I am also a lawyer though my only experience with criminal law stuff was in my classes and on the Bar. But as an urban-dweller I concur with your observations.
I have never been to Chicago but in every city I have lived in, the nice and seedy parts can blend very easily together. This seems especially true in San Francisco and New York where you can have a big income divide on the same block or within a few blocks of each other. So I have walked by drive-by shootings on the way to the movies and they allegedly were fairly common in my neighborhood right before I moved in.
This is probably why many city-dwellers tend to favor gun control more often.
Morat20 is pretty much spot on. The terms socialism and communism have been used as scare words by the right-wing since the 19th century and are now basically void of meaning in the United States. They roughly mean any kind of liberal, large-scale, government-centered program now. It is basically a Pavelonian reaction now on the right. Does a Democratic politician propose a policy? Answer: Yes. Reaction: SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!
This could be something to an Anglo-American character. Though the UK has or had a strong labor movement, the labor movement in the United States was largely Anglo-Saxon free. Most heavy hitters and members of American labor units were various "white ethnics": Germans, Jews, Italians, the Irish, etc. With the exception of Eugene Victor Debs and Norman Thomas, the most important American Socialists tended to be German and/or Jewish by this I mean those who ran for office and got elected.
Keep in mind that I think this story below is what many on the Faux News right think of when they think of liberals even though she is an exception and not the rule. We are still seen as being a combo of spoiled rich kids who dabble in bomb-throwing anarchy.
I agree. I think Planck said the same thing about scientific theories in a famous quote. They became accepted when the old scientists died, not because the theory proved itself on its own merits. What this says about The Scientific Method and Human Nature is not necessarily great though.
I am also not talking about picking between the lessor of two evils.
I am choosing between a politician that I agree with 70-90 percent of the time on policy and issues as compared to a politician who I agree with 0-30 percent of the time. No one (except Libertarians it seems) is ever going to find a politician or party that they agree with 100 percent of the time.
Your last paragraph sounds like someone who is still heartbroken over a break-up and incomprehensible than anyone can still like or even the ex that jilted you.
To say that the Democratic Party failed every test of leadership between 2000-2008 is extremely subjective and impossible to prove or disprove. Yes there are a lot of people out there that are upset that the Democratic Party is not as far to the left as the Republican Party is to the right but the Democratic Party is and always has been a much broader coalition especially now that we are getting a lot of people who were essentially kicked out the Republican Party.
A lot of the Democratic Senators and congress people who voted the way you wanted (and you seem to disacknowledge them as if they were invisible) have been elected since 1998. There are a whole crop of new Senators who are more liberal than their predecessors in either party. But Democratic politicians in states like North Dakota, Montana, and Alaska going to be very different than Democratic politicians from Washington, Oregon, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Hawaii. California is large and diverse enough to ensure a broad Democratic party and Feinstein was always known as a more centrist Democratic politician. This is from her time as a member of the Board of Supervisors onward.
I did vote for Feinstein but I am also a multi-issue* voter and a pragmatic. I don't believe in symbolic sacrifices of third party votes. There are many issues on which Feinstein's view is similar to mine. This is not one of them. When she retires from the Senate, my guess is that she will be replaced with someone more liberal considering the trajectory of California politics but this is only a guess.
The same thing goes for Kohole's comment above when he told liberals to lie in it for reelecting Obama instead of voting for Gary Johnson. How about all the other issues on which liberal-Democrats agree with Obama's position like gay marriage, healthcare, labor rights, environmental regulation, taxes on the wealthy, social safety net programs. How about the simple fact that Gary Johnson had a snowball's chance in hell of winning and a Romney Presidency would probably result in Supreme Court (and other judges) who make Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalialook like a bleeding hearts?
*As far as I can tell, single issue voters seem to exist more on the right than the left. Guns and Taxes being prime examples.
Jesse also brings about a good point about Constitutional Interpretation. Plenty of legislators do vote against laws that they consider unconstitutional and there are changes made when politicians bring up points of constitutionality.
However, it is still the job of the judiciary to determine whether a law is constitutional or not and law is still more of an art than a science. We have been arguing about this for over 200 years. One person's constitutional law is another person's end of liberty as we know it. Look at the arguments made by both sides during the Obamacare debate. Look at how many Supreme Court cases end in 5-4 decisions.
