Hide Comments Below
  • -3
  • -2
  • -1
  • 0
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • off
  • Libertarians: "If you allow an individual mandate, federalism is dead." Liberals: "Good. It should have been dead 100 years ago." Conservatives: "Tax cuts?"



    Comment 0
    Cool
  • vote cool
  • vote uncool
  • Terms of Service Violation
  • strike inappropriate
  • not inappropriate
  • Other
  • sunlight
  • kick from thread
  • get permlink
  • Tagged with : so vote unwarranted animosity

    What are tags?
    so vote republican 6688 2010-12-17 02:36:56.0 login to vote score 1
    Libertarians are stupid sociopath doody-heads and Conservatives are religious fascist morons.
    jimmythehutt 2751 2010-12-17 04:34:17.0 login to vote score 3
    so vote republican: Libertarians are stupid sociopath doody-heads and Conservatives are religious fascist morons.

    Glad to see you finally understand :).
    pajamas 7950 2010-12-17 04:47:22.0 login to vote score 5
    The ethical distinction between state and federal government that many libertarians seem to focus on is unique and inscrutable to me.
    farkmeblind 482 2010-12-17 05:36:08.0 login to vote score 1
    pajamas: The ethical distinction between state and federal government that many libertarians seem to focus on is unique and inscrutable to me.

    Interesting viewpoint. I just usually translate it as "Federalism bad, Statism good". There's very little coherent reasoning behind that judgment, especially when discussing regulation of industries that already operate in several states.


    pajamas 7950 2010-12-17 05:45:36.0 login to vote score 1
    farkmeblind: Interesting viewpoint. I just usually translate it as "Federalism bad, Statism good". There's very little coherent reasoning behind that judgment, especially when discussing regulation of industries that already operate in several states.

    I'm not sure how to translate it. I'm sure, on some level, it's generated by a belief that local government is more responsive to individual liberty, but that seems to not be the case consistently.
    so vote republican 6688 2010-12-17 08:32:59.0 login to vote score 0
    pajamas: The ethical distinction between state and federal government that many libertarians seem to focus on is unique and inscrutable to me.

    It's the distinction between having to move a hundred miles or so to avoid a government situation you dislike vs having to move a couple thousand.

    It's also the distinction between honoring the Constitution or having it become "just a godamn piece of paper".
    so vote republican 6688 2010-12-17 08:33:38.0 login to vote score 0
    pajamas: I'm not sure how to translate it. I'm sure, on some level, it's generated by a belief that local government is more responsive to individual liberty, but that seems to not be the case consistently.

    But if it isn't, it's much easier to get away from.
    czarangelus 646 2010-12-17 08:35:39.0 login to vote score 1
    pajamas: The ethical distinction between state and federal government that many libertarians seem to focus on is unique and inscrutable to me.

    The Constitution and specifically the Tenth Amendment. If the government doesn't follow the law why should we?
    quick1 501 2010-12-17 08:37:12.0 login to vote score 1
    so vote republican: It's the distinction between having to move a hundred miles or so to avoid a government situation you dislike vs having to move a couple thousand.

    It's also the distinction between honoring the Constitution or having it become "just a godamn piece of paper".


    Although to be honest, in this day and age, if I'm already planning on uprooting myself and moving, there isn't a whole lot of difference between a hundred miles or a thousand.
    surfnazi 932 2010-12-17 08:38:40.0 login to vote score 1
    quick1: Although to be honest, in this day and age, if I'm already planning on uprooting myself and moving, there isn't a whole lot of difference between a hundred miles or a thousand.

    How do you expect to pull a 45yr old trailer full of guns and explosives over a thousand miles?
    so vote republican 6688 2010-12-17 08:40:32.0 login to vote score 0
    quick1: Although to be honest, in this day and age, if I'm already planning on uprooting myself and moving, there isn't a whole lot of difference between a hundred miles or a thousand.

    I apologize for failing to include the detail that under the Federalist position the "couple thousand" involves leaving the US.

    This does not mean that some things are absolute purview of the Federal government. But it's meant to be a union of states.

    The converse question to the "what so bad about Federalism" is "why do we even have states at all?".

    It would seem to be a lot more efficient to simply do away with them completely.
    so vote republican 6688 2010-12-17 08:42:08.0 login to vote score 0
    surfnazi: How do you expect to pull a 45yr old trailer full of guns and explosives over a thousand miles?

