Very funny. I'm pretty sure that the kid greginak was referring to was named Judas Iscariot. From a Christian point of view, Judas Iscariot was the most hated human in the Bible. Jews are going to disagree. From our point of view it was either Pharoh, our enslaver, or Haman, who prvoided the template of the conspiracy-prone genocidal Jew-hater.
I'm pretty sure that most people who complain that seat belt laws are an infringement on their liberty are not very concerned about cops having another reason to pull over African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans.
Damon, the reason why we can't just refuse to pay for the hospitilization of people who injure themselve through their own stupidity is that its simply immoral and impractical not to. In many cases, its kind of hard to determine whether or not somebody is injured through their own stupidity, another person's stupidity, or some combination of the two. The only moral choice is to treat them regardless of whether or not it was their own fault because you can't really determine whose fault it is.
The other issue is that the person might have dependents. So even if you can determine that the person is injured through their own fault, you need to treat them so that their dependents don't suffer consequences and need more help. Say a father injuries himself through some dumb thing he did to look cool. That father has young children that need to be taken care of. If he goes untreated, he won' be able to work and the kids will need even more assistance. Treating him allows him to work and prevents the kids from requiring more government aid. Therefore, the practical thing is to pay the hospital bill because its the cheapest option for society as a whole.
A lot of people also would want to pay the hospital bill because they would like to believe that they live in a society that would come to their aid if they need it.
Letting people do want they want and suffer the consequences of their own actions sounds good in practice but works out horribly in reality. People rarely just bring trouble to themselves, they also bring it to third-parties that did nothing wrong. Nobody is an island. This is why we mandate certain courses of action.
There was a similar case in New Zealand in 2008. A couple gave their daughter a really long and embarrassing name involving the words hula and Hawaii. At age 9, the girl sued. The judge held that her name was a form of child abuse. His holding was really fun to read.
BlaiseP, you do realize that Andy Warhol's public persona was very different than Andy Warhol's private persona. The private Andy Warhol was a very devote Roman Catholic that attended mass daily and volunteered at homeless shelters. His public persona was just to maintain his reputation as a bohemian.
TR was also criticized as being a sell-out who only offered a half-loaf of progressivism to the American people to. Shades of the entire healthcare debate and a lot else.
I don't thing that I've ever really discovered a band before they were big. My talent seems to be with finding obscure to semi-obscure past talent and liking it. Thats how I discovered Richard Thompson.
Belly was supposed to become the next big thing in alternative rock for awhile during the 1990s. They were part of the entire Riot Girrrl scene with Hole, Veruca Salt, and Liz Phair. Than things didn't quite work out.
A1- This might be a more universal problem. My dad and people his age I know are really mystified that so many people are so quick to reject partners because a lack of chemistry or something. My personal theory is that popular culture is really distorting what people expect in romance.
C2, the bank story is pretty much classic chutzpah. I don't see how it can't happen under a libertarian system though. You need law and agencies to prosecute behavior like that.
Kim, the reason why Nixon had a liberal domestic policy because he was dealing with a Democratically-controlled Congress. They basically reached an agreement that held to Watergate. Nixon would govern as Congress would like on domestic issues and Congress would let Nixon do as he please on foreign and military issues. It wasn't because he was a liberal at heart. Nixon did veto an act that would have created universal access to pre-school because the Evangelicals didn't like it, it was one of the first times they successfully flexed their muscles in the GOP. He also gave us HMOs rather than universal healthcare.
James, I do think that culture does have something to do with corruption differences between countries. Some cultures do have elements in them that make them more prone to corruption than others. However, culture isn't the only thing. If people believe that corruption is in their self-interest than many of them would engage in acts of corruption/
Overall, overt corruption is probably much less now than it was century ago. The political machines were still in existence in 1913 but corruption was on the wane because of reforms like direct election of senators. Half a century ago probably had less corruption because the regulatory state was more powerful. Its hard to tell without exact data.
James, I'm largely in agreement but with a few caveats. I think that inequality at a certain point becomes politically dangerous and leads to a bit of social instability that should be avoided. I'm not really for violent revolutions and civil wars. If that means we need to do some wealth redistribution to promote the social peace than so be it.
I also think that too much wealth inequality does lead to corruption and that its kind of unavoidable. Late 19th century American politics is really solid evidence of this. The entire Senate was basically owned by the wealthy and served as a lobby for the wealthy even more than the current Senate does. To avoid this you need certain things like the progressive income taxes, estate taxes, and direct elections for all elected officials. No indirect elections should be permitted.
