Legitimacy comes from representative democracy. The Constitution was ratified by 9 state legislatures in accordance with the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation were passed by the state legislatures, who were elected. Your arguments about the separation of powers was covered in the Federalist Papers and answered.
Theocratic Monarchial Egypt was hardly on par with Democratic Athens or Republican Rome both of which didn't last longer than our current government. You've got a point with Iceland, but it's not much longer and it didn't last. Ancient Ireland was neither as democratic or republican as Athens or Rome, it transformed itself, along with the rest of Europe from it's Roman base. In fact Ireland was the keeper of the Roman law and cannon laws from the early Church that helped to develop the modern liberal state. The arguments presented in the documents you reference are intellectually dishonest or incomplete studies of the historical record. A much more thorough analysis which supports the position I have taken about the body of law coming from a progression of non-aggression pacts is supported in Harold Berman's Law and Revolution. He brings up wergeld, bot (payment for injury), lof (glory), mund (protection agreement), frith (peace of the household) and wyrd (arbitrary fate). He covers this in the Folklaw of the Germanic, Anglo-Saxon and Norse people. The laws of Rome survived the barbarian invasions in the monasteries of Ireland and were reintroduced by missionaries. The early Churches main gift to the barbarians they Christianized was the written law.
The Federalists argued that concentration of power would be the root cause of government being able to unjustly expand it's power. You can't simply attack a larger government, there are more people and new rights that must be protected. You will have to prove how it has expanded unjustly. Liberals might agree on some points, but disagree on others, the size of government has no inherent goodness or badness, only whether or not it is the right size. Your 2nd Amendment argument is stupid, you have the ballot box and courts available to you. If you can't be bothered or find the support to use these two, then why should I take you seriously. If you can't beat me in an argument, I doubt the courts will give you the time of day.
You don't seem to understand government. We entrust the powers in government that need to be shared equally and provided equally for our markets to survive. Do you really think you should have to provide your own national defense for your property? If that is a valid reason to provide equal service and laws, then other rights are equal reasons to do so. We place in government the services that must be carried out in a fashion where trust is more important than cost. Paying extra for that trust is not coercion.
Ancient Iceland again, there's a reason these laws don't still exist in the West. The Folklaw wasn't an effective tool to deal with a changing world. You are either arguing for anarchy or you have yet to provide a basis for your attack on the state. Please explain to me how the state is illegitimate. The United States government is incredibly legitimate. It's power was has been consistently derived from representative democracy for 228 years and including universal suffrage for nearly a generation. Our Constitution is twice removed from English Authority and most of the States have adopted new Constitutions numerous times since then. If you are looking for legitimacy then Japan and most of Western Europe should be more legitimate since they have democratically adopted Constitutions within the last 100 years.
You have yet to prove that you have any basis for your system. Why should I nitpick with you over details of economics and foreign policy when you can't justify your basic domestic policy? You'll need to supply legitimate basis for authority, actual freedom under scrutiny and uphold equality before the law. If you're system requires morality and cannot incorporate multi-culturalism, then it is invalid. If you must change human nature in order to make your system work, then it is invalid.
Barton focuses on one side of the record while ignoring or unaware of another aspect. It seems that Barton has forgotten a major contention. Someone is always going to take legitimate concern with tax dollars to support some religious belief they don't have. The Baptists and other Dissenters were considered nitpickers like, say, atheists are today. This was a hard won fight to get where we are today because of the greater separation of State and Federal powers. The Constitution took a long time before tax dollars going to religious causes were stopped. If the Founding Fathers sought to protect was commonly considered a minor annoyance, then if someone else can prove the same case, precedent holds that we must enforce this interpretation of the law.
The courts have upheld this position throughout the history of our nation. They were upheld because the First Amendment was sufficient for the courts and that's why you don't see clearer language in law. It was only until the Red Scare that these issues started to come up again. There was a national drive, as part of the Red Scare to put references to God funded by tax dollars. Since it's not a popular issue for elected legislatures, we are a culturally religious counatry, the courts have had to wait for challenges to the law.
If the 9th Circuit passes a decision that you think oversteps the bounds, you are welcome to bring a court case. If the Supreme Court abandons this principle of absolute separation, and I don't see how if they respect the rule of law, then things will change, but I believe that will be a dark day for this country.
My lord, you're having a tough time with this concept. The law does not address right and wrong from a moral perspective. You are speaking of moral judgments which I said do not apply. I didn't claim Hitler was right or wrong, I said that he violated rights. I never said, or even alluded that might was right, nor did I say it was wrong. I spoke of rights. There's a distinction here that you're missing. I didn't speak in terms of killing those who are wrong either. I spoke in terms of my exacting retribution for a perceived violation. I also never said that morality has no value, I simply said it has no value as a source of authority for law. I had thought you would understand nuance, my mistake.
You're still defending natural law from a basis of morality, which is why you've managed to contradict yourself. You can't claim natural law is the basis for authority and then relegate it to a tool for convincing anyone of anything. I'm claiming that morality is arbitrary given the infinite possibilities for cultural or moral variations, therefore any legal system based on morality will eventually violate the principle of equality under the law. If we are not equal before the law, then we are subject to arbitrary fate and the system is unjust. This notion of competition for justice is nonsensical. If justice is a market, then it is full of one man shops where the owner is the only customer. Very few people agree completely with one another on what is just in every situation. Again, you are ignoring human nature to make your model work. The progress of Western law culminating with the modern Liberal state, is the story of increasing justice. Capitalism is a very natural state for people, we have seen the failure of capitalist based justice before and have rejected it. It is the basis for laws against vigilantism. Your marketplace of justice would lead to defacto fascism.
Had you actually understood the Federalist Papers, you'd remember the parts where the value of morality in government and how to achieve morality in government was debated. The end result was the morality was impossible to achieve in a system of laws and that if the country's morality dropped below a state capable of maintaining the a good Federal government, there were bigger problems than the threat of destroying said system. The ultimate test of how healthy the system was would be a measurement of the health of factionalism. If power (remember, power == wealth) became too concentrated, the system would fail.
Your assertion of the meaning of Liberalism is supports my assertion that Libertarianism is Liberalism stuck in the 19th century; so citing Mises doesn't really counter it. You see it as an aberration of the idea of Liberalism of that time, while I am claiming that it has progressed beyond that state. Your analysis reminds me of a discussion about the stark differences between the Norman Anonymous and John of Salisbury's Polycraticus.
