He was "lucky". The scare quotes are on purpose. The truth is that institutionalized racism prevents this sort of thing. During the initial Trayvon Martin media coverage, there were a lot of stories about African-Americans being denied the right to assert defense based on Stand Your Ground.
Do you think there is a way to administer progressive fees effectively and efficiently?
I will use me as an example because why not. I am a relatively new lawyer. I pay bar dues to two states (New York and California). New York costs me 375 dollars every other year. California costs me around 400 every year.
As far as I can tell every lawyer pays the same fee. It does not matter what your income level, years of experience, or employment level is. I pay the same as lawyers who make salaries in the high 6 or low 7 figures. I also pay the same as lawyers who make much less than me for whatever reason.
The same goes for CLE credits. I pay the same amount per a credit as lawyers who make much more and much less than me. Some might have their firms pay both expenses.
This seems to be a kind of price discrimination to me. Making everyone pay the same regardless of what they do or how much they make.However it is also extremely easy to administer. Can you think of a way to do bar fees on a sliding scale in an efficient way?
At the very least it might get me to move up north to Canada or across the pond to the UK or Ireland, across the other bigger pond to Australia or New Zealand or exercise my right of return to Israel.
I am not completely against the idea that people have a right to civil resistance against tyrannical government or fascist overtakers. I have a soft spot for those who defended the Spanish Republic and the resistance movements against the Nazis. However, I do note that one person's heroic resistance is another person's unlawful insurrection. Since it is the right-wing that normally thinks the 2nd Amendment protects us from tyranny, I want to see if they would support armed resistance from some very non-right wing groups.
Should the Spanish civil government have let Franco and his fascists take over the government? They were legitmately elected left-government and the right-wing immediately revolted.
How do you get rid of dictators then if no armed-revolution is morally justified? Are the people of Syria just doomed to life under dictators?
What criteria can we use for saying when a revolution is morally justified or not?
What criteria can we use to say when someone is morally justified in using guns against the government officials in the defense of liberty and against tyranny?
I am interested in criteria and not just smell tests.
Suppose that Christian Dominionists sweep into power at all levels of government and begin a campaign against non-Christians. Homosexuals, and other enemies. They also begin passing laws to nullify legislation and court decisions meant to protect minorities. Would you say that those minorities now have a second Amendment right to protect themselves? Does it matter on how those groups came into power? What if the Christian Dominionists rise to power was through gerrymandering and legislative chicanery but otherwise a corruption free election?
Can someone be in lawful resistance to an act of emenient domain even if the Government is willing to pay the person well above the market value for their property and it is a legitimate project for the public good?
How do we decide whether armed rebellion against a "tyrannical" government is legitimate or not? Isn't this an exercise that is going to be largely in the eye of the beholder?
This is not to say that there are not legitimate revolutions or acts of resistance against a government. The American and French Revolutions were legitimate. Acts of resistance against Fascists and Nazis were commendable of course.
But more often than not one person's heroic resistance is another person's unlawful act of insurrection and treason. This is true for almost every Civil War in the history of mankind: We still argue it about the American Civil War, Spain is still haunted by those who supported and opposed Franco, etc.
"And now the twist: in 1791, direct democracy on a national scale was not logisitically possible. But in 2013, it is. Given the people-as-sovereign interpretation of the Constitution, ought we not to adopt some sort of national referendum process? And assign at least a degree of super-Constitutionality to the results of those referenda?"
Not sure if this is a rhetorical question or not but no because it worked out oh-so well for California especially with Prop 13.
Well the Calvinism comes from that hardness/skepticism to a certain extent. The idea that salvation comes from faith alone completely goes against the meaningfullness of any earthly action. No matter what you do here, your fate is already written. In Judaism, Yom Kippur gives a lifetime of being able to correct and reform.
Why do we want the police to be armed? I think the militarization of the police is a very disturbing trend.
I remember hearing sometime in 2012 that the German police only used 85 bullets in 2011. That is for the entire country. Why can't the US get to that level? Why should we cheer an instinct for police to shoot first and ask questions later?
British police have historically been unarmed. I think it would be interesting to see how Police change their tactics without easy access to military gear
If this is your attitude towards the site, why are you here? Why purposefully read stuff that makes you angry?
I don't know what your politics are but I know for me that I avoid stuff like Rush and townhall forums because it simply makes me angry and raises my blood pressure.
I like the idea of a gun license like we have a driver's license. Contrary to popular belief, Israel and Swistzerland are not heavily armed countries. People in those countries need to prove a reason to justify owning EACH gun and self-defense does not count. Also I think we should question whether we want to be surrounded by Hamas and Hezzbolah like Israel.
