([stare decisis] also says the same court should be reluctant to overturn itself.)
Offtopic, I know, but I was wondering if you or someone else might know the legal term for a related concept. What is the term which means a litigant must be consistent across different cases? For instance, a defendant couldn't argue one point in one case and the opposite point in another case. I believe the term comes from the French.
Ah, but your "off" switch can't turn my TV off. Without this sort of legislation, you won't be able to control what I watch.
This bill is brought to you by the same people that decided that their fellow citizens shouldn't be able to purchase a sex toy from the Web, engage in consensual oral sex, or consume certain types of substances.
The purpose of the bill is to subject you to their morals. (One could argue that this is also the essential function of laws and government.)
"The Oprah victory," said Collins, "was based on very narrow statutory grounds. And while it was an important win, it was a costly one, which would have bankrupted most other defendants. That is why these laws need to be repealed or struck down -- because they punish the innocent for exercising their First Amendment rights."
Well, I asked because I have OCD. It doesn't negatively interfere with my life (well, not anymore, and never to a large degree.) It's actually very useful, and I credit it with my success in academics, business, and life. OCD is probably one of the most useful "disorders" to have, and it is very common among successful people.
My obsession and compulsion were both thinking, so it never manifested itself in hand washing or counting or anything like that. It did manifest itself in persistent, unwanted thoughts.
I responded very well to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in a very short amount of time.
I'm liberal and perfectionistic, and I have a "type A" personality. Many of my friends are the same way. (I should note that I live and work in a city. I didn't have much in common with my neighbors in the 'burbs.)
In any case, when I read your description about your behavior, I was immediately struck by the classic OCD characteristics. You might benefit by looking into it more. I know that I'm much happier now.
If you don't mind my asking, how do you know you're not obsessive compulsive? You indicate that you have obsessions (e.g. collection of notebooks, order, patterns, rules) and compulsions (e.g. writing, organizing, rule following.) I'm not a psychologist, but I am familiar with OCD, and you do present several symptoms.
From the DSM-IV:
DSM IV Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) Criteria
A. Either obsessions or compulsions:
Obsessions as defined by (1), (2), (3), and (4):
(1) recurrent and persistent thoughts, impulses, or images that are experienced at some time during the disturbance, as intrusive and inappropriate and that cause marked anxiety or distress
(2) the thoughts, impulses, or images are not simply excessive worries about real-life problems
(3) the person attempts to ignore or suppress such thoughts, impulses, or images, or to neutralize them with some other thought or action
(4) the person recognizes that the obsessional thoughts, impulses, or images are a product of his or her own mind (not imposed from without as in thought insertion)
Compulsions as defined by (1) and (2):
(1) repetitive behaviors (e.g., hand washing, ordering, checking) or mental acts (e.g., praying, counting, repeating words silently) that the person feels driven to perform in response to an obsession, or according to rules that must be applied rigidly
(2) the behaviors or mental acts are aimed at preventing or reducing distress or preventing some dreaded event or situation; however, these behaviors or mental acts either are not connected in a realistic way with what they are designed to neutralize or prevent or are clearly excessive
B. At some point during the course of the disorder, the person has recognized that the obsessions or compulsions are excessive or unreasonable. Note: This does not apply to children.
C. The obsessions or compulsions cause marked distress, are time consuming (take more than 1 hour a day), or significantly interfere with the person's normal routine, occupational (or academic) functioning, or usual social activities or relationships.
D. If another Axis I disorder is present, the content of the obsessions or compulsions is not restricted to it (e.g., preoccupation with food in the presence of an Eating Disorder; hair pulling in the presence of Trichotillomania; concern with appearance in the presence of Body Dysmorphic Disorder; preoccupation with drugs in the presence of a Substance Use Disorder; preoccupation with having a serious illness in the presence of Hypochondriasis; preoccupation with sexual urges or fantasies in the presence of a Paraphilia; or guilty ruminations in the presence of Major Depressive Disorder).
E. The disturbance is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication) or a general medical condition.
Maybe he really loved Animals and just didn't like Humans.
Hmmm, maybe Hitler and I have more in common than I previously thought.
Against War Sounds like the democrats..
It sounds like the Democrats now. The Democrats voted in favor of the War in Iraq. They are just hoping to use the war to politically embarass the Republicans. The Socialists are categorically against war.
This point: 0.5/1.0 Running total: 0.5/1.0
For a Living Wage and Full Employment
Sounds like something I hear the democrats saying from time to time. Is this like "Two Americas"
Well, I'll give you one out of two. Would you say that the Republicans are opposed to Full Employment?
This point: 1.0/2.0 Running total: 1.5/3.0
For Healthcare for All
Hillarycare!
The rhetoric is very similar, but I think you know how committed Democrats are to this idea. Hmmm, half a point for the Democrats' half-assed committment.
This point: 0.5/1.0 Running total: 2.0/4.0
Against Police Brutality
As you mentioned, aren't we all?
I'd like to add a point and subtract a point, as this is an issue everyone can get behind.
This point: 0.5/1.0 Running total: 2.0/4.0
For Childcare for All
Ok, I haven't heard this one from the dems yet, but it wouldn't suprise me. After all, it takes a villiage!
Good one. =) However leftist this idea might seem, though, those "nutty, leftist Democrats" haven't picked up on it yet.
