This is a hard one for me. I like to think that I favor process over results but it's not always so simple. There are cases where the legislature avoids hard decisions by forcing them on the courts and cases where the courts abdicate their responsibility by labeling difficult cases "political questions" which result in an establishmentarian regime.
I'm suffering from a bit of fatigue. As the whole culture war drags on, I find it harder and harder to be civil to even liberal Christians. I've recently found that I have a mega-church growing down the street that I wasn't even aware of (Mars Hill). Though the congregants are pierced and tattooed, they speak of submitting to husbands, the danger of gays, and "limp wristed Christian men". I feel no more need to make allowances for them in my community, than they show for others.
I have no problems with very heavy handed governmental protectionism. I prefer more subtle measures. Ending illegal immigration would do wonders to protect and empower our own working class. Maintaining agricultural lands near urban centers through land use permits will help keep local farmers and agriculture competitive. These mixed with the social advantages of new-urbanism would do most of the work. The other side of protectionism for me would be exports. I would tax commodities that had little to no value added locally. Exporting water would be completely verboten.
I'm sorry. I just see this as supply and demand. As long as you run with a high supply of labor, domestic labor has no foundation and is forced to run to unions and questionable governmental programs. It would be much better to limit immigration until the domestic labor force achieved a living wage. Even then, I would prefer to see market forces encourage greater automation and a financial incentive for maintaining a robust domestic supply of labor (kids).
Katherine: yes smoke is a different kind of health hazard than caffeine, heavy salt use, and fats. I'm not sure they're any less damaging. With education on the smoking front, use has dropped dramatically. On the other side we have a skyrocketing obesity rate and MickyDs advertising to children.
I'm not in favor of supporting RJ Reynolds. I do however, value consistency. It's difficult to see why we allow one and not the other. When we add the many prices of the drug war into the equation, it's even harder for me to see a justification to continue as we have.
I figured you were aware of Ben's remarks and just through them out.
Without Lincoln we wouldn't be living in Hamilton's world. Ultimately, the anti-feds were right: what checks there are, are insufficient to check the destructive thirst for power.
But seriously, an honest question, dose the fact that we have moved from 18th century level of communication at least lessen the rational for “closer government”?
No. My position isn't about how long it takes to ride a horse to the capital. It's more fundamental. I usually think of education. There may be somethings that can be taught in a large lecture hall but by and large small conferences are going to be better. The fact that Plato and Aristotle lived long before the 18th century doesn't mean that we discount their thought out of hand. Sure there are things that they got completely wrong, yet still, we look to them for some truths that we believe are universal and are valid across time.
I'm a fan of the early anti-Federalist thinkers, especially Jefferson. I believe that the dangers of unchecked gov authority are as dangerous today as they were then. I further believe that our system is based on and requires checks and balances. These checks include the separation and division of powers. They are important defensively, if you will, to protect against an encroaching, distant Fed. They are also required for the offence: the ability to take advantage of decentralized efficiencies and the creation of new thoughts and processes, expressed in the State-as-laboratory understanding are a good that we've done without for far too long, something I believe we will need to return to to be competitive as a 'nation'.
Say what you will about President Obama, he did not run an opaque campaign.
If that were true, I wouldn't be having as much fun teasing my Democratic partners and friends. I live in Seattle. Obama rather disappoints from the liberal perspective around here.
I wouldn't disagree with that. At the moment the Right is in shambles.
How do you define “conserative ldeas”?
Good question with all the factions fractured. A few important concepts for me are:
The foundation of the social contract with the State is the Constitution which should be understood more as a contract than a mission statement.
The closer government is to the people the more responsible it will be.
People and systems are imperfectible in their nature. Any ideal that we may want to pursue has got to take these realistic limits into account.
Nation Building doesn't work. Don't even think about it.
Is that “poorly implemented” conservative or liberal policy?
Both. No Child would be an easy example of the latter. I can't actually think of anything that W. even tried that I would consider conservative. Maybe trying to privatize Social Security. (Which I acknowledge would have been disastrous given the faults that have appeared in the markets).
Democrats are in the ascendancy, for the moment, this is no time for Obama to pull his punches.
I would agree to a large degree. I think he needs to go for the best results possible. I believe you get better results when you have multiple perspectives arguing responsibly and in good faith. There is a real place in society for the Loyal Opposition. Of course, this isn't really an option since, as most here would agree, the Right has gone off the deep end and shows no sign (outside of the usual suspects) of being able to even approach the table in good faith.
I would forward that the only way America can ever refocus towards non-federal levels of government is to cut and cut and cut federal taxes.
Ok, the Feds are broke, the economy is coming down on their artificial growth and yet we are as centralized as ever. Raich and No Child leap to mind. What exactly has improved on the Federalism front recently?
