The market for people who need replacement organs might be relatively static but the people in the market for replacement organs usually need them as a matter of life and death. That will make up for the relative staticness of the market more than enough to make it lucretive.
We have no evidence of that in the record. She could have been in many different positions during conception. Thats nothing more than impermissible speculation and conjecture.
What about the entire 19th century? Very little or no regulation of the economy or finance and no bankruptcy laws and no government bailouts or assistance during the various panics.
I'm sorry I can't really buy this. I can't think of any historical or current example where a corporation willingly agreed to treat the environment better or deal with workers more fairly or build safer products simply because of market pressure or to protect the brand. Corporations and indivdual business people have opposed environmental regulations, workplace safety regulations, unionization, and product safety regulation hook, line, and singer. They have hid scientific evidence that their products were harmful to the public, I'm thinking asbestos and tobacco, and opposed warning labels. In general, corporations only acted better because of fear of government regulation or because of government regulation.
Corporations care about the bottom line and the bottom line is that pollution, lack of workplace safety, a non-unionized workforce, and lack of product safety regulations increase profits. Public ignorance of the harmful effects of certain products increase profits.
If I remember correctly, I think that the generation that has grown up with the Internet and social media place less value on privacy has a whole because of the nature of the Internet. If you engage in sexting than your sense of privacy is probably not going to be great. I think that a sense of privacy is closely aligned with a sense of inhibition, that there are something's that you don't want people to know. With no sense of inhibition there is no value given to privacy.
But people have more power over government through the democratic process and protest. It's very hard, long, and boring work but it is possible to address the abuses of government. In contrast, my toolkit in dealing with the abuses of corporations are much more limited. I can protest against pollution or abuse of employees as much ad I want but corporations usually only change their ways under government order.
The problem with a "do nothing but ordinary law enforcement" response to terrorism in a democracy is that the politicians have to deal with the voters. The number of people who will be fine with "do nothing" are insignificant to the vote the bums out of office for not protecting us crowd. People want to be safe or at least feel safe and will vote accordingly. Politicians know this and act accordingly in order to keep their jobs.
Oh please Katherine. Every Arab and Muslim leader tells the Palestiniams never to compromise and so do their intellectual allies in the West. Palestinian leadership have always chosen war over negotiation since 1948. Same goes for most of the test of Arab leadership. Do the Palestinians have no agency? Is it not possible that at least some of their decisions might have been not for the best?
Paying taxes used to be seen as an act of civic virtue by many people. If you see taxes as an act virtue, its not taking anything. Especially since money comes from the government anyway. Without the state, there would be no market and no private property.
As to essential services, yes they loose the right to strike in theory but it happens at times anyway. Also, nobody is forcing people to enter into government service. Civil servants do not look at a young person and say since that person is strong and brave he or she must become a fireman or marine. Its a voluntary choice.
This is nonsense. Most of the positive rights like education or healthcare are provided through taxes and people become teachers and healthcare providers on their own volition. Public housing is also funded through taxation and built through contracts in the construction business and designed by paid architects. The government does not force anybody to provide labor for positive rights, it pays them to provide labor. Even in a libertarian system, some taxation and labour is necessary for things like the courts and the police. A libertarian government is not entirely without services.
Have you ever considered that it might be worth some effort to get the Palestinians and other Arabs just to accept the fact that Israel exists rather than to encourage them on in their worse behavior?
I can find no shortage of essays, columns, and what not from alleged allies of Israel telling Israel that the time for the amount of time left for the two-state solution is ending, that a deal has to be reached now or its the end of Israel. Essays like this have been published regularly since 1948. What I can't find are similar essays from the alleged allies of the Palestinians saying something similar. I can find several essays that tell the Palestinians or really Muslims in general, never to give into the "evil, colonialist Zionists" and fight on to the end of Israel. These essays usually engage in some rather blatant Jew-hatred. Has anybody who is Pro-Palestinian ever considered that we might have progress if the Palestinians were given the same message to compromise that Israelis regularly receive.
And honestly, I find Evangelical Zionists much more to my liking than the Christian Anti-Zionists, whom at best believe in "lets cross our fingers and hope it doesn't turn out to badly for the Jews" at best, basically benign apathy, to outright malevolence at worse.
I disagree with you on Evangelical support for Israel. A good chunk of it is usually tied to apocalyptic fantasies but not all of it or even the majority of it. Many Christian Evangelicals support Israel because they believe that Zionism is a moral imperative and played an important part in providing support for the Zionist movement. During the very early years of the Zionist movement, like around shortly after Herzl wrote the Jewish State, Evangelical Protestants provided important aid in terms of access to government officials and acted as intermediaries in such things as the purchase of land.
