meantime I'll keep hoping (and finding US policy towards the whole thing really unfortunate).

As to public morality, yes. Social-political life is a #####. Anything else is much worse.

Again, morality is the term you insist on resting your case on. Not me. What I describe is the way I see it working. You validate that or you don't, but it will, for public life purposes, come out in relativistic terms. Whether you think that's moral or not is not pertinent to whether my description is accurate.

All meaningless mumbo-jumbo. You can describe the world as you see it, but apparently you have no opinions of your own; you simply accept the status quo or the opinion of the majority as your own without any view as to whether it is right or wrong. Good for you, I suppose it makes life simpler but it seems like a pretty boring existence.

They neither adhere nor inhere; they're bestowed in the performative act of their naming.

Not really, since they'd exist in an illiterate society -- as would the sun and the moon.

But even if they had to be named to be bestowed, they wouldn't be bestowed by God -- the initial point. The lazy attempted smear of them through linkage with fundie conceptions fails.

But even if they had to be named to be bestowed, they wouldn't be bestowed by God -- the initial point. The lazy attempted smear of them through linkage with fundie conceptions fails.

It's not lazy. I have a tough time conceiving of these rights, existing the way you've described (as the sun and moon), without giving them divine properties.

Question: how did the founding fathers square the unalienable right to liberty with, you know, jails? Did they have a really limited conception of "liberty?" Did it really mean something like free will?

All meaningless mumbo-jumbo. You can describe the world as you see it, but apparently you have no opinions of your own; you simply accept the status quo or the opinion of the majority as your own without any view as to whether it is right or wrong. Good for you, I suppose it makes life simpler but it seems like a pretty boring existence.

Sure, I do. I have opinions just like everyone else (how anyone can have hung around here the last few years and not know that...) for what would be a better world, and so do you, and so does everyone—now what? And they are based on values just as yours are. I don’t ascribe them to a morality out there somewhere (and neither do you, although you may profess otherwise). For you, morality is just way of wanting to have your way without having to work for it—it’s a cover-up for your self-interest without acknowledging that others have theirs. That is the nature of things and it cannot be explained or perfected by a model that you carry (unexamined and untested) in your brain.

My morality (I hate using the term because it comes loaded the religio-mythic, which is not sufficiently reductive to explain anything) arises out of our actual biological nature and the resulting nature of our relationship with each other. It’s the sense of right and wrong, good and bad, that comes from a morality born of knowing we compete to exert our interests in a world where everyone can’t get everything they want. Because nothing is static, though, because arrangements change as the context change, our view of the what the status quo should be changes, and so does everyone’s vision of what should be the status quo. What’s needed is the process to allow everyone’s views to fairly play out to a conclusion. For out interest. You and Ray and host of others where simply want to always insist on short-circuited this process on the basis of your morality (which always happily coincides with your interests, but it doesn’t sound right to say it that way to you, so you gussie it up)

The US was one of the earliest democracies. Our* constitution is amazing, but it is not perfect and I am willing to believe other countries - with the benefit of our example and their own knowledge and experiences - constructed a government "better" than ours. Still the mechanism of change is built into all layers of our government and as such is just as good as we can make it, so there is no sense in blaming the past.

First of all, some groundwork: Can a Supreme Court interpretation of the constitution be overridden? How? How often has this happened? Are other major democracies ramrodded by an judicial oligarchy like this? How's that worked out for them?

I am a big believer in Gandhi, MLK, and Mandela. The whole "eye for an eye and soon the whole world is blind" thing resonates with me.

What does this mean?

Are you saying Gandhi, MLK, and Mandela weren't acting out of self-interest and the interest of some at the expense of others?

Not only isn't perfection (utopia, whatever) attainable, it doesn't exist. Thinking it does is a source of never-ending misery--and it's promoting a lie.

It's not lazy. I have a tough time conceiving of these rights, existing the way you've described (as the sun and moon), without giving them divine properties.

It's a personal problem we all have to some degree or other (and there are reasons for that). How's that worked throughout history, though, this ascribing the necessity of social change as aligning with God's will? If more and more it seems as if there is no God (at least a personal God who would give a ####), do we just keep on trucking on that God bandwagon? Living a delusion, a delusion that can be maintained only by deception and self-deception, knowing we are doing that doesn't matter?

Bette Davis - "You should never say bad things about the dead, you should only say good. Joan Crawford is dead. Good.”

What does this mean?

Your calls of war and ###-for-tat and "two wrongs" are not helpful. I am still answering the question:

What exactly is wrong with wishing someone be killed who wishes someone be killed? Mere reciprocation.

It is not mere reciprocation. It is endless and destructive. Sure it is not "real" it is just talk on a website, but still it is uncool. I am saying your methods of reciprocation are bad. The methods of Gandhi, MLK and Mandela are much better - more ethical and effective.