So, what's the deal with Jindal? Put up some links. Provide a defence. Don't go screaming down Freddies throat because he can't believe there is one. I have a hard time believing it myself. Unless your name is Ron Paul, you'd better have a pretty good alibi if you've been a Republican even close to power for the last decade.
Hmm, I suppose this is my bad confusing Republican with conservative. I'm one of those weird people that think many of W 's policies were liberal. To the extent this is true, I don't think that folk are tired of conservative ideas as much as they are burnt by poorly implemented policy and the apparent weaknesses of our system of checks and balances. I believe this manifests itself in a skepticism concerning foreign intervention and like the original post, the benevolence and competence of government in general... of either party.
I'm not sure exactly how to take your post Bob. It seems a bit unreflective. I consider part of liberalism the notions that one can and should intervene internationally to promote liberal values and that a unified Nation setting standards for the States was a grand thing. To me, Bush is representative of these liberal notions. Obama will have a hard time selling a softer more competent version of these policies anywhere, even 'Blue States'.
There is certainly a health concern. Is it actually worse than smoking a pack a day? A big mac a day? Would users widely turn to inhalers or other health mitigating forms (using it in cooking) that hasn't been true in the case of tobaco?
Just like beer vs taquilla, there are strains (Indica) that will have you waking up, crouched in front of the fridge two hours later. This speaks to your last point. I'm unaware of a reliable test for impairment that would be similar to alcohol. I wonder how this has actually been implemented in the Netherlands or California for that matter. Implementing regulation, on many fronts, would be problematic for marijuana in a way that isn't true for alcohol.
I smoke cigarettes, drink coffee and beer all of which give non habitual users highs of various degrees. It's been years since I've had a coffee buzz. As long as I keep it to beer, I can drink till I'm full and feel almost no intoxication. My personal experience says that herb is similar.... even with the really good stuff. Not to say I have anything against public transit or Saturday night cab rides.
One is a vegetable, the other is an addictive drug that may lead to health problems. That’s a non-arbitrary reason to restrict property rights and stop short of full-blown legalization.
We already allow many things that are addictive and potentially harmful, coffee, chocolate, and diet coke are great examples. Making herb illegal on the same grounds would count as an arbitrary use of principle for me.
From personal experience, marijuana is lightly addictive, not like tobacco, and is quite possible to use without severe effects. If you drink three beers regularly with dinner, the beer doesn't actually have that great of an effect.
Financially, I think the greatest motivator would be industrial hemp not quality sipping herb. I think there are some great arguments against, I just haven't seen anyone make them yet. And, as a proponent, I'll pass on making them myself.
"I think it’s an issue that is separate and apart from the normative issues of what government should and should not do."
Ultimately, that's local as well. That's the whole point. Rod is going to want something similar to myself, and yet quite different. You won't be able to accommodate either of us by gaming a system so that Will is happy wherever he chooses to live. It's not that I don't believe that the bill of rights applies to individuals under the Constitution, it's just that I think those rights are extremely limited and don't actually work without a division of powers, and yes, the right to secession if it doesn't work out.
"I’m a constitutional originalist and I believe that the 14th Amendment’s restrictions on what states can and can’t do are wholly consistent with the original meaning of the text. If anything, it’s underenforced."
I'd love a fourteenth debate. How exactly does an originalist deal with its creation and enactment?
I'm much more of a constitutional paleocon than a libertarian. To me, small or limited government is a statement solely about the Federal Government and makes no claims on what individual states can enact. An example I left at Will's is that of a living community, whether it be a condo or gated community. These communities often have very restrictive bylaws. Are libertarians willing to fight these semi-consensual restrictions as over reaching government on the small scale as well? I'd hope not. The same is true for States. Limited government means the Feds will not intrude on the states ability to form different systems which the populus can choose. Some might be anarchist dreams, some won't. That's an ultimate freedom of choice.
True enough to anyone who has perused Justine. A false dichotomy for sure. I'm sure Sullivan would agree as well. Whether it's true in your case is open. One could make quite a living on #1 (which has become the new family joke) alone.
I see a lot of this locally. I'd say, at least in my corner of the world, supporting local artisans, agriculture, and local businesses is gaining in popularity. Seattle is composed of a number of distinct neighborhoods that help to promote community. I'm not sure that this same thing happens in our exurbs.
Growth is a local issue. I certainly favor the ability to limit growth with land use legislation. Growth means less than nothing without sustainability. Unfortunately, in order to limit supply, without creating overwhelming negative effects, one must also be able to limit demand.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Whaddaya Mean, “Activist”?”