This point: 0.0/1.0 Running total: 2.0/5.0
For Free Post Secondary Education
Haven't heard this one from either party
This point: 0.0/1.0 Running total: 2.0/6.0
Against Neo-Liberalism and Pro-Capitalist "Free-Trade"
Neither party is against this.
This point: 0.0/1.0 Running total: 2.0/7.0
Of course, I'm being pretty silly with my numbering system. My point is simply that the Democrats are more like the Socialists than the Republicans, but that they are not similar enough to the Socialists to substantiate the claim that they are Socialists. Further, we must also examine the Democratic Party platform for non-Socialist ideas. (Good luck trying to find an official bulleted list of the Democrats' platform.)
Regardless of my objections, I think one could argue that the Democrats have Socialistic tendencies.
You are obviously very skeptical of anarchism. I can certainly relate. I am very skeptical of anarchism as well.;)
I'm not sure about the answers to all of your questions (which is, of course, not to say that such answers don't exist.) I do know that I would prefer a world where individuals are treated equally, regardless of their race or gender. I do know that I would prefer a world where I am free to engage in any behavior I choose that is not harmful to others. I do know that I would prefer a world where people are free from the yoke of burdensome religious dogma and oppresive political regimes. I do know that I would prefer a world where people are allowed to freely associate among themselves. What type of world would you like to see?
I do not believe that human nature precludes our creating and sustaining a better world. I am not speaking of an idyllic world that is free of pain and want and suffering. I am speaking of a world where people do not feel the need to interfere in behavior that need not concern them, of a world where people really are treated by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.
If it does not matter to you whether I have sex with my wife in the missionary position or not, for purposes of procreation or not, or if my wife and I are married or not, or if my wife is of a different race than myself, or if my wife is another man, then perhaps human nature is more plastic than we think.
If we perceive that their destruction will achieve our ends, we are quite willing to destroy our fellows.
Ah, now there's a difference from anarchism.
We do not always want to cooperate.
True. Thankfully, anarchism is not predicated on the necessity of cooperation.
In my view, order and organization based on cooperation will not work.
But you are not denying that it is possible? Perhaps you have not thought all of the things that Kropotkin or Bakunin, or some future theoretician, have thought.
Well, it doesn't matter anyhow. Many of us are already trying to be the change that we want to see in the world, as Gandhi put it.
I do not expect that human nature will change, either. However, I believe, like Dr. King, that the arc of history bends towards justice. And, I believe that one day, a person will be even more free to decide for him or herself what is appropriate for him or herself.
Great post! It reminded me of a poem from an unknown poet:
Three monkeys sat in a coconut tree Discussing things as they are said to be Said one to the others, "Now listen, you two, There's a rumor around that can't be true That man descended from our noble race The very idea is a great disgrace."
"No monkey has ever deserted his wife Starved her babies and ruined her life And you've never known a mother monk To leave her babies with others to bunk Or pass from one on to another Till they scarcely knew who is their mother."
"Here's another thing a monkey won't do Go out at night and get in a stew Or use a gun or club or knife To take some other monkey's life Yes, man descended, the ornery cuss But, brother, he didn't descend from us."
I understand anarchy to be the lack of government.
Close. Anarchism is the lack of government, but it is not the lack of organization. As you correctly note, individuals will build alliances to advance their own interests. It is very natural to seek to improve your conditions by cooperating with others when necessary. This is the concept of solidarity. It should be encouraged!
You are also correct to note that government exists among other animal species as well, and that it often entails the enforcement of law by force. It is the absence of laws and force, and not order, that marks the anarchistic society.
Unfortunately, as with all serious philosophies, it is difficult to give an accurate description of anarchism in the form of a post. Emma Goldman's book is not a theoretical treatment of anarchism or anarchistic society, but rather an everyday person's introduction to anarchistic principles. It will do a much better job of explaining anarchist princples than I could, and it makes for a fascinating read. (It's also pretty short.)
You are correct that many of Hitler's social policies were leftist or left-leaning. For instance, Hitler enforced anti-smoking and anti-pollution legislation.
However, although I still contend that Hitler was not a strict vegetarian (and I'm a vegan, so I know this means never consuming any animals or animal products, such as cow's milk or chicken's eggs), it doesn't matter unless he was a vegetarian for leftist moral reasons. As a leftist vegan, I object to the consumption of animals because of the violence required to sustain a non-vegetarian diet. Hitler obviously did not object to violence.
(A good number of right-wing moral vegetarians exist in the Matthew Scully mold.)
I don't see "politicalcompass.org" as a valid source.
Fair enough.
anything that limits free speech is censorship
What would you like to say that political correctness prevents you from saying?
I'm really, really sick of people associating the Republicans with Hitler.
You are obviously justified in your anger, but your attempts to link Hitler with the Democrats are no less suspect.
From http://www.politicalcompass.org/ (where Hitler is presented as an authoritarian in the middle of the left/right divide, and so he might do well with the authoritarian elements of either party in their primaries):
'You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.'
Oh, and for the record, political correctness is not censorship, Hitler was NOT a vegetarian (except maybe occasionally, because he suffered from severe gastrointestinal problems, but not for moral reasons), and Democrats do not seek national socialism.
