If the bank is repossessing your house I'm not sure that a sense of "reality" would help either. When Marx said that religion was the opiate of the masses, he didn't mean it as an insult.
In fact, no specific weapon is called out in the Constitution. Should we infer that the "arms" described by the Second Amendment don't actually include any type of firearm at all?
It must be nice to live in your world, where you can just invent reprehensible beliefs and assign them to labels that other people use to describe themselves.
To me, the best argument against AGW has been made by the AGW side themselves.
Because, at first, it was "ALL scientists agree."
Then it was "MOST scientists agree."
Then it was "LOTS OF scientists agree."
Then it was "ALL THE CLIMATE SCIENSTS agree."
Then it was "All the climate scientists WHO ACTUALLY DO RESEARCH agree."
Then it was "All the climate scientists who actually do research AND ARE UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS agree."
Then it was "All the climate scientists who actually do research and are university professors AND AREN'T PAID BY EXXON agree..."
And at no stage was there ever mention that, suddenly, a whole bunch of "supporters" had suddenly been flipped to "deniers". Indeed, in the classic 1984 tradition, we were told that the current argument had ALWAYS been the argument presented. They always had meant "publicly-funded climate-change researchers" when they talked about the "overwhelming consensus among scientists". Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia.
"But I have a question: how does organized labor work as a counter to the financial industry?"
How do beans work as an answer to crocodiles?
Organized labor doesn't work as a counter to the financial industry because the two have nothing to do with each other. The "capital/labor" distinction which organized labor depends on doesn't exist in the financial industry; effectively, the market is the boss and every banker is labor.
So an organization that supports a viewpoint should not be permitted to provide a public service?
Congratulations, you've successfully argued that no non-government entity can be allowed to provide a public service, as it can always be argued that a private entity is "supporting a viewpoint", even if that viewpoint is "eat at Joe's". Because if Joe's is allowed to put their logo on the food containers or the servers' uniforms, then isn't that a form of advertising?
And when you say "oh, well Joe's can provide food containers with no logo and tell their servers to wear plain white clothes", then I ask "how is that functionally different from having civil servants doing it?"
As the article points out, the nation at the time derived most of its income from trade, and trade security was indeed a matter of national security. The modern equivalent would be requiring the Navy to provide health care for sailors (as opposed to paying them more and expecting them to handle it themselves.) And this is in fact what the Navy does.
"...if universal health care could be demonstrated to have national security implications, it would pass that test?"
Hey, yeah, or maybe we could show that health care was a matter of Interstate Commerce. Don't we have some kind of Clause about that?
"This sorta implies that an employer mandate isn’t unconstitutional?"
And--again, as the article points out--the employer mandate in Obamacare is not being challenged.
The point being that if you support same-sex marriage because you think cohabitation is immoral, you'll be seen as reprehensible, because "cohabitation is not immoral" is a tenet of Progressive ideology.
"Whether what is actually a problem? The conflation of mission? I confess, I didn’t think this was “begging the question”, I assume that everyone would acknowledge that there have been historical problems here. You don’t?"
Shouldn't it be obvious that I don't? If you feel that Catholic missions are proselytizing and that this is bad, then start your own mission. Or, as is the fashion these days, insist that if an organization gets one thin dime of government money, then it needs to abide by every moral standard the government espouses--and that tax breaks and fee waivers count as money.
"[M]any pro-market folks will turn around and ridicule public solutions for being full of bureaucracy and red tape and inefficiency while simultaneously not holding their own plans up for similar scrutiny."
Is this a failure of the idea of private providers of public service? Or is this a specific failure of a specific person or plan?
Most libraries send the contents of the "donation" box straight to Goodwill.
Of course, this is because most library donation boxes wind up stuffed with mass-market hardcovers. People feel stupid throwing away a $30 book they only read once. So it goes to the library, because hey, libraries are all about books, right? So here's a book for the library to have! Yay! No guilt! I'm not stupid!
"For example, I actually give a great amount of credit to the Catholic church for its work in health services and education. However, it does not do a good job of separating either of those two missions from its religious motivations. "
You're begging the question of whether this is actually a problem.
"“Privatize it and the market will fix it” seems more common than, “See, if we create a market for services like *this*, then market forces will result in *that*, and that’s as good if not better than the alternative”. "
That's probably because "Privatize and the market will fix it" is easier and quicker to say than "here is a twelve-page plan outlining exactly how we will encourage private profit-seeking entities to best provide a service that benefits the public". I very much doubt that, except for the anarcho-libertarians, they actually mean "shut down the Parks And Rec bureau today and everything will be fine tomorrow".
Do nuclear weapons deter war? Sure, for a given definition of "war".
If you mean "Total War, the entire economy geared towards war production or war support, austerity measures in place, conscript armies, attacks on neutrals who aid the enemy", then we haven't had one of those since 1945.
If you mean "armed conflict", then we've never not had a war, whether nuclear weapons existed or not.
"If a society is to benefit from Liberal virtues and FDR’s Four Freedoms, surely among these are Freedom from Want."