Your idealism of the ancient state is the same crap Strauss fell for. No ancient state has lasted longer than ours. I can empirically show that in the modern state, I have more choices and thus freedom. The growth of technology and progress has gone hand in hand with the evolution of the modern state. This is not to say that technological progress cannot happen outside of the modern Liberal state, just that the modern state has created a more efficient environment for technological progress, and thus expansion of choice and freedom. The modern state's "protection racket" is an insurance policy which is the most expedient defensive force available. The modern state is much more systematic, because it is more uniform in it's application of law and more efficient. These characteristics are not inherently evil or detrimental to civilization or even a sign of bad government.
Talk of equality is only nonsense when you assert that true equality can be achieved. I did not assert that, nor has Liberalism, that was the job of the Communists. I claimed there was a balance, if the balance is tipped
Again with Afghanistan? I haven't disagreed with your points other than that the initial invasion was justified. Everything you've said beyond claiming the initial invasion was unjustified I've agreed with. I'm fully aware of the arguments you're bring up about making more terrorists, killing innocents, blah, blah, blah. This is at least the second time I've said I agree with those points. I'm claiming that the US had the right to attack the Taliban in self-defense, that is all.
There is no natural law and there is no right or wrong where law is concerned. The only reason that you must acknowledge and protect my rights is that I'm willing to kill you to defend them. Since you are willing to kill me if I violate your rights, the law is a non-aggression pact. That is the only legitimate source of power, not God, not some theory of natural law, nor anyone's idea of morality. You might as well have told me that I cannot dispute divine law without risking eternal damnation. I can just say I don't believe in eternal damnation, now what?
The Liberal view of law doesn't argue whether or not Hitler was right or wrong, only whether or not he violated the rights of others. Rights are determined by law. Inalienable rights are the ones that I and all other rational people abso-freaking-lutely willing to kill you over. If you are born into a society that has created these non-aggression pacts then you are bound by them as long as you remain in it. Your point of non-consent is moot. The expectations of the pre-existing members is that all members of the society adhere to it's set of non-aggression pacts. In other words, you automatically risk coercion by violating them. This is reality, expecting humanity to evolve to some sort of blank slate of consent at birth is as ludicrous as Communism or Fascism which ignore human nature in order to work. If a law violates your rights then you have the option of overturning the law through courts, ballots, resistance or ultimately, violence. If you can prove that the law violates your rights, you should only need the courts. Your comment about the mafia is off-base since it ignores the fact that the protection racket is a violation of your rights, since it requires double payment for wealth defense with no recourse. You're also ignoring the fact that before the Liberal state, most governments resembled mafia protection rackets, we consider the modern Liberal state a step up.
Your logical constructs to prove the non-aggression axiom of libertarianism and everything else you've got going there are just mental masturbation around a faith in natural law. If I say I don't believe in your property rights, that my moral or cultural worldview says that my mere being is justification for taking your property, what is to stop me other than your violently defending against my aggression. The claim of property rights as a basis for authority only works if I agree with you. Hitler and countless other tyrants have managed to get around claims of property rights simply by claiming that you have no claim in the first place. Ultimately then, there is no source of inherent power in property rights, only in capable defense. Since defense requires wealth, we wind up in a social darwinian situation where the more powerful define what rights the weaker have. And you thought this place was coercive?
The Liberal view of law says that it is stupid to sit around and waste wealth defending wealth. That by creating non-aggression pacts throughout a representative or democratic jurisdiction, we can reduce the individual cost of wealth defense and allow the members of the jurisdiction to get on with all the other parts of surviving that require wealth. If you enter into such a jurisdiction either by choice or by chance, you will find yourself bound by these same pacts. You can claim moral superiority all you want or that this is coercive, but as I stated earlier, morality is irrelevant to the discussion. Hell, I'll even concede your moral superiority, I don't care, I'll still kill you if you vi
It's still not 1GB, and Apple openly states that for those who want it, 1GB would cost another $50 a year. What did you expect? <tongue-in-cheek>Apple hardware is more expensive</tongue-in-cheek>
Progressivism is Liberalism updated for the 20th Century and possibly beyond. Libertarianism is what brought about the Gilded Age in this country. Please explain what it is that you understand.
The invasion of Afghanistan was justified. The subsequent national memory-loss and kowtowing to corrupt warlords was not. There is a difference, I am arguing that the invasion was justified, but the occupation and reconstruction has been bungled so far.
You can't disprove natural law anymore than you can disprove the existence of God. It's a matter of faith, which makes it a form of theocracy if used as the basis of power for a civil government. In other words it lacks legitimate power since I can simply declare that I don't share your faith, therefore you have no authority. Or in other words, if all faiths are equal before law, your's has nor more authority than mine. I can actually argue all day long that the so-called non-aggression axiom of libertarianism is something on the intellectual level of high school stoners. I can argue that real freedom has increased with Liberalism and that Libertarianism threatens to reduce the amount of real freedom that our technological society has to offer us. Let me paraphrase Paglia: If civilization had been left in libertarian hands we would still be living in grass huts.
Since Libertarianism hasn't evolved since the 19th century, it's adherents have simply wrapped it up in a Straussian maze of twisted logic atop a rotten core. Western Civilization progressed because it developed the state and bodies of law. You guys are just pissed cause you think it was your birthright to be born barbarians. The rest of us got tired of worrying about barbarians and decided to go reduce the amount of arbitrary fate we were subjected to, after all, Mother Nature provides plenty.
A non-agression pact is a mutual agreement, if you wish to continue to live as part of society you'll have to abide by the ones that we currently have. If one of these pacts is unfair, you are welcome to use the courts to prove it so and seek remedy. If you don't like this deal and feel that you are being coerced, then leave. I think Antartica still lacks a state, so go have fun with the penguins.
That is one of the most loony things I've ever read. The only way you can justify that statement is buying bonds from dictators. Buying bonds from a democracy, like Russia after the Soviet collapse or the US is no different than buying a corporate bond. There is no way you can prove coercion. Taxes aren't stealing unless you don't get to vote for them.
Your anti-government stance is so over the top, it has absolutely no basis in reality or logic. Is this the best argument you can come up with?
I understand Libertarians are not Conservatives, but they hold a lot of the same values. Libertarians are more like Liberals who never quite understood the Industrial Revolution or it's impact on society. They look like 19th century Liberals, which means that these days, they have a lot in common with Conservatives.
I understand the point on terrorism, but you seem to have forgotten that whole bit where the leadership of the Taliban refused to give up Bin Laden, even when they claimed they had him under house arrest. Afghanistan was justified based on this alone.