If law was a science, then they should be a lot more 9-0 decisions.
There are also many voters in the party who are further to the right than me on civil liberties and national security issues. Many of these people use to be called Rockefeller Republicans but were chased out of the Republican party. This is going to change the nature and composition of the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party is still a large and big tent party. It is true that the most conservative Democratic politicians are still more liberal than the most liberal Republican politicians. However, I think you will find a wider scope of ideological difference between the most conservative Democrat and the most liberal Democrat as compared to the most liberal and conservative Republicans. Basically, there is a world of difference between Patrick Lehey and Ben Nelson and not so much between Susan Collins and Jim DeMint.
Nob laid out a good analysis above. Many if not most of the elected Democratic politicians in the house voted against the measure. A little more than half of the Democrats in the Senate did. Nob correctly predicts that the vote would be different in the newer Senate with more liberal Democrats.
I do not deny that there are many elected Democrats who are furhter to the right than me on civil liberties and national security issues.
Yes obviously each side as things that they are not willing to concede on. Also there are plenty of Democratic voters and politicians who are ambivalent on the morality and ethics of abortion. Some of them are even elected officials from conservative states.
But politics in a representative democratic republic is still the art of the possible and compromise is necessary.
I find it telling and also damning that libertarians can't find anything to compromise on. This is probably why you howl in the wilderness the most. Also the fact that most people disagree with you.
But hey, enjoy your purer than though attitudes and maybe one day there will be two people like Conor F writing blogs for the Atlantic. Or you can start planning the great Libertarian coup d'etat and absolute monarchy.
I don't see any libertarians answering my questions on concessions above either.
I've asked more than once in this community when the economic impasse has come up. I've laid out that these are current economic concessions that I am willing to make and believe in and should make libertarians happy. Then I ask, what are there concessions on economics and regulation. The answer is always silence.
Civil Liberties especially civil liberties for criminal defendants and suspects are things that I suspect people support in an abstract nature but get a bit more wishy-washy when confronted with reality. By people, I mean your average non-ideological citizen. I do not mean law and order types or civil libertarians.
The current remedy for violations of the 4th Amendment is that the improper evidence is exlcuded from the prosecution's case in chief. This is a gross simplification of the complicated in and outs of the 4th Amendment. I think most people will support this in theory but begin to hem and haw if you gave them a really bad case and I read some dozies in law school. Most 4th Amendment cases deal with narcotics. There are plenty that deal with more serious crimes like serious white-collar crime and in one case that made it to the Supreme Court twice, the murder of a 10 year old girl. The evidence in question was her body.
Nob was probably right above when he said that many people support or have no opinions on this legislation and will not until it gives very totalitarian or abused. Simply most people do not see themselves as ever being the defendant in a criminal case or having a program like this used against them. This includes when they engage in criminal behavior no matter how low level like shoplifting or minor naroctics use.
So the challenge for civil libertarians is on how to convince the maority that this kind of stuff is very bad.
I believe that some licensing requirements are silly especially in haircutting, pedicures, and manicures. There was a story on Planet Money this year about an African-immigrant woman in Utah who wanted to set up a business specializing in African-braids. There were a lot of children in her community who were adopted from Africa. She was shut down by whatever board goes after barbers and haircutters. She took her case to court and won. I support this decision.
I also think that the overregulation of taxis is bad. Taxi medallions should be unlimited and issued on a more liberal basis at affordable rates. Perhaps there could be a slightly heightened road test but that is all. I also support companies like uber trying to get in and break up the cartel/system.
However, I still think licensing is important for fields where there is a risk of injury to clients. This involves esthetcians who work with chemicals and wax, massage therapists (the real kind, not the innuendo kind found at the back of alt-weeklies everywhere), lawyers, doctors, nurses, accountants/CPAs, etc.
Now please tell me an area where you think libertarians can compromise with liberals on regulation and/or the need for welfare state politics at a strong, federal level.
Title VII is one part of the civil rights act of 1964.
There are also the sections that forbid public accommodations like restaurants, hotels, transport, etc from discriminating based on race, religion, gender/sex, etc.