Well, I want quite a bit. I want a BMW and a good job and a big house and four kids with free doctors and free education through college. Should I be free from those Wants?
Or is "Freedom From Want" a fancy-sounding term for "don't let people starve in the street"?
Kain is presenting the situation as "greedy capitalists want to tear down the library and put a Barnes & Noble there", but it's really more like "government has run out of money and is asking the people what they consider most important".
It really ticks me off when people say "oh, you don't believe (thing), therefore you're not REALLY (member of group)!"
Of course, I can understand why people would do this; it's a lot easier to dehumanize your opponents when you believe that they're all just bundles of reprehensible beliefs, with no individuality or thought among them. It's also fun to pretend that everyone you disagree with would actually agree with you if only they thought about it a bit.
I guess what I'm asking is: If they aren't pro-life, then what are they? Saying that abortion is immoral is considered a pretty strong litmus-test indicator that you aren't pro-choice. Are you instead suggesting that individual opinions regarding abortion aren't important in defining someone as pro-life/pro-choice? That it's solely one's feeling about the legality and availability of the procedure?
That's a remarkably pragmatist view, but I'm not sure that either side of the debate would be comfortable with that definition.
"...the film seemed to belittle the honest Japanese argument that there was nothing wrong with eating dolphins."
There's a difference between "eating meat" and declaring that sport-killing of an endangered species is a part of unique cultural tradition and outsiders haven't got any right to judge. Especially when those traditions are invented from whole cloth as part of a Noble Savage legend.
According to Obamacare, yes you do. Unemployed people get Medicaid, the rest of us have to pay for insurance--maybe through our employer's group coverage, maybe bought on the open market, but if we do not have health insurance then we are charged a fine.
On ““Reasonable” People”
If the bank is repossessing your house I'm not sure that a sense of "reality" would help either. When Marx said that religion was the opiate of the masses, he didn't mean it as an insult.
On “The Price of Pleasure”
In fact, no specific weapon is called out in the Constitution. Should we infer that the "arms" described by the Second Amendment don't actually include any type of firearm at all?
On ““Reasonable” People”
It must be nice to live in your world, where you can just invent reprehensible beliefs and assign them to labels that other people use to describe themselves.
"
To me, the best argument against AGW has been made by the AGW side themselves.
Because, at first, it was "ALL scientists agree."
Then it was "MOST scientists agree."
Then it was "LOTS OF scientists agree."
Then it was "ALL THE CLIMATE SCIENSTS agree."
Then it was "All the climate scientists WHO ACTUALLY DO RESEARCH agree."
Then it was "All the climate scientists who actually do research AND ARE UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS agree."
Then it was "All the climate scientists who actually do research and are university professors AND AREN'T PAID BY EXXON agree..."
And at no stage was there ever mention that, suddenly, a whole bunch of "supporters" had suddenly been flipped to "deniers". Indeed, in the classic 1984 tradition, we were told that the current argument had ALWAYS been the argument presented. They always had meant "publicly-funded climate-change researchers" when they talked about the "overwhelming consensus among scientists". Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia.
On “The Financial Class and the Middle Class”
"But I have a question: how does organized labor work as a counter to the financial industry?"
How do beans work as an answer to crocodiles?
Organized labor doesn't work as a counter to the financial industry because the two have nothing to do with each other. The "capital/labor" distinction which organized labor depends on doesn't exist in the financial industry; effectively, the market is the boss and every banker is labor.
On “The Ghost in the Square”
So an organization that supports a viewpoint should not be permitted to provide a public service?
Congratulations, you've successfully argued that no non-government entity can be allowed to provide a public service, as it can always be argued that a private entity is "supporting a viewpoint", even if that viewpoint is "eat at Joe's". Because if Joe's is allowed to put their logo on the food containers or the servers' uniforms, then isn't that a form of advertising?
And when you say "oh, well Joe's can provide food containers with no logo and tell their servers to wear plain white clothes", then I ask "how is that functionally different from having civil servants doing it?"
"
so...what's your definition, then? You clearly have one in mind. Why not just tell me what you mean and stop this dancing around?
On ““A History Seminar: Obamacare Has Nothing to Do with Seamen Mandate of 1798””
"YOUR FUCKIN WRONG U FUCKIN MORAN GROW A BRAIN" is hardly "schooled".
"
As the article points out, the nation at the time derived most of its income from trade, and trade security was indeed a matter of national security. The modern equivalent would be requiring the Navy to provide health care for sailors (as opposed to paying them more and expecting them to handle it themselves.) And this is in fact what the Navy does.
"...if universal health care could be demonstrated to have national security implications, it would pass that test?"
Hey, yeah, or maybe we could show that health care was a matter of Interstate Commerce. Don't we have some kind of Clause about that?
"This sorta implies that an employer mandate isn’t unconstitutional?"
And--again, as the article points out--the employer mandate in Obamacare is not being challenged.