The guy grew up in an upper middle class suburb while trying to maintain an image that he had to scrape a living out of the hard world of a blue-collar upbringing. His own mother and childhood neighbors have confirmed that he had an upbringing that was anything but blue-collar. There isn't some kind of gotcha fact that will refute so many people saying the suburb he grew up in wasn't blue-collar. Your logic ignores other evidence. Don't you see a problem with someone who's credibility rests so much with the image of his upbringing? Remember, he's supposed to be in the 'No-Spin Zone', why does he spin his own childhood?
Even if you give him the benefit of the doubt on all of his little gaffes and chalk them up to innocent mistakes, his credibility is seriously lacking. Would you go to a doctor that made this many mistakes, or study math under a professor that was consistently doing the example problems wrong? I mean the guy even spins admissions of mistakes.
One would think he would catch onto his own fallibility and be a bit more humble when making his claims, but he doesn't. When anyone questions him, he just claims they're personal attacks and character assasins. He has yet to honestly defend his position without getting so red in the face, people back down for fear the guy might have a heart attack.
Someone who is this confused about this many things is not a source of wisdom or insight, but entertainment. Bill O'Reilly has more in common with the Hollywood crowd he spends so much time deriding. After all, he used to brag about the Peabody Award he never won on Current Affair or whatever that tabloid show was. At least Hollywood is honest about it's anti-intellectualism and the rich and powerful there don't try to claim they're one of you while trying to sell you crap.
Now to bring this back on topic, 'educated' people prefer the Daily Show because it's fake news that contains nuggets of truth instead of the other way around. It's entertaining, informative (if you aren't already paying attention) and every now and then, damn insightful. Another show that is more real news and nearly as entertaining is Keith Olbermanns' Countdown on MSNBC. IMNSHO, either one is a far better entertainment value for your cable buying dollar.
He didn't get the periodical wrong, several groups did searches of the Business Review type papers in France, Canada and the US and found nothing to support his claims. The whole episode that sparked this off was over an interview with a Canadian official where O'Reilly threatened her with the "effectiveness" of his boycott of France, which he completely made up. The official practically laughed at him on air. We're talking about a guy who was doing crap entertainment journalism before he found out how effective his tabloid tactics were in wake of Limbaugh.
Not to mention that O'Reilly totally misleads people about his background. He came from an upper middle class neighborhood and his father was a oil industry accountant. He claims he grew up in a more working class neighborhood across town and that coal miners are "his" people. Mike Wallace did a really good job of calling him on this crap last week, it provided much entertainment to watch him just sit there and expect viewers to believe the amazing lack of consistency in his statements. Al Franken has bet O'Reilly $10K to prove his statements about his background are true and has had numerous people who grew up with O'Reilly refute his claims.
Try comparing The Al Franken show on Sundance to The O'Reilly Factor sometime, the contrast in quality discussion is stark.
The Federalists conceeded the absolutism of separation to the Anti-Federalists during the debate over the Bill of Rights. While that isn't contained in the Federalist Papers themselves, it is contained in the Anti-Federalist Papers and the Federalists discussions following the publication of the Federalist Papers. The Federalists felt conceeding this point was a reasonable compromise for something they thought was unneccesary. If you have other records that refute this, please provide them.
I'm not saying a reasonable person can't disagree, it's that the position isn't supported once you scratch the surface. I can defend this point with the historical record, I've yet to find someone who held the opposite position who can do the same. The number one defense is the text of the Constitution, the second is the Federalist Papers, after that it seems to crumble. The second I bring up more references beyond this people usually just quit trying.
As far as accusing me of using a crutch, I wasn't basing my rational, just characterizing the non-absolutist position. The historical record doesn't support the non-absolutist position, and that has been consistently reinforced by peer reviewed academia and the courts. It seems that once ignorance is not a factor there must be an ulterior motive for asserting this position. There are numerous accounts in the historical record where demagogues and theocrats have used this position in light of evidence to the contrary as part of a path to power.
If GW Bush asked the taxpayers to bail him out on a $2-billion dollar flop investment he made
You mean like Iraq? That was a $200 Billion bad investment, and both Soros and I happen to be investors.
BTW, how exactly did Soros coerce anyone out of their money? If he advocated for assisting Russia and was declined, I don't see how he coerced anyone. If he had raised a private army and then threatened anyone who didn't assist in Russia, you might have a point, but he didn't and you don't. Soros is well known for his contempt of both Fascism and Communism, attempting to paint hime with either brush is quite ludicrous. He's done a hell of a lot more than you to fight these ideologies. BTW, natural law is complete bunk, it was a broken rational that flailed around after people started to realize that they might need a better source of authority than a deity. iurisdictio comes from faith in a series of non-agression pacts known as the corpus juris, which must be logically consistent.
Your dedication to natural law is theocracy without a named deity.
Please don't bring up that Gore Internet thing on/. this crowd knows better. We all read the article when Dr. Cerf backed up Gore's statement. I'm not spinning, I'm citing historical fact. John Locke, Adam Smith, Alexis de Tocqueville and Karl Popper were all Liberals.
As for your assertions: 1) Only the far-left supports "Socialized healthcare". Big L Liberals may support varying degrees of socialized health insurance, but not socialized healthcare. 2) Big L Liberals have always noted the danger of concentration of wealth and the relationship of wealth and power to democracy and the Open Society. 3) Liberal candidates believe that Vouchers are not the cure to our failing public schools. They don't simply oppose them on principle, they oppose them because the programs are consistently underfunded and thus do not address the need of society to educate the next generation.
I support Open Source and Open Markets, but I also understand that in order for them to survive, the rights of minorities must be protected. The answer is not in taking away the safety net of the vulnerable. Government is no more inherently evil than any other human organization, for you to characterize it this way undermines your argument. While I believe in meritocracies and free markets, I also understand that they lack long term vision and can easily result in chaotic environments that do more harm than the good they provide. They also create defacto fascism, which like a monoculture of MS, creates vulnerable societies and cultures. Belief doesn't really enter into it. This is not a question of faith, but of reasoned analysis. Blind faith in free or open markets is as assinine as Marxism.
Please explain your comparison of MS' preditorial practices and the Democratic Party. I haven't heard this one yet. Your accusation that the Democrats have no intention or ability to deliver is baseless on it's face. The facts and reasoning of the people you are attacking says otherwise. Why should I take your vague accusations over their specific plans?
