The choice issue... is complicated, even for many libertarians. And, as I was recently reminded, Ron Paul, the Libertarian champion of the 21st century, also opposes abortion.Is Palin -- is McCain -- more libertarian than social conservative? That's an important question for me.
Even when advocating for "moral" issues, Palin's approach is a soft sell. Palin does not support gay marriage (neither does Obama, it should be noted). Yet, in 2006, Palin's first veto as Governor was a bill that sought to block state employee benefits and health insurance for same-sex couples.
We cannot bore into Palin's soul to see her true feelings about gay couples, but, at the time, she noted that signing "this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office" because it was unconstitutional. For most libertarians, the thought of politician following any constitution, rather than their own predilections, morality or the "common good," is a nice change of pace.
On the counterproductive War on Drugs, Palin is no warrior. Her Republican opponent in 2006 primary, incumbent Republican governor Frank Murkowski, made recriminalizing the possession of small amounts of pot a priority. Palin, though she does not support legalization, believes enforcement should be a high priority....
On education, Palin supports school-choice programs. There have already been smears that she backed "creationist" teaching in "public" schools, when in fact, Palin's comment regarding intelligent design should hold some appeal to libertarians. Even if you find the idea inane, in essence, Palin pushed the idea that parents, rather than the state, should decide what children are learning.
২ সেপ্টেম্বর, ২০০৮
"The Libertarian Case for Palin."
By David Harsanyi. But wait! She's a big social conservative. How can she count as libertarian?
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
২২৮টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 228 এর 201 – থেকে 228Come on Loaf, Alpha, Michael, et al. There are only 24 hrs left to destroy her--now ramp it up!
Rev: I only mentioned the library thing one time.
Twice. You quoted the allegation from a left-wing blog, then you repeated it in the post I replied to. Then you repeated it a third time in this post.
As with all of your accusations, you make no effort to investigate whether it is true or not -- because you don't actually care if it is true or not.
Yeah being the Governor of a state that has a population smaller than districts in Illinois (about the size of Fort Worth) for a grand total of about 20 months is much more impressive than this:
Yes it is.
Sarah Palin, as mayor of Wasilla, hired a lobbying firm that brought in $27 million in Federal pork spending to her town (pop. 6,700.)
Now, as a liberal Democrat I consider pork to be a good thing-- an investment in America and in rural areas a way to get things done that otherwise there would not be enough money to accomplish. But given her mastery of procuring pork, it is laughable to call Sarah Palin a 'libertarian.'
Revenant said: "Not at all, because there is no principled argument for prosecuting the women in the first place. The argument for banning the offering of money for murder (or the offering of money for abortion) is that while the act of offering causes no actual harm to anyone, it has the practical effect of encouraging harm. The person offering the money hasn't harmed anyone; he or she has merely created a situation in which the incentive exists for greedy and immoral people to do harm."
That is a real stretch, to say the least. Do you really believe that? If I understand you correctly, you're saying that there is no principled argument for prosecuting people who hire hit men, and that the arguments for prosecuting such people are merely practical and pragmatic.
The knowing and intentional act of hiring a hit man is a "but for" cause of the resulting murder, and the mental state of the person who procures the murder is no less culpable than that of the hit man who carries out the murder. A woman who procures an abortion is generally no less culpable than the abortionist, and the abortion never would have happened if she didn't ask the abortionist to do it and paid him to do it.
Are you implying attendance at the U.S. Naval Academy doesn't really require any kind of good grades or stature relating to where you graduate in the class?
Um no quite the opposite. You seem to be the one implying that McCain graduating 593 out of 599 at Annapolis put some question as to his intelligence.
But are you actually saying you want someone who graduated above 6 out of 599 people as your next President?
What exactly are you trying to say here?
Now, as a liberal Democrat I consider pork to be a good thing-- an investment in America and in rural areas a way to get things done that otherwise there would not be enough money to accomplish.
Eli I think most people would agree that federal funds for worthwile state projects is a good thing however, pork got its name for things like Ted Steven's bridge to nowhere.
Just trying to get a picture of who this woman is, this unknown woman McCain wants to put second-in-line to be Commander in Chief of a superpower during war.
Dude, a lot of us are trying to do that with the other party's nominee. The one you seem to want to be first in line as Commander in Chief of a superpower during a war.
But given her mastery of procuring pork, it is laughable to call Sarah Palin a 'libertarian.'
