The elephant in the room however, is social conservatism. I long for a complete realignment. I just don't see anyone willingly joining the Palin crew. The Republican Party is going to have to completely collapse for it to be rebuilt. Perhaps this can happen at the State level. Then again, in my last mailer from the Washington Republican Party was more "all we need to do is tweak the messaging system" denial.
If Republicans had been consistent in criticism, instead of partaking in Helen's tribal politics, it wouldn't be in the mess it's in. Perhaps, while having all strands of Federal Power, they could have urged constraint and conservatism instead of never ending club for growth glee. As it is, people like the one posted above just seem a joke.
In light of the recent discussions on the value of shame, how do you make sense of this? Is shame even available within ones ostensible group? Or, are some groups just impervious to shame?
In any case, it’s interesting to me that so many non-Mormons have leaped to their…er…defense? Is it a “defense” to help apply a bad, mistaken label to a group of people?
If it makes you feel any better, my family doesn't consider Catholics (they believe in the word of the Pope instead of the bible only) or even Lutherans (too liberal and wishy washy) to be Christians.... full immersion only, (speaking in tongues is optional). All the same, I'd go with self identity as good enough myself.
Chris: Would you argue the other way as well? (It seems implied, but could be my bias.) That actually devolving government to more local control would leave more room for the 'commons'? Is it possible to be a global citizen in any real way? I'm a bit confused on what you really mean by commons.
I'm not sure about "L"ibertarians and Liberals coming together. However, roughly fiscally conservative/culturally liberal has a huge potential. Here's to American Red Tories.
I wonder if Frum has had second thoughts since his 'possible recession' has turned into a full on doozy. I don't recall that Ron Paul ever advocated the Gold Standard exactly. I believe he supported removing the monopoly of the dollar, people would be able to contract or peg their wages, products or debts to any instrument they liked. How do 'L'ibertarians argue against a domestic market for currencies?
For me, this question splits into two. On one side, I place a high value on regional sustainability. I wouldn't put import duties on food items but I would make sure that good farm land didn't get developed. This would keep the price of farm land low. It wouldn't be direct protectionism but it would have a similar effect.
The other much more woolly problem is external economic integration. It is a bit like a prisoners dilemma except infinitely more complex. You can expect all players to be cheating to some extent. I've had a concern for the last few years of the underlying structure of what passes for free trade. It seems that the whole globe is built on the model that they keep their currency low in respect to the dollar for trade advantage. I suppose this would be OK if the US was really innovation, living within its means and continually achieving new records of productivity. The problem is that is just isn't and can't. Ultimately, the US is going to have to find someway to index other currencies to counteract pegging and purposeful currency weakening.
There will be the new sport facilities, a whole host of new services and other venues that will be attractive for tourism as long as the Loony stays down. I'm sure it will still suck. It might just not suck as bad as other places until things get figured out again. I imagine if you're in construction, you may as well find new skills.
I'm not a fan of the Olympics but it might provide a bridge for Van through most of the rough bit. There may be some deficits, but at least the planning had a chance. As opposed to trying to throw together a bunch of infrastructure together at the drop of a hat. Canada has resources going for it, when it comes time to start digging out of this hole. Canada is also more culturally and institutionally capable of belt tightening. I agree that it will be tougher East.
It's a bit of both. There's so much that I don't like within the fourteenth itself. However, its hard for me just to get beyond the procedural problems in its enactment.
We must be using line and path at cross purposes. I agree that it took Lawrence to legalize sodomy. I argue that the decision was based in a history that started with Griswold. Though Lawrence is absolutely necessary for gays, it's quite important for straights that want something other than the missionary position. The whole line of reasoning is compelling because very few people of any stripe want government in their bedrooms, a broad concept birthed in Griswold. Similarly, the LGBT community would find success easier if they argued for something that would be valuable to a range of individuals, including straights, rather than as a civil right to be extended to a left out group.
I'm sure many folk would like to overturn Griswold. I consider myself on the right and am in favor of throwing out the fourteenth amendment all together. So, I suppose, ultimately you'd have to include me as well.
Canadian jursiprudence has nothing to do with US constitutional law. I am curious to see how Canada handles it but do they have a 1st Amendment? I am skeptical also about the claim that the Mormons are heavily favored. I need to know the source to determine whether I believe a statement like that.