The idea that anyting other than removing Bush from office this November is in my best interest is laughable. I'm a progressive, not an idealist. It's an American tradition of pragmatic moderatism that I am acting in and one based on rational analysis of the facts. For all of the Democratic Party's faults, you have yet to present any reasonable solutions. Perhaps you should read an earlier post I made today as to why I like groups like MoveOn.org and other 527's, which are not allowed to coordinate with the Kerry campaign or the Democratic Party. I think I've made a far more compelling argument to vote for Kerry rather than a third party candidate on/. than you have made against it. Unless you can come up with an argument that can overcome this, I doubt you'll get very far with me.
Please explain to me what I have to gain from 4 more years of Bush, I can think of plenty that I have to lose.
Soros is a follower and student of Karl Popper. I believe that Soros was most influenced by Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies. Popper is a really interesting person, who most/.ers would find a lot of ideas in common. You may find that some of the ideas you hold about rationality and science originated with Popper. I think that Karl Popper managed to breath new life into Liberalism when many were questioning how much further it could take us.
Karl Popper was also one of the first to advocate Free Markets as a feature of the Open Society, although I think that his idea of Free Markets more resemble what the current debate is calling Fair Trade rather than what is called Free Trade. The Clintons and many of the people that served in Bill's Administration were at least influenced by Karl Popper, which is why I think the Democrats during the 90's were so confusing to many in the far-left.
Your reference is pretty far outside the mainstream, even for conservatives. Most conservatives I know respect George Soros and have never characterized his attempts at international intervention in the former Soviet Bloc in the way presented on the ultra-libertarian site you've dug up.
As for Afghanistan, we should have been putting pressure on the Taliban and Pakistan long before 9/11. There was outcry on the left for a long time about the crimes of the Taliban, especially against women and when they destroyed the ancient statues of Buddha in summer '03. Had we supported the Northern Alliance in there fight against the Taliban sooner, Bin Laden would not have had a base of operations there, and the world could very well be a different place today.
If you are going to suggest that the Taliban should have been left in place, what do you suggest should have been done following 9/11?
As someone who survived the Holocuast, George Soros has the right to bring up comparisons with Hitler without invoking Godwin's law. The article by Soros was the first link in the main column of the page and is the basis of discussion here. It's the one where he gives a rational basis for his rabid anti-Bush stance. That is a valid basis for discussion, the fact that his reflections have made him "rabidly anti-Bush" does not dilute the weight of his argument.
If Bush is actually correct, and George Soros is wrong, then you should be able to show how; rather than deriding him for his destination while ignoring how he got there.
Perhaps they haven't gotten a conservative submission that meets the ahem... "quality" threshold for posting on/. You wouldn't want to see "conservative" viewpoints unfairly subsidized by the editorial staff, would you?
All ribbing aside... If you're going to complain about perported slant of this section, could you at least provide some examples of what you think are conservative stories that should be posted so we aren't having to judge your assertion on some nebulous accusation of "too liberal".
If that is your analysis then perhaps you should re-read it, or perhaps you should present a more thorough reasoning for your conclusions. It seems to me that you've simply missed the point and are mischaracterizing my post.
I realize that lots of well-meaning people on both sides like to decry 527's, but it's shortsighted. The beauty of 527's is that they are not tied to political parties or candidates. They can make or break campaigns, but they have no monetary alligiance to the candidate or their party.
Let's say one of the Soros funded 527s, like America Coming Together, goes and registers 45,000 new Democrats in Florida (which they have) based on Bush's horrible policies on three issues: Iraq, the Healthcare system and the Economy. Now let's say that Kerry wins Florida by less than 45,000 votes. ACT, a 527 with no alligance to Kerry or the Democratic Party was a dealmaker for Kerry. Now, fast forward a couple of years into a Kerry Presidency and Kerry is now persuing policies opposite to the goals of ACT. ACT is free to take it's organization, it's membership lists, it's money and go support another candidate or another party, including a third party. This could prove damaging to a Kerry and the Presidency if ACT were to swing another, say, Senate election or a couple of House seats.
527's are able to band together and also are able to work with PACs. ACT regularly teams up with MoveOn.org-PAC and others like the Sierra Club and Planned Parenthood under the umbrella 527 America Votes to coordinate voter registration drives. I've personally spent all of my political energy this election helping to build groups like this rather than work directly with the Democratic Party. This way, I can help make sure the Dems when they win, stay honest. If they don't, we'll go support a Green Party candidate or maybe form a new party and support them. Similarly, if one of the groups in our little coalition starts to piss everyone off, we can dump them just as quickly.
Just to illustrate the power of these groups, MoveOn.org-PAC has a goal of getting out 500K votes in swing states this Nov. Acorn.org-PAC has registered 140,000 new Kerry supporters in Florida since January and ACT has registered 45,000 new Kerry supporters. It is very likely that these groups will hand Florida to Kerry. For anyone who complains that their vote doesn't count, you're crazy. Get out and walk, go door to door, set up mailing lists, form a 527 and build an organization, then bring it to bear on your elected officials.
I have a problem with 527's like the Not-so-Swift Veterans because they are lying. I have a problem with people and organizations who lie. I would have a problem with Soros funding campaigns of lies, but changing campaign laws will not do a damn thing to stop political operatives from lying. So, 527's like Dr. Cerf's are a good thing; lying ones, like that tool of Nixon, John O'Neil, suck.
I'm not sure that Indians are capable of the kind of evil the RNC comes up with. I've yet to meet an Indian that insane. Perhaps if we outsource the lobbyists, in a few years the knowledge transfer for evil will allow Indian political groups to destroy their country, that should solve the American outsourcing problem for the tech industry.
Mother Jones is definately not the worst offender and they do have some really good articles. I just think the whole "hellraising journalism" thing is a little to exciting for my tastes. I'm sure a subscription would be very entertaining and they are a publication worth supporting. I just like having a more stoic source for my information. Just read the online version for a while and make up your own mind. I know I've wasted money on much worse things.
As far as supporting stuff, go get a membership to Acorn.org. They are organizing and fighting for issues you will find right up your alley. They've also registered 140,000 new Democrats in Florida since January. Acorn is probably doing a lot more for your causes than Mother Jones, to be frank.
Slashdot Mirror
Legitimacy comes from representative democracy. The Constitution was ratified by 9 state legislatures in accordance with the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation were passed by the state legislatures, who were elected. Your arguments about the separation of powers was covered in the Federalist Papers and answered.