Who said anything about utopia? That has nothing to do with anything.

Lot of good stuff in 2156:

But:

The government doesn't protect my right to free speech, my right to free speech is protected *from* the government.

By whom? How?

but I do not need the government in order to have those rights, and if someone tried to take them from me I would be morally entitled to defend myself in the absence of government.

Sounds to me like you are back in a primeval setting. Families and clans and tribes and bands just going after it. Is that the matrix for your divine rights? Sounds to be like it’s just about force and power then. Cheyenne kicking the Arapaho off to the west, the Comanche to the South, Aztecs ripping out the beating hearts from sacrificial victims.

“The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to sleep on the bellies of their wives and daughters.”

Is that where that morality and inherent, natural, divine rights come from?

And that's the problem with your conception of "rights" -- it leads to a world in which there is no morality, just the status quo as determined by who has the biggest guns.

It leads to true morality—a morality that has a firm bedrock because it acknowledges its real source, which is from relationships between individuals and between groups, which is all about the negotiation of ever-shifting interests. Realizing this, we then must affirm the quest for alliances (personal and public) while acknowledging that they will change because circumstances and interests change.

Realizing that there but for the grace of God (so to speak) go I is a remarkable and quantum advance in our development. It had to happen for there to be the limited altruism there is—without it, society is not possible, but altruism is just another word for self-interest. As someone once said, in the ancestral environment before refrigeration, the best larder for your excess food was a cohort’s (or someone you want to convert to cohort) stomach. When atrocity happens, it’s all too often because we don’t see ourselves in those that will suffer. It’s a shaky proposition, and like I say it fails us, but it’s what we have to work with. Morality and God and inherent rights—that’s just dressing and cloud talk ploys and schemes, ruses and stratagems.

Your calls of war and ###-for-tat and "two wrongs" are not helpful. I am still answering the question

????

So, Gandhi, MLK, and Mandela weren't acting in their self-interest and the self-interest of their followers at the expense of the interest of others?

It is not mere reciprocation. It is endless and destructive. Sure it is not "real" it is just talk on a website, but still it is uncool.

If we're going to deal with events of great pith and moment in terms of what's cool, I'll just void the field in your favor. Keep rockin' in the free world.

I am saying your methods of reciprocation are bad. The methods of Gandhi, MLK and Mandela are much better - more ethical and effective.

I'll just take your word for that. Read Graham Greene's The Quiet American, if has to be in story form, to see how the quest for good through the attempt to work it out in terms of pure ideals where there is no real self-interest can have catastrophe results.

The point is that Andy's statement should have been rejected out of hand by anyone who cared about anything. Instead, we heard "I disliked Andy's statement, but but but." The sentence should have ended before the buts. (With a Period.Period.Period.Endofstory if necessary.)

Come on. You know this isn't true. A good number of people have roundly condemned Andy's statement. (I continue to do so here).

Can we get an "OT: Things Andy has said" thread?

For real. This might be even more tiresome than Dan's endless 2mph car hypo.

I am a big believer in Gandhi, MLK, and Mandela. The whole "eye for an eye and soon the whole world is blind" thing resonates with me.

What does this mean?

I'm obviously a fan of all three of those men, but there were big differences among them, both in the conditions they had to deal with and in the means they chose to combat them.

Mandela's reputation as a racial reconciliator is well deserved, but when in 1961 the Nats refused his demands to hold a constitutional convention, his military branch of the ANC entered a period of armed resistance that only ended with a crackdown and his arrest. Given the totalitarian nature of the apartheid regime, he had good reason for adopting that strategy, even though it was doomed to failure. (Certainly there was no real moral argument to be made against armed insurgency in the South Africa of 1961, only a strategic case.) And even from a strategic POV there were no serious alternatives during a period when a black South African had no rights and no prospects under the Boers.

Gandhi faced a very simple fact: The Indians had the overwhelming numbers, but they didn't have the guns, and contrary to what at one point seemed to be a general belief, the Brits were not shy about using those weapons in order to show who was on top and who was on the bottom.

OTOH the Brits had one thing that the South Africans didn't have: Remnants of a collective conscience, reinforced by the propaganda messages of the second world war that stressed the horrors of racialist theories. And unlike the Boers, and unlike what they faced during the Blitz, they weren't motivated by the defense of their homeland. At some point the nuisance factor simply overwhelmed whatever advantages had been gained by their occupation---as Gandhi knew was eventually going to happen.

MLK's biggest disadvantage was the horrendous effects of "states' rights" and the relatively small black population. But OTOH that small population also played to his advantage, in that in the long run the part of the country that outlawed our version of apartheid was also the part of the country whose way of life was least affected by the change, and therefore most likely to change it around the edges.