It is a fact that people do form governments and do give to those governments the exclusive right to enforce legal behavior
This is a true statement. But does it necessarily follow that all forms of government intrusion are legitimate?
I do not believe all people are actually equal
Only a fool would suggest otherwise.
Conjuring fanciful speculations based on sophistic assertions of alleged belief is pointless.
Both you and I vacillate on whether to prefer the concrete or the abstract given an arbitrary topic. Our conclusions based on the concrete do not negate other conclusions based on the abstract, and vice-versa.
(Nor should governments attempt to coerce their citizens into a single solidarity behind a single set of goals and beliefs. That is totalitarianism)...Left to their own devices, people will seek to advance their interests at the expense of others. Typically, this has been done by one group imposing a government on everyone else.
I agree entirely.
Revolutiionary movements that assume everyone will seek solidarity with everyone else by repressing their own perceived self-interests are doomed to failure.
I agree with you entirely here, as well. (This may surprise you.)
Revolutionary movements that assume we all are motivated to maximize our individual self-interests at the expense of the larger group, that society and government must be structured to use those conflicting interests to secure the greatest liberty for all, have a better chance of success.
And, again, I cannot disagree with you. A quick study of anarchism will demonstrate that none of the points you have raised are argued against by anarchists, in case that was your point.
States do have the right to coerce behavior, using force if necessary.
I could, and will, just as easily say that this is an opinion of yours, and not a statement of fact. Such a judgment makes in no less interesting.
That is one of the primary reason people form states: to ensure that they are protected from behavior they deem criminal.
People should be protected from harmful behavior, and so perhaps harmful behavior should be criminalized. My point is that no NATURAL right exists to prohibit behavior that does not harm others.
When does an individual's behavior cause harm to others? If I punch my neighbor in the face, I am probably causing him harm. (It could be that my neighbor would like for me to punch him in the face. Is that acceptable?) But, if I consume a drug in the privacy of my own home, am I likely causing harm to someone? Maybe if I have children, and I abuse them while under the influence of the drug. Or, perhaps if I'm smoking tobacco, and the smoke causing damage to their bodies. But what if I live alone? What harm has been caused?
If you are interested in taking away my natural rights, you must have a very good reason for doing so. Theoretical harm will not suffice.
Most people would appear to support the criminalization orugs [sic].
We are back to the foxes and hen discussing dinner. Was slavery acceptable when over half of the population "supported" it? Was denying suffrage to women acceptable when over half of the population "supported" it?
If you reject democracy, then we have no basis for a discussion.
I do not see why our disagreement about the appropriateness of different systems of government should preclude a discussion about the "right" of the government to proscribe "harmless" behavior. Besides, the government of the United States is a republic, and not a democracy. Furthermore, the United States government theoretically operates under the majority rule/minority rights principle, where the inalienable rights of the few are protected from the tyranny of the many.
I do not know what form of government you would suggest...
I am an anarchist. Unless you have studied anarchism, this probably means very little to you. Anarchism is a poorly understood and much maligned philosophy. I believe in the principles of liberty, equality, and solidarity. If you are interested in learning more about anarchism, consider checking out Emma Goldman's 'Anarchism and Other Essays.' It's freely downloadable from Project Gutenberg.
I do not believe in an elite few who agree with [me] and who coerce behavior that meets with [my] approval. First, I reject the existence of an elite few. Second, I reject the use of coercion and force. Third, I reject that my approval is necessary or desireable for anybody but myself. I apologize if my other posts suggested otherwise.
You might be interested to know, as I was, that WWII did require selling to the American public. Howard Zinn covered this very topic in his chapter on "A People's War?" in his "A People's History of the United States."
By certain evidence, it [WWII] was the most popular war in which the United States had ever fought. Never had a greater proportion of the country participated in a war: 18 million served in the armed forces, 10 million overseas; 25 million workers gave of their pay envelope regularly for war bonds. But could this be considered a manufactured support, since all the power of the nation -- not only of the government, but the press, the church, and even the chief radical organizations -- was behind the calls for all-out war? Was there an undercurrent of reluctance; were there unpublicized signs of resistance?
But, the question of what one does to the bodies and property of others is a legitimate question for the state.
I'll grant you this point for the sake of argument. However, you go on to note that this legitimizes the use of coercion by the state, allowing it to:
criminalize the possession and use of substances that can reduce or eliminate a person's ability to reason clearly, control his body and motor functions, and reduce the inhibitions that normally block illegal behavior
I do not agree that this assertion follows directly from your premise. First, you are granting to the state the power to criminalize a substance, not just regulate its use. Second, your assertion would prohibit alcohol, among other substances. Are you familiar with the history of prohibition in the United States? (An honest question, as Slashdot is an international community.) While the state might in theory have an interest in regulating or prohibiting the use of such substances, it does not grant it the ability to do so.
(To lay another of my cards on the table: my point, in particular, is that marijuana is less harmful to one's health and less harmful to society than alcohol and yet remains prohibited.)
Your search for the Big Cosmic Why is pointless.
I am searching for no cosmic Why. My question is rhetorical in nature. My point is that other people have no business whatsoever regulating my behavior insofar as it does not harm other people, directly or indirectly. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with it. I refuse to allow other people to control my actions when they have absolutely no effect on others. Occasionally, this makes me a criminal. In those cases, my purposeful breaking of the law is an act of civil disobedience. I am prepared to face the consequences for violating an unjust law.