Theocratic Monarchial Egypt was hardly on par with Democratic Athens or Republican Rome both of which didn't last longer than our current government. You've got a point with Iceland, but it's not much longer and it didn't last. Ancient Ireland was neither as democratic or republican as Athens or Rome, it transformed itself, along with the rest of Europe from it's Roman base. In fact Ireland was the keeper of the Roman law and cannon laws from the early Church that helped to develop the modern liberal state. The arguments presented in the documents you reference are intellectually dishonest or incomplete studies of the historical record. A much more thorough analysis which supports the position I have taken about the body of law coming from a progression of non-aggression pacts is supported in Harold Berman's Law and Revolution. He brings up wergeld, bot (payment for injury), lof (glory), mund (protection agreement), frith (peace of the household) and wyrd (arbitrary fate). He covers this in the Folklaw of the Germanic, Anglo-Saxon and Norse people. The laws of Rome survived the barbarian invasions in the monasteries of Ireland and were reintroduced by missionaries. The early Churches main gift to the barbarians they Christianized was the written law.
The Federalists argued that concentration of power would be the root cause of government being able to unjustly expand it's power. You can't simply attack a larger government, there are more people and new rights that must be protected. You will have to prove how it has expanded unjustly. Liberals might agree on some points, but disagree on others, the size of government has no inherent goodness or badness, only whether or not it is the right size. Your 2nd Amendment argument is stupid, you have the ballot box and courts available to you. If you can't be bothered or find the support to use these two, then why should I take you seriously. If you can't beat me in an argument, I doubt the courts will give you the time of day.
You don't seem to understand government. We entrust the powers in government that need to be shared equally and provided equally for our markets to survive. Do you really think you should have to provide your own national defense for your property? If that is a valid reason to provide equal service and laws, then other rights are equal reasons to do so. We place in government the services that must be carried out in a fashion where trust is more important than cost. Paying extra for that trust is not coercion.
Ancient Iceland again, there's a reason these laws don't still exist in the West. The Folklaw wasn't an effective tool to deal with a changing world. You are either arguing for anarchy or you have yet to provide a basis for your attack on the state. Please explain to me how the state is illegitimate. The United States government is incredibly legitimate. It's power was has been consistently derived from representative democracy for 228 years and including universal suffrage for nearly a generation. Our Constitution is twice removed from English Authority and most of the States have adopted new Constitutions numerous times since then. If you are looking for legitimacy then Japan and most of Western Europe should be more legitimate since they have democratically adopted Constitutions within the last 100 years.
You have yet to prove that you have any basis for your system. Why should I nitpick with you over details of economics and foreign policy when you can't justify your basic domestic policy? You'll need to supply legitimate basis for authority, actual freedom under scrutiny and uphold equality before the law. If you're system requires morality and cannot incorporate multi-culturalism, then it is invalid. If you must change human nature in order to make your system work, then it is invalid.
The absoluteness isn't set out in a gotcha phrase, it's alluded to and rationalized in the arguments on the subject. I can't recommend enough Bernard Bailyn's "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, which won the Pulitzer and Bancroft Prizes in 1968. It describes the mindset of the time. For a more modern view of the logical extension of this idea of liberalism see Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies.
Barton focuses on one side of the record while ignoring or unaware of another aspect. It seems that Barton has forgotten a major contention. Someone is always going to take legitimate concern with tax dollars to support some religious belief they don't have. The Baptists and other Dissenters were considered nitpickers like, say, atheists are today. This was a hard won fight to get where we are today because of the greater separation of State and Federal powers. The Constitution took a long time before tax dollars going to religious causes were stopped. If the Founding Fathers sought to protect was commonly considered a minor annoyance, then if someone else can prove the same case, precedent holds that we must enforce this interpretation of the law.
The courts have upheld this position throughout the history of our nation. They were upheld because the First Amendment was sufficient for the courts and that's why you don't see clearer language in law. It was only until the Red Scare that these issues started to come up again. There was a national drive, as part of the Red Scare to put references to God funded by tax dollars. Since it's not a popular issue for elected legislatures, we are a culturally religious counatry, the courts have had to wait for challenges to the law.
If the 9th Circuit passes a decision that you think oversteps the bounds, you are welcome to bring a court case. If the Supreme Court abandons this principle of absolute separation, and I don't see how if they respect the rule of law, then things will change, but I believe that will be a dark day for this country.
My lord, you're having a tough time with this concept. The law does not address right and wrong from a moral perspective. You are speaking of moral judgments which I said do not apply. I didn't claim Hitler was right or wrong, I said that he violated rights. I never said, or even alluded that might was right, nor did I say it was wrong. I spoke of rights. There's a distinction here that you're missing. I didn't speak in terms of killing those who are wrong either. I spoke in terms of my exacting retribution for a perceived violation. I also never said that morality has no value, I simply said it has no value as a source of authority for law. I had thought you would understand nuance, my mistake.
You're still defending natural law from a basis of morality, which is why you've managed to contradict yourself. You can't claim natural law is the basis for authority and then relegate it to a tool for convincing anyone of anything. I'm claiming that morality is arbitrary given the infinite possibilities for cultural or moral variations, therefore any legal system based on morality will eventually violate the principle of equality under the law. If we are not equal before the law, then we are subject to arbitrary fate and the system is unjust. This notion of competition for justice is nonsensical. If justice is a market, then it is full of one man shops where the owner is the only customer. Very few people agree completely with one another on what is just in every situation. Again, you are ignoring human nature to make your model work. The progress of Western law culminating with the modern Liberal state, is the story of increasing justice. Capitalism is a very natural state for people, we have seen the failure of capitalist based justice before and have rejected it. It is the basis for laws against vigilantism. Your marketplace of justice would lead to defacto fascism.
Had you actually understood the Federalist Papers, you'd remember the parts where the value of morality in government and how to achieve morality in government was debated. The end result was the morality was impossible to achieve in a system of laws and that if the country's morality dropped below a state capable of maintaining the a good Federal government, there were bigger problems than the threat of destroying said system. The ultimate test of how healthy the system was would be a measurement of the health of factionalism. If power (remember, power == wealth) became too concentrated, the system would fail.
Your assertion of the meaning of Liberalism is supports my assertion that Libertarianism is Liberalism stuck in the 19th century; so citing Mises doesn't really counter it. You see it as an aberration of the idea of Liberalism of that time, while I am claiming that it has progressed beyond that state. Your analysis reminds me of a discussion about the stark differences between the Norman Anonymous and John of Salisbury's Polycraticus.
