Harveys,

I think Jim's actions will probably help. I mean Jim and Andy are part of the core group at BBTF. If he's willing to sit them down, he'll do the same for anybody else.

Though I anticipate what amounts to a demand to clarify precisely where the line is. (which Jim has refused to do in the past and which I think he's correct to do. Come to that I don't think he could give a precise definition. Beyond Potter Stewart's.)

I can't think of any place that doesn't have a final judicial review.

You soft-pedal the radical difference between the USA and other modern advanced democracies. They are not in effect shackled to the character and views of an electorate of nine. They more easily overturn their high court's decision. We have what is essentially a judicial autocracy in this country.

Counting the amendments fosters a distorted view of what has actually happened. Discounting the Bill of Rights--which was in the nature of a corrective and an afterthought--there have been few substantive amendments. There have been fewer substantive amendments than certified miracles. What--three? Both Hamilton and Madison did not envision the Court's role as it has become, which is an overweening presence. Nor did they or most other founding fathers see the Constitution as a Stonecutter's Sacred Parchment.

And there have been few instances where the Court has reversed itself outright. Very few. And this has fostered strife, even led to crisis, and is mainly responsible for the Rube Goldberg system we have.

2192 and 2194 are fine posts.

Harveys,

I think Jim's actions will probably help. I mean Jim and Andy are part of the core group at BBTF. If he's willing to sit them down, he'll do the same for anybody else.

You mean Dan and Andy, but yes.

ron

the cast of characters of bbtf should, one would hope, fluctuate over time. meaning that folks won't know the history and therefore will not be deterred until the banning actually happens

if bbtf is to survive and thrive it must get new participants. so jim will likely have to accept as part of that growth the every so often severe reprimand.

that's the tradeoff. because if bbtf remains full of the same stodgy bunch then in a few years it will be pretty sorry

#2205 I agree, but hopefully

a) the more active group of posters will at least refrain from the worst kind of dung flinging.
b) the generally slightly moderated tone will be caught by new posters.

I'm moderately hopeful of part a, less of part b (and it doesn't take much before the overall tone starts to change and become more strident)

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.

This is more a statement of faith than one that can be demonstrated in fact. We do pretend that this is so, for the most part, but evidence that it is not so can see everywhere. We are not the free agents we pretend to be. That is a relic of outworn creeds. We are however afraid to go there--beyond free will. It's dark out there and who knows what awaits us. But the captain of my soul, master of my fate stance has gotten shakier with each passing era since at least the late 19th century.

It is awfully tempting to know you're making the correct moral choice at all times. A world without that certainty is frightening

The world is frightening, period.

Certainty is a studied, heart-felt delusion. It does have the effect of allowing you to delude yourself sufficiently to pretend that you are in control of yourself, and should be in control of others. Certainty usually comes ensconced in a belief system that relies on something beyond the rational, like a form of religion or a quasi-religious-like creed, and that is used to as a stick to beat people with. You can’t do that unless you can convince others you are certain of your beliefs to the extent you reek rectitude. It’s an illusion, but it has use, as long as you can maintain the illusion. What will be interesting to see if what will happen as old illusions fall. Will there simply be, as in the past, a lateral to a new one, or can we maintain complex relations without instinctively resorting to them? I suspect we can’t. Why? Because even very intelligent and very educated insist on safe places (places where you just shouldn’t be learning and thinking) where their ignorance and stupidity is maintained and held sacred and inviolate. They’d rather believe than know. All of us do to some extent. You have to really work to break out of that and stay of that.

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.

I most certainly do NOT tailgate. That said, people who drive really slow in the left lane deserve to be fed to hyenas.

people who drive really slow in the left lane deserve to be fed to hyenas

But not killed!! They deserve to be fed to hyenas, survive the ordeal with minor cuts and abrasions, and receive publicly-supported health care and PTSD counseling.

You have to really work to break out of that and stay of that.

Make 'I don't know' a part of your daily diet.

i will point out that multiple studies show that in finances people make ridiculously bad decisions. really basic stuff that doesn't even involve assessing risk but common sense things

i can understand why a cadre of well-meaning folks think that at a basic level some things need to be mandated versus letting a person decide.

i do not agree but i understand the motivation. it's justified to some extent

what bugs me to no end in the chronic desire at many levels for folks to not take ownership of their decisions. individuals, companies, you name it.

I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know.

Mark Twain.

#2202 I think you'll progressively more judicial activism around the world. As I mentioned, Canada's Supreme Court has become more active.

As I said, the main issue is that to date those courts haven't (to my knowledge) become clearly partisan. It's a lot less likely when the norm is some form of coalition government.

I most certainly do NOT tailgate. That said, people who drive really slow in the left lane deserve to be fed to hyenas.

The tailgators I'm speaking of are the ones behind you wanting to go 55 in a 40; and also those who think that their desire to go 85 over your need to go 80 while passing people doing 70 in a 65 entails them to sit on your ass like a moral Buddha of driving when they are simply driver doucchebaggs.

Which, if you say so, I am glad you are not.

The tailgators I'm speaking of are the ones behind you wanting to go 55 in a 40; and also those who think that their desire to go 85 over your need to go 80 while passing people doing 70 in a 65 entails them to sit on your ass like a moral Buddha of driving when they are simply driver doucchebaggs.

Which, if you say, I am glad you are not.

Like most issues of morality I adhere to a strict principle of cowardice here and don't drive.

As I said, the main issue is that to date those courts haven't (to my knowledge) become clearly partisan. It's a lot less likely when the norm is some form of coalition government.

You insist on ignoring the elephant in the living room--the one distinction that makes the most difference--that makes any pretense at democracy a farce. I've explained it in many ways.

...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...

I immediately thought of the I Ching.

Morty -

I don't see what the supreme court / 2/3rds amendment rule has to do with anything. If the Bill of Rights were just a "statement of guidelines" with no binding legal power I would STILL argue that congress should NOT pass laws restricting corporate speech. I don't care that CU was *unconstitutional*, I care that until it was overturned, the law RESTRICTED FREE SPEECH OF A GROUP OF PEOPLE. The fact that it's a special limited liability group of people, or an evil profit-motivated group of people is immaterial to me.