They don't have a First Amendment, no right to free speech. But, they do have protection of religious freedoms and a requirement to prove harm in morality claims.
Here's a piece that discusses some of the difficulties.
My argument has nothing to do with SSM. When the SSM opponents claim that there is a sacred institution at risk, they give content to the institution that not all agree with. I'm willing to give them that marriage is a sacred institution and that they should have the religious freedom to decide who partakes in that institution. What they can't do is to co-opt me. If marriage is a sacred Christian, or other religious institution, then I want a completely secular version for myself.
Yes, the court did overturn Bowers because it didn't get Due Process right. They overturned it by looking, in part, at Griswold:
We conclude the case should be resolved by determining
whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the
private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution. For this inquiry we deem it necessary to reconsider
the Court’s holding in Bowers.
There are broad statements of the substantive reach of
liberty under the Due Process Clause in earlier cases, including
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925), and
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1923); but the most pertinent
beginning point is our decision in Griswold v. Connecticut,
381 U. S. 479 (1965)." http://docs.justia.com/cases/supreme/539/558.pdf
Both Eisenstadt and Carey, as
well as the holding and rationale in Roe, confirmed that the
reasoning of Griswold could not be confined to the protection
of rights of married adults. This was the state of the law
with respect to some of the most relevant cases when the
Court considered Bowers v. Hardwick.
Scalia, in his dissent, argues that the majority misreads Griswold. I find it difficult to deny Griswold holds an important position in Lawrence. That there is no path from one to the other, seems blatantly wrong.
Bob: The point I was trying to make is that there would be no Lawrence without Griswald. That it's easier to enlist the support of more people if the goal is to get rid of governmental intervention for all people than to go for a particular off the bat. I'm sure many heterosexual Texans are just as relieved that blow jobs and anal aren't illegal and are just waiting for the day where they can own more than three dildos, but they wouldn't have gotten there if it weren't pointed out that government didn't belong in the bedroom in the first place (Griswald).
The LGBT community will have much better luck arguing that everyone be able to be free from the churche's influence in their relationships, rather than LGBT should be allowed to participate in an institution which has questionable allegiance in the first place. This is one reason why I have very little sympathy for Sullivan, and much of the SSM movement.
Even if 'marriage' started as religiously neutral. It isn't any longer. Through the political process, it has become a tool and weapon to impose the moral and cultural preferences of a very particular religious segment of the population on the rest of society. It has become a way to establish a particular kind of religion.
Canada has some interesting sex/constitutional cases coming up. One is the polygamist Mormons in Bountiful. They will be arguing that the definition of marriage is an infringement on their religious beliefs. Granted, this is not under the US constitution, never the less, many of these arguments will be forwarded. We'll have to see how it goes but most give heavy odds to the Mormons succeeding.
Marriage laws do not favor one religion over another. Marriage laws are not christian, not jewish, not hindu, etc. They do not disobey the 1st Amendment.
To the extent that marriage laws don't accommodate extremist Mormons, Muslims, Pagans or Pastafarians, they do discriminate. If all that is necessary is that they don't discriminate against a couple of religions, it should be just as legal to craft legislation that favor pagans and Pastafarians at the expense of Evangelicals.
To the extent that marriage has a religious component, I believe it to be inappropriate governmental activity.
As far as the state getting out of the marriage business, all of our laws have judeo christian roots so if you start cherrypicking laws based upon religious roots, you have a lot of work ahead of you.
Job security.
What other aspect of government has as much implied religious content? I argue that many if not most would prefer an institution without the religious content. Why should I be forced to partake in a religious activity so that I can have a family of my own choosing. The LGBT community has had better luck arguing that the gov should be out of everyone's bedroom than sodomy in particular should be legal. Likewise, they will do better to strip religion out of all state unions for everyone, allowing the religious to provide their own content in the way of their choosing. In that way, they will have access to much more than 3 or 4 percent.
Chad: Can you have an adoption agency that won't provide service to Catholics?
Compromise can be a good thing. Without it you may find the tide turns faster against you. There may come a time when the religious are more vulnerable. They may wish to tap into good will that is currently evaporating.