On “Important Poll to Determine the Respectability of our Readership”
The point being that if you support same-sex marriage because you think cohabitation is immoral, you'll be seen as reprehensible, because "cohabitation is not immoral" is a tenet of Progressive ideology.
On “The Ghost in the Square”
"Whether what is actually a problem? The conflation of mission? I confess, I didn’t think this was “begging the question”, I assume that everyone would acknowledge that there have been historical problems here. You don’t?"
Shouldn't it be obvious that I don't? If you feel that Catholic missions are proselytizing and that this is bad, then start your own mission. Or, as is the fashion these days, insist that if an organization gets one thin dime of government money, then it needs to abide by every moral standard the government espouses--and that tax breaks and fee waivers count as money.
"[M]any pro-market folks will turn around and ridicule public solutions for being full of bureaucracy and red tape and inefficiency while simultaneously not holding their own plans up for similar scrutiny."
Is this a failure of the idea of private providers of public service? Or is this a specific failure of a specific person or plan?
"
What was the point of that?
I'm still not really sure what you mean by "Freedom From Want". Like I said, men have many wants; at what point should they no longer be free of them?
"
Most libraries send the contents of the "donation" box straight to Goodwill.
Of course, this is because most library donation boxes wind up stuffed with mass-market hardcovers. People feel stupid throwing away a $30 book they only read once. So it goes to the library, because hey, libraries are all about books, right? So here's a book for the library to have! Yay! No guilt! I'm not stupid!
"
"For example, I actually give a great amount of credit to the Catholic church for its work in health services and education. However, it does not do a good job of separating either of those two missions from its religious motivations. "
You're begging the question of whether this is actually a problem.
"“Privatize it and the market will fix it” seems more common than, “See, if we create a market for services like *this*, then market forces will result in *that*, and that’s as good if not better than the alternative”. "
That's probably because "Privatize and the market will fix it" is easier and quicker to say than "here is a twelve-page plan outlining exactly how we will encourage private profit-seeking entities to best provide a service that benefits the public". I very much doubt that, except for the anarcho-libertarians, they actually mean "shut down the Parks And Rec bureau today and everything will be fine tomorrow".
On “This Month’s Cato Unbound”
Do nuclear weapons deter war? Sure, for a given definition of "war".
If you mean "Total War, the entire economy geared towards war production or war support, austerity measures in place, conscript armies, attacks on neutrals who aid the enemy", then we haven't had one of those since 1945.
If you mean "armed conflict", then we've never not had a war, whether nuclear weapons existed or not.
On “The Ghost in the Square”
"If a society is to benefit from Liberal virtues and FDR’s Four Freedoms, surely among these are Freedom from Want."
Well, I want quite a bit. I want a BMW and a good job and a big house and four kids with free doctors and free education through college. Should I be free from those Wants?
Or is "Freedom From Want" a fancy-sounding term for "don't let people starve in the street"?
"
BlaiseP: Improper labor charging for a government contract is a violation of Federal law, and you were guilty of aiding and abetting it.
"
Kain is presenting the situation as "greedy capitalists want to tear down the library and put a Barnes & Noble there", but it's really more like "government has run out of money and is asking the people what they consider most important".
On “A Utilitarian Framework for Evaluating the Morality of Abortion”
It really ticks me off when people say "oh, you don't believe (thing), therefore you're not REALLY (member of group)!"
Of course, I can understand why people would do this; it's a lot easier to dehumanize your opponents when you believe that they're all just bundles of reprehensible beliefs, with no individuality or thought among them. It's also fun to pretend that everyone you disagree with would actually agree with you if only they thought about it a bit.
I guess what I'm asking is: If they aren't pro-life, then what are they? Saying that abortion is immoral is considered a pretty strong litmus-test indicator that you aren't pro-choice. Are you instead suggesting that individual opinions regarding abortion aren't important in defining someone as pro-life/pro-choice? That it's solely one's feeling about the legality and availability of the procedure?
That's a remarkably pragmatist view, but I'm not sure that either side of the debate would be comfortable with that definition.
"
"...the film seemed to belittle the honest Japanese argument that there was nothing wrong with eating dolphins."
There's a difference between "eating meat" and declaring that sport-killing of an endangered species is a part of unique cultural tradition and outsiders haven't got any right to judge. Especially when those traditions are invented from whole cloth as part of a Noble Savage legend.
On “The Two Obfuscations of Obamacare”
"Why does everyone assume that particular incidents are always generalizable in the law?"
Because Congress insists that it can redefine the terms "interstate" and "commerce" as it sees fit.
"
"[Y]ou don’t have to have health insurance."
According to Obamacare, yes you do. Unemployed people get Medicaid, the rest of us have to pay for insurance--maybe through our employer's group coverage, maybe bought on the open market, but if we do not have health insurance then we are charged a fine.
"
See, the issue is that the groups in question aren't broke. They just don't want to pay as much as the rest of us.
"
If participation in the plan is so vitally important that citizens will be fined for not participating, then why should anyone get a waiver?
"
Yes, just like a lot of people resisted what was perfect because they convinced themselves it was impossible.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.