    Clevon and Tanqueray ken pulls it wut wif' ifun ya add on them there hounds.
    quick1 501 2010-12-17 08:42:18.0 login to vote score 4
    surfnazi: How do you expect to pull a 45yr old trailer full of guns and explosives over a thousand miles?


    paranoyd 6555 2010-12-17 08:42:27.0 login to vote score 1
    surfnazi: How do you expect to pull a 45yr old trailer full of guns and explosives over a thousand miles?


    surfnazi 932 2010-12-17 08:43:36.0 login to vote score 1
    so vote republican: I apologize for failing to include the detail that under the Federalist position the "couple thousand" involves leaving the US.

    This does not mean that some things are absolute purview of the Federal government. But it's meant to be a union of states.

    The converse question to the "what so bad about Federalism" is "why do we even have states at all?".

    It would seem to be a lot more efficient to simply do away with them completely.


    The state was never at some magical size so as to promote a more perfect union. And the state itself is divided into increasingly smaller subunits.
    paranoyd 6555 2010-12-17 08:44:18.0 login to vote score 2
    surfnazi: The state was never at some magical size so as to promote a more perfect union. And the state itself is divided into increasingly smaller subunits.

    Counties Rights!
    paranoyd 6555 2010-12-17 08:44:41.0 login to vote score 1
    surfnazi: The state was never at some magical size so as to promote a more perfect union. And the state itself is divided into increasingly smaller subunits.

    Principalities Rights!
    surfnazi 932 2010-12-17 08:44:46.0 login to vote score 1
    paranoyd: Counties Rights!

    We don't have your yokel "counties".
    paranoyd 6555 2010-12-17 08:46:17.0 login to vote score 2
    surfnazi: We don't have your yokel "counties".

    City Block's Rights!
    sloth 222 2010-12-17 08:46:25.0 login to vote score 0
    ???

    Libertarians _are_ Liberals. Subby seems to be confused.
    sloth 222 2010-12-17 08:47:53.0 login to vote score 1
    pajamas: The ethical distinction between state and federal government that many libertarians seem to focus on is unique and inscrutable to me.

    Do you understand the difference between "France" and the "European Union?"
    so vote republican 6688 2010-12-17 08:48:22.0 login to vote score 0
    surfnazi: The state was never at some magical size so as to promote a more perfect union. And the state itself is divided into increasingly smaller subunits.

    That did not address my question.

    The question is: Why do we have states at all?

    If the answer is: "Well, states have counties."

    The question then becomes: "Why does the US have states, and why do states have counties?"
    pajamas 7950 2010-12-17 08:48:44.0 login to vote score 3
    sloth: Do you understand the difference between "France" and the "European Union?"

    Let me get out my dictionary for the learning disabled and get back to you.
    sloth 222 2010-12-17 08:50:08.0 login to vote score 1
    so vote republican: The question then becomes: "Why does the US have states, and why do states have counties?"

    That's putting Descartes before the horse - the States predate the Union, and indeed were the creators of the Union. The question "why does the US have States" makes no more sense than "Why does a flock have birds?" Without the birds, there is no flock.
    surfnazi 932 2010-12-17 08:52:11.0 login to vote score 1
    so vote republican: That did not address my question.

    The question is: Why do we have states at all?

    If the answer is: "Well, states have counties."

    The question then becomes: "Why does the US have states, and why do states have counties?"


    The answer is that subdivision is important, but it isn't magic, and especially isn't magic when peoples hometowns/way of life/etc hijacked for somebody's political machinations then dropped like an old jizz sock afterwards.
    sloth 222 2010-12-17 08:52:55.0 login to vote score 0
    pajamas: Let me get out my dictionary for the learning disabled and get back to you.

    So...that's a no?

    Well, then, this is a much more difficult discussion. You see, when several sovereign States join together and form a Union for mutual gain, it's generally considered poor form for the apparatus of that Union to unnecessarily trample the prerogatives of the States that decided to form it. Yes, France voluntarily hands some authority over to the EU, so that the EU may serve its purpose. But it would be very inappropriate for the EU to turn around and override France's sovereignty in matters unrelated to the purpose and/or charter of the EU.