This is a hard one for me. I like to think that I favor process over results but it's not always so simple. There are cases where the legislature avoids hard decisions by forcing them on the courts and cases where the courts abdicate their responsibility by labeling difficult cases "political questions" which result in an establishmentarian regime.
On “Progressive Traditionalism?”
Been busy. Still read you guys regularly, just haven't had the time to make even an incoherent post. Life happens sometimes.
"
I'm suffering from a bit of fatigue. As the whole culture war drags on, I find it harder and harder to be civil to even liberal Christians. I've recently found that I have a mega-church growing down the street that I wasn't even aware of (Mars Hill). Though the congregants are pierced and tattooed, they speak of submitting to husbands, the danger of gays, and "limp wristed Christian men". I feel no more need to make allowances for them in my community, than they show for others.
On “Redefining Prosperity”
I have no problems with very heavy handed governmental protectionism. I prefer more subtle measures. Ending illegal immigration would do wonders to protect and empower our own working class. Maintaining agricultural lands near urban centers through land use permits will help keep local farmers and agriculture competitive. These mixed with the social advantages of new-urbanism would do most of the work. The other side of protectionism for me would be exports. I would tax commodities that had little to no value added locally. Exporting water would be completely verboten.
On “you can’t support the labor movement and illegal immigration”
I'm sorry. I just see this as supply and demand. As long as you run with a high supply of labor, domestic labor has no foundation and is forced to run to unions and questionable governmental programs. It would be much better to limit immigration until the domestic labor force achieved a living wage. Even then, I would prefer to see market forces encourage greater automation and a financial incentive for maintaining a robust domestic supply of labor (kids).
On “Grow your own?”
Katherine: yes smoke is a different kind of health hazard than caffeine, heavy salt use, and fats. I'm not sure they're any less damaging. With education on the smoking front, use has dropped dramatically. On the other side we have a skyrocketing obesity rate and MickyDs advertising to children.
I'm not in favor of supporting RJ Reynolds. I do however, value consistency. It's difficult to see why we allow one and not the other. When we add the many prices of the drug war into the equation, it's even harder for me to see a justification to continue as we have.
On “quote of the day”
I figured you were aware of Ben's remarks and just through them out.
Without Lincoln we wouldn't be living in Hamilton's world. Ultimately, the anti-feds were right: what checks there are, are insufficient to check the destructive thirst for power.
"
A republic, if you can keep it.
"
No. My position isn't about how long it takes to ride a horse to the capital. It's more fundamental. I usually think of education. There may be somethings that can be taught in a large lecture hall but by and large small conferences are going to be better. The fact that Plato and Aristotle lived long before the 18th century doesn't mean that we discount their thought out of hand. Sure there are things that they got completely wrong, yet still, we look to them for some truths that we believe are universal and are valid across time.
I'm a fan of the early anti-Federalist thinkers, especially Jefferson. I believe that the dangers of unchecked gov authority are as dangerous today as they were then. I further believe that our system is based on and requires checks and balances. These checks include the separation and division of powers. They are important defensively, if you will, to protect against an encroaching, distant Fed. They are also required for the offence: the ability to take advantage of decentralized efficiencies and the creation of new thoughts and processes, expressed in the State-as-laboratory understanding are a good that we've done without for far too long, something I believe we will need to return to to be competitive as a 'nation'.
Say what you will about President Obama, he did not run an opaque campaign.
If that were true, I wouldn't be having as much fun teasing my Democratic partners and friends. I live in Seattle. Obama rather disappoints from the liberal perspective around here.
"
I wouldn't disagree with that. At the moment the Right is in shambles.
Good question with all the factions fractured. A few important concepts for me are:
The foundation of the social contract with the State is the Constitution which should be understood more as a contract than a mission statement.
The closer government is to the people the more responsible it will be.
People and systems are imperfectible in their nature. Any ideal that we may want to pursue has got to take these realistic limits into account.
Nation Building doesn't work. Don't even think about it.
Both. No Child would be an easy example of the latter. I can't actually think of anything that W. even tried that I would consider conservative. Maybe trying to privatize Social Security. (Which I acknowledge would have been disastrous given the faults that have appeared in the markets).
I would agree to a large degree. I think he needs to go for the best results possible. I believe you get better results when you have multiple perspectives arguing responsibly and in good faith. There is a real place in society for the Loyal Opposition. Of course, this isn't really an option since, as most here would agree, the Right has gone off the deep end and shows no sign (outside of the usual suspects) of being able to even approach the table in good faith.
On “Jindal: debt is bad when we say it is”
Ok, the Feds are broke, the economy is coming down on their artificial growth and yet we are as centralized as ever. Raich and No Child leap to mind. What exactly has improved on the Federalism front recently?