This is the sort of thing people refer to when they talk about how left-wingers look for heretics while conservatives look for converts.
There is no such thing as a politician with a perfect libertarian record. No sane libertarian expects there to be, either. I've no doubt that Palin fought to get what she could for the people she represented. I'm more interested in what her underlying political philosophy is, and that appears to be pretty damned libertarian for a politician.
I assume you'd have fired a trooper, too, if he used his state-issued weapon against a child and threatened to kill his father in law, no matter who his father in law was.
All the allegations against the trooper had been investigated by the force, which assigned what they believed to be appropriate discipline for the allegations they deemed credible.
If the Troopers didn't think the ex-brother-in-law deserved firing, why did the Palins try to interpose their own judgment? This raises ethical concerns in my mind, and I'm surprised not in yours. Or do you support string-pulling and the rule of clout?
I was surprised to learn from you just now that the ex-bil shot his son and got away with it. I'm not surprised the ex-bil yelled something in anger at his wife's father. Do you not understand yelling? Have you never lost your temper and said something you now regret saying?
I don't mean to dismiss the potential for domestic violence in cop homes. Apparently some 40% of police households have experienced domestic violence. The problem is large enough that the Fraternal Order of Police went to court to try to overturn the Lautenberg Amendment, which bars domestic violence misdemeanants -- even cops -- from carrying guns even on the job.
In response to former law student on the firing of Monegan...what you're overlooking is that you have zero evidence that Monegan was fired because the Palins wanted the trooper investigated. She's denied it, and there is no paper trail to contradict her.
Apparently there's an email trail and a taped conversation in the custody of the prosecutor handling the investigation. When told this of this Palin engaged a lawyer.
The investigation concludes in October.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that there is no principled argument for prosecuting people who hire hit men, and that the arguments for prosecuting such people are merely practical and pragmatic.
That's the libertarian position, yes. And yes, I agree with it.
I notice you didn't offer any actual argument that there was a principled reason for outlawing the act; you just supplied outrage at the notion that I didn't think one existed. Please explain and defend the principle involved.
Apparently there's an email trail and a taped conversation in the custody of the prosecutor handling the investigation.
The taped conversation consists of a Palin subordinate stating that the Palins wanted to know why the dirty cop in question still had a job. That's a question I'd like answered, too; it certainly isn't evidence that Palin fired the guy for not firing the cop, although she would presumably have been within her rights to do so.
When told this of this Palin engaged a lawyer.
Palin engaged a lawyer when the investigation first began, not in response to the taping. Any intelligent person hires a lawyer while being investigated by the government.
All the allegations against the trooper had been investigated by the force, which assigned what they believed to be appropriate discipline for the allegations they deemed credible.
So the police should have the absolute final say in how police are punished for wrongdoing?
This strikes you as a safe way to run a government, does it?
Palin engaged a lawyer when the investigation first began, not in response to the taping. Any intelligent person hires a lawyer while being investigated by the government.
Yes, of course they do. A correction: she was appointed a lawyer by the state.
So the police should have the absolute final say in how police are punished for wrongdoing?
Unfortunately, if the force has a Collective Agreement, disciplinary action is an employer union matter. Firing a union member is difficult and if done without very strong 'just cause' well nigh impossible.....not that I'm saying there wasn't just cause.
From own experience I'm frequently in a position where other ppl think I should fire a union member. If I fired every one of them my agency would have long ceased to exist due to long drawn out expensive court cases, to say nothing of arbitrators not finding in favor of the employer.
This strikes you as a safe way to run a government, does it?
It's the way it is.
from the caliber of your posts, oaf, it appears you have been at the liquor store all weekend--we have all noted your objectivity in this "debate' and we stand amazed at your analytical skills.
Hey Oaf--drop the facade that you only want the facts--you were never going to vote for Mccain and you, like all too many "liberals" willing to spread scurrilous rumors in an attempt to torpedo a VP choice. You are a rank,lying hypocrite and worse, a miserable human being to boot. God I hope you havent bred.
So the police should have the absolute final say in how police are punished for wrongdoing?
Serious wrongdoing should be prosecuted by the DA. Petty offenses should be punished according to established department policies.
Serious wrongdoing should be prosecuted by the DA. Petty offenses should be punished according to established department policies.
Or according to the wishes of the offender's superiors.