These were upheld by the Supreme Court in landmark cases like Ollie's BBQ and Heart of Atlanta.
Please give me a cite and case name for the Indiana Supreme Court case you a referring to. From what I remember in law school, tortious interference with a business relationship deals with cases when C interferes with a contract between A and B. It is not useful for when an employee is denied hiring or promotion for discriminator animus. Why do you think it is better than Title VII in dealing with racist or otherwise discriminatory employers?
The act is still useful even if most cases settle. Most cases of all types settle because the stakes of litigation are often too high for all parties involved. Not because of any malice on the part of plaintiff's lawyers towards their clients.
This is where libertarians and liberals often seem to split. We seem to be talking about two different freedoms. Right-wingers and libertarians will say that segregation and discrimination are morally and ethically wrong but not as wrong as interfering with property rights or how someone wishes to run their business. I disagree with this. I think it is more important to allow all citizens equal access into full civic life even if it means telling a bigoted restaurant owner that they are not allowed to refuse service to people because of their race, religion, gender/sex, sexuality, nationality, etc.
Perhaps suffering deals with your ability to get on and do things in life. A person might be in a great deal of pain (physical or psychological) but if he or she can get up, take care of themselves, and do what needs to be done; perhaps they are suffering less than the person who is bed-ridden and unable to take care of themselves for what ever reason.
On “What I Learned About Guns Working at the State’s Attorney’s Office”
Great post.
I am also a lawyer though my only experience with criminal law stuff was in my classes and on the Bar. But as an urban-dweller I concur with your observations.
I have never been to Chicago but in every city I have lived in, the nice and seedy parts can blend very easily together. This seems especially true in San Francisco and New York where you can have a big income divide on the same block or within a few blocks of each other. So I have walked by drive-by shootings on the way to the movies and they allegedly were fairly common in my neighborhood right before I moved in.
This is probably why many city-dwellers tend to favor gun control more often.
On “When Worlds Collide”
Hence why we have antitrust laws :)
"
I appreciate Salmon in raw and cooked ways.
"
Morat20 is pretty much spot on. The terms socialism and communism have been used as scare words by the right-wing since the 19th century and are now basically void of meaning in the United States. They roughly mean any kind of liberal, large-scale, government-centered program now. It is basically a Pavelonian reaction now on the right. Does a Democratic politician propose a policy? Answer: Yes. Reaction: SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!
This could be something to an Anglo-American character. Though the UK has or had a strong labor movement, the labor movement in the United States was largely Anglo-Saxon free. Most heavy hitters and members of American labor units were various "white ethnics": Germans, Jews, Italians, the Irish, etc. With the exception of Eugene Victor Debs and Norman Thomas, the most important American Socialists tended to be German and/or Jewish by this I mean those who ran for office and got elected.
Keep in mind that I think this story below is what many on the Faux News right think of when they think of liberals even though she is an exception and not the rule. We are still seen as being a combo of spoiled rich kids who dabble in bomb-throwing anarchy.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/12/west-village-bombmaker-morgan-gliedman/60456/
"
Castro likes baseball
On “2017”
Nob,
I agree. I think Planck said the same thing about scientific theories in a famous quote. They became accepted when the old scientists died, not because the theory proved itself on its own merits. What this says about The Scientific Method and Human Nature is not necessarily great though.
"
Patrick,
I am also not talking about picking between the lessor of two evils.
I am choosing between a politician that I agree with 70-90 percent of the time on policy and issues as compared to a politician who I agree with 0-30 percent of the time. No one (except Libertarians it seems) is ever going to find a politician or party that they agree with 100 percent of the time.
"
Patrick,
Your last paragraph sounds like someone who is still heartbroken over a break-up and incomprehensible than anyone can still like or even the ex that jilted you.
To say that the Democratic Party failed every test of leadership between 2000-2008 is extremely subjective and impossible to prove or disprove. Yes there are a lot of people out there that are upset that the Democratic Party is not as far to the left as the Republican Party is to the right but the Democratic Party is and always has been a much broader coalition especially now that we are getting a lot of people who were essentially kicked out the Republican Party.