Bob: that's true but the government deals with all sorts of property claims and contracts. It can continue to do so under civil unions or domestic support or whatever fancy name you want. The point being that separating the sacred/religious aspects of the institution from the social network that families provides, allows for those that care to maintain a "marriage" of their own definition. Government needs to get out of the religious aspects and focus on the simple property matters. The Church needs to pick up the ball and sanctify the unions of their choice on their own authority. They don't the state.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Growth and Prosperity”
The elephant in the room however, is social conservatism. I long for a complete realignment. I just don't see anyone willingly joining the Palin crew. The Republican Party is going to have to completely collapse for it to be rebuilt. Perhaps this can happen at the State level. Then again, in my last mailer from the Washington Republican Party was more "all we need to do is tweak the messaging system" denial.
On “Republican Hypocrites”
If Republicans had been consistent in criticism, instead of partaking in Helen's tribal politics, it wouldn't be in the mess it's in. Perhaps, while having all strands of Federal Power, they could have urged constraint and conservatism instead of never ending club for growth glee. As it is, people like the one posted above just seem a joke.
In light of the recent discussions on the value of shame, how do you make sense of this? Is shame even available within ones ostensible group? Or, are some groups just impervious to shame?
On “Killing Frankenstein’s Monster”
Will: "you have to assume that social conservatives will continue to provide the most reliable small-government constituency"
What makes you think so? How are you using 'small-government'?
On “Self-Identification, pluralism, and all that…”
I'm with Geoff, really good post.
On ““by no definition of the word…””
"
If it makes you feel any better, my family doesn't consider Catholics (they believe in the word of the Pope instead of the bible only) or even Lutherans (too liberal and wishy washy) to be Christians.... full immersion only, (speaking in tongues is optional). All the same, I'd go with self identity as good enough myself.
On “Commonhood Liberaltarianism”
Chris: Would you argue the other way as well? (It seems implied, but could be my bias.) That actually devolving government to more local control would leave more room for the 'commons'? Is it possible to be a global citizen in any real way? I'm a bit confused on what you really mean by commons.
On “Liberaltarianism in a Liberal Age”
Nothing to argue with there.
"
I'm not sure about "L"ibertarians and Liberals coming together. However, roughly fiscally conservative/culturally liberal has a huge potential. Here's to American Red Tories.
On “Can The (Economic) Ladder Be Restored?”
I wonder if Frum has had second thoughts since his 'possible recession' has turned into a full on doozy. I don't recall that Ron Paul ever advocated the Gold Standard exactly. I believe he supported removing the monopoly of the dollar, people would be able to contract or peg their wages, products or debts to any instrument they liked. How do 'L'ibertarians argue against a domestic market for currencies?
"
Meanwhile, the real costs of protectionism Mark and I keep hammering at are going to have a huge impact on our collective well-being.
What exactly do you mean by 'collective well-being'? Is it simply lower priced goods and the glow of prosperity, or something broader?
"
For me, this question splits into two. On one side, I place a high value on regional sustainability. I wouldn't put import duties on food items but I would make sure that good farm land didn't get developed. This would keep the price of farm land low. It wouldn't be direct protectionism but it would have a similar effect.
The other much more woolly problem is external economic integration. It is a bit like a prisoners dilemma except infinitely more complex. You can expect all players to be cheating to some extent. I've had a concern for the last few years of the underlying structure of what passes for free trade. It seems that the whole globe is built on the model that they keep their currency low in respect to the dollar for trade advantage. I suppose this would be OK if the US was really innovation, living within its means and continually achieving new records of productivity. The problem is that is just isn't and can't. Ultimately, the US is going to have to find someway to index other currencies to counteract pegging and purposeful currency weakening.
On “God keep our land…”
Forget that. I think Rebagliati should be master of ceremonies. Maybe Tony the Tiger should be hung in effigy.
"
There will be the new sport facilities, a whole host of new services and other venues that will be attractive for tourism as long as the Loony stays down. I'm sure it will still suck. It might just not suck as bad as other places until things get figured out again. I imagine if you're in construction, you may as well find new skills.
"
I'm not a fan of the Olympics but it might provide a bridge for Van through most of the rough bit. There may be some deficits, but at least the planning had a chance. As opposed to trying to throw together a bunch of infrastructure together at the drop of a hat. Canada has resources going for it, when it comes time to start digging out of this hole. Canada is also more culturally and institutionally capable of belt tightening. I agree that it will be tougher East.
On “knowing when to get out of the way”
It's a bit of both. There's so much that I don't like within the fourteenth itself. However, its hard for me just to get beyond the procedural problems in its enactment.