You are switching the argument to a procedural one. The procedural one holds for any law passed by congress. I mean, why should ANY law have the cabal-like protection of the supreme court (by that argument)? And if you try to say that only individuals have "supreme court protection of their rights" but corporations don't -- how do you slice and dice other organizations without you just having congress decide literally who gets Free Speech and who doesn't.

You can make a case that it's too hard to amend the constitution in general. Fine, I see your point although I don't find it particularly compelling. If the constitution was easy to amend we would probably have both Abortion and Gay Marriage bans in there -- but also ERA.

I don't think our system works badly because of the system (although I am not a fan of the electoral college, or 2 senators per state), I think it works badly because of the people (both elected representatives and those who elect them). I think it's because a a growing Urban/Rural cultural divide, and an unwillingness of people on either side to respect the wishes and decisions of the other. California is not governed well either- and we have a constitution that can be amended by ballot vote and a state legislature that's had a Democratic majority for 60 years.

The tailgators I'm speaking of are the ones behind you wanting to go 55 in a 40; and also those who think that their desire to go 85 over your need to go 80 while passing people doing 70 in a 65 entails them to sit on your ass like a moral Buddha of driving when they are simply driver doucchebaggs.

If you pull out to pass, pass.

The very worst are the people who can't stand to be passed and will pass you again and slow down.

Some good comments on the nature of morality, Morty. I won't get into the part about sleeping on the bellies of wives and daughters...

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.

I agree that it's right to pitch in to pay lifeguards to keep people from drowning, and I agree with your later point that basic needs including food, shelter, health care and education should be provided to those who can't provide for themselves. However...

* When people are saved from drowning, they generally don't go back into the ocean. If someone had to be saved, then went right back into the water, then had to be saved, and repeated this 5 or ten or 20 times a day, I imagine at some point they'd be asked to leave.

* Most people know how to swim and don't require any interactions whatsoever with lifeguards, which allows lifeguards to focus their attention on those who do need help.

* When lifeguards are asked to save people from drowning, few object to pitching in. If we were all asked to pitch in so that lifeguards could be compelled to provide comprehensive beach care to everyone, including swim lessons, life jackets, suntan lotion, umbrellas and therapy to help people overcome their fear of the water, you'd hear a few more objections.

* It doesn't take ten years of training to become a lifeguard.

I don't see what the supreme court / 2/3rds amendment rule has to do with anything. If the Bill of Rights were just a "statement of guidelines" with no binding legal power I would STILL argue that congress should NOT pass laws restricting corporate speech. I don't care that CU was *unconstitutional*, I care that until it was overturned, the law RESTRICTED FREE SPEECH OF A GROUP OF PEOPLE. The fact that it's a special limited liability group of people, or an evil profit-motivated group of people is immaterial to me.

There are lots of laws that restrict free speech. Slander, libel, words that incite to violence, obscenity, etc. These are all able to be restricted. Since free speech is listed in the Bill of Rights, government must prove that it has a necessary and compelling interest to regulate that speech, subject to strict scrutiny.

You can disagree that reducing corruption and the appearance of corruption meets that threshold, but you can't just loudly proclaim that McCain-Feingold restricted free speech and have that be the end of it.

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

Jim might want to get used to being the hall monitor.

Harvey,

I have no intention of becoming a hall monitor. I am not anyone's babysitter. As I have stated before, I neither have the time nor desire to undertake such a role. I also don't believe it's necessary. In my experience most people have no problem understanding where the boundaries of civility lie, including in the more controversial threads. Instead of trying the impossible task of micromanaging the interaction between every user, I trust, and expect, each individual person to act civilly and take responsibility for his actions.

I recognize that everyone, from time-to-time, might get emotionally worked up and will write something he shouldn't. When that happens it's not a big problem as most people understand and make allowances. In every large community, however, there are sure to be difficult personalities. The question is, how to deal with those personalities? In my view, and it's the view I've held since the site came online, is that it's my job to put forth a simple set of plain, common sense rules and let the community set where the exact boundaries lie and stay out of the way until such time that they need my help. At that point I step in and remind the people causing the problems where the boundaries are. If they don't like my reminder and/or don't agree with my policy and continue acting out, I suspend their access to the site and, if needed, ban them permanently.

As I said, I neither have the time or desire to babysit. It is far easier for me, and a far more productive use of my time, to remove the most difficult personalities from the site rather than entering into long, convoluted, grievance-filled discussions with them. Once the community makes it readily apparent I need to intervene, I do.

I appreciate the way most members of the site participate on the site. The great majority of people who visit here are the kind of people I enjoy spending time with offline. As a matter of fact, the greatest benefit that I have gotten from running this site are the friendships I've made as a result. It's unfortunate, and quite difficult for me, to have to take action against personal friends when I feel their behavior on the site warrants suspension. But, as I expect all the members to take responsibility for their actions, I take responsibility as site administrator to do what I need to do to maintain a place where people can enjoyably interact with other baseball fans.

The tailgators I'm speaking of are the ones behind you wanting to go 55 in a 40; and also those who think that their desire to go 85 over your need to go 80 while passing people doing 70 in a 65 entails them to sit on your ass like a moral Buddha of driving when they are simply driver doucchebaggs.

Which, if you say so, I am glad you are not.

I'm actually a fairly mellow driver. I like to drive fast, but tailgating is both dangerous and usually counterproductive so I don't do it. I'm typically happy to allow people into traffic or to cut in front of me as long as they're willing to keep up with traffic after they do so. It's the guy who feels the need to cut me off then drive 10 MPH under the speed limit that makes me ragey.

By the way, thank you Jim for taking the time to go through and attempt to improve the level of discourse. It is much appreciated.

Instead of trying the impossible task of micromanaging the interaction between every user, I trust, and expect, each individual person to act civilly and take responsibility for his actions.

I think this is a totally realistic goal.

The fact that it's a special limited liability group of people, or an evil profit-motivated group of people is immaterial to me.

A corporation cannot die. It is not human, therefore it does not automatically get the same rights that humans get. It doesn't automatically *not* get those rights, either. But claiming a grand injustice when a legal fiction's powers are checked in the interests of broader societal good* seems to misunderstand why we allow these fictions to exist in the first place.

* how that's defined, and if that good is one worth pursuing are both irrelevant here.

There are lots of laws that restrict free speech. Slander, libel, words that incite to violence, obscenity, etc. These are all able to be restricted. Since free speech is listed in the Bill of Rights, government must prove that it has a necessary and compelling interest to regulate that speech, subject to strict scrutiny.