    France is to EU as Maryland is to US.
    so vote republican 6688 2010-12-17 08:53:18.0 login to vote score 0
    sloth: That's putting Descartes before the horse - the States predate the Union, and indeed were the creators of the Union. The question "why does the US have States" makes no more sense than "Why does a flock have birds?" Without the birds, there is no flock.

    Sure, the states created the union, but we could easily do away with them. Why have 51 legislatures, when we could reduce that by 98%?
    so vote republican 6688 2010-12-17 08:55:19.0 login to vote score 0
    surfnazi: The answer is that subdivision is important,

    Yes, yes it is.

    but it isn't magic,

    I don't see anyone here who suggested that. Just someone who said they didn't understand the reasoning for it.

    and especially isn't magic when peoples hometowns/way of life/etc hijacked for somebody's political machinations then dropped like an old jizz sock afterwards.

    It's also not magic when a huge flying dragon comes and lays waste to the crops.
    sloth 222 2010-12-17 08:58:03.0 login to vote score 1
    so vote republican: Sure, the states created the union, but we could easily do away with them.

    Can the flock do away with the birds?
    pale_green_pants_with_nobody_inside_them 46 2010-12-17 09:06:27.0 login to vote score 0
    sloth: Can the flock do away with the birds?

    *claps with one hand.
    pajamas 7950 2010-12-17 09:09:25.0 login to vote score 1
    surfnazi: The answer is that subdivision is important, but it isn't magic, and especially isn't magic when peoples hometowns/way of life/etc hijacked for somebody's political machinations then dropped like an old jizz sock afterwards.

    And I would replace "Magical" with "supporting and promoting individual liberty". I do think that this is the goal.
    surfnazi 932 2010-12-17 09:12:00.0 login to vote score 2
    sloth: Can the flock do away with the birds?

    And become some amalgambird with 100 wings sprouting from various spots?

    Maybe.
    sloth 222 2010-12-17 09:12:27.0 login to vote score 1
    surfnazi: And become some amalgambird with 100 wings sprouting from various spots?

    Maybe.


    Oooh, pretty.
    pajamas 7950 2010-12-17 09:15:56.0 login to vote score 3
    sloth: So...that's a no?

    Well, then, this is a much more difficult discussion. You see, when several sovereign States join together and form a Union for mutual gain, it's generally considered poor form for the apparatus of that Union to unnecessarily trample the prerogatives of the States that decided to form it. Yes, France voluntarily hands some authority over to the EU, so that the EU may serve its purpose. But it would be very inappropriate for the EU to turn around and override France's sovereignty in matters unrelated to the purpose and/or charter of the EU.

    France is to EU as Maryland is to US.


    Actually it's a "wow, you are really condescending to me while missing my point".

    The ethical difference between a law that restricts individual liberty coming from x and a law that restricts individual liberty coming from y when both x and y are, essentially representative constitutional republican democracies is minimal.

    Regardless of whether you believe that France is to EU as Maryland is to US. (and that is a reach), I am hard pressed to find the ethical point of difference between human rights and liberties restricted by one or the other. Both of those appear wrong to me.
    sloth 222 2010-12-17 09:24:21.0 login to vote score 0
    pajamas: Actually it's a "wow, you are really condescending to me while missing my point".

    The ethical difference between a law [...] coming from x and a law that restricts individual liberty coming from y when both x and y are, essentially representative constitutional republican democracies is minimal.

    [...] - goal-shifting qualifications removed


    There are several ethical issues that come into play here.

    First, there is the issue that the union was formed for a purpose, with a limited charter - to exceed that charter against the wishes of the constituent members of the union is a priori unethical.

    Second, the use of larger/more influential members of the union to impose out-of-charter policies that benefit themselves at the expense of underrepresented member also opens ethical issues. If France and Germany can push EU policies that are A) Beyond the scope of EU legitimate authority and B) Detrimental to the interests of Greece and Spain, then that action is unethical.
    pajamas 7950 2010-12-17 09:30:08.0 login to vote score 3
    sloth: There are several ethical issues that come into play here.

    First, there is the issue that the union was formed for a purpose, with a limited charter - to exceed that charter against the wishes of the constituent members of the union is a priori unethical.

    Second, the use of larger/more influential members of the union to impose out-of-charter policies that benefit themselves at the expense of underrepresented member also opens ethical issues. If France and Germany can push EU policies that are A) Beyond the scope of EU legitimate authority and B) Detrimental to the interests of Greece and Spain, then that action is unethical.