James, do you ever think there is a time where the advantages of wealth become troublesome for some reason? Wealth comes with advantages but are all of these advantages good or do some have some serious negative consequences for society as a whole and should be eliminated as much as possible for the social peace?
I grant how the above is true is really relevant to anything. You can have a police state that provides little to no welfare to the population, numerous examples of that, and you can have a welfare state without having a police state, say Denmark or Sweden. Simply because the welfare state creates the potential for a police state does not mean that the welfare state is a bad idea.
The United States welfare state barely exists compared to European models but we managed to build up a police state based on the drug war and other things. If the population elects politicians that want a militarized police force than we are going to get one regardless of any welfare benefits.
The Democratic Party went along with the militarization of the police because of simple politics. There aren't enough people really invested in civil rights to form a significant politican constiuentcy. The war against drugs was popular and I'm guessing is still pretty popular for the most part. Even in African-American communities, wear the drug war is most heavily felt, there was a lot of support behind it at first because it was seen as a way to cure many of the problems that were in the community.
If the Democratic Party opposed the Drug War and the militarization of the police than the GOP would have went hog-wild and go even further with their depiction of the Democratic Party as a hippie, soft on crime party. Democratic politicians would have been more decimated in elections after Nixon. The militarization of the police would have been greater.
This. This is why the DA should not be an elected position. It won't solve all the problems but atl least it would take away the political pressure to get a high conviction rate. Lets not let the peope off the hook easily either. Most Americans like high conviction rates just fine.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Naming Rights”
Very funny. I'm pretty sure that the kid greginak was referring to was named Judas Iscariot. From a Christian point of view, Judas Iscariot was the most hated human in the Bible. Jews are going to disagree. From our point of view it was either Pharoh, our enslaver, or Haman, who prvoided the template of the conspiracy-prone genocidal Jew-hater.
On “A Freedom Lost”
I'm pretty sure that most people who complain that seat belt laws are an infringement on their liberty are not very concerned about cops having another reason to pull over African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans.
"
Damon, the reason why we can't just refuse to pay for the hospitilization of people who injure themselve through their own stupidity is that its simply immoral and impractical not to. In many cases, its kind of hard to determine whether or not somebody is injured through their own stupidity, another person's stupidity, or some combination of the two. The only moral choice is to treat them regardless of whether or not it was their own fault because you can't really determine whose fault it is.
The other issue is that the person might have dependents. So even if you can determine that the person is injured through their own fault, you need to treat them so that their dependents don't suffer consequences and need more help. Say a father injuries himself through some dumb thing he did to look cool. That father has young children that need to be taken care of. If he goes untreated, he won' be able to work and the kids will need even more assistance. Treating him allows him to work and prevents the kids from requiring more government aid. Therefore, the practical thing is to pay the hospital bill because its the cheapest option for society as a whole.
A lot of people also would want to pay the hospital bill because they would like to believe that they live in a society that would come to their aid if they need it.
Letting people do want they want and suffer the consequences of their own actions sounds good in practice but works out horribly in reality. People rarely just bring trouble to themselves, they also bring it to third-parties that did nothing wrong. Nobody is an island. This is why we mandate certain courses of action.
On “Naming Rights”
Pharoh? A boy's parents had the audacity to name their son Pharoh. Those cads.
"
There was a similar case in New Zealand in 2008. A couple gave their daughter a really long and embarrassing name involving the words hula and Hawaii. At age 9, the girl sued. The judge held that her name was a form of child abuse. His holding was really fun to read.
On “Sunday!”
I'm reading about the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923.
On “The Benefits of Air Steerage”
BlaiseP, you do realize that Andy Warhol's public persona was very different than Andy Warhol's private persona. The private Andy Warhol was a very devote Roman Catholic that attended mass daily and volunteered at homeless shelters. His public persona was just to maintain his reputation as a bohemian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_warhol#Religious_beliefs
On “Saturday!”
Oh fencing is great. I was a fencer in college and high school. Foil and epee.
On “Centrism and the GOP”
George, silliness is the worst form of trolling. Real trolls are able to convey at least a semblance of seriousness.
"
TR was also criticized as being a sell-out who only offered a half-loaf of progressivism to the American people to. Shades of the entire healthcare debate and a lot else.