That's a good point. Again, I'd add that the first amendment originally just applied to the National Government, not to the states, yet freedom of speech was respected. And, again again, other countries do not allow their high judiciary to trump legislation in a way that amounts to no recourse. That is our system, and you can't get around it's dictatorial nature. If you like that--if you think a self-designated elite, an institution of high priests is the way to go, fine. However, others don't do it that way, and I ask, what's the problem with that? Why must corporations in this country have constitutional rights, designated and ascribed in a way that allows for no gainsaying. That's the point.

If that's not compelling, then law, democracy, and politics is a game, a joke, and a farce. It was not meant to be, other jurisdictions don't have it, and it gives power to an institution (the SC) in a way and to an extent that allows gross abuse and frustrate democracy and the political process for no higher purpose than an unwarranted aggrandizement of power.

First of all, some groundwork: Can a Supreme Court interpretation of the constitution be overridden? How? How often has this happened?

The Supreme Court can be "overridden," by:

1: Passing an amendment (really hard)

2: Winning a lot of elections- holding the Presidency and the Senate and packing the court- SCOTUS in the late 30s through the 60s overrode a lot of pre-1930ish precedent on the Commerce Clause and Civil Rights this way. Recently after Reagan and the 2 Bushes the "other side" has started coming very close to overturning a good chunk of that. (not quite as hard as passing an amendment)

3: Having judges change their mind (kind of related to 2 above)

4: Winning a Civil War (not an experience anyone rational wants to repeat).


Personally I think we need some other mechanism:

A: Congress can override SCOTUS by some type of super-majority vote- given the nation's 50/50 split not terribly likely- but I'd like it to be there- as a rebuke to certain SCOTUS declarations of absolute primacy if nothing else.

B: Have SCOTUS members be appointed for less than life- I'm fine with a long term, but anything more than 20 is too long.

C: A revised amendment process- perhaps a mechanism for setting up a constitutional convention on a scheduled basis- perhaps once every 25 years... Anything passed there would still have to be ratified of course.

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.

I am very unclear as to why you are dragging in statements like "pure ideals where there is no real self-interest". I don't think I ever said or implied such.

My stand is clear - statements like "wishing death ... is just retribution" and "this is war" and similar sentiments (I can dig up the exact text of such comments from you if you want) are uncalled for and not helpfull. They are "bad" on many levels. Discussions that do not escalate ,that do not threaten, that are not retributive are better on many levels.

The tradition of Gandhi et al (and yes there were differences I would argue they belong to the same tradition however) are a good example to follow (even in website chat forums). two wrongs do not make a right (really), and even if Good Face is being annoying (or whoever, not trying to pick on GF specifically here) it is equally wrong to respond in a similar manner. It is human, and does not in any way "taint" the rest of ones opinions (no matter what Ray thinks), but it is still wrong.

I don't think saying this depends on "pure ideals where there is no real self-interest". There is a self interest involved. The success of Gandhi et al shows how one can act in such a way to not reduce one self to the others level and still be effective. I would argue it does not matter why Gandhi acted the way he did (pure ideals or naked ambition) it worked and I would argue much better than an escalation of violence would have worked (which would have been meeting a wrong with a second wrong).

If you think I am being harder on you (and Andy) than I am on Ray, GF, and others - well you are right. I would rather everyone "keep it clean" but I admit to having higher standards for "my tribe" so if that is bugging you and you want to call me a hypocrite I am willing to sign off on that bit of hypocracy.

BTW, some of you really should learn how to use the ignore feature. Just as it's not a good idea to interact with the crazy person on your local street corner holding a sign about the world ending, it's not a good idea to continue to interact with people who simply drive you crazy. If they are difficult personalities and continue to bait you with no response, the others will clearly see who is the problem. If, on the other hand, you find that someone is ignoring every comment that you direct his way, it might be good for you to know that, most likely, you are the problem, not him.

First of all, some groundwork: Can a Supreme Court interpretation of the constitution be overridden? How? How often has this happened?

The Supreme Court can be "overridden," by:

1: Passing an amendment (really hard)

2: Winning a lot of elections- holding the Presidency and the Senate and packing the court- SCOTUS in the late 30s through the 60s overrode a lot of pre-1930ish precedent on the Commerce Clause and Civil Rights this way. Recently after Reagan and the 2 Bushes the "other side" has started coming very close to overturning a good chunk of that. (not quite as hard as passing an amendment)

3: Having judges change their mind (kind of related to 2 above)

4: Winning a Civil War (not an experience anyone rational wants to repeat).

Well, not every Supreme Court decision is a question of Constitutionality. A great many are simply rulings on the interpretations of statutes, which the court usually takes up when different Circuit Courts have reached differing conclusions. In many cases, the legislature just needs to change or pass a new statute. The Lily Ledbetter case was not an issue of Constitutionality. The court ruled that under its interpretation of the statute, she'd lost her right to sue for lost wages. Congress changed the statute. No amendment, court packing, or civil war necessary.

We had to write a SCOTUS decision in my statutory interpretation class in law school. It was based on the Bankruptcy Code. If in that case the court had ruled a certain way that Congress didn't like, they could just change the Bankruptcy Code. Just your typical, run of the mill "bill becomes a law" type stuff.

Proper driving is awareness of one's surroundings and respecting the flow of traffic. If somebody wants to get past you, allow them to do so.

I think it's because a a growing Urban/Rural cultural divide

growing????

The "divide" is not growing it's likely lessening, but what has happened is the balance of numerical power so to speak is shifting...

Morty,

You are clearly very anti-SC. You keep using words like "priests" and "dictitorial". What are the practical effects of the current US system that you are against? Said another way it is clear you think the current system is flawed, but what do you want to see that is not or cannot happen under our current system?

In general the US government (gross generalization alert) is designed with many veto points and favors in action over action. As a progressive I find this less than ideal but my understanding is this was seen as a feature (not a bug) and is a deliberate design decision. Similarly the autocratic ideal of the SC may make it less responsive to change than I would ideally prefer, but over time it clearly does change and adjust with (behind?) the times. Is this your basic complaint? I am not very clear - because from reading what you wrote it sounds like you might have a more fundemental philisophical objection rather than a practical one.