So, the answer to your "why?" question is because that's what more people want than don't want.
I'm afraid that I must disagree with your analysis of social policy. I offer that things are the way they are because the people who want things that way are more powerful, and not more numerous, than the people who would have things a different way. The people are often unable to express their will.
In theory, by which I mean without a basis in reality, I agree with your position on democracy, which is why I reject it as a form of government. It amounts to nothing more than two foxes and a hen deciding what they will be having for dinner.
The question of the interest of the government in what you do with your body is determined when we elect representatives.
My question is not a question concerning the process by which laws are created. I know how legislators are elected. I know how bills are created and signed into law. What I do not understand is when it became anybody else's business what I do to myself. That it is a law and that the legislators were elected by the people does not answer this fundamental question.
Neither of your examples are appropriate.
I suggest you revisit my examples. Possession of the book could indicate a crime: tax evasion. Possession of the magazine could indicate a crime (in some states): sodomy. I'm not arguing that this evidence gives police probable cause to search, but I am suggesting that it could indicate that a crime has or will be committed.
Blood dripping from the trunk is highly suggestive of a crime that the police need to investigate immediately. Very few people would argue that the police should not concern themselves with violent crimes. However, my point was that illegal drugs are more like sodomy and less like murder.
Would you argue that the police should also have ignored blood dripping from the trunk?
A better example might be if the cop saw that you had a copy of 'The Federal Mafia: How The Government Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes' after pulling you over for speeding, and decided that he should determine if you're likely to be breaking the income tax laws.
An even better example might be if the cop saw that you had a copy of Playgirl on your passenger seat and decided that he should determine if you're likely to be breaking the blue laws.
The dripping blood suggests a very serious crime involving a victim. The book suggests someone is cheating the government. The magazine suggests someone has different desires than most.
What interest does the government have in deciding what I'm allowed to do with my own body?
(Marge offers Homer a rice cake that has only 35 calories) Marge: You can put a little something on top for flavor. Homer: Now you're talking! (He fumbles around a bit and pulls a multi-decker sandwich sitting on the rice cake out of the microwave) Mmm. Only thirty-five calories.
Seriously, though, have you ever noticed that these discoveries are never about eating cows, or pigs, or chickens? You don't hear things like: 'Hmmm, this new study sugguests that pork might help prevent heart disease' or 'Wouldya look at that: beef reduces your risk of colon cancer'.
Of course, studies are constantly touting the benefits of eating fish, but then the government warns us not to eat too much, because of the mercury and other toxins.
This comment reflects a decidedly incomplete understanding of anarchism. Please consider reading a book like Emma Goldman's 'Anarchism and Other Essays', or Daniel Guerin's 'Anarchism', or perhaps even Bakunin's 'God and the State.'
Anarchism is not the absence of government or the presence of chaos. Anarchism is about equality, liberty, and solidarity. If you believe that people are deserving of equal treatment, that they should be free to behave in any manner they so choose without limiting the liberty of others, and that people, in general, are better off working together than working apart, you might very well be an anarchist already.
Anarchism has an answer for the question you are asking, if you only look for it.
I am old fashioned enough to think that fathers are better at some parenting tasks than mothers. Women may not need men, but children need fathers.
I think you could make a very good probabalistic argument that, in general, men tend to possess the qualities that make for good fathers more than women. However, you still have a lot of work to do if you're interested in demonstrating that children NEED fathers or other men during their childhood.
A good family is a benevelent dictatorship
I think you're overgeneralizing here, too. Many parents believe that it is more important for their child to be raised in a nuturing, supportive environment, without emphasis on discipline or control. The data seem to indicate that this approach is successful in producing well-adjusted, happy adults.
While conservatives might prefer that government fix the family (or allow the church to fix it), liberals think it is better for the government to step in and take its place.
I am a self-declared liberal, and I agree with your position on this issue (and, therefore, I disagree with your statement.) I don't think that this particular issue is as black-and-white as other party divisions.
This [gay marriage] is not a liberal issue at all.
Well, the Log Cabin Republicans will likely agree with your position on this issue, but they form an insignificant part of the Republican party.
I heartily agree with most of your response. It may seem that I disagree with most of it, but this is just because I'm very sensitive to generalizations.
I am not the one who defined marriage as having both a legal and spiritual component. That has been with humans for hundreds, maybe thousands of years.
I always find it amusing that many conservatives would like to return to the traditional marriage. It's amusing because the traditional marriage is not a man, a woman, and 2.2 kids. The traditional marriage, over thousands of years of human history, has had absolutely nothing to do with the notion of romantic love. My wife once had a college course on the History of the Family, and I was very surprised that the development of the modern nuclear family is a very recent phenomenon.
Well, if my marriage is really a civil union, so be it. I don't care about the way the words are spelled that point to the true concept regarding my relationship with my partner. I agree with you that most people are better off paired up.
Slashdot Mirror
([stare decisis] also says the same court should be reluctant to overturn itself.)
Offtopic, I know, but I was wondering if you or someone else might know the legal term for a related concept. What is the term which means a litigant must be consistent across different cases? For instance, a defendant couldn't argue one point in one case and the opposite point in another case. I believe the term comes from the French.