On “Pensacola Blues”
No, thats pepsi-cola.
On “Friday Jukebox: FIRST!”
I've learned about most of the current bands I listen to through ND or our dad.
"
I don't thing that I've ever really discovered a band before they were big. My talent seems to be with finding obscure to semi-obscure past talent and liking it. Thats how I discovered Richard Thompson.
"
Glyph, I really thought that Eagles had at least one female member till somebody pointed out that Hotel California was sung by a man.
"
Belly was supposed to become the next big thing in alternative rock for awhile during the 1990s. They were part of the entire Riot Girrrl scene with Hole, Veruca Salt, and Liz Phair. Than things didn't quite work out.
On “Linky Friday #34”
A1- This might be a more universal problem. My dad and people his age I know are really mystified that so many people are so quick to reject partners because a lack of chemistry or something. My personal theory is that popular culture is really distorting what people expect in romance.
"
C2, the bank story is pretty much classic chutzpah. I don't see how it can't happen under a libertarian system though. You need law and agencies to prosecute behavior like that.
On “Book Review: Rise of the Warrior Cop”
Kim, the reason why Nixon had a liberal domestic policy because he was dealing with a Democratically-controlled Congress. They basically reached an agreement that held to Watergate. Nixon would govern as Congress would like on domestic issues and Congress would let Nixon do as he please on foreign and military issues. It wasn't because he was a liberal at heart. Nixon did veto an act that would have created universal access to pre-school because the Evangelicals didn't like it, it was one of the first times they successfully flexed their muscles in the GOP. He also gave us HMOs rather than universal healthcare.
On “The Benefits of Air Steerage”
James, I do think that culture does have something to do with corruption differences between countries. Some cultures do have elements in them that make them more prone to corruption than others. However, culture isn't the only thing. If people believe that corruption is in their self-interest than many of them would engage in acts of corruption/
Overall, overt corruption is probably much less now than it was century ago. The political machines were still in existence in 1913 but corruption was on the wane because of reforms like direct election of senators. Half a century ago probably had less corruption because the regulatory state was more powerful. Its hard to tell without exact data.
"
James, I'm largely in agreement but with a few caveats. I think that inequality at a certain point becomes politically dangerous and leads to a bit of social instability that should be avoided. I'm not really for violent revolutions and civil wars. If that means we need to do some wealth redistribution to promote the social peace than so be it.
I also think that too much wealth inequality does lead to corruption and that its kind of unavoidable. Late 19th century American politics is really solid evidence of this. The entire Senate was basically owned by the wealthy and served as a lobby for the wealthy even more than the current Senate does. To avoid this you need certain things like the progressive income taxes, estate taxes, and direct elections for all elected officials. No indirect elections should be permitted.
"
James, do you ever think there is a time where the advantages of wealth become troublesome for some reason? Wealth comes with advantages but are all of these advantages good or do some have some serious negative consequences for society as a whole and should be eliminated as much as possible for the social peace?
On “Movement Conservatism Is A Compromise”
I really misunderstood your first post. This post makes things a lot clearer.
On “Book Review: Rise of the Warrior Cop”
I grant how the above is true is really relevant to anything. You can have a police state that provides little to no welfare to the population, numerous examples of that, and you can have a welfare state without having a police state, say Denmark or Sweden. Simply because the welfare state creates the potential for a police state does not mean that the welfare state is a bad idea.
The United States welfare state barely exists compared to European models but we managed to build up a police state based on the drug war and other things. If the population elects politicians that want a militarized police force than we are going to get one regardless of any welfare benefits.
"
The Democratic Party went along with the militarization of the police because of simple politics. There aren't enough people really invested in civil rights to form a significant politican constiuentcy. The war against drugs was popular and I'm guessing is still pretty popular for the most part. Even in African-American communities, wear the drug war is most heavily felt, there was a lot of support behind it at first because it was seen as a way to cure many of the problems that were in the community.
If the Democratic Party opposed the Drug War and the militarization of the police than the GOP would have went hog-wild and go even further with their depiction of the Democratic Party as a hippie, soft on crime party. Democratic politicians would have been more decimated in elections after Nixon. The militarization of the police would have been greater.
On “Due Process and the Disabled”
This. This is why the DA should not be an elected position. It won't solve all the problems but atl least it would take away the political pressure to get a high conviction rate. Lets not let the peope off the hook easily either. Most Americans like high conviction rates just fine.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.