"
We must be using line and path at cross purposes. I agree that it took Lawrence to legalize sodomy. I argue that the decision was based in a history that started with Griswold. Though Lawrence is absolutely necessary for gays, it's quite important for straights that want something other than the missionary position. The whole line of reasoning is compelling because very few people of any stripe want government in their bedrooms, a broad concept birthed in Griswold. Similarly, the LGBT community would find success easier if they argued for something that would be valuable to a range of individuals, including straights, rather than as a civil right to be extended to a left out group.
I'm sure many folk would like to overturn Griswold. I consider myself on the right and am in favor of throwing out the fourteenth amendment all together. So, I suppose, ultimately you'd have to include me as well.
"
Ed:
They don't have a First Amendment, no right to free speech. But, they do have protection of religious freedoms and a requirement to prove harm in morality claims.
Here's a piece that discusses some of the difficulties.
http://www2.canada.com/northshorenews/news/viewpoint/story.html?id=40fb09e4-508d-4fc8-8d4f-b4789c634ba6
My argument has nothing to do with SSM. When the SSM opponents claim that there is a sacred institution at risk, they give content to the institution that not all agree with. I'm willing to give them that marriage is a sacred institution and that they should have the religious freedom to decide who partakes in that institution. What they can't do is to co-opt me. If marriage is a sacred Christian, or other religious institution, then I want a completely secular version for myself.
"
Yes, the court did overturn Bowers because it didn't get Due Process right. They overturned it by looking, in part, at Griswold:
Scalia, in his dissent, argues that the majority misreads Griswold. I find it difficult to deny Griswold holds an important position in Lawrence. That there is no path from one to the other, seems blatantly wrong.
"
Bob: The point I was trying to make is that there would be no Lawrence without Griswald. That it's easier to enlist the support of more people if the goal is to get rid of governmental intervention for all people than to go for a particular off the bat. I'm sure many heterosexual Texans are just as relieved that blow jobs and anal aren't illegal and are just waiting for the day where they can own more than three dildos, but they wouldn't have gotten there if it weren't pointed out that government didn't belong in the bedroom in the first place (Griswald).
The LGBT community will have much better luck arguing that everyone be able to be free from the churche's influence in their relationships, rather than LGBT should be allowed to participate in an institution which has questionable allegiance in the first place. This is one reason why I have very little sympathy for Sullivan, and much of the SSM movement.
"
Even if 'marriage' started as religiously neutral. It isn't any longer. Through the political process, it has become a tool and weapon to impose the moral and cultural preferences of a very particular religious segment of the population on the rest of society. It has become a way to establish a particular kind of religion.
Canada has some interesting sex/constitutional cases coming up. One is the polygamist Mormons in Bountiful. They will be arguing that the definition of marriage is an infringement on their religious beliefs. Granted, this is not under the US constitution, never the less, many of these arguments will be forwarded. We'll have to see how it goes but most give heavy odds to the Mormons succeeding.
"
Ed:
"
As far as the state getting out of the marriage business, all of our laws have judeo christian roots so if you start cherrypicking laws based upon religious roots, you have a lot of work ahead of you.
Job security.
What other aspect of government has as much implied religious content? I argue that many if not most would prefer an institution without the religious content. Why should I be forced to partake in a religious activity so that I can have a family of my own choosing. The LGBT community has had better luck arguing that the gov should be out of everyone's bedroom than sodomy in particular should be legal. Likewise, they will do better to strip religion out of all state unions for everyone, allowing the religious to provide their own content in the way of their choosing. In that way, they will have access to much more than 3 or 4 percent.
On “A Gay Marriage Solution Whose Time May Soon Be Upon Us”
Chad: Can you have an adoption agency that won't provide service to Catholics?
Compromise can be a good thing. Without it you may find the tide turns faster against you. There may come a time when the religious are more vulnerable. They may wish to tap into good will that is currently evaporating.
On “knowing when to get out of the way”
Bob: that's true but the government deals with all sorts of property claims and contracts. It can continue to do so under civil unions or domestic support or whatever fancy name you want. The point being that separating the sacred/religious aspects of the institution from the social network that families provides, allows for those that care to maintain a "marriage" of their own definition. Government needs to get out of the religious aspects and focus on the simple property matters. The Church needs to pick up the ball and sanctify the unions of their choice on their own authority. They don't the state.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.