If on the other hand, you find that someone is ignoring your every comment directed his way, it might be good for you to know that you probably are the problem, not him.

Jim is there a way to know (explicitly) when one is being ignored versus IGNORED?

Anyway thanks for the good judgement you have shown. I appreciate the website very much.

I think it's because a a growing Urban/Rural cultural divide

I find cultural changes and demographics interesting. I think the divide is changing and I think you have to include the suburbs in the analysis. If it was just urban/rural the country would be MUCH more liberal than it is currently. Similarly much of the upcoming election will be fought over the suburbs, as the number of "up for grab" voters in the city or on the farm is pretty low.

Of course on the hother hand I would also argue that changing technology has made gross geographic boundaries less significant and virtual geographies more so. My village is not my geographic neighborhood. I "talk" with folks around the world MUCH more than I do the people in the house next door (for better or worse).

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 assume the reason our SC is more partisan than other countries is that it's harder to rewrite sections of our Constitution. Therefore people view the court as the main avenue to change it in practice.

#2235 I think it's reasonably clear. He's echoing some of Jefferson's writing about Marberry. I think he's overstating the impact in practice, though neither Morty nor Jefferson are wrong as to the potential. In a very real sense Justice Kennedy has been the most powerful person in America for some time (with 4 more or less certain votes for anything that breaks on ideology. And yes, I know the block broke on the ACA)

On the practical side though there's also the Jackson response. The executive has enormous discretion when it comes to what actually gets done, and while no other president has been as direct as Jackson (and Jackson may not have actually said, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"), there has been some mighty creative foot dragging over the years.

A while back when we were discussing the Interstate Commerce Clause being used as justification for federal action. I recounted an anecdote about how although it may seem ridiculous to use "commerce" as a pretext for validating higher rights, it really was difficult for "Negroes" to travel about the country, especially the South, during Jim Crow. With that in mind, I just ran across this:

The Negro Motorist Green Book

WRT SCOTUS, I've never understood why we frown on advisory opinions, while most other democracies allow (and encourage) them.

I think it's reasonably clear. He's echoing some of Jefferson's writing about Marberry.

Dude, I am an IT guy with a geeky/econ/liberal arts background. I have a basic familiarity with some of this but I am darn certain I have never ever read "Jefferson's writing about Marberry". I was hoping to pull the discussion into a bit more understandable (for me) place with more concrete examples - mostly because I am interested but not completely following.

On the practical side though there's also the Jackson response. The executive has enormous discretion when it comes to what actually gets done, and while no other president has been as direct as Jackson (and Jackson may not have actually said, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"), there has been some mighty creative foot dragging over the years.

Given Jackson's body of work both before becoming President and as President, I feel pretty sure that if we could ask Jackson, he'd say "If I didn't say it, I wish I would have." On one hand, I'm not sure the US survives the nullification crisis without an Andrew Jackson essentially threatening to hang anyone who pursues the path (and the nullifiers believing he'd do it). On the other, he was probably the most dangerous President we've ever had in regards to the basic foundation of our Republic.

Though I anticipate what amounts to a demand to clarify precisely where the line is. (which Jim has refused to do in the past and which I think he's correct to do. Come to that I don't think he could give a precise definition. Beyond Potter Stewart's.)

I think we should have a pretty good idea of the sort of behavior that leads to a suspension and ultimately a ban: extreme or repeated abusive behavior, trolling, and non-trivial advertisement. I also think we know that it's very unlikely to be a single comment that gets you in trouble so much as a pattern of behavior.

I've never seen anyone suspended or banned and been surprised when I found out why.

jim

understood. i am hopeful your strain of reasonableness is contagious

as you and others have likely discerned i think there is a subset of nitwits around here who argue with themselves in the mirror, yell at their shadow for following them and basically go through each day hankering for a fight and this site provides a free and accessible means for them to engage in their favorite activity. manners and decorum don't fit into their vocabulary and i doubt any amount of admonishments, bans or severing of appendages will make much impact.

but again, i remain hopeful.

keep fighting the good fight you crazy dreamer you

regards,

harvey

Jim is there a way to know (explicitly) when one is being ignored versus IGNORED?

Anyway thanks for the good judgement you have shown. I appreciate the website very much.

I don't see the point of seeing who is ignoring you (and by you I don't mean you specifically). If you want to ignore someone it's much better to let you do it without having to worry that the person you are ignoring might be offended by your action and then rashly try to take some type of revenge/action against you.

Within the update, I've created tools, however, where I can see who is being ignored. I will also be able to see which members get the most negative feedback on their comments. At least this way I have something concrete that I can use to see who others are having problems with.

It won't be a perfect system but it will give me, and other moderators, tools to more quickly identify our most problematic members.

A: Congress can override SCOTUS by some type of super-majority vote- given the nation's 50/50 split not terribly likely- but I'd like it to be there- as a rebuke to certain SCOTUS declarations of absolute primacy if nothing else.

This is my idea, too, and I've expressed it here and elsewhere for years. I'd even make it necessary that a presidential imprimatur go along with the the Congressional override.

I am not out to make the SC ineffectual. I think it serves a function, just as high courts in other democracies do. It serve more than a function equally balanced to the other branches of government. It just shouldn't have the plenary power it has. It's wrong and it's dangerous, and when it's wrong, it can't be corrected for all practical purpose.

As I said, the main issue is that to date those courts haven't (to my knowledge) become clearly partisan.

Courts have always been partisan. They are made up of people and people can't help but be partisan. Maybe there's not as much pretense about it now.

If the Bill of Rights were just a "statement of guidelines" with no binding legal power I would STILL argue that congress should NOT pass laws restricting corporate speech.

That, again, misses the point. The point I making isn't about substance--it's about the nature of our institutions. It's not about what they should or shouldn't do. It's about what they can and can't do. That you are getting your way, or not getting your way, is immaterial.

I don't see the point of seeing who is ignoring you (and by you I don't mean you specifically). If you want to ignore someone it's much better to let you do it without having to worry that the person you are ignoring might be offended by your action and then rashly try to take some type of revenge/action against you.

I think this is true, but I also think it might be helpful if I could see just the number of people I'm being ignored by, without the who. If I'm the kind of person that's being ignored by a big number of people, I might not care, but some (most?) people are genuinely oblivious as to how they're perceived. Knowing that a lot of people are ignoring them might come as a surprise, and lead to some introspection.