Gun Control seems to bring out the start and fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives like no other issue. These differences go right down to deeply different philosophical world-views .
My liberalism is deeply informed by my Judaism and Tikkun Olam. Tikkun Olam roughly translates as "to mend the world." This means I am very willing and prone to tinkering in order to make the world a better, safer, and more gentle place. I do believe that there are preventable tragedies and they are in the magnitude of Newton.
My more conservative-libertarian and often non-Jewish friends have a more fatalistic view of the world and human nature. They think events like Newton, the Dark Knight shooting, and others are always going to happen and impossible to prevent. Hence, they have a default stance of doing nothing because all action would be inherently useless. I strongly disagree with this and am offended by the pre-Destination of the idea. Then again, I reject Calvinism absolutely and Calvinism seems to be the starting point for modern American conservative politics.
Probably but how do you get them to take their medicine? Does government/society have a right to get them to take their medicine? Or do we just let people be the random victims when a mentally ill person refuses to take their medicine?
The stuff listed on wikipedia does seem sane and reasonable. However, wikipedia is not without bias and editing wars.
The Southern Poverty Law Center does link the Oath Keepers to the far right militia movement and I would not be surprised if there were also elements of the troubling "sovereign citizen" movement. Sovereign Citizenship is a concept that many neo-Nazis and interestingly African-American gang members use to justify their actions and make court and government action illegitimate to them.
Again there's is not a world I want to live in. We simply have fundamentally different notions of what makes a government tyrannical or not. There is possibly some overlap on really easy things but I am no fan of a yeoman paradise and do not see a modern welfare state as being antithetical to freedom.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Doomsday Provision”
He was "lucky". The scare quotes are on purpose. The truth is that institutionalized racism prevents this sort of thing. During the initial Trayvon Martin media coverage, there were a lot of stories about African-Americans being denied the right to assert defense based on Stand Your Ground.
"
Agreed
"
This is a famous case you might or might not know about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossian_Sweet
"
Jaybird,
That depends on your poisons and kinks.
"
Yeah silicon valley types probably prefer wine to rum
On “A Liberal Reconsiders Gun Control”
Do you think there is a way to administer progressive fees effectively and efficiently?
I will use me as an example because why not. I am a relatively new lawyer. I pay bar dues to two states (New York and California). New York costs me 375 dollars every other year. California costs me around 400 every year.
As far as I can tell every lawyer pays the same fee. It does not matter what your income level, years of experience, or employment level is. I pay the same as lawyers who make salaries in the high 6 or low 7 figures. I also pay the same as lawyers who make much less than me for whatever reason.
The same goes for CLE credits. I pay the same amount per a credit as lawyers who make much more and much less than me. Some might have their firms pay both expenses.
This seems to be a kind of price discrimination to me. Making everyone pay the same regardless of what they do or how much they make.However it is also extremely easy to administer. Can you think of a way to do bar fees on a sliding scale in an efficient way?
On “The Doomsday Provision”
At the very least it might get me to move up north to Canada or across the pond to the UK or Ireland, across the other bigger pond to Australia or New Zealand or exercise my right of return to Israel.
I am not completely against the idea that people have a right to civil resistance against tyrannical government or fascist overtakers. I have a soft spot for those who defended the Spanish Republic and the resistance movements against the Nazis. However, I do note that one person's heroic resistance is another person's unlawful insurrection. Since it is the right-wing that normally thinks the 2nd Amendment protects us from tyranny, I want to see if they would support armed resistance from some very non-right wing groups.
On “A Liberal Reconsiders Gun Control”
Isn't dense and rural a contradiction in terms?
On “The Doomsday Provision”
This is true but it is also very hard.
Should the Spanish civil government have let Franco and his fascists take over the government? They were legitmately elected left-government and the right-wing immediately revolted.
How do you get rid of dictators then if no armed-revolution is morally justified? Are the people of Syria just doomed to life under dictators?
"
What criteria can we use for saying when a revolution is morally justified or not?
What criteria can we use to say when someone is morally justified in using guns against the government officials in the defense of liberty and against tyranny?
I am interested in criteria and not just smell tests.
"
It would certainly have a saratorial effect
"
Churchill for the cyberage
"
Your icon fits your post
"
More pointedly:
Suppose that Christian Dominionists sweep into power at all levels of government and begin a campaign against non-Christians. Homosexuals, and other enemies. They also begin passing laws to nullify legislation and court decisions meant to protect minorities. Would you say that those minorities now have a second Amendment right to protect themselves? Does it matter on how those groups came into power? What if the Christian Dominionists rise to power was through gerrymandering and legislative chicanery but otherwise a corruption free election?