So, what's the deal with Jindal? Put up some links. Provide a defence. Don't go screaming down Freddies throat because he can't believe there is one. I have a hard time believing it myself. Unless your name is Ron Paul, you'd better have a pretty good alibi if you've been a Republican even close to power for the last decade.
On “quote of the day”
Hmm, I suppose this is my bad confusing Republican with conservative. I'm one of those weird people that think many of W 's policies were liberal. To the extent this is true, I don't think that folk are tired of conservative ideas as much as they are burnt by poorly implemented policy and the apparent weaknesses of our system of checks and balances. I believe this manifests itself in a skepticism concerning foreign intervention and like the original post, the benevolence and competence of government in general... of either party.
"
I'm not sure exactly how to take your post Bob. It seems a bit unreflective. I consider part of liberalism the notions that one can and should intervene internationally to promote liberal values and that a unified Nation setting standards for the States was a grand thing. To me, Bush is representative of these liberal notions. Obama will have a hard time selling a softer more competent version of these policies anywhere, even 'Blue States'.
On “Grow your own?”
There is certainly a health concern. Is it actually worse than smoking a pack a day? A big mac a day? Would users widely turn to inhalers or other health mitigating forms (using it in cooking) that hasn't been true in the case of tobaco?
Just like beer vs taquilla, there are strains (Indica) that will have you waking up, crouched in front of the fridge two hours later. This speaks to your last point. I'm unaware of a reliable test for impairment that would be similar to alcohol. I wonder how this has actually been implemented in the Netherlands or California for that matter. Implementing regulation, on many fronts, would be problematic for marijuana in a way that isn't true for alcohol.
"
I smoke cigarettes, drink coffee and beer all of which give non habitual users highs of various degrees. It's been years since I've had a coffee buzz. As long as I keep it to beer, I can drink till I'm full and feel almost no intoxication. My personal experience says that herb is similar.... even with the really good stuff. Not to say I have anything against public transit or Saturday night cab rides.
"
We already allow many things that are addictive and potentially harmful, coffee, chocolate, and diet coke are great examples. Making herb illegal on the same grounds would count as an arbitrary use of principle for me.
From personal experience, marijuana is lightly addictive, not like tobacco, and is quite possible to use without severe effects. If you drink three beers regularly with dinner, the beer doesn't actually have that great of an effect.
Financially, I think the greatest motivator would be industrial hemp not quality sipping herb. I think there are some great arguments against, I just haven't seen anyone make them yet. And, as a proponent, I'll pass on making them myself.
On “The Final Word on Liber-al-tarianism”
I'd deny that it's actually properly in the document. It doesn't meet the requirement for consistency. Good fodder for debate though.
"
"I think it’s an issue that is separate and apart from the normative issues of what government should and should not do."
Ultimately, that's local as well. That's the whole point. Rod is going to want something similar to myself, and yet quite different. You won't be able to accommodate either of us by gaming a system so that Will is happy wherever he chooses to live. It's not that I don't believe that the bill of rights applies to individuals under the Constitution, it's just that I think those rights are extremely limited and don't actually work without a division of powers, and yes, the right to secession if it doesn't work out.
"
"
I'm much more of a constitutional paleocon than a libertarian. To me, small or limited government is a statement solely about the Federal Government and makes no claims on what individual states can enact. An example I left at Will's is that of a living community, whether it be a condo or gated community. These communities often have very restrictive bylaws. Are libertarians willing to fight these semi-consensual restrictions as over reaching government on the small scale as well? I'd hope not. The same is true for States. Limited government means the Feds will not intrude on the states ability to form different systems which the populus can choose. Some might be anarchist dreams, some won't. That's an ultimate freedom of choice.
On “can I just say…”
I don't expect arts award programs to be less partisan than a religious conference.
On “Jonah Sermon”
Good sermon. When are you speaking next? I'm not a church goer any longer but I'd make an exception to see one of the Gents.
On “A Top Ten List!”
True enough to anyone who has perused Justine. A false dichotomy for sure. I'm sure Sullivan would agree as well. Whether it's true in your case is open. One could make quite a living on #1 (which has become the new family joke) alone.
"
I think Helen's great tragedy is that she fell for smells, bells, and frocks; instead of whips, chains, and leather.
On “Growth and Prosperity”
I see a lot of this locally. I'd say, at least in my corner of the world, supporting local artisans, agriculture, and local businesses is gaining in popularity. Seattle is composed of a number of distinct neighborhoods that help to promote community. I'm not sure that this same thing happens in our exurbs.
Growth is a local issue. I certainly favor the ability to limit growth with land use legislation. Growth means less than nothing without sustainability. Unfortunately, in order to limit supply, without creating overwhelming negative effects, one must also be able to limit demand.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.