I don't care that CU was *unconstitutional*, I care that until it was overturned, the law RESTRICTED FREE SPEECH OF A GROUP OF PEOPLE. The fact that it's a special limited liability group of people, or an evil profit-motivated group of people is immaterial to me.

Speech is restricted all the time. Making it a constitutional issue only means that one institution accountable to hardly anyone or anything decides in a way that is for all practical purposes unreviewable and unalterable (except by it, which isn't likely either).

I mean, why should ANY law have the cabal-like protection of the supreme court (by that argument)?

We should ask why should any law have the sort of protection the SC gives it—I mean, who’s the SC to have this plenary power? It wasn’t meant to be—it’s a gross arrogation of power by one branch that is essentially unaccountable.

And if you try to say that only individuals have "supreme court protection of their rights" but corporations don't -- how do you slice and dice other organizations without you just having congress decide literally who gets Free Speech and who doesn't.

This happens in other places and it works. Moreover, we give more rights to some entities all the time.

I don't think our system works badly because of the system (although I am not a fan of the electoral college, or 2 senators per state), I think it works badly because of the people (both elected representatives and those who elect them).

This is where we really disagree. Any solution for an institutional problem that rests on people just being better is a mug’s game. The process has to allow to happen. It can’t happen (or it’s very hard for it to happen) when the process doesn’t let it happen. We can’t be better when it comes to free speech because the SC has all the power here.

I agree that it's right to pitch in to pay lifeguards to keep people from drowning, and I agree with your later point that basic needs including food, shelter, health care and education should be provided to those who can't provide for themselves. However...

This is a complicated enough issue that a simple analogy will not be perfectly on point.

A serious problem is that for issues like health care, everyone already is in the ocean and there's no way to leave (short of dying, really).

You are clearly very anti-SC. You keep using words like "priests" and "dictitorial". What are the practical effects of the current US system that you are against? Said another way it is clear you think the current system is flawed, but what do you want to see that is not or cannot happen under our current system?

How many times in how many ways do I have to say it. I abhor the niche that the SC has carved for itself where it trumps all simply because it says it trumps all and no one can do anything about it except it the most extreme and direst instances. The Court should have power, but not the power it has.

In general the US government (gross generalization alert) is designed with many veto points and favors in action over action.

Not when it comes to SC constitutional ukase. This is it's wild card. It shouldn't have one.

In a very real sense Justice Kennedy has been the most powerful person in America for some time (with 4 more or less certain votes for anything that breaks on ideology.

See O'Connor before that. See Lewis Powell before that.

Am I indulging in liberal rationalization by continuing to see McCain/Feingold and similar laws as much more about funding than about speech? IOW, if the commercial situation is such that the richer speakers can drown out other speech, then limits on campaign-speech funding actually promote freedom of speech for all (as in the Canadian examples invoked upthread). And they do not involve anyone censoring content; they apply impartially.

Of course, one problem with McCain/Feingold is that the law must be drafted so narrowly (precisely because there is a First Amendment) that it becomes arbitrary and ultimately somewhat makeshift. So it must prohibit certain spending within a certain timeframe by certain groups only – and then there are lots of exceptions, and constantly new ways to get around the restrictions. Laws may not be unconstitutional just because they're unenforceable, but limits on campaign activity, given 21st century media (as others pointed out upthread) have an uphill climb even if technically constitutional.

Ask yourself: Why has Congress never availed itself of the clear mandate it has in Article 3 to decide as it will the jurisdiction of the SC?

BTW, some of you really should learn how to use the ignore feature.

Gee, where have I heard that before?

IOW, if the commercial situation is such that the richer speakers can drown out other speech, then limits on campaign-speech funding actually promote freedom of speech for all

I disagree. Those limits don't promote "freedom" of speech, but "equality" of speech. It's perfectly fine to say that equality of speech is as important or more important than freedom of speech, although I'll have to disagree with you there.

I think this is the true divide between liberals (who emphasize the importance of fairness) and libertarians (who emphasize the importance of autonomy). That isn't to say that liberals don't care about autonomy or that libertarians don't care about fairness, but just to broadly characterize priorities.

How many times in how many ways do I have to say it. I abhor the niche that the SC has carved where it trumps all simply because it says it trumps all and no one can do anything about it except it the most extreme and direst instances. The Court should have power, but not the power it has.

Sorry, I don't think I was clear. Let me try again. Is it a practical concern or a philisophical concern? In other words is this flaw resulting in outcomes you don't like (singly or in aggregate) or even if the outcome is good it is still a flaw in the SC and how it currently functions?

It sounds like you have a philisophical concern with it(it could be both as well), but I am not sure so I thought I would seek clarification. It is not a gotcha.

It's both. I know it's not a gotcha.

This is a complicated enough issue that a simple analogy will not be perfectly on point.

A serious problem is that for issues like health care, everyone already is in the ocean and there's no way to leave (short of dying, really).

Actually, when I read your initial post I wasn't sure if "swimming in the ocean" was meant to represent merely existing, or consciously engaging in various risky behaviors - buying a house, driving a car, swimming in the ocean, etc. Apparently I ended up twisting your intended meaning for my own nefarious purposes, but I think the analogy raises issues either way. If everybody is always in the ocean, lifeguards are much better off focusing on matters of life and death rather than worrting about whether everyone is properly sunscreened, whether the lengths of bathing suits are within "proper dimensions", etc.

I think this is true, but I also think it might be helpful if I could see just the number of people I'm being ignored by, without the who. If I'm the kind of person that's being ignored by a big number of people, I might not care, but some (most?) people are genuinely oblivious as to how they're perceived. Knowing that a lot of people are ignoring them might come as a surprise, and lead to some introspection.

My experience has taught me that the most difficult of site members are usually the least self-aware people on the site. They are also the same people who, when I suggest they put people on ignore to minimize conflict, usually tell me that they don't want to do it because "how will I know what people are saying about me."

It's an idea though. I will add this to the maybe list. Thanks for the perspective.

Sorry Mouse, I'd posted Jefferson on judicial review before. (in the last OT-P thread)

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815.

"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823.

"But, you may ask, if the two departments [i.e., federal and state] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

And yes, there's nothing in the constitution that supports Jefferson's proposal either.

Mouse, also poke at the section on amending the constitution.

Some other money quotes.