Well, the Republicans are in charge now. What's the use of having power if you don't wield it?
Ah, but your "off" switch can't turn my TV off. Without this sort of legislation, you won't be able to control what I watch.
This bill is brought to you by the same people that decided that their fellow citizens shouldn't be able to purchase a sex toy from the Web, engage in consensual oral sex, or consume certain types of substances.
The purpose of the bill is to subject you to their morals. (One could argue that this is also the essential function of laws and government.)
Do you remember Oprah being sued under the Food Disparagement Laws?
---
"The Oprah victory," said Collins, "was based on very narrow statutory grounds. And while it was an important win, it was a costly one, which would have bankrupted most other defendants. That is why these laws need to be repealed or struck down -- because they punish the innocent for exercising their First Amendment rights."
Well, I asked because I have OCD. It doesn't negatively interfere with my life (well, not anymore, and never to a large degree.) It's actually very useful, and I credit it with my success in academics, business, and life. OCD is probably one of the most useful "disorders" to have, and it is very common among successful people.
My obsession and compulsion were both thinking, so it never manifested itself in hand washing or counting or anything like that. It did manifest itself in persistent, unwanted thoughts.
I responded very well to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in a very short amount of time.
I'm liberal and perfectionistic, and I have a "type A" personality. Many of my friends are the same way. (I should note that I live and work in a city. I didn't have much in common with my neighbors in the 'burbs.)
In any case, when I read your description about your behavior, I was immediately struck by the classic OCD characteristics. You might benefit by looking into it more. I know that I'm much happier now.
I know I'm not autistic or obessive compulsive...
If you don't mind my asking, how do you know you're not obsessive compulsive? You indicate that you have obsessions (e.g. collection of notebooks, order, patterns, rules) and compulsions (e.g. writing, organizing, rule following.) I'm not a psychologist, but I am familiar with OCD, and you do present several symptoms.
From the DSM-IV:
DSM IV Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) Criteria
A. Either obsessions or compulsions:
Obsessions as defined by (1), (2), (3), and (4):
(1) recurrent and persistent thoughts, impulses, or images that are experienced at some time during the disturbance, as intrusive and inappropriate and that cause marked anxiety or distress
(2) the thoughts, impulses, or images are not simply excessive worries about real-life problems
(3) the person attempts to ignore or suppress such thoughts, impulses, or images, or to neutralize them with some other thought or action
(4) the person recognizes that the obsessional thoughts, impulses, or images are a product of his or her own mind (not imposed from without as in thought insertion)
Compulsions as defined by (1) and (2):
(1) repetitive behaviors (e.g., hand washing, ordering, checking) or mental acts (e.g., praying, counting, repeating words silently) that the person feels driven to perform in response to an obsession, or according to rules that must be applied rigidly
(2) the behaviors or mental acts are aimed at preventing or reducing distress or preventing some dreaded event or situation; however, these behaviors or mental acts either are not connected in a realistic way with what they are designed to neutralize or prevent or are clearly excessive
B. At some point during the course of the disorder, the person has recognized that the obsessions or compulsions are excessive or unreasonable. Note: This does not apply to children.
C. The obsessions or compulsions cause marked distress, are time consuming (take more than 1 hour a day), or significantly interfere with the person's normal routine, occupational (or academic) functioning, or usual social activities or relationships.
D. If another Axis I disorder is present, the content of the obsessions or compulsions is not restricted to it (e.g., preoccupation with food in the presence of an Eating Disorder; hair pulling in the presence of Trichotillomania; concern with appearance in the presence of Body Dysmorphic Disorder; preoccupation with drugs in the presence of a Substance Use Disorder; preoccupation with having a serious illness in the presence of Hypochondriasis; preoccupation with sexual urges or fantasies in the presence of a Paraphilia; or guilty ruminations in the presence of Major Depressive Disorder).
E. The disturbance is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication) or a general medical condition.
(time for me to think of useless things to sell to dumb rich people).
;)
Dumb rich people do not exist! They are rich because they are smarter than us and because they work harder than us!
Maybe he really loved Animals and just didn't like Humans.
Hmmm, maybe Hitler and I have more in common than I previously thought.
Against War
Sounds like the democrats..
It sounds like the Democrats now. The Democrats voted in favor of the War in Iraq. They are just hoping to use the war to politically embarass the Republicans. The Socialists are categorically against war.
This point: 0.5/1.0
Running total: 0.5/1.0
For a Living Wage and Full Employment
Sounds like something I hear the democrats saying from time to time. Is this like "Two Americas"
Well, I'll give you one out of two. Would you say that the Republicans are opposed to Full Employment?
This point: 1.0/2.0
Running total: 1.5/3.0
For Healthcare for All
Hillarycare!
The rhetoric is very similar, but I think you know how committed Democrats are to this idea. Hmmm, half a point for the Democrats' half-assed committment.
This point: 0.5/1.0
Running total: 2.0/4.0
Against Police Brutality
As you mentioned, aren't we all?
I'd like to add a point and subtract a point, as this is an issue everyone can get behind.
This point: 0.5/1.0
Running total: 2.0/4.0
For Childcare for All
Ok, I haven't heard this one from the dems yet, but it wouldn't suprise me. After all, it takes a villiage!
