What would you say are the essentials to be a proper libertarian? Does it require particular ideological stances, or can it be determined just from policy preferences?
This being the League, I know that there will be some that simply say that any kind of government mandated minimum level of knowledge is inherently wrong
I find this rather an odd statement -- while there are plenty of dogmatic libertarians in the world, the ones around here would object to the government mandates based on pragmatic reasons such as what you describe.
I do think there really is no "solution" -- just different trade-offs. Mandates and licensure increase costs and reduce choices, while not really being able to guarantee acceptable service. Lack of them means that those who are less attentive or less able to evaluate their options sensibly are more likely to be harmed by incompetence or fraud. There are legitimate disagreements over how/where to draw the line in each case, but I think our society would make better decisions overall if at least we better understood that there's no "right" answer.
Seems to me this is just their (vain) attempt to keep Democrats from trying to tilt the primary results. I doubt they had RINOs in mind -- other-party mischief is a common fear in open-primary states when an incumbent is running.
This point came up in the comments there as well -- the objections are all as-applied, and Cohen seems to be assuming an ideal state.
I'm actually not 100% convinced that all this unfairness would ensue, anyway -- it's not really in the interests of the state to enforce this strongly since it means that the state takes on the burden of raising the child, so underenforcement would probably be the norm regardless of social class. And also, in its ubiquity it would be comparable to driver's licenses -- do we see such inequitable results there that we're predicting for this?
If the licensing test was very basic, so as just to make sure that the parent(s) have given a bit of thought to the process, and the penalty was something much less than removal of the child, e.g. fines or mandatory attendance at a parenting class, I think there's a not-bad argument for it.
Reihan Salam is a good source, as are his sometime co-bloggers Josh Barro and Avik Roy. Google any of these along with PPACA and you should find some good material. Also Peter Suderman at Reason.
Sometimes there are ways of doing that without actually breaking the rules. A few years back, there was a mini-scandal at Yale when they found out that a student had falsified his transcript to gain admission. The story that came from him and worked its way into the standard media line was that despite the lies, he was doing perfectly well at Yale, and it generated a bunch of discussion about high school credentials, how much they matter, grade inflation, etc.
Somewhere in the middle of this, the president (? or maybe the provost) wrote a short, arid letter to the NYT, saying that of course Yale wasn't at liberty to reveal this student's grades, but perhaps the media could ask the student to volunteer the evidence for his claims.
Yeah, I understand why it's this way historically, but I don't think it makes much sense anymore. And it's odd in a way to see some atheists implicitly endorsing the special protections for religious belief (or unbelief), since that privileges the very domain that they reject.
Burt, I'm afraid I didn't make my point clear. I understand the current state of the law well enough, and I'm certainly not asking (retroactively) for any special consideration for vegetarians. The message I get from your writing on this topic is that you're not only describing current law but also endorsing it. My challenge to you is to defend it, not from the standpoint of what's in the Constitution or how we got to where we are, but from the perspective of one who's saying that what *is* is basically what *should be* when it comes to this sort of rights-balancing.
In other words, pretend you're starting from scratch to write a new Constitution. Do you keep things as they are? If so, why would you have religion treated differently from other matters of values, morality, ethics, etc.? Why shouldn't non-Christians in a Bible Belt town have to suck it up the same way vegetarians have to in a cattle-raising town?
Straying just a bit from the topic at hand: I've noticed that the discussions around this cross thing have mostly concentrated on the legal considerations, although I get the sense from some that what's legal is also what's desirable. My question is, leaving aside current law, does it make sense to protect the minority in the case of religion but not in other matters of deeply-felt belief?
For example, my wife and I used to be ethical vegetarians (we're still sympathetic but we don't have the energy anymore). When my kids were in grade school, we had no protection from teachers and school officials reinforcing the prevailing cultural consensus on eating animals ("the cow gives us beef", wishes for a "Happy Turkey Day", and many other examples). While we would've been happy if some consideration had been shown for our beliefs, we understood that we were in the minority and that it was up to us to deal with the prevailing culture as best we could.
Or here's a hypothetical example: suppose at that time we were living in a ranch town that wanted to celebrate its dedication to quality beef, and a big billboard of a juicy steak was put up on public property, maybe even with a tagline along the lines of "horrifying vegetarians since 1823". That would certainly make us feel unwelcome. Why allow that and not the (much less overtly unwelcoming) cross?