"The idea that institutions established for the use of the nation cannot be touched nor modified even to make them answer their end because of rights gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them in trust for the public, may perhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch but is most absurd against the nation itself. Yet our lawyers and priests generally inculcate this doctrine and suppose that preceding generations held the earth more freely than we do, had a right to impose laws on us unalterable by ourselves, and that we in like manner can make laws and impose burdens on future generations which they will have no right to alter; in fine, that the earth belongs to the dead and not the living." --Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer, 1816. ME 15:46

"I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self-evident: 'That the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;' that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it... We seem not to have perceived that by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independent nation to another." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:454

"Can one generation bind another and all others in succession forever? I think not. The Creator has made the earth for the living, not the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to things, not to mere matter unendowed with will." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:48

If everybody is always in the ocean, lifeguards are much better off focusing on matters of life and death rather than worrting about whether everyone is properly sunscreened, whether the lengths of bathing suits are within "proper dimensions", etc.

You'll get little argument here from me. That's why I'd say we have to accept that some people are going to engage in risky behavior yet still cover them when they're in trouble, rather than tell everyone that they need to wear waterwings.

It's a bit of a gray area when someone appears to need (or petitions for) help before they're actually drowning. (That's as close as I can get to preventative medicine in this analogy.)

Mouse, also poke at the section on amending the constitution.

I don't agree with Morty's strong stance because I think the whole system is designed to evolve over time. It may never be what we want at any single point in time, but it changes to fit our needs over time. Since I feel that is the case I am having difficulties with objecting to it (the SC) on philisophical grounds, since to me the underlying philosophy is to have it change as needed.

Of course on practical grounds I object to how quickly it changes and the directions it changes, but the fact that it can and does change matters. As to whether it should be the ultimate arbiter or not, I am not sure I know enough about the options and ramifications to know if Ilike those options better or not. Just because some other society does it differently or even better does not mean that transplanting that one aspect to us will work here. Things don't operate in isolation.

BTW - Having read your quote post again I do remember having read it. My memory is not the best at things like that. Thanks much for the repeat though. I have found that in general my aspirational side wants to agree with Jefferson but my practical side often does not.

OK, Morty, agree to disagree on the process. It might be the problem or most of the problem. However, I think it's separable from (theoretically) denying speech to Corporations. And since I have not been convinced that theoretically this is a good idea, no point in taking about the (im)practicibilty there.

Speech is restricted by law. But that's individual SPEECH(ES) deemed to be harmful: libel, slander, incite-to-riot etc. Not classes of speakers (criminals? obviously a special case) There are also sedition, conspriacy, obscenity laws etc, but these are examples I wish to not uphold, and would rather strike them.

If you want to designate a particular ad spot or campaign as libelous, slanderous or other wise demonstrably harmful - take it to court. Corporations CAN be sued for slander, etc, can they not? (and if they cannot, well, I am in favor of changing THAT law which I think would not get to the SCOTUS). But Political speech - avocation for or against an election is pretty cornerstone to a democracy. While it is true that other liberal western democracies get away with limiting it, that is like saying a Chernobyl style reactor hasn't blown up yet. It is a risk that I am not prepared to take for an unquantified gain.

As for Fairness of Speech - I agree that is an important concept as well, but like CrosbyBird I don't think it trumps. The unfairness is not due to the speech, but rather the resources (Money) allocated to them. As the passage of the ACA shows - it is NOT a constitutional violation to redistribute wealth. So if campaign speech is unfair due to "volume" and "unlimited spending", my proposed solution is to cut off the volume at the source.

That's a good point. Again, I'd add that the first amendment originally just applied to the National Government, not to the states, yet freedom of speech was respected

If you mean to say that freedom of speech was respected by the states, that is certainly not the case. In the ante-bellum South, distributing abolitionist literature or publicly advocating abolition was illegal and could get you fined or jailed.

Boy, skip BBTF for a few days because you're on trial, and about 15 pages get added to the thread. This will take a while to catch up on. (I promise not to respond to every post from those pages, but if anyone directed a question at me personally and is now spending ten posts crowing about my failure to respond, I will do so to deny you the satisfaction.)

Who are you?

That, again, misses the point. The point I making isn't about substance--it's about the nature of our institutions. It's not about what they should or shouldn't do. It's about what they can and can't do. That you are getting your way, or not getting your way, is immaterial.

Well, then you pulled a bait and switch. The concept I am adressing is Citizens United and whether or not Corporations or other "non human" organizations SHOULD be limited in their "level of expression" in a political context (i.e, have broadcast rights restricted). Since the usual counter argument is "Corporations are not People" - I was addressing this point specifically by trying to discern what is it about their non-person hood (granting the point) that means they should have their (political) speech limited. And if so, how and why to distinguish this from other groups/organizations of people.

Boy, skip BBTF for a few days because you're on trial, and about 15 pages get added to the thread. This will take a while to catch up on.

The high points:

1) Dan got his account suspended.
2) So did Andy.
3) Everything you believe was proven to be demonstrably and inarguably false, and
4) There were high fives all around.

Boy, skip BBTF for a few days because you're on trial, and about 15 pages get added to the thread. This will take a while to catch up on.

Brian C. summed it up pretty adequately, of course 3 and 4 are true of most political posts here, so only 1 & 2 are news.

Wait, David was on trial? This is way more interesting to me than anything from the past fifteen pages...

Wait, David was on trial? This is way more interesting to me than anything from the past fifteen pages...

He's a lawyer, trust me, despite what you see on TV, watch in the movies, the past 15 pages would have been a far more interesting to David...

"On trial" means being the lawyer in the trial? Huh.

I assumed it was a typo of some sort, so I was making of the jokes. You know, that he was on trial for some sort of crime. You're saying it was actually a normal use of a phrase that means something entirely different to most people? Lawyers use language weird.

David -
Up is Down, Black is White, and I am arguing Libertarian talking points.

The last few pages have been (mostly) liberals* arguing among themselves about various topics. Almost as if we will argue about pretty much anything and are not some odd group-think-borg creature. Or, you know, maybe we are.

* To any of you I have mislabeled and feel I am calling you liberals unjustly I am very very sorry.