A lot of the Democratic Senators and congress people who voted the way you wanted (and you seem to disacknowledge them as if they were invisible) have been elected since 1998. There are a whole crop of new Senators who are more liberal than their predecessors in either party. But Democratic politicians in states like North Dakota, Montana, and Alaska going to be very different than Democratic politicians from Washington, Oregon, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Hawaii. California is large and diverse enough to ensure a broad Democratic party and Feinstein was always known as a more centrist Democratic politician. This is from her time as a member of the Board of Supervisors onward.
"
Patrick,
I did vote for Feinstein but I am also a multi-issue* voter and a pragmatic. I don't believe in symbolic sacrifices of third party votes. There are many issues on which Feinstein's view is similar to mine. This is not one of them. When she retires from the Senate, my guess is that she will be replaced with someone more liberal considering the trajectory of California politics but this is only a guess.
The same thing goes for Kohole's comment above when he told liberals to lie in it for reelecting Obama instead of voting for Gary Johnson. How about all the other issues on which liberal-Democrats agree with Obama's position like gay marriage, healthcare, labor rights, environmental regulation, taxes on the wealthy, social safety net programs. How about the simple fact that Gary Johnson had a snowball's chance in hell of winning and a Romney Presidency would probably result in Supreme Court (and other judges) who make Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalialook like a bleeding hearts?
*As far as I can tell, single issue voters seem to exist more on the right than the left. Guns and Taxes being prime examples.
"
Jesse,
I think there is a lot more Donderoooo in the average libertarian than he would like to admit.
"
Jesse also brings about a good point about Constitutional Interpretation. Plenty of legislators do vote against laws that they consider unconstitutional and there are changes made when politicians bring up points of constitutionality.
However, it is still the job of the judiciary to determine whether a law is constitutional or not and law is still more of an art than a science. We have been arguing about this for over 200 years. One person's constitutional law is another person's end of liberty as we know it. Look at the arguments made by both sides during the Obamacare debate. Look at how many Supreme Court cases end in 5-4 decisions.
If law was a science, then they should be a lot more 9-0 decisions.
"
There are also many voters in the party who are further to the right than me on civil liberties and national security issues. Many of these people use to be called Rockefeller Republicans but were chased out of the Republican party. This is going to change the nature and composition of the Democratic Party.
"
The Democratic Party is still a large and big tent party. It is true that the most conservative Democratic politicians are still more liberal than the most liberal Republican politicians. However, I think you will find a wider scope of ideological difference between the most conservative Democrat and the most liberal Democrat as compared to the most liberal and conservative Republicans. Basically, there is a world of difference between Patrick Lehey and Ben Nelson and not so much between Susan Collins and Jim DeMint.
Nob laid out a good analysis above. Many if not most of the elected Democratic politicians in the house voted against the measure. A little more than half of the Democrats in the Senate did. Nob correctly predicts that the vote would be different in the newer Senate with more liberal Democrats.
I do not deny that there are many elected Democrats who are furhter to the right than me on civil liberties and national security issues.
"
Yes obviously each side as things that they are not willing to concede on. Also there are plenty of Democratic voters and politicians who are ambivalent on the morality and ethics of abortion. Some of them are even elected officials from conservative states.
But politics in a representative democratic republic is still the art of the possible and compromise is necessary.
I find it telling and also damning that libertarians can't find anything to compromise on. This is probably why you howl in the wilderness the most. Also the fact that most people disagree with you.
But hey, enjoy your purer than though attitudes and maybe one day there will be two people like Conor F writing blogs for the Atlantic. Or you can start planning the great Libertarian coup d'etat and absolute monarchy.
"
I don't see any libertarians answering my questions on concessions above either.
I've asked more than once in this community when the economic impasse has come up. I've laid out that these are current economic concessions that I am willing to make and believe in and should make libertarians happy. Then I ask, what are there concessions on economics and regulation. The answer is always silence.
"
No Doubt but define sufficient time. Are we talking 5 years? 10 years? 20? More?
"
There is no Sanity Clause!
"
Do you you really think another terrorist attack is quite possible? Not even on the 9/11 scale but more on a suicide bombing scale.