Good one. =) However leftist this idea might seem, though, those "nutty, leftist Democrats" haven't picked up on it yet.
This point: 0.0/1.0
Running total: 2.0/5.0
For Free Post Secondary Education
Haven't heard this one from either party
This point: 0.0/1.0
Running total: 2.0/6.0
Against Neo-Liberalism and Pro-Capitalist "Free-Trade"
Neither party is against this.
This point: 0.0/1.0
Running total: 2.0/7.0
Of course, I'm being pretty silly with my numbering system. My point is simply that the Democrats are more like the Socialists than the Republicans, but that they are not similar enough to the Socialists to substantiate the claim that they are Socialists. Further, we must also examine the Democratic Party platform for non-Socialist ideas. (Good luck trying to find an official bulleted list of the Democrats' platform.)
Regardless of my objections, I think one could argue that the Democrats have Socialistic tendencies.
You are obviously very skeptical of anarchism. I can certainly relate. I am very skeptical of anarchism as well. ;)
I'm not sure about the answers to all of your questions (which is, of course, not to say that such answers don't exist.) I do know that I would prefer a world where individuals are treated equally, regardless of their race or gender. I do know that I would prefer a world where I am free to engage in any behavior I choose that is not harmful to others. I do know that I would prefer a world where people are free from the yoke of burdensome religious dogma and oppresive political regimes. I do know that I would prefer a world where people are allowed to freely associate among themselves. What type of world would you like to see?
I do not believe that human nature precludes our creating and sustaining a better world. I am not speaking of an idyllic world that is free of pain and want and suffering. I am speaking of a world where people do not feel the need to interfere in behavior that need not concern them, of a world where people really are treated by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.
If it does not matter to you whether I have sex with my wife in the missionary position or not, for purposes of procreation or not, or if my wife and I are married or not, or if my wife is of a different race than myself, or if my wife is another man, then perhaps human nature is more plastic than we think.
If we perceive that their destruction will achieve our ends, we are quite willing to destroy our fellows.
Ah, now there's a difference from anarchism.
We do not always want to cooperate.
True. Thankfully, anarchism is not predicated on the necessity of cooperation.
In my view, order and organization based on cooperation will not work.
But you are not denying that it is possible? Perhaps you have not thought all of the things that Kropotkin or Bakunin, or some future theoretician, have thought.
Well, it doesn't matter anyhow. Many of us are already trying to be the change that we want to see in the world, as Gandhi put it.
I do not expect that human nature will change, either. However, I believe, like Dr. King, that the arc of history bends towards justice. And, I believe that one day, a person will be even more free to decide for him or herself what is appropriate for him or herself.
Great post! It reminded me of a poem from an unknown poet:
Three monkeys sat in a coconut tree
Discussing things as they are said to be
Said one to the others, "Now listen, you two,
There's a rumor around that can't be true
That man descended from our noble race
The very idea is a great disgrace."
"No monkey has ever deserted his wife
Starved her babies and ruined her life
And you've never known a mother monk
To leave her babies with others to bunk
Or pass from one on to another
Till they scarcely knew who is their mother."
"Here's another thing a monkey won't do
Go out at night and get in a stew
Or use a gun or club or knife
To take some other monkey's life
Yes, man descended, the ornery cuss
But, brother, he didn't descend from us."
I understand anarchy to be the lack of government.
Close. Anarchism is the lack of government, but it is not the lack of organization. As you correctly note, individuals will build alliances to advance their own interests. It is very natural to seek to improve your conditions by cooperating with others when necessary. This is the concept of solidarity. It should be encouraged!
You are also correct to note that government exists among other animal species as well, and that it often entails the enforcement of law by force. It is the absence of laws and force, and not order, that marks the anarchistic society.
Unfortunately, as with all serious philosophies, it is difficult to give an accurate description of anarchism in the form of a post. Emma Goldman's book is not a theoretical treatment of anarchism or anarchistic society, but rather an everyday person's introduction to anarchistic principles. It will do a much better job of explaining anarchist princples than I could, and it makes for a fascinating read. (It's also pretty short.)
You are correct that many of Hitler's social policies were leftist or left-leaning. For instance, Hitler enforced anti-smoking and anti-pollution legislation.
However, although I still contend that Hitler was not a strict vegetarian (and I'm a vegan, so I know this means never consuming any animals or animal products, such as cow's milk or chicken's eggs), it doesn't matter unless he was a vegetarian for leftist moral reasons. As a leftist vegan, I object to the consumption of animals because of the violence required to sustain a non-vegetarian diet. Hitler obviously did not object to violence.
(A good number of right-wing moral vegetarians exist in the Matthew Scully mold.)
I don't see "politicalcompass.org" as a valid source.
Fair enough.
anything that limits free speech is censorship
What would you like to say that political correctness prevents you from saying?
Perhaps just socialism
The Democrats are not socialists. Compare and contrast the Democratic Party platform with the Socialist Party platform. (Well, who isn't against police brutality?)
I'm really, really sick of people associating the Republicans with Hitler.
You are obviously justified in your anger, but your attempts to link Hitler with the Democrats are no less suspect.
From http://www.politicalcompass.org/ (where Hitler is presented as an authoritarian in the middle of the left/right divide, and so he might do well with the authoritarian elements of either party in their primaries):
'You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.'