#2257
the number of veto points for any piece of legislation is staggering
...and that is one reason The Federalist Papers is under appreciated
and the context of tyranny means something then
as it does now

I've never heard "on trial" used that way, even from NY lawyers.
I have heard lawyers say they are "going to jail" when what they mean is, "going to jail to visit a client," which confuses people sometimes.

"On trial" means being the lawyer in the trial? Huh.

The more common idiom among lawyers is "in trial", so as to avoid this sort of confusion.

Lawyers use language weird.

Actually it's just liberals, as I've been trying to explain to you :-)

"At trial" is probably better.

How is this responsive to my point? Libertarians want to reshape society based on their fundamental principles; their principles just happen to revolve around the idea of the elimination or at least minimization of the state. An "unshakable philosophical construct" doesn't necessarily involve a strong state.

It's unclear what you're trying to argue, outside of your original ad hominem that libertarians are "insane."

Minarchism and anarchism are the least normative political philosophies possible, and their adherents would happily allow society to evolve in any way it wishes. Under a libertarian social framework, if society trended toward widespread use of hallucinogens, so be it. If 98% of the population sell their belongings and join a religious cult, so be it. There're no forced values, no warning people off the dangers of smoking via sin tax or handing out tickets for failing to buckle your seatbelt. Society evolves without bureaucratic hands to guide it.

If you're defining mutual recognition of rights and tolerance (values that are not always unique to libertarians) as "unshakeable philosophical constructs," then yeah, you're spot on. Guilty as charged, and happily so.

I've tried to read each and every post since I last was here a week or so ago. It took me almost an entire afternoon, but it was informative and highly entertaining. I particularly enjoyed the philosophy of rights discussion that seems to have petered out a bit.

Morty, with respect to your extreme distaste for SCOTUS, there seem to be a few missing pieces that I hope can be filled in:

(1) As I see it, the primary responsibility of SCOTUS, on an institutional level, is to serve as a check against the "mob mentality" that can prevail in a democracy. For example, anti-gay marriage measures pass every single time they get put on a state ballot. Assuming you believe that this is a violation of equal protection, without a robust judiciary to determine that these laws are unconstitutional and therefore cannot stand, the constitution has no (or very little) meaning - as it can be overridden by the majority, then in power, enacting whatever statutes it pleases. Clearly, you can substitute a different issue here, it need not be gay marriage, but the point is we need a branch of government to occasionally tell the other branches of government, which are responsive to public demand, "no, you can't do that, despite what the mob/opinion polls think." Maybe your posts expressed (and I missed it) a recognition of the need of an institution like this and you believe it should just look different than what we have now. If so, interested in this - both in terms of (a) would you argue this sort of institution is unnecessary? (b) if it is necessary, but our iteration of it is just wildly off-base, how should it be corrected?

(2) There exists a major check on SCOTUS's power, alluded to by someone in the "advisory opinion" comment, but not explicitly stated: the "case and controversy" requirement. This is, in practice, a huge limitation on SCOTUS's power. They don't go around willy-nilly pronouncing from their priestly conclave that laws are unconstitutional/constitutional. There must be an actual dispute between real parties who have an actual, identifiable interest in the outcome of the dispute.

(3) Someone else said it, but it bears repeating: the majority of what SCOTUS does has nothing to do with constitutional law. (Although perhaps this doesn't matter in the context of your stated concerns.)

(4) Take heart, SCOTUS is lazy. They hear some very small number of cases per year, and this number has been decreasing consistently. Even if they're causing the damage you ascribe to them, it is minimal in practice.

(5) How does your and others' notion that SCOTUS can be overridden work in practice? It invites the "tyranny of the majority" problem. This is precisely why SCOTUS isn't elected. (I say this with full recognition that SCOTUS has become increasingly politicized in recent years.)

Unrelated: this Arizona thing is truly bananas. There aren't words. In a way, it is the ultimate expression of "I'm taking my ball and going home."

I have a few free minutes this morning, gentlemen. What pie-in-the-sky notions shall I dispel for you today?

Minarchism and anarchism are the least normative political philosophies possible, and their adherents would happily allow society to evolve in any way it wishes.

The problem with "minarchism" is that it's an empty, meaningless, Goldilocks bromide that stands in for the hard work of defining what your theoretical government must do. "I'm a minarchist" is just saying "I want the least amount of government necessary." Well, no ####, man. Pretty much everyone wants the least amount of government necessary. The question is *how much is necessary?*

I would like to take this opportunity to request - nay, demand - your presence for the Sunday Braves/Mets Ben Sheets chatter. Unless, of course, you are doing something more important. Which I may be as well. But you're invited anyhow.

I would like to take this opportunity to request - nay, demand - your presence for the Sunday Braves/Mets Ben Sheets chatter. Unless, of course, you are doing something more important. Which I may be as well. But you're invited anyhow.

A'ight.

I don't agree with Morty's strong stance because I think the whole system is designed to evolve over time.

So do I. I think that’s clear from everything I’ve written, here now and before. I just don’t think the way it’s “evolved” is good government or sustainable philosophy. It’s time it evolves some more. And I mean systemically—this is not about issues. We need to go from this place we’re at that doesn’t allow for correction.

Well, then you pulled a bait and switch.

No, you bait and switch. It’s not complicated, much less obscure. My position from the beginning is:

The problem with deciding all this stuff as a matter of constitutionality is that under our system, as it has developed, the SC has arrogated this power in such a way that it makes them overlord of the entire system, including the political process, and it’s power here is unreviewable. It doesn’t account to anyone. (Yeah, yeah, save that weak #### about amendments and reversals of opinions—the court is as autocratic as can be in a putatively democratic society.) This may not be necessarily bad in specific instances, but it’s a bad system at odds with our philosophy, and it’s always creating and thriving on crisis.

There are many ways our system of government could be improved, but, first, the SC’s power has to be checked. We did to shuck its guardianship. We are adults; we have to acknowledge a system that allows us to act as free adults—make changes, and if we don’t like them, unmake them and remake them.

We now have many examples of other democracies in this world. They do not have this cumbersome system that always conduces to loggerheads state, with the Court inciting this with its pronouncements resting upon the lie of natural rights. Madison and others were against reading the Constitution as an instrument encompassing natural rights, yet we insist on doing just that. We don’t need Olympian dictates. Not only that, it’s uncalled for. This has nothing to do with gay marriage one way or the other. It’s not about you or I getting our way on issues. It’s about having an instrument of government. It’s about everyone have a chance to get their way without daddy grounding us at will. Yes, in some putrid sense, what we have is a system—a bad one that contradicts itself at every turn and frustrates public will as a matter of course. You have your views; I have mine. Now what? Many want a system that has no risks—they get their way somehow someway. Now this can be is an illusion—one based on the delusion that only you have access to truth and good, and getting to that any old way you can is what really matters. No, it isn’t. You must realize that their are always two sides to this game. Let it play out.