Your idealism of the ancient state is the same crap Strauss fell for. No ancient state has lasted longer than ours. I can empirically show that in the modern state, I have more choices and thus freedom. The growth of technology and progress has gone hand in hand with the evolution of the modern state. This is not to say that technological progress cannot happen outside of the modern Liberal state, just that the modern state has created a more efficient environment for technological progress, and thus expansion of choice and freedom. The modern state's "protection racket" is an insurance policy which is the most expedient defensive force available. The modern state is much more systematic, because it is more uniform in it's application of law and more efficient. These characteristics are not inherently evil or detrimental to civilization or even a sign of bad government.
Talk of equality is only nonsense when you assert that true equality can be achieved. I did not assert that, nor has Liberalism, that was the job of the Communists. I claimed there was a balance, if the balance is tipped
They forgot to put the Monty Python foot icon on this story. /. for advice on getting laid? What, are you new here?
Asking
Seriously though, who put you up to this? Shouldn't you have waited till late March to submit this?
Again with Afghanistan? I haven't disagreed with your points other than that the initial invasion was justified. Everything you've said beyond claiming the initial invasion was unjustified I've agreed with. I'm fully aware of the arguments you're bring up about making more terrorists, killing innocents, blah, blah, blah. This is at least the second time I've said I agree with those points. I'm claiming that the US had the right to attack the Taliban in self-defense, that is all.
There is no natural law and there is no right or wrong where law is concerned. The only reason that you must acknowledge and protect my rights is that I'm willing to kill you to defend them. Since you are willing to kill me if I violate your rights, the law is a non-aggression pact. That is the only legitimate source of power, not God, not some theory of natural law, nor anyone's idea of morality. You might as well have told me that I cannot dispute divine law without risking eternal damnation. I can just say I don't believe in eternal damnation, now what?
The Liberal view of law doesn't argue whether or not Hitler was right or wrong, only whether or not he violated the rights of others. Rights are determined by law. Inalienable rights are the ones that I and all other rational people abso-freaking-lutely willing to kill you over. If you are born into a society that has created these non-aggression pacts then you are bound by them as long as you remain in it. Your point of non-consent is moot. The expectations of the pre-existing members is that all members of the society adhere to it's set of non-aggression pacts. In other words, you automatically risk coercion by violating them. This is reality, expecting humanity to evolve to some sort of blank slate of consent at birth is as ludicrous as Communism or Fascism which ignore human nature in order to work. If a law violates your rights then you have the option of overturning the law through courts, ballots, resistance or ultimately, violence. If you can prove that the law violates your rights, you should only need the courts. Your comment about the mafia is off-base since it ignores the fact that the protection racket is a violation of your rights, since it requires double payment for wealth defense with no recourse. You're also ignoring the fact that before the Liberal state, most governments resembled mafia protection rackets, we consider the modern Liberal state a step up.
Your logical constructs to prove the non-aggression axiom of libertarianism and everything else you've got going there are just mental masturbation around a faith in natural law. If I say I don't believe in your property rights, that my moral or cultural worldview says that my mere being is justification for taking your property, what is to stop me other than your violently defending against my aggression. The claim of property rights as a basis for authority only works if I agree with you. Hitler and countless other tyrants have managed to get around claims of property rights simply by claiming that you have no claim in the first place. Ultimately then, there is no source of inherent power in property rights, only in capable defense. Since defense requires wealth, we wind up in a social darwinian situation where the more powerful define what rights the weaker have. And you thought this place was coercive?
The Liberal view of law says that it is stupid to sit around and waste wealth defending wealth. That by creating non-aggression pacts throughout a representative or democratic jurisdiction, we can reduce the individual cost of wealth defense and allow the members of the jurisdiction to get on with all the other parts of surviving that require wealth. If you enter into such a jurisdiction either by choice or by chance, you will find yourself bound by these same pacts. You can claim moral superiority all you want or that this is coercive, but as I stated earlier, morality is irrelevant to the discussion. Hell, I'll even concede your moral superiority, I don't care, I'll still kill you if you vi
It's still not 1GB, and Apple openly states that for those who want it, 1GB would cost another $50 a year.
What did you expect? <tongue-in-cheek>Apple hardware is more expensive</tongue-in-cheek>
Progressivism is Liberalism updated for the 20th Century and possibly beyond. Libertarianism is what brought about the Gilded Age in this country. Please explain what it is that you understand.
The invasion of Afghanistan was justified. The subsequent national memory-loss and kowtowing to corrupt warlords was not. There is a difference, I am arguing that the invasion was justified, but the occupation and reconstruction has been bungled so far.
You can't disprove natural law anymore than you can disprove the existence of God. It's a matter of faith, which makes it a form of theocracy if used as the basis of power for a civil government. In other words it lacks legitimate power since I can simply declare that I don't share your faith, therefore you have no authority. Or in other words, if all faiths are equal before law, your's has nor more authority than mine. I can actually argue all day long that the so-called non-aggression axiom of libertarianism is something on the intellectual level of high school stoners. I can argue that real freedom has increased with Liberalism and that Libertarianism threatens to reduce the amount of real freedom that our technological society has to offer us. Let me paraphrase Paglia: If civilization had been left in libertarian hands we would still be living in grass huts.
Since Libertarianism hasn't evolved since the 19th century, it's adherents have simply wrapped it up in a Straussian maze of twisted logic atop a rotten core. Western Civilization progressed because it developed the state and bodies of law. You guys are just pissed cause you think it was your birthright to be born barbarians. The rest of us got tired of worrying about barbarians and decided to go reduce the amount of arbitrary fate we were subjected to, after all, Mother Nature provides plenty.
A non-agression pact is a mutual agreement, if you wish to continue to live as part of society you'll have to abide by the ones that we currently have. If one of these pacts is unfair, you are welcome to use the courts to prove it so and seek remedy. If you don't like this deal and feel that you are being coerced, then leave. I think Antartica still lacks a state, so go have fun with the penguins.
That is one of the most loony things I've ever read. The only way you can justify that statement is buying bonds from dictators. Buying bonds from a democracy, like Russia after the Soviet collapse or the US is no different than buying a corporate bond. There is no way you can prove coercion. Taxes aren't stealing unless you don't get to vote for them.
Your anti-government stance is so over the top, it has absolutely no basis in reality or logic. Is this the best argument you can come up with?
I understand Libertarians are not Conservatives, but they hold a lot of the same values. Libertarians are more like Liberals who never quite understood the Industrial Revolution or it's impact on society. They look like 19th century Liberals, which means that these days, they have a lot in common with Conservatives.