Everything is possible but I am not sure I would put another Al-Queda terrorist attack in the "quite possible" category.
But I otherwise agree with your analysis. This is something that civil libertarians often forget.
"
This is what I meant by how.
Civil Liberties especially civil liberties for criminal defendants and suspects are things that I suspect people support in an abstract nature but get a bit more wishy-washy when confronted with reality. By people, I mean your average non-ideological citizen. I do not mean law and order types or civil libertarians.
The current remedy for violations of the 4th Amendment is that the improper evidence is exlcuded from the prosecution's case in chief. This is a gross simplification of the complicated in and outs of the 4th Amendment. I think most people will support this in theory but begin to hem and haw if you gave them a really bad case and I read some dozies in law school. Most 4th Amendment cases deal with narcotics. There are plenty that deal with more serious crimes like serious white-collar crime and in one case that made it to the Supreme Court twice, the murder of a 10 year old girl. The evidence in question was her body.
Nob was probably right above when he said that many people support or have no opinions on this legislation and will not until it gives very totalitarian or abused. Simply most people do not see themselves as ever being the defendant in a criminal case or having a program like this used against them. This includes when they engage in criminal behavior no matter how low level like shoplifting or minor naroctics use.
So the challenge for civil libertarians is on how to convince the maority that this kind of stuff is very bad.
"
I meant to reply to this post. I replied to this above.
"
Brandon Berg,
I believe that some licensing requirements are silly especially in haircutting, pedicures, and manicures. There was a story on Planet Money this year about an African-immigrant woman in Utah who wanted to set up a business specializing in African-braids. There were a lot of children in her community who were adopted from Africa. She was shut down by whatever board goes after barbers and haircutters. She took her case to court and won. I support this decision.
I also think that the overregulation of taxis is bad. Taxi medallions should be unlimited and issued on a more liberal basis at affordable rates. Perhaps there could be a slightly heightened road test but that is all. I also support companies like uber trying to get in and break up the cartel/system.
However, I still think licensing is important for fields where there is a risk of injury to clients. This involves esthetcians who work with chemicals and wax, massage therapists (the real kind, not the innuendo kind found at the back of alt-weeklies everywhere), lawyers, doctors, nurses, accountants/CPAs, etc.
Now please tell me an area where you think libertarians can compromise with liberals on regulation and/or the need for welfare state politics at a strong, federal level.
"
Title VII is one part of the civil rights act of 1964.
There are also the sections that forbid public accommodations like restaurants, hotels, transport, etc from discriminating based on race, religion, gender/sex, etc.
These were upheld by the Supreme Court in landmark cases like Ollie's BBQ and Heart of Atlanta.
Please give me a cite and case name for the Indiana Supreme Court case you a referring to. From what I remember in law school, tortious interference with a business relationship deals with cases when C interferes with a contract between A and B. It is not useful for when an employee is denied hiring or promotion for discriminator animus. Why do you think it is better than Title VII in dealing with racist or otherwise discriminatory employers?
The act is still useful even if most cases settle. Most cases of all types settle because the stakes of litigation are often too high for all parties involved. Not because of any malice on the part of plaintiff's lawyers towards their clients.
This is where libertarians and liberals often seem to split. We seem to be talking about two different freedoms. Right-wingers and libertarians will say that segregation and discrimination are morally and ethically wrong but not as wrong as interfering with property rights or how someone wishes to run their business. I disagree with this. I think it is more important to allow all citizens equal access into full civic life even if it means telling a bigoted restaurant owner that they are not allowed to refuse service to people because of their race, religion, gender/sex, sexuality, nationality, etc.
On “Inadequacy and the Problem of Misery”
I can see how it is true.
Perhaps suffering deals with your ability to get on and do things in life. A person might be in a great deal of pain (physical or psychological) but if he or she can get up, take care of themselves, and do what needs to be done; perhaps they are suffering less than the person who is bed-ridden and unable to take care of themselves for what ever reason.
Though I have a hard time defending this as well.
On “2017”
Plus all the stuff I wrote below.
The divide on libertarians and liberals on this is staggering.
"
Kohole,
Some transactions should be illegal like organ donation. That is a transaction that can only come from duress and the government needs to ban.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.