But that's not really a good analogy to how the boycotters in this case are feeling. What if the show were, say, All-American Skinheads, presenting a non-racist skinhead family, and some anti-hate group was leading the boycott? Would you have the same reaction?
Here is the post with the "re-written" (Seuss-ified) comments -- 428 comments altogether but luckily the incident is very early on. Unsurprisingly, the editing was done due to bad language and rudeness, nothing to do with content.
Reminds me of a bit from The White Tiger by Aravind Adiga:
It is an ancient and venerated custom of people in my country to start a story by praying to a Higher Power.
I guess, Your Excellency, that I too should start off by kissing some god's arse. Which god's arse, though? There are so many choices.
See, the Muslims have one god.
The Christians have three gods.
And we Hindus have 36,000,000 gods.
Making a grand total of 36,000,004 divine arses for me to choose from.
I think true dogwhistles are vanishingly rare, but choosing words that have more resonance for one group than another is a common-enough rhetorical tactic.
Well, an actual dogwhistle is a signal that's intended to be heard by dogs, is heard by dogs, but is not heard by humans. So the metaphor really ought to refer to politicians using a certain vocabulary that sends a particular message to the target group while sounding innocuous to those outside the group.
Per this definition, what Obama said wouldn't be a dogwhistle because it certainly did not sound innocuous to the out group.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Libertarianism and Liberalism and Labels”
What would you say are the essentials to be a proper libertarian? Does it require particular ideological stances, or can it be determined just from policy preferences?
"
What I got from WW’s post was his discovery that labels are actually counterproductive to forming any meaningful coalitions.
Perhaps, but then why does he adopt the label of "liberal"? That's just as potentially misleading as "libertarian" for someone with his opinions.
On “Reproductive Rights and Libertarianism”
But this time we're going to settle it once and for all!
"
Why, as non-slaveowners, did Northerners dictate policy to the ones who would be dramatically affected by emancipation?
"
Sam, at what point do you believe the fetus acquires human rights? Is it only at the moment of birth, or is it at some point before that?
On “QUACK!!!”
See, there you go -- 49 seconds, much better.
"
A little behind the Alamo Bowl's total halftime score -- they better come out shooting in the 2nd half.
On “Hobbes: Honor and the Emperor’s New Clothes”
I'm eagerly waiting to see whether Hobbes will show up and participate in this one.
On “The Sticky Wickets of Governmental Oversight, Ethics, and Continuing Education”
This being the League, I know that there will be some that simply say that any kind of government mandated minimum level of knowledge is inherently wrong
I find this rather an odd statement -- while there are plenty of dogmatic libertarians in the world, the ones around here would object to the government mandates based on pragmatic reasons such as what you describe.
I do think there really is no "solution" -- just different trade-offs. Mandates and licensure increase costs and reduce choices, while not really being able to guarantee acceptable service. Lack of them means that those who are less attentive or less able to evaluate their options sensibly are more likely to be harmed by incompetence or fraud. There are legitimate disagreements over how/where to draw the line in each case, but I think our society would make better decisions overall if at least we better understood that there's no "right" answer.
On “Sic Semper Tyrannis!”
And one is likely to share Tod's reaction to this story only if one already views the GOP in that way.
"
Seems to me this is just their (vain) attempt to keep Democrats from trying to tilt the primary results. I doubt they had RINOs in mind -- other-party mischief is a common fear in open-primary states when an incumbent is running.
On “A (Mostly) Unnecessary Introduction”
Awesome, looking forward to your contributions.
Two teenage daughters and still a happy home?? What sorts of powerful drugs are you secretly giving them (or yourselves)?
On “A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People From Being a Burden on Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public 2011”
This point came up in the comments there as well -- the objections are all as-applied, and Cohen seems to be assuming an ideal state.
I'm actually not 100% convinced that all this unfairness would ensue, anyway -- it's not really in the interests of the state to enforce this strongly since it means that the state takes on the burden of raising the child, so underenforcement would probably be the norm regardless of social class. And also, in its ubiquity it would be comparable to driver's licenses -- do we see such inequitable results there that we're predicting for this?
If the licensing test was very basic, so as just to make sure that the parent(s) have given a bit of thought to the process, and the penalty was something much less than removal of the child, e.g. fines or mandatory attendance at a parenting class, I think there's a not-bad argument for it.
On “Left-Libertarianism and Ron Paul”
Reihan Salam is a good source, as are his sometime co-bloggers Josh Barro and Avik Roy. Google any of these along with PPACA and you should find some good material. Also Peter Suderman at Reason.