I understand the point on terrorism, but you seem to have forgotten that whole bit where the leadership of the Taliban refused to give up Bin Laden, even when they claimed they had him under house arrest. Afghanistan was justified based on this alone.
The guy grew up in an upper middle class suburb while trying to maintain an image that he had to scrape a living out of the hard world of a blue-collar upbringing. His own mother and childhood neighbors have confirmed that he had an upbringing that was anything but blue-collar. There isn't some kind of gotcha fact that will refute so many people saying the suburb he grew up in wasn't blue-collar. Your logic ignores other evidence. Don't you see a problem with someone who's credibility rests so much with the image of his upbringing? Remember, he's supposed to be in the 'No-Spin Zone', why does he spin his own childhood?
Even if you give him the benefit of the doubt on all of his little gaffes and chalk them up to innocent mistakes, his credibility is seriously lacking. Would you go to a doctor that made this many mistakes, or study math under a professor that was consistently doing the example problems wrong? I mean the guy even spins admissions of mistakes.
One would think he would catch onto his own fallibility and be a bit more humble when making his claims, but he doesn't. When anyone questions him, he just claims they're personal attacks and character assasins. He has yet to honestly defend his position without getting so red in the face, people back down for fear the guy might have a heart attack.
Someone who is this confused about this many things is not a source of wisdom or insight, but entertainment. Bill O'Reilly has more in common with the Hollywood crowd he spends so much time deriding. After all, he used to brag about the Peabody Award he never won on Current Affair or whatever that tabloid show was. At least Hollywood is honest about it's anti-intellectualism and the rich and powerful there don't try to claim they're one of you while trying to sell you crap.
Now to bring this back on topic, 'educated' people prefer the Daily Show because it's fake news that contains nuggets of truth instead of the other way around. It's entertaining, informative (if you aren't already paying attention) and every now and then, damn insightful. Another show that is more real news and nearly as entertaining is Keith Olbermanns' Countdown on MSNBC. IMNSHO, either one is a far better entertainment value for your cable buying dollar.
He didn't get the periodical wrong, several groups did searches of the Business Review type papers in France, Canada and the US and found nothing to support his claims. The whole episode that sparked this off was over an interview with a Canadian official where O'Reilly threatened her with the "effectiveness" of his boycott of France, which he completely made up. The official practically laughed at him on air. We're talking about a guy who was doing crap entertainment journalism before he found out how effective his tabloid tactics were in wake of Limbaugh.
Not to mention that O'Reilly totally misleads people about his background. He came from an upper middle class neighborhood and his father was a oil industry accountant. He claims he grew up in a more working class neighborhood across town and that coal miners are "his" people. Mike Wallace did a really good job of calling him on this crap last week, it provided much entertainment to watch him just sit there and expect viewers to believe the amazing lack of consistency in his statements. Al Franken has bet O'Reilly $10K to prove his statements about his background are true and has had numerous people who grew up with O'Reilly refute his claims.
Try comparing The Al Franken show on Sundance to The O'Reilly Factor sometime, the contrast in quality discussion is stark.
The Federalists conceeded the absolutism of separation to the Anti-Federalists during the debate over the Bill of Rights.
While that isn't contained in the Federalist Papers themselves, it is contained in the Anti-Federalist Papers and the Federalists discussions following the publication of the Federalist Papers. The Federalists felt conceeding this point was a reasonable compromise for something they thought was unneccesary. If you have other records that refute this, please provide them.
I'm not saying a reasonable person can't disagree, it's that the position isn't supported once you scratch the surface. I can defend this point with the historical record, I've yet to find someone who held the opposite position who can do the same. The number one defense is the text of the Constitution, the second is the Federalist Papers, after that it seems to crumble. The second I bring up more references beyond this people usually just quit trying.
As far as accusing me of using a crutch, I wasn't basing my rational, just characterizing the non-absolutist position. The historical record doesn't support the non-absolutist position, and that has been consistently reinforced by peer reviewed academia and the courts. It seems that once ignorance is not a factor there must be an ulterior motive for asserting this position. There are numerous accounts in the historical record where demagogues and theocrats have used this position in light of evidence to the contrary as part of a path to power.
I think this is covered in the Godwin's Law FAQ.
If GW Bush asked the taxpayers to bail him out on a $2-billion dollar flop investment he made
You mean like Iraq? That was a $200 Billion bad investment, and both Soros and I happen to be investors.
BTW, how exactly did Soros coerce anyone out of their money? If he advocated for assisting Russia and was declined, I don't see how he coerced anyone. If he had raised a private army and then threatened anyone who didn't assist in Russia, you might have a point, but he didn't and you don't. Soros is well known for his contempt of both Fascism and Communism, attempting to paint hime with either brush is quite ludicrous. He's done a hell of a lot more than you to fight these ideologies. BTW, natural law is complete bunk, it was a broken rational that flailed around after people started to realize that they might need a better source of authority than a deity. iurisdictio comes from faith in a series of non-agression pacts known as the corpus juris, which must be logically consistent.
Your dedication to natural law is theocracy without a named deity.
Please don't bring up that Gore Internet thing on /. this crowd knows better. We all read the article when Dr. Cerf backed up Gore's statement. I'm not spinning, I'm citing historical fact. John Locke, Adam Smith, Alexis de Tocqueville and Karl Popper were all Liberals.
/. than you have made against it. Unless you can come up with an argument that can overcome this, I doubt you'll get very far with me.
As for your assertions:
1) Only the far-left supports "Socialized healthcare". Big L Liberals may support varying degrees of socialized health insurance, but not socialized healthcare.
2) Big L Liberals have always noted the danger of concentration of wealth and the relationship of wealth and power to democracy and the Open Society.
3) Liberal candidates believe that Vouchers are not the cure to our failing public schools. They don't simply oppose them on principle, they oppose them because the programs are consistently underfunded and thus do not address the need of society to educate the next generation.
I support Open Source and Open Markets, but I also understand that in order for them to survive, the rights of minorities must be protected. The answer is not in taking away the safety net of the vulnerable. Government is no more inherently evil than any other human organization, for you to characterize it this way undermines your argument. While I believe in meritocracies and free markets, I also understand that they lack long term vision and can easily result in chaotic environments that do more harm than the good they provide. They also create defacto fascism, which like a monoculture of MS, creates vulnerable societies and cultures. Belief doesn't really enter into it. This is not a question of faith, but of reasoned analysis. Blind faith in free or open markets is as assinine as Marxism.
