The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Alex

On others I disagree with government being involved but agree it is a lost battle and I'm not particularly bothered by the outcome (social security and civil rights regulation of the private sphere).

So you'd repeal the 13th Amendment, I guess. I mean, if one group of people wants to spend its personal wealth on owning another group of people, and the other group of people is unable to persuade the first group not to own them and lacks the resources to escape, why should the government intervene in this free market decision?

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Alex

Also, the majority (whether simple or in some cases higher) trumps the argument every single time. Acknowledging that is a different thing from saying that the majority is wrong.

Thanks. That's all I was getting at.

[Alex]

Oh never mind. Let me rephrase the post I'm overwriting. If you honestly believe what you posted follows from what I said, then you can kindly go shove your head up your ass.

[Strangler Lewis]

Obviously, I'm exaggerating, but I believe this country works best when we define our culture and our national religion as open and free competition and keep our private hatreds private. I think government has a legitimate role in removing barriers to full participation.

Put another way, do you really want to live in a world where businesses put up signs "Whites only," "No Irish need apply," "No dogs or Jews" (which my father grew up with) or, as likely as not, "No Arabs."

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Obviously, I'm exaggerating, but I believe this country works best when we define our culture and our national religion as open and free competition and keep our private hatreds private. I think government has a legitimate role in removing barriers to full participation.

Put another way, do you really want to live in a world where businesses put up signs "Whites only," "No Irish need apply," "No dogs or Jews" (which my father grew up with) or, as likely as not, "No Arabs."

My apologies. Being told I must approve of slavery momentarily got the better of my temper. Lunch and an hour gazing upon Maria Bartiromo and watching my continued employment become a bit more likely have evened the keel.

Absolutely I don't want to live in a world with the signs you ask about. However, I am a person of certain principles about government and some of those principles lead to results I don't particularly like. And as I said on this particular issue I'm not exactly upset about the principle not being observed.

However, if you asked me whether, on principle the guy running the greasy spoon down on the corner should be allowed to only hire cute young women and refuse to serve Hmong then my answer would be yes, that should be his privilege. I would not eat there if I was aware of it. I would be ok with the government refusing official business (no more catering office meetings, perhaps), I do think that on principle he can refuse his services as he wishes. Similarly, while I don't like it, I view it as within their privilege for the Boys Scouts of America to deny me employment for my atheism; I don't like it and I choose not to support them and wish more wouldn't as well. But it is their right.

However, I do not think it follows that on the same principle slavery would be allowed as there is an entirely different issue of force involved.

Therefore, since I have three consecutive clauses begining with however which is only slightly removed from whereas, I tack on this last paragraph.

[Strangler Lewis]

No worries, no worries.

I would draw a distinction between true public accommodations such as the greasy spoon and private associations such as the Boy Scouts or the good men of Augusta National, the right to free association--and to hide from women--being protected by the First Amendment (despite not being mentioned in it). Of course, there are grey areas since few private associations exist without hiring people and selling stuff. Still, most of the grey areas push towards classifying associations as public accommodations and not the other way.

I certainly agree that our cherished freedoms can lead to culturally debatable results--the freeing of the guilty, gun f*cking, and the proliferation of the types of porn I don't enjoy looking at. However, as the country--or the part we live in--is presently constituted, I still can't help thinking that you are standing on a principle that stands little chance of goring your own particular ox.

[Alex]

And as I have already acknowledged on this particular issue the ox has long since been gored. That was my point, on some things I'm not particularly upset by the goring.

[Strangler Lewis]

I think Morrigoon's post shows why, Roe, while to my mind a sensible pragmatic decision, has muddied the abortion debate. If we take out the woman's penumbral constitutional right to privacy and stop debating how when and if, with the advance of science, a fetus might be deemed a person with due process rights, we're left with the typical "ick or not ick" legislative decision--the type of decision that will have to be argued about if Roe goes.

We make these legislative decisions all the time: killing and eating your own chicken is not ick. Killing and eating your own dog is ick. Roe had the ick/not ick balance down fairly well since, as has often been pointed out, pregnancies often terminate naturally in the first trimester anyway. Terminating an advanced pregnancy on a whim--something I assume happens approximately never--would be ick.

I predict that when Roe goes away--and it will if McCain wins--even states with the most burdensome restrictions, having won the larger point, will end up with statutes looking something like ick/not ick. At any rate, everyone should get used to discussing issues without resorting to constitutional crutches.

[wendybeth]

So, looks like things might be even more serious than anyone is letting on:

ON the Verge of a Complete Financial Meltdown.


No wonder they're clamping down on short selling and talking about taking further regulatory measures. So much for an unrestrained free market system being the bestest thing ever.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

So much for an unrestrained free market system being the bestest thing ever.

Yeah, maybe one of these days we'll actually try it.