To the objection, that this was intended, I say no. But even if so, that was then; this is now.

As I see it, the primary responsibility of SCOTUS, on an institutional level, is to serve as a check against the "mob mentality" that can prevail in a democracy.

What checks it? In effect, nothing.

[qoute]There exists a major check on SCOTUS's power, alluded to by someone in the "advisory opinion" comment, but not explicitly stated: the "case and controversy" requirement.

No, it isn’t. It gives it more power. It’s the Oracle at Delphi. Additionally, as Justice Rehnquist once wrote, any first-year law student can concoct a constitutional argument out of nothing.

Take heart, SCOTUS is lazy.

That makes it worse, this antediluvian idea that the government can’t move at a too-deliberate pace is the last refuge, yadda yadda. Things may work out in the long run, but none of us has the long run.

How does your and others' notion that SCOTUS can be overridden work in practice? It invites the "tyranny of the majority" problem.

No one wants to strip the Court of all power and influence. The idea that Congress (with a presidential go-along) could override a SC edict would still leave it with plenty of power. Just not absolute power, which is what it has now (oh, yes, it does). Tyranny of the majority would be bad, but not as bad as tyranny of the minority.

Moreover, as a simple matter of political philosophy, curtailment of the Court’s power is explicitly recognized in Article III.

The problem with "minarchism" is that it's an empty, meaningless, Goldilocks bromide that stands in for the hard work of defining what your theoretical government must do. "I'm a minarchist" is just saying "I want the least amount of government necessary." Well, no ####, man. Pretty much everyone wants the least amount of government necessary. The question is *how much is necessary?*

Exactly (or "high five" or whatever it is you kids are doing.) Starting from the first principle that government is bad and should be minimized doesn't get you very far. My original point is that you need real world data and experience to figure where to draw the lines, and it usually has to be done on a case by case basis. The soda thing is a good example of that. I think many liberals oppose Bloomberg's proposal for a variety of reasons, not simply because it violates a fundamental principle. Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of liberals aren't in favor of regulation for the sake of regulation -- no one wants to pay more taxes or being subject to additional regulation -- and if a regulation seems unfair and pointless liberals aren't going to support it. But if you presented absolutely ironclad evidence that the regulation would have a minimal impact on soda drinkers but would save the city billions of dollars in health care expenses, I think most liberals would be willing to reconsider their views. (not saying this data is out there -- obviously this is just a hypothetical.)

If you're defining mutual recognition of rights and tolerance (values that are not always unique to libertarians) as "unshakeable philosophical constructs," then yeah, you're spot on.

What if those rights don't include a near-absolute right to property? Or what if that right to property doesn't overwhelm a general human right to basic welfare, food, shelter, education, health care? Those can also be mutually recognized as rights, or as the sort of ideals that can underlie a just society, or whatever you want to call them. It's only when you define "rights" in a very peculiar way that you end up arguing for a libertarian style state, and you have to deny recognition to the rights-claims or other claims for the good which would challenge your preferred set of rights and conception of the state. And then we're right back in the same set of problems.

If you're defining mutual recognition of rights and tolerance (values that are not always unique to libertarians) as "unshakeable philosophical constructs," then yeah, you're spot on.

What if those rights don't include a near-absolute right to property? Or what if that right to property doesn't overwhelm a general human right to basic welfare, food, shelter, education, health care? Those can also be mutually recognized as rights, or as the sort of ideals that can underlie a just society, or whatever you want to call them. It's only when you define "rights" in a very peculiar way that you end up arguing for a libertarian style state, and you have to deny recognition to the rights-claims or other claims for the good which would challenge your preferred set of rights and conception of the state. And then we're right back in the same set of problems.

I've always found it amusing that Glenn Beck, who likes to style himself as a sort of independent libertarian (though I'm well aware the libertarigentsia here would say he's not), loves him some Thomas Paine... but apparently he never got around to reading Paine's Agrarian Justice or Age of Reason.

I know Paine's revolutionary contributions were more weighted towards rhetoric and pamphleteering than philosophical -- but Paine rejects the notion of "owning" land in Agrarian Justice, claiming that one can only own the improvements on land, and thus - any land"owner" owes society land rent, which he saw as an avenue to fund a national pension system.

I find it doubly amusing that Paine likewise thought that once we were done eliminating monarchs, we ought to next get rid of popes, pontiffs, and the like -- contrary to David Barton's cherry-picking historical revisionism.

I don't want to overstate Paine's intellectual influence on the formation of the country, but Age of Reason in particular was pretty popular in early America.

i will point out that multiple studies show that in finances people make ridiculously bad decisions. really basic stuff that doesn't even involve assessing risk but common sense things

i can understand why a cadre of well-meaning folks think that at a basic level some things need to be mandated versus letting a person decide.

i do not agree but i understand the motivation. it's justified to some extent

What sort of things do you think should be mandated? I think a mandatory 401k or IRS plan would be a great idea. People could still control it, own it, but that is something I would like to see. I also would forbid taking money out early, which is something I see way too often.

2297 - I's say it would make sense to limit investment options, even though it's hard even to type these words with the roar of the bbtf libertarians as I do.

But what of those people who don't make enough to so invest, janitors at many a university, for instance?

What sort of things do you think should be mandated? I think a mandatory 401k or IRS plan would be a great idea. People could still control it, own it, but that is something I would like to see. I also would forbid taking money out early, which is something I see way too often.

Would you mandate higher wages to support this?

There is zero conceivable way I could have afforded IRA/401k contributions in my 20s -- despite having a college degree and full-time white collar job.

Would you mandate higher wages to support this? But what of those people who don't make enough to so invest, janitors at many a university, for instance?

I would not support mandated higher wages. I think people would miss the money less than they might think if it came out with their taxes. You might lower the minimum amount (5%) to 1% for lower wage earners.

If people don't have enough to invest, wait till they retire and see what living on social security is like.