There was also a noble and centuries old tradition of black intellectual resistance that grew with each succeeding decade, and by the time that King came along, that heritage had given King a strong foundation with which to bring the civil rights movement to national attention. At the same time, conditions were reaching a point where the contradictions between our lovely constitutional theories and the brutal facts of racial oppression---brought vividly into our living rooms every evening---were almost predestined to break down the entire system. Given the numbers both in people and in firepower, nonviolence was the only possible tactic that was ever going to advance the cause, but there was absolutely nothing about the adoption of that tactic that was pre-destined. The fact that nonviolence held as long as it did is a tribute to the genius not just of King, but of his thousands of disciples all over the South. I don't even want to imagine what might have happened to the entire movement had the images of burning cities arrived just a few short months before they actually did. It's just too damn chilling a thought.

They neither adhere nor inhere; they're bestowed in the performative act of their naming.

Not really, since they'd exist in an illiterate society -- as would the sun and the moon.

But even if they had to be named to be bestowed, they wouldn't be bestowed by God -- the initial point. The lazy attempted smear of them through linkage with fundie conceptions fails.

Where the hell is god in my response? I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by engaging the idea that the rights were not pre-existing the evolution of the human by replying that they're the product of a performative.

If they're neither a human construct nor eternal ideas (thus predating the human), then exactly when and how did they emerge?

OTOH the Brits had one thing that the South Africans didn't have: Remnants of a collective conscience,

For some reason my eye caught this sentence before I realized the context of the statement you were making and my mind was immediately drawn to the Boer War, where the collective British conscience was not on fine display.

I think the "inalienable rights", and libertarianism, boil down to certainty. If you start from first principles you can have a firm grasp on just about any situation you find yourself in. It is awfully tempting to know you're making the correct moral choice at all times. A world without that certainty is frightening (not just because of the evil that is possible in it but because you yourself are never 100% sure that what you're doing right now isn't evil). But if there's one thing I've learned from my study of history (and the experience of life in general) it's that certainty is almost always an illusion. I don't trust certainty. Sure, that leaves us with a world where we're constantly drawing lines, and distinctions between things that are by no means permenant, and where it's all too easy to get it wrong. But that's life, it's not supposed to be easy.

nicely said, Greg.

Wow, I take a few days off from the internet and we're over 2000 posts already. I skimmed through this to catch up a little, but I saw this, and I was struck with a very powerful sense of agreement and disagreement at the same time:

People are responsible for their own affairs.

I agree entirely with this in the sense that mentally competent adults have the capacity to make decisions for themselves, and shouldn't have decisions made for them. That's where I tend to be at my most radical, in opposition to even those laws and obligations that seem like minor infractions on freedom and/or exceptionally well-meaning restrictions. It's not outrageous to suggest that we wear seatbelts when we drive and helmets when we ride motorcycles, or to acknowledge the dangers of legalization of "hard drugs" like heroin, or to avoid giving the impression that we endorse suicide as a society. It is outrageous, at least to me, to be forced to do what others believe to be best for ourselves, even if that belief is reasonable.

On the other hand, the very same sort of thinking has a potentially ugly side. We share a community and a society and a planet with other human beings, and we reap tremendous benefits from group associations (even the ones that we don't necessarily choose in a direct sense, like the stores that can more effectively service our needs because community participation makes their existence viable). With these benefits come responsibility, in a practical sense, but also a moral one. I'm responsible for myself, but I'm not only responsible for myself. To think that I can just accept the advantages that come from society, many of which come at the expense of those less fortunate than I am, without acknowledging that duty that I owe the community I live in is remarkably selfish.

I do not think it is appropriate to force people to prove their competence as swimmers before being permitted to enter the ocean. Most of those people will do their best to exercise good judgment as to how far out to go based on their ability. One person might end up in trouble for no reason other than sheer carelessness, while another might be pulled out by an undertow despite a good-faith attempt to exercise care. Either way, there's a person drowning. Now is not the time to judge whether this person deserves to drown based on how careful we believe him to be. It's time to stop him from drowning, and if lots of people are drowning, we might have to all pitch in to pay a few lifeguards. That might just be the price we owe for the enjoyment of all of the advantages of our society.

Like many other libertarians, I think it would be the ideal set of circumstances if we simply did these things for one another without the coercive force of government. Also, like many other libertarians, I believe that a number of our country's policies that are coercive are an obstacle to forming the sort of society that learns to care for one another without being forced to. That said, I don't think we can rest on the concept of such an idealized society while people sink beneath the waves. Even if they're reckless, selfish, lazy people. It would be one thing if we lived in a serious condition of scarcity, where we needed to ration our resources in order for at least some of us to survive. There's enough wealth in this country for everyone, even those who might not be the most deserving, to have certain basic needs provided for them (food, shelter, health care, and education come to mind). It's our responsibility, and to our shame (and I include myself in this group), we simply aren't doing a very good job living up to the responsibility.