Oh, and for the record, political correctness is not censorship, Hitler was NOT a vegetarian (except maybe occasionally, because he suffered from severe gastrointestinal problems, but not for moral reasons), and Democrats do not seek national socialism.
It is a fact that people do form governments and do give to those governments the exclusive right to enforce legal behavior
This is a true statement. But does it necessarily follow that all forms of government intrusion are legitimate?
I do not believe all people are actually equal
Only a fool would suggest otherwise.
Conjuring fanciful speculations based on sophistic assertions of alleged belief is pointless.
Both you and I vacillate on whether to prefer the concrete or the abstract given an arbitrary topic. Our conclusions based on the concrete do not negate other conclusions based on the abstract, and vice-versa.
(Nor should governments attempt to coerce their citizens into a single solidarity behind a single set of goals and beliefs. That is totalitarianism)...Left to their own devices, people will seek to advance their interests at the expense of others. Typically, this has been done by one group imposing a government on everyone else.
I agree entirely.
Revolutiionary movements that assume everyone will seek solidarity with everyone else by repressing their own perceived self-interests are doomed to failure.
I agree with you entirely here, as well. (This may surprise you.)
Revolutionary movements that assume we all are motivated to maximize our individual self-interests at the expense of the larger group, that society and government must be structured to use those conflicting interests to secure the greatest liberty for all, have a better chance of success.
And, again, I cannot disagree with you. A quick study of anarchism will demonstrate that none of the points you have raised are argued against by anarchists, in case that was your point.
States do have the right to coerce behavior, using force if necessary.
I could, and will, just as easily say that this is an opinion of yours, and not a statement of fact. Such a judgment makes in no less interesting.
That is one of the primary reason people form states: to ensure that they are protected from behavior they deem criminal.
People should be protected from harmful behavior, and so perhaps harmful behavior should be criminalized. My point is that no NATURAL right exists to prohibit behavior that does not harm others.
When does an individual's behavior cause harm to others? If I punch my neighbor in the face, I am probably causing him harm. (It could be that my neighbor would like for me to punch him in the face. Is that acceptable?) But, if I consume a drug in the privacy of my own home, am I likely causing harm to someone? Maybe if I have children, and I abuse them while under the influence of the drug. Or, perhaps if I'm smoking tobacco, and the smoke causing damage to their bodies. But what if I live alone? What harm has been caused?
If you are interested in taking away my natural rights, you must have a very good reason for doing so. Theoretical harm will not suffice.
Most people would appear to support the criminalization orugs [sic].
We are back to the foxes and hen discussing dinner. Was slavery acceptable when over half of the population "supported" it? Was denying suffrage to women acceptable when over half of the population "supported" it?
If you reject democracy, then we have no basis for a discussion.
I do not see why our disagreement about the appropriateness of different systems of government should preclude a discussion about the "right" of the government to proscribe "harmless" behavior. Besides, the government of the United States is a republic, and not a democracy. Furthermore, the United States government theoretically operates under the majority rule/minority rights principle, where the inalienable rights of the few are protected from the tyranny of the many.
I do not know what form of government you would suggest...
I am an anarchist. Unless you have studied anarchism, this probably means very little to you. Anarchism is a poorly understood and much maligned philosophy. I believe in the principles of liberty, equality, and solidarity. If you are interested in learning more about anarchism, consider checking out Emma Goldman's 'Anarchism and Other Essays.' It's freely downloadable from Project Gutenberg.
I do not believe in an elite few who agree with [me] and who coerce behavior that meets with [my] approval. First, I reject the existence of an elite few. Second, I reject the use of coercion and force. Third, I reject that my approval is necessary or desireable for anybody but myself. I apologize if my other posts suggested otherwise.
Great post!
You might be interested to know, as I was, that WWII did require selling to the American public. Howard Zinn covered this very topic in his chapter on "A People's War?" in his "A People's History of the United States."
By certain evidence, it [WWII] was the most popular war in which the United States had ever fought. Never had a greater proportion of the country participated in a war: 18 million served in the armed forces, 10 million overseas; 25 million workers gave of their pay envelope regularly for war bonds. But could this be considered a manufactured support, since all the power of the nation -- not only of the government, but the press, the church, and even the chief radical organizations -- was behind the calls for all-out war? Was there an undercurrent of reluctance; were there unpublicized signs of resistance?
But, the question of what one does to the bodies and property of others is a legitimate question for the state.
I'll grant you this point for the sake of argument. However, you go on to note that this legitimizes the use of coercion by the state, allowing it to:
criminalize the possession and use of substances that can reduce or eliminate a person's ability to reason clearly, control his body and motor functions, and reduce the inhibitions that normally block illegal behavior
I do not agree that this assertion follows directly from your premise. First, you are granting to the state the power to criminalize a substance, not just regulate its use. Second, your assertion would prohibit alcohol, among other substances. Are you familiar with the history of prohibition in the United States? (An honest question, as Slashdot is an international community.) While the state might in theory have an interest in regulating or prohibiting the use of such substances, it does not grant it the ability to do so.
(To lay another of my cards on the table: my point, in particular, is that marijuana is less harmful to one's health and less harmful to society than alcohol and yet remains prohibited.)
Your search for the Big Cosmic Why is pointless.