Please explain your comparison of MS' preditorial practices and the Democratic Party. I haven't heard this one yet. Your accusation that the Democrats have no intention or ability to deliver is baseless on it's face. The facts and reasoning of the people you are attacking says otherwise. Why should I take your vague accusations over their specific plans?
The idea that anyting other than removing Bush from office this November is in my best interest is laughable. I'm a progressive, not an idealist. It's an American tradition of pragmatic moderatism that I am acting in and one based on rational analysis of the facts. For all of the Democratic Party's faults, you have yet to present any reasonable solutions. Perhaps you should read an earlier post I made today as to why I like groups like MoveOn.org and other 527's, which are not allowed to coordinate with the Kerry campaign or the Democratic Party. I think I've made a far more compelling argument to vote for Kerry rather than a third party candidate on
Please explain to me what I have to gain from 4 more years of Bush, I can think of plenty that I have to lose.
Soros is a follower and student of Karl Popper. I believe that Soros was most influenced by Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies. Popper is a really interesting person, who most /.ers would find a lot of ideas in common. You may find that some of the ideas you hold about rationality and science originated with Popper. I think that Karl Popper managed to breath new life into Liberalism when many were questioning how much further it could take us.
Karl Popper was also one of the first to advocate Free Markets as a feature of the Open Society, although I think that his idea of Free Markets more resemble what the current debate is calling Fair Trade rather than what is called Free Trade. The Clintons and many of the people that served in Bill's Administration were at least influenced by Karl Popper, which is why I think the Democrats during the 90's were so confusing to many in the far-left.
Your reference is pretty far outside the mainstream, even for conservatives. Most conservatives I know respect George Soros and have never characterized his attempts at international intervention in the former Soviet Bloc in the way presented on the ultra-libertarian site you've dug up.
As for Afghanistan, we should have been putting pressure on the Taliban and Pakistan long before 9/11. There was outcry on the left for a long time about the crimes of the Taliban, especially against women and when they destroyed the ancient statues of Buddha in summer '03. Had we supported the Northern Alliance in there fight against the Taliban sooner, Bin Laden would not have had a base of operations there, and the world could very well be a different place today.
If you are going to suggest that the Taliban should have been left in place, what do you suggest should have been done following 9/11?
As someone who survived the Holocuast, George Soros has the right to bring up comparisons with Hitler without invoking Godwin's law. The article by Soros was the first link in the main column of the page and is the basis of discussion here. It's the one where he gives a rational basis for his rabid anti-Bush stance. That is a valid basis for discussion, the fact that his reflections have made him "rabidly anti-Bush" does not dilute the weight of his argument.
If Bush is actually correct, and George Soros is wrong, then you should be able to show how; rather than deriding him for his destination while ignoring how he got there.
Actually, Free Markets are a Liberal idea, Protectionism and Isolationalism are Conservative ideas.
Perhaps they haven't gotten a conservative submission that meets the ahem... "quality" threshold for posting on /.
You wouldn't want to see "conservative" viewpoints unfairly subsidized by the editorial staff, would you?
All ribbing aside...
If you're going to complain about perported slant of this section, could you at least provide some examples of what you think are conservative stories that should be posted so we aren't having to judge your assertion on some nebulous accusation of "too liberal".
If that is your analysis then perhaps you should re-read it, or perhaps you should present a more thorough reasoning for your conclusions. It seems to me that you've simply missed the point and are mischaracterizing my post.
I realize that lots of well-meaning people on both sides like to decry 527's, but it's shortsighted. The beauty of 527's is that they are not tied to political parties or candidates. They can make or break campaigns, but they have no monetary alligiance to the candidate or their party.
Let's say one of the Soros funded 527s, like America Coming Together, goes and registers 45,000 new Democrats in Florida (which they have) based on Bush's horrible policies on three issues: Iraq, the Healthcare system and the Economy. Now let's say that Kerry wins Florida by less than 45,000 votes. ACT, a 527 with no alligance to Kerry or the Democratic Party was a dealmaker for Kerry. Now, fast forward a couple of years into a Kerry Presidency and Kerry is now persuing policies opposite to the goals of ACT. ACT is free to take it's organization, it's membership lists, it's money and go support another candidate or another party, including a third party. This could prove damaging to a Kerry and the Presidency if ACT were to swing another, say, Senate election or a couple of House seats.
527's are able to band together and also are able to work with PACs. ACT regularly teams up with MoveOn.org-PAC and others like the Sierra Club and Planned Parenthood under the umbrella 527 America Votes to coordinate voter registration drives. I've personally spent all of my political energy this election helping to build groups like this rather than work directly with the Democratic Party. This way, I can help make sure the Dems when they win, stay honest. If they don't, we'll go support a Green Party candidate or maybe form a new party and support them. Similarly, if one of the groups in our little coalition starts to piss everyone off, we can dump them just as quickly.
Just to illustrate the power of these groups, MoveOn.org-PAC has a goal of getting out 500K votes in swing states this Nov. Acorn.org-PAC has registered 140,000 new Kerry supporters in Florida since January and ACT has registered 45,000 new Kerry supporters. It is very likely that these groups will hand Florida to Kerry. For anyone who complains that their vote doesn't count, you're crazy. Get out and walk, go door to door, set up mailing lists, form a 527 and build an organization, then bring it to bear on your elected officials.
I have a problem with 527's like the Not-so-Swift Veterans because they are lying. I have a problem with people and organizations who lie. I would have a problem with Soros funding campaigns of lies, but changing campaign laws will not do a damn thing to stop political operatives from lying. So, 527's like Dr. Cerf's are a good thing; lying ones, like that tool of Nixon, John O'Neil, suck.
I'm not sure that Indians are capable of the kind of evil the RNC comes up with. I've yet to meet an Indian that insane. Perhaps if we outsource the lobbyists, in a few years the knowledge transfer for evil will allow Indian political groups to destroy their country, that should solve the American outsourcing problem for the tech industry.
Mother Jones is definately not the worst offender and they do have some really good articles. I just think the whole "hellraising journalism" thing is a little to exciting for my tastes. I'm sure a subscription would be very entertaining and they are a publication worth supporting. I just like having a more stoic source for my information. Just read the online version for a while and make up your own mind. I know I've wasted money on much worse things.
As far as supporting stuff, go get a membership to Acorn.org. They are organizing and fighting for issues you will find right up your alley. They've also registered 140,000 new Democrats in Florida since January. Acorn is probably doing a lot more for your causes than Mother Jones, to be frank.