On “For Doc Saunders”
Sometimes there are ways of doing that without actually breaking the rules. A few years back, there was a mini-scandal at Yale when they found out that a student had falsified his transcript to gain admission. The story that came from him and worked its way into the standard media line was that despite the lies, he was doing perfectly well at Yale, and it generated a bunch of discussion about high school credentials, how much they matter, grade inflation, etc.
Somewhere in the middle of this, the president (? or maybe the provost) wrote a short, arid letter to the NYT, saying that of course Yale wasn't at liberty to reveal this student's grades, but perhaps the media could ask the student to volunteer the evidence for his claims.
On “Eating the Rich: By the Numbers”
It's not the money, it's the principle of the thing.
On “The Saga of the Whiteville Water Tower Continues”
Yeah, I understand why it's this way historically, but I don't think it makes much sense anymore. And it's odd in a way to see some atheists implicitly endorsing the special protections for religious belief (or unbelief), since that privileges the very domain that they reject.
"
Burt, I'm afraid I didn't make my point clear. I understand the current state of the law well enough, and I'm certainly not asking (retroactively) for any special consideration for vegetarians. The message I get from your writing on this topic is that you're not only describing current law but also endorsing it. My challenge to you is to defend it, not from the standpoint of what's in the Constitution or how we got to where we are, but from the perspective of one who's saying that what *is* is basically what *should be* when it comes to this sort of rights-balancing.
In other words, pretend you're starting from scratch to write a new Constitution. Do you keep things as they are? If so, why would you have religion treated differently from other matters of values, morality, ethics, etc.? Why shouldn't non-Christians in a Bible Belt town have to suck it up the same way vegetarians have to in a cattle-raising town?
"
Straying just a bit from the topic at hand: I've noticed that the discussions around this cross thing have mostly concentrated on the legal considerations, although I get the sense from some that what's legal is also what's desirable. My question is, leaving aside current law, does it make sense to protect the minority in the case of religion but not in other matters of deeply-felt belief?
For example, my wife and I used to be ethical vegetarians (we're still sympathetic but we don't have the energy anymore). When my kids were in grade school, we had no protection from teachers and school officials reinforcing the prevailing cultural consensus on eating animals ("the cow gives us beef", wishes for a "Happy Turkey Day", and many other examples). While we would've been happy if some consideration had been shown for our beliefs, we understood that we were in the minority and that it was up to us to deal with the prevailing culture as best we could.
Or here's a hypothetical example: suppose at that time we were living in a ranch town that wanted to celebrate its dedication to quality beef, and a big billboard of a juicy steak was put up on public property, maybe even with a tagline along the lines of "horrifying vegetarians since 1823". That would certainly make us feel unwelcome. Why allow that and not the (much less overtly unwelcoming) cross?
On “Boycotting the All-American Muslim”
But that's not really a good analogy to how the boycotters in this case are feeling. What if the show were, say, All-American Skinheads, presenting a non-racist skinhead family, and some anti-hate group was leading the boycott? Would you have the same reaction?
On “The Music of the Trolls”
Here is the post with the "re-written" (Seuss-ified) comments -- 428 comments altogether but luckily the incident is very early on. Unsurprisingly, the editing was done due to bad language and rudeness, nothing to do with content.
"
That's a nice effort, but it doesn't quite reach the lyrical heights of Tod's selections, IMHO.
On “Perry’s Complaint”
Reminds me of a bit from The White Tiger by Aravind Adiga:
It is an ancient and venerated custom of people in my country to start a story by praying to a Higher Power.
I guess, Your Excellency, that I too should start off by kissing some god's arse. Which god's arse, though? There are so many choices.
See, the Muslims have one god.
The Christians have three gods.
And we Hindus have 36,000,000 gods.
Making a grand total of 36,000,004 divine arses for me to choose from.
"
I think true dogwhistles are vanishingly rare, but choosing words that have more resonance for one group than another is a common-enough rhetorical tactic.
"
Well, an actual dogwhistle is a signal that's intended to be heard by dogs, is heard by dogs, but is not heard by humans. So the metaphor really ought to refer to politicians using a certain vocabulary that sends a particular message to the target group while sounding innocuous to those outside the group.
Per this definition, what Obama said wouldn't be a dogwhistle because it certainly did not sound innocuous to the out group.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.