Can someone be in lawful resistance to an act of emenient domain even if the Government is willing to pay the person well above the market value for their property and it is a legitimate project for the public good?
"
Here are my questions about the tyranny argument:
How do we decide whether armed rebellion against a "tyrannical" government is legitimate or not? Isn't this an exercise that is going to be largely in the eye of the beholder?
This is not to say that there are not legitimate revolutions or acts of resistance against a government. The American and French Revolutions were legitimate. Acts of resistance against Fascists and Nazis were commendable of course.
But more often than not one person's heroic resistance is another person's unlawful act of insurrection and treason. This is true for almost every Civil War in the history of mankind: We still argue it about the American Civil War, Spain is still haunted by those who supported and opposed Franco, etc.
"
"And now the twist: in 1791, direct democracy on a national scale was not logisitically possible. But in 2013, it is. Given the people-as-sovereign interpretation of the Constitution, ought we not to adopt some sort of national referendum process? And assign at least a degree of super-Constitutionality to the results of those referenda?"
Not sure if this is a rhetorical question or not but no because it worked out oh-so well for California especially with Prop 13.
On “A Liberal Reconsiders Gun Control”
Well the Calvinism comes from that hardness/skepticism to a certain extent. The idea that salvation comes from faith alone completely goes against the meaningfullness of any earthly action. No matter what you do here, your fate is already written. In Judaism, Yom Kippur gives a lifetime of being able to correct and reform.
"
True. I meant they don't carry guns traditionally.
I stand corrected
"
Why do we want the police to be armed? I think the militarization of the police is a very disturbing trend.
I remember hearing sometime in 2012 that the German police only used 85 bullets in 2011. That is for the entire country. Why can't the US get to that level? Why should we cheer an instinct for police to shoot first and ask questions later?
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/05/german-police-used-only-85-bullets-against-people-2011/52162/
British police have historically been unarmed. I think it would be interesting to see how Police change their tactics without easy access to military gear
"
If this is your attitude towards the site, why are you here? Why purposefully read stuff that makes you angry?
I don't know what your politics are but I know for me that I avoid stuff like Rush and townhall forums because it simply makes me angry and raises my blood pressure.
"
I like the idea of a gun license like we have a driver's license. Contrary to popular belief, Israel and Swistzerland are not heavily armed countries. People in those countries need to prove a reason to justify owning EACH gun and self-defense does not count. Also I think we should question whether we want to be surrounded by Hamas and Hezzbolah like Israel.
Gun Control seems to bring out the start and fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives like no other issue. These differences go right down to deeply different philosophical world-views .
My liberalism is deeply informed by my Judaism and Tikkun Olam. Tikkun Olam roughly translates as "to mend the world." This means I am very willing and prone to tinkering in order to make the world a better, safer, and more gentle place. I do believe that there are preventable tragedies and they are in the magnitude of Newton.
My more conservative-libertarian and often non-Jewish friends have a more fatalistic view of the world and human nature. They think events like Newton, the Dark Knight shooting, and others are always going to happen and impossible to prevent. Hence, they have a default stance of doing nothing because all action would be inherently useless. I strongly disagree with this and am offended by the pre-Destination of the idea. Then again, I reject Calvinism absolutely and Calvinism seems to be the starting point for modern American conservative politics.
On “I got nothing – but Friedersdorf does”
This made me laugh
On “What I Learned About Guns Working at the State’s Attorney’s Office”
Probably but how do you get them to take their medicine? Does government/society have a right to get them to take their medicine? Or do we just let people be the random victims when a mentally ill person refuses to take their medicine?
On “I got nothing – but Friedersdorf does”
Well said
"
The stuff listed on wikipedia does seem sane and reasonable. However, wikipedia is not without bias and editing wars.
The Southern Poverty Law Center does link the Oath Keepers to the far right militia movement and I would not be surprised if there were also elements of the troubling "sovereign citizen" movement. Sovereign Citizenship is a concept that many neo-Nazis and interestingly African-American gang members use to justify their actions and make court and government action illegitimate to them.
Again there's is not a world I want to live in. We simply have fundamentally different notions of what makes a government tyrannical or not. There is possibly some overlap on really easy things but I am no fan of a yeoman paradise and do not see a modern welfare state as being antithetical to freedom.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.