Circle-jerk high fives to Greg and Crosby. Those are some well thought out and expressed posts.

It's a really simple question. If you believe that slaves have no right to not be enslaved, what's wrong with slavery? Why can't you answer it?

I more or less answered it, but it assumes not only the premise that violating someone's rights is immoral, but that it's the only way something can be immoral. I'm not sure I can explain morality to someone who thinks morality is primarily defined by whether or not you're violating someone's rights, any more than I can explain a poem about daffodils to a blind watersnake. In both cases, they have no experience with the subject.

There exists a moral prerogative among humans to assist one another with respect to health, welfare, whatnot, where we have the ability to do so. I don't enslave other people for the same reason I pull a drowning person out of a pool, even though I'm not violating their rights in the latter case.

Of course it is. Those schooled in the Jeffersonian tradition contend that human rights are inherent to human beings--that they are self-evident and axiomatic--while our friends across the aisle believe that they are social constructs born of debate (presumably by their favored philosophers).

This is kind of a weird statement; the use of "across the aisle" is bizarre, since it's generally a liberal position that people have inherent rights. Indeed, one of the reasons I don't identify as a liberal is because I don't believe people have inherent rights.

Of course, if those rights really were self-evident and axiomatic, Jefferson wouldn't have needed to write them down. But they're not (they're obviously not, based on the history of humanity's actions), so here we are. They come from somewhere.

Once again, this is just a defense of the status quo.

In the same way that saying the sun rises in the east and sets in the west is a defense of the status quo.

Many people do not simply accept the world for what it is, they attempt to change it for the better.

Many people believe in clutch hitting.

It is because of those people that you have the legal rights and protections that you have today.

Which only exist because they are enforced, including in the final instance with guns, which take us back to "the status quo as determined by who has the biggest guns."

FYI, Andy's account has been suspended for a month for his "death wish" comment. This is clearly over the line.

I've also sent out a few warnings. To be clear, calling people F##tards, libtards and the like, is childish and a violation of the Terms of Service. If you haven't received a warning and have participated in the site in such a manner, I probably missed your problematic comment. In any event, I expect people to act in a mature, responsible manner on the site and to adhere to the Terms of Service. If you are not sure whether your actions violate the Terms of Service within these threads, I suggest you not participate in them.

I am willing to allow these political conversations because they have value to community building. Although some wish them to be eradicated completely, I disagree because most of the participants conduct themselves honestly and maturely. Unfortunately, a few people either don't have the self-awareness to know when they are being overly difficult or know they are and just don't care. The first group has socialization/self-awareness issues that hopefully will be corrected; the second group are trolls. I will work toward bringing self-awareness to the first group and will rid the site of the second group.

In any case, this is not a duty that I enjoy and would rather utilize my time more constructively finishing the redesign. As a result, if I am to err, I'd rather err on the side of classifying people as trolls as it will make the task of cleaning up these threads much easier.

First of all, some groundwork: Can a Supreme Court interpretation of the constitution be overridden?

Yes

How?

Amendment to the constitution or some future ruling that overturns the ruling in question.

How often has this happened?

Well you can count the number of amendments (and most of those were not in direct response to a SC ruling)
But it's hard. I might add that this is by design. Madison wanted to make it tough to change anything.

And every so often a court will change its mind. 1st amendment rulings have clearly evolved over time. Take for instance Aliens and Sedition. I'm extremely doubtful that it would survive judicial review today. Back then, nobody actually fought it on first amendment ground. Jefferson was the most prominent opponent and he fought it on what amounts to states rights grounds.

I think it was DMN in this thread who gave an example of a court reversing itself in fairly short order.

But it's rare. The Flood case is a good example. The ruling handed down said in effect, goofy ruling but we aren't going to change it. Congress is free to explicitly toss baseball's anti-trust exemption.

Are other major democracies ramrodded by an judicial oligarchy like this?

I can't think of any place that doesn't have a final judicial review. In many cases the judiciary rarely strikes down anything put forward by the legislative branch.

In Canada, any legislature can pass a bill and say that all or part of it is not subject to judicial review,

But:

a) It's rarely done. Basically it's at minimum a PR headache.
b) It only lasts for 5 years. In practice it mean you have to win re-election and use of the notwithstanding clause rates to make it harder to do so.

How's that worked out for them?

I think you'll find far less overt partisanship in the judicial bodies of other nations. The US SC is behaving more or less as Jefferson predicted. Other places not so much. Not really sure why.

I know in Canada, regional affiliation gets far more attention than party affiliation (there's an expectation of regional representation on the court), and the recommendations of the Canadian Bar Association carries an awful lot of weight.

jim

just an observation that if the site has these types of threads its almost an invitation for typically rational people to write irrational (stupid) things

might want to get used to being the hall monitor.