    I see our problem. You see protecting and asserting individual liberties to be a goal-shifting abstraction and I see that to be the point of all government. I guess we diverge here.
    sloth 222 2010-12-17 09:35:29.0 login to vote score 0
    pajamas: I see our problem. You see protecting and asserting individual liberties to be a goal-shifting abstraction and I see that to be the point of all government. I guess we diverge here.

    No, I see you going from "I fail to see an ethical difference between an extraConstitutional law being passed by the Federal government and one passed by a State government" to "I fail to see an ethical difference between a law [that restricts individual liberty] being passed by the Federal government and one [that restricts individual liberty] passed by a State government" as a goal-shift. Because, well, it is.

    And, yes, the goal of government is to _maximize_ the interests of their citizens.
    pajamas 7950 2010-12-17 09:39:38.0 login to vote score 2
    sloth:

    And, yes, the goal of government is to _maximize_ the interests of their citizens.


    Wouldn't it be cool if conservative pundits noticed this? Human liberty is the point. Not pedantic argument over whether a law is federal or state.
    surfnazi 932 2010-12-17 09:41:57.0 login to vote score 1
    pajamas: Wouldn't it be cool if conservative pundits noticed this? Human liberty is the point. Not pedantic argument over whether a law is federal or state.

    Not when liberty means that I'm free to choose which ISP limits me the least.
    sloth 222 2010-12-17 09:49:55.0 login to vote score 0
    pajamas: Wouldn't it be cool if conservative pundits noticed this? Human liberty is the point.

    Note that what I actually said was "maximizing their citizens' interests." Which can vary based on a number of factors, including 1) Who they consider to be their citizens, 2) How willing they are to restrict other people's interests to serve those of their citizens.
    fatsean 3838 2010-12-17 10:03:47.0 login to vote score 1
    pajamas: The ethical distinction between state and federal government that many libertarians seem to focus on is unique and inscrutable to me.

    Neighborhood rights!!!
    farkmeblind 482 2010-12-17 10:07:36.0 login to vote score 1
    pajamas: I'm not sure how to translate it. I'm sure, on some level, it's generated by a belief that local government is more responsive to individual liberty, but that seems to not be the case consistently.

    It is, and no, it doesn't. Oddly enough this is the one really obvious place where they fail the "case by case basis" test.

    It would make a lot more sense if people could figure out that sometimes the state is not the provider of the "most" liberty, but that is apparently Kryptonite.
    pajamas 7950 2010-12-17 10:25:31.0 login to vote score 0
    farkmeblind: It is, and no, it doesn't. Oddly enough this is the one really obvious place where they fail the "case by case basis" test.

    It would make a lot more sense if people could figure out that sometimes the state is not the provider of the "most" liberty, but that is apparently Kryptonite.


    Yes, I think this is the issue. Here, when the state sides with human liberty I'm going to side with state's rights on the subject. When the Federal government does, I will side with them. Because my interpretation of these documents suggest to me that individual liberty is the core good communicated.
    farkmeblind 482 2010-12-17 10:30:16.0 login to vote score 0
    pajamas: Yes, I think this is the issue. Here, when the state sides with human liberty I'm going to side with state's rights on the subject. When the Federal government does, I will side with them. Because my interpretation of these documents suggest to me that individual liberty is the core good communicated.

    Indeed.
    sloth 222 2010-12-17 10:35:00.0 login to vote score 0
    pajamas: Yes, I think this is the issue. Here, when the state sides with human liberty I'm going to side with state's rights on the subject. When the Federal government does, I will side with them.

    And with whom will you side when you're faced with competing interests where the State wants to maximize the benefit to their citizenry, and the federal government wants to maximize the benefit to some other constituency - which will incidentally favor the residents of some other state over your own?

    so vote republican 6688 2010-12-17 11:09:55.0 login to vote score 0
    pajamas: Yes, I think this is the issue. Here, when the state sides with human liberty I'm going to side with state's rights on the subject. When the Federal government does, I will side with them. Because my interpretation of these documents suggest to me that individual liberty is the core good communicated.

    The problem is that many programs which initially look very promising for maximizing individual liberty end up diminishing it.

    For example, the HMO was created by Congress and spear-headed by Teddy Kennedy. It created the insurance system we have now.

    Or even look at the Soviet Union, founded on the principles of enabling workers and expanding their rights, it ended up crushing them.