I have nothing against Libertarians trying to implement their ideas in the democratic market place. What I have problem is when they try to implement them in perpetuity.
More seriously, we all live in the same world but through the prism of our beliefs. Different people could look at the same issue or problem and come to radically different conclusions about whether something is good or not and what should be done about it. The great thing about democracy is that it lets solutions be implemented without too much coercive force compared to other systems. You just need, in theory, to get the votes to implement your preferred solution to a problem and maybe engaged in some horse trading. The solution might not be the best one, it could be completely wrong actually, but little force is involved compared to more top down systems.
The problem I have with philosophical libertarianism a la Boaz is this, what rights are self-evident? Philosophical libertarians believe that negative liberty as they define it are the self-evident rights and positive liberty is not. I and many other people look at the world and determine that positive liberty rights like the right to healthcare and education are self-evident because without them you get some rather horrible social situations and unfree society. I'm a firm believer in FDR's dictum that a necessitous person is not a free person and that great inequality is part of the path to dictatorship.
However, despite my belief that positive liberty is self-evident; I also believe that private property and relatively free markets are also a necessity. While I think that the evidence shows that government is good at providing services like healthcare, education, transport, and certain forms of recreation, its absolutely horrible at providing consumer goods and many forms of entertainment to people. Since people like consumer goods and entertainment, you need markets and commerce to give them to the people. You need private property rights to protect individual rights and privacy. There are plenty of people who do not think that this is self-evident and that the market and private property can be eliminated.
On “Putting a Price on Kidneys”
The market for people who need replacement organs might be relatively static but the people in the market for replacement organs usually need them as a matter of life and death. That will make up for the relative staticness of the market more than enough to make it lucretive.
On “Thursday Night Bar Fight #12: Na Na Na Na, Na Na Na Na, Batman!!!”
How about the theme to the Batman tv show. Nanananananannan, Batman
"
Go to you room.
"
We have no evidence of that in the record. She could have been in many different positions during conception. Thats nothing more than impermissible speculation and conjecture.
On “Putting a Price on Kidneys”
Isn't the fact that many libertarians recognize that an organ market will need to be strongly regulated something of a red flg?
"
Isn't the fact that many libertarians recognize that an organ market will need to be strongly regulated something of a red flg?
On “Let the Character Assassinations Begin”
What about the entire 19th century? Very little or no regulation of the economy or finance and no bankruptcy laws and no government bailouts or assistance during the various panics.
"
Yes, this.
On “On Wrigley Field and Governments vs. Corporations”
I'm sorry I can't really buy this. I can't think of any historical or current example where a corporation willingly agreed to treat the environment better or deal with workers more fairly or build safer products simply because of market pressure or to protect the brand. Corporations and indivdual business people have opposed environmental regulations, workplace safety regulations, unionization, and product safety regulation hook, line, and singer. They have hid scientific evidence that their products were harmful to the public, I'm thinking asbestos and tobacco, and opposed warning labels. In general, corporations only acted better because of fear of government regulation or because of government regulation.
Corporations care about the bottom line and the bottom line is that pollution, lack of workplace safety, a non-unionized workforce, and lack of product safety regulations increase profits. Public ignorance of the harmful effects of certain products increase profits.
On “Things to Hide”
If I remember correctly, I think that the generation that has grown up with the Internet and social media place less value on privacy has a whole because of the nature of the Internet. If you engage in sexting than your sense of privacy is probably not going to be great. I think that a sense of privacy is closely aligned with a sense of inhibition, that there are something's that you don't want people to know. With no sense of inhibition there is no value given to privacy.
On “On Wrigley Field and Governments vs. Corporations”
But people have more power over government through the democratic process and protest. It's very hard, long, and boring work but it is possible to address the abuses of government. In contrast, my toolkit in dealing with the abuses of corporations are much more limited. I can protest against pollution or abuse of employees as much ad I want but corporations usually only change their ways under government order.
On “Random Thoughts on the NSA and Metadata”
The problem with a "do nothing but ordinary law enforcement" response to terrorism in a democracy is that the politicians have to deal with the voters. The number of people who will be fine with "do nothing" are insignificant to the vote the bums out of office for not protecting us crowd. People want to be safe or at least feel safe and will vote accordingly. Politicians know this and act accordingly in order to keep their jobs.