I am searching for no cosmic Why. My question is rhetorical in nature. My point is that other people have no business whatsoever regulating my behavior insofar as it does not harm other people, directly or indirectly. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with it. I refuse to allow other people to control my actions when they have absolutely no effect on others. Occasionally, this makes me a criminal. In those cases, my purposeful breaking of the law is an act of civil disobedience. I am prepared to face the consequences for violating an unjust law.
So, the answer to your "why?" question is because that's what more people want than don't want.
I'm afraid that I must disagree with your analysis of social policy. I offer that things are the way they are because the people who want things that way are more powerful, and not more numerous, than the people who would have things a different way. The people are often unable to express their will.
In theory, by which I mean without a basis in reality, I agree with your position on democracy, which is why I reject it as a form of government. It amounts to nothing more than two foxes and a hen deciding what they will be having for dinner.
The question of the interest of the government in what you do with your body is determined when we elect representatives.
My question is not a question concerning the process by which laws are created. I know how legislators are elected. I know how bills are created and signed into law. What I do not understand is when it became anybody else's business what I do to myself. That it is a law and that the legislators were elected by the people does not answer this fundamental question.
Neither of your examples are appropriate.
I suggest you revisit my examples. Possession of the book could indicate a crime: tax evasion. Possession of the magazine could indicate a crime (in some states): sodomy. I'm not arguing that this evidence gives police probable cause to search, but I am suggesting that it could indicate that a crime has or will be committed.
Blood dripping from the trunk is highly suggestive of a crime that the police need to investigate immediately. Very few people would argue that the police should not concern themselves with violent crimes. However, my point was that illegal drugs are more like sodomy and less like murder.
Would you argue that the police should also have ignored blood dripping from the trunk?
A better example might be if the cop saw that you had a copy of 'The Federal Mafia: How The Government Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes' after pulling you over for speeding, and decided that he should determine if you're likely to be breaking the income tax laws.
An even better example might be if the cop saw that you had a copy of Playgirl on your passenger seat and decided that he should determine if you're likely to be breaking the blue laws.
The dripping blood suggests a very serious crime involving a victim. The book suggests someone is cheating the government. The magazine suggests someone has different desires than most.
What interest does the government have in deciding what I'm allowed to do with my own body?
Obligatory Simpsons Reference:
(Marge offers Homer a rice cake that has only 35 calories)
Marge: You can put a little something on top for flavor.
Homer: Now you're talking! (He fumbles around a bit and pulls a multi-decker sandwich sitting on the rice cake out of the microwave) Mmm. Only thirty-five calories.
Seriously, though, have you ever noticed that these discoveries are never about eating cows, or pigs, or chickens? You don't hear things like: 'Hmmm, this new study sugguests that pork might help prevent heart disease' or 'Wouldya look at that: beef reduces your risk of colon cancer'.
Of course, studies are constantly touting the benefits of eating fish, but then the government warns us not to eat too much, because of the mercury and other toxins.
This comment reflects a decidedly incomplete understanding of anarchism. Please consider reading a book like Emma Goldman's 'Anarchism and Other Essays', or Daniel Guerin's 'Anarchism', or perhaps even Bakunin's 'God and the State.'
Anarchism is not the absence of government or the presence of chaos. Anarchism is about equality, liberty, and solidarity. If you believe that people are deserving of equal treatment, that they should be free to behave in any manner they so choose without limiting the liberty of others, and that people, in general, are better off working together than working apart, you might very well be an anarchist already.
Anarchism has an answer for the question you are asking, if you only look for it.
Good points. I agree, without qualification. ;)
I am old fashioned enough to think that fathers are better at some parenting tasks than mothers. Women may not need men, but children need fathers.
I think you could make a very good probabalistic argument that, in general, men tend to possess the qualities that make for good fathers more than women. However, you still have a lot of work to do if you're interested in demonstrating that children NEED fathers or other men during their childhood.
A good family is a benevelent dictatorship
I think you're overgeneralizing here, too. Many parents believe that it is more important for their child to be raised in a nuturing, supportive environment, without emphasis on discipline or control. The data seem to indicate that this approach is successful in producing well-adjusted, happy adults.
While conservatives might prefer that government fix the family (or allow the church to fix it), liberals think it is better for the government to step in and take its place.
I am a self-declared liberal, and I agree with your position on this issue (and, therefore, I disagree with your statement.) I don't think that this particular issue is as black-and-white as other party divisions.
This [gay marriage] is not a liberal issue at all.
Well, the Log Cabin Republicans will likely agree with your position on this issue, but they form an insignificant part of the Republican party.
I heartily agree with most of your response. It may seem that I disagree with most of it, but this is just because I'm very sensitive to generalizations.
I am not the one who defined marriage as having both a legal and spiritual component. That has been with humans for hundreds, maybe thousands of years.
I always find it amusing that many conservatives would like to return to the traditional marriage. It's amusing because the traditional marriage is not a man, a woman, and 2.2 kids. The traditional marriage, over thousands of years of human history, has had absolutely nothing to do with the notion of romantic love. My wife once had a college course on the History of the Family, and I was very surprised that the development of the modern nuclear family is a very recent phenomenon.
Well, if my marriage is really a civil union, so be it. I don't care about the way the words are spelled that point to the true concept regarding my relationship with my partner. I agree with you that most people are better off paired up.