    So while government might SAY they side with individuals rights, what they SAY and what they DO are often very different. This realism is why libertarians prefer government to be on the small scale, so that should it go downhill, people can move away.
    surfnazi 932 2010-12-17 11:15:54.0 login to vote score 0
    so vote republican: The problem is that many programs which initially look very promising for maximizing individual liberty end up diminishing it.

    For example, the HMO was created by Congress and spear-headed by Teddy Kennedy. It created the insurance system we have now.

    Or even look at the Soviet Union, founded on the principles of enabling workers and expanding their rights, it ended up crushing them.

    So while government might SAY they side with individuals rights, what they SAY and what they DO are often very different. This realism is why libertarians prefer government to be on the small scale, so that should it go downhill, people can move away.


    Performance metrics could help in this regard. Of course it's also just another thing to fudge.
    so vote republican 6688 2010-12-17 11:17:18.0 login to vote score 1
    surfnazi: Performance metrics could help in this regard. Of course it's also just another thing to fudge.

    The chocolate ration was raised again this month, from 7 to 5 ounces.
    surfnazi 932 2010-12-17 11:18:03.0 login to vote score 0
    so vote republican: The chocolate ration was raised again this month, from 7 to 5 ounces.

    Just watched that on netflix last night.
    farkmeblind 482 2010-12-17 11:19:51.0 login to vote score 0
    surfnazi: Performance metrics could help in this regard. Of course it's also just another thing to fudge.

    That and the HMO act couldn't have been passed without Nixon, who was tight with Kaiser.

    I think most of the "issues" b/t Federal and state I've seen here are one person's spin on the facts being passed off as some sort of unbiased "truth".


    so vote republican 6688 2010-12-17 12:03:07.0 login to vote score 0
    Another tenet of "Smaller government is better." is that it's a lot easier to change a local government. National elections? Pshaw. I live in California.

    So a local government is more responsive simply because it is addressing the needs of fewer people. Kind of like favoring the "Mom and Pop" shop over Wal-Mart.
    so vote republican 6688 2010-12-17 12:04:30.0 login to vote score 0
    farkmeblind: That and the HMO act couldn't have been passed without Nixon, who was tight with Kaiser.

    I think most of the "issues" b/t Federal and state I've seen here are one person's spin on the facts being passed off as some sort of unbiased "truth".


    That doesn't change the fact it was intended to help people...
    quick1 501 2010-12-17 12:10:17.0 login to vote score 1
    so vote republican: That doesn't change the fact it was intended to help people...

    You know who else originally intended to help people?


    farkmeblind 482 2010-12-17 12:12:10.0 login to vote score 2
    so vote republican: Another tenet of "Smaller government is better." is that it's a lot easier to change a local government. National elections? Pshaw. I live in California.

    So a local government is more responsive simply because it is addressing the needs of fewer people.


    I don't think that holds true in all cases. Again, failure to acknowledge nuance.


    so vote republican: That doesn't change the fact it was intended to help people...

    It was intended to do all sorts of things, one of which was "help"
    at a lower price, with fewer visits, with less choice, and greater HMO control.

    And then I realize I'm talking to you, which is a waste of keystrokes.
    so vote republican 6688 2010-12-17 12:23:01.0 login to vote score 1
    farkmeblind: I don't think that holds true in all cases. Again, failure to acknowledge nuance.

    I think it's reasonable to assume that it's a general trend.

    It was intended to do all sorts of things, one of which was "help"
    at a lower price, with fewer visits, with less choice, and greater HMO control.


    Point is, that it was a bipartisan program intended to help people. It ended up not. The important distinction is that while government often promises one thing, it delivers something entirely different. Looking at history, I would prefer to have a Federal government focused on doing a few things well, such as military defense, border control, treaty negotiation, and yes, keeping an eye on local governments, rather than the sprawling catchall it is today.

    And then I realize I'm talking to you, which is a waste of keystrokes.

    Completely unwarranted animosity. I'm really over it.
    sloth 222 2010-12-17 12:40:42.0 login to vote score 0
    so vote republican: Completely unwarranted animosity.

    Should be a voting option.
    quick1 501 2010-12-17 12:44:39.0 login to vote score 3
    sloth: Should be a voting option.

    So vote unwarranted animosity
    If you logged in, you could post here.