On “How the Tea Party Movement Is Often About Things Uglier Than Fiscal Restraint, and a Challenge to Public Conservatives Who Claim Otherwise”
Oh please Katherine. Every Arab and Muslim leader tells the Palestiniams never to compromise and so do their intellectual allies in the West. Palestinian leadership have always chosen war over negotiation since 1948. Same goes for most of the test of Arab leadership. Do the Palestinians have no agency? Is it not possible that at least some of their decisions might have been not for the best?
On “Comment Rescue: A Priorism in Libertarianism”
Paying taxes used to be seen as an act of civic virtue by many people. If you see taxes as an act virtue, its not taking anything. Especially since money comes from the government anyway. Without the state, there would be no market and no private property.
As to essential services, yes they loose the right to strike in theory but it happens at times anyway. Also, nobody is forcing people to enter into government service. Civil servants do not look at a young person and say since that person is strong and brave he or she must become a fireman or marine. Its a voluntary choice.
"
This is nonsense. Most of the positive rights like education or healthcare are provided through taxes and people become teachers and healthcare providers on their own volition. Public housing is also funded through taxation and built through contracts in the construction business and designed by paid architects. The government does not force anybody to provide labor for positive rights, it pays them to provide labor. Even in a libertarian system, some taxation and labour is necessary for things like the courts and the police. A libertarian government is not entirely without services.
On “How the Tea Party Movement Is Often About Things Uglier Than Fiscal Restraint, and a Challenge to Public Conservatives Who Claim Otherwise”
Have you ever considered that it might be worth some effort to get the Palestinians and other Arabs just to accept the fact that Israel exists rather than to encourage them on in their worse behavior?
I can find no shortage of essays, columns, and what not from alleged allies of Israel telling Israel that the time for the amount of time left for the two-state solution is ending, that a deal has to be reached now or its the end of Israel. Essays like this have been published regularly since 1948. What I can't find are similar essays from the alleged allies of the Palestinians saying something similar. I can find several essays that tell the Palestinians or really Muslims in general, never to give into the "evil, colonialist Zionists" and fight on to the end of Israel. These essays usually engage in some rather blatant Jew-hatred. Has anybody who is Pro-Palestinian ever considered that we might have progress if the Palestinians were given the same message to compromise that Israelis regularly receive.
"
And honestly, I find Evangelical Zionists much more to my liking than the Christian Anti-Zionists, whom at best believe in "lets cross our fingers and hope it doesn't turn out to badly for the Jews" at best, basically benign apathy, to outright malevolence at worse.
"
I disagree with you on Evangelical support for Israel. A good chunk of it is usually tied to apocalyptic fantasies but not all of it or even the majority of it. Many Christian Evangelicals support Israel because they believe that Zionism is a moral imperative and played an important part in providing support for the Zionist movement. During the very early years of the Zionist movement, like around shortly after Herzl wrote the Jewish State, Evangelical Protestants provided important aid in terms of access to government officials and acted as intermediaries in such things as the purchase of land.
On “Comment Rescue: A Priorism in Libertarianism”
I have nothing against Libertarians trying to implement their ideas in the democratic market place. What I have problem is when they try to implement them in perpetuity.
"
More seriously, we all live in the same world but through the prism of our beliefs. Different people could look at the same issue or problem and come to radically different conclusions about whether something is good or not and what should be done about it. The great thing about democracy is that it lets solutions be implemented without too much coercive force compared to other systems. You just need, in theory, to get the votes to implement your preferred solution to a problem and maybe engaged in some horse trading. The solution might not be the best one, it could be completely wrong actually, but little force is involved compared to more top down systems.
"
No.
"
What I meant was basically that the cars, refrigerators, and other consumer products produced by Communist countries sucked monkeys.
"
The problem I have with philosophical libertarianism a la Boaz is this, what rights are self-evident? Philosophical libertarians believe that negative liberty as they define it are the self-evident rights and positive liberty is not. I and many other people look at the world and determine that positive liberty rights like the right to healthcare and education are self-evident because without them you get some rather horrible social situations and unfree society. I'm a firm believer in FDR's dictum that a necessitous person is not a free person and that great inequality is part of the path to dictatorship.
However, despite my belief that positive liberty is self-evident; I also believe that private property and relatively free markets are also a necessity. While I think that the evidence shows that government is good at providing services like healthcare, education, transport, and certain forms of recreation, its absolutely horrible at providing consumer goods and many forms of entertainment to people. Since people like consumer goods and entertainment, you need markets and commerce to give them to the people. You need private property rights to protect individual rights and privacy. There are plenty of people who do not think that this is self-evident and that the market and private property can be eliminated.
On “Driving Blind: Crime Fiction and Strange Bedfellows”
And caloric.
"
Plus a million everybody. This gave me a really good laugh.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.