Gedaliya-
The key to this election are the rural and suburban voters in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
*anecdote warning*
I am a "lower class" suburban Ohioan- born in Altoona, PA. My friends are almost universally uninterested in politics- most never even vote. (I am a 'libertarian' voter who doesn't think it really matters which stooge is elected- yet I vote every time)(I actually voted for Ron Paul- in 1988!).
Since last Friday, three of my friends have "spontaneously" mentioned Sarah Palin, and asked my opinion of her.
The first(a 44 yr old 'moderate' with libertarian tendencies-small business owner who makes about $50k/yr and smokes pot) mentioned his shock Friday that a VP candidate wasn't just another lawyer, but actually once had a "real job" on an salmon boat.
Call him "The Deadliest Catch" demographic.
The second (a 57 yr old ex-hippie, former union welder in a West Texas oilfield for Exxon now living on SSI disability checks, populist, Bluedog Dem) was shocked that the Republican VP candidate was once a union member, and he also mentioned her reputation as a "fighter" against other Republicans. When I told him about the First Dude's union oilfield work, his reported political independence, his snowmobile racing, and his Eskimo heritage- his jaw just kept dropping further and further in amazement.
Call him the "Slightly racist, poverty-stricken Dem voter who sees some actual evidence of real change happening on the other side" demographic.
The third is a 44 yr old divorced mother of three daughters- 21, 17, and 14- a "disaffected Democrat" (pro-choice and accepting of social welfare schemes in general, but thinks Gov't ignores the 'regular people' in favor of the latest interest group)- who is a NASCAR fan that also likes hunting.)
When Sarah Palin came on the TV screen- she immediately said, "She's kinda cool!"- and talked about what she had heard about Palin- with a focus on Palin as a "regular gal" working mother who she could relate to. Her 14 yr old daughter was the first person to mention "Sarah Barracuda".
That's the PUMA/mooseburger demographic.
After Palin eviscerates "Joe Hair-plugs" in the VP debate, I'm almost sure that John McCain will be the next President of the US.
Or according to the wishes of the offender's superiors.
The superior's wishes have very little to do with it. Established policy dictates the manner in which disciplinary action is handled. The supervisor has some but very little discretion in deciding the degree of seriousness of the infraction and the discipline handed down. Going outside the parameters of the Collective Agreement, assuming there is one, would be costly to the employer.
Going outside the parameters of the Collective Agreement, assuming there is one, would be costly to the employer.
Certainly, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. I know people who have had to deal with those costs in order to terminate particularly horrible (but union-protected) employees. That's just how it goes in a union-dominated industry. You can get rid of the bad apples, you just need to make sure the union gets its cut.
trevor jackson(12:29)-
No, it would be a reasonable criticism of Obama that his initial impulse was to pick someone so anathema to the party he was nominated to represent.
What? Obama actually picked Sen. Biden (Dem- MBNA)- who also voted for the war, BTW.
Certainly, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. I know people who have had to deal with those costs in order to terminate particularly horrible (but union-protected) employees.
Of course it can be done, and if the conduct is outrageous enough to warrant 'just cause', no problem. In fact, the union will agree with an employers right to get rid of the bad apples.
The issue with this situation appears to be that the governor is alleged to have brought pressure to bear on the supervisor to make a decision contrary to what he had decided.
Revenant said: "I notice you didn't offer any actual argument that there was a principled reason for outlawing the act; you just supplied outrage at the notion that I didn't think one existed. Please explain and defend the principle involved."
I supplied no outrage; just perplexity at your belief that there is no principled argument for prosecuting people who hire hit men, and that the arguments for doing so are merely pragmatic. I'm aware that there are certain libertarians who for some reason have felt it necessary to advance the position you have. I would characterize that position as on the fringe, and certainly don't think you can correctly characterize it as "the libertarian position."
I explained the principle involved in my previous comment, though perhaps not clearly enough. It is simply this: the criminal intent of someone who hires a hit man is the same as that of the hit man who carries out the murder -- namely, to cause the death of another human being without just cause. While the hit man's motivation is presumably the money paid for the hit, the motivation of the person who hires the hit man may be any number of things. But regardless, the intent of both is to cause the death of another human being without just cause. Both have a criminal intent of the murderous variety.
Granted, the criminal law generally does not punish mere intent without more, but criminal intent evidenced by action is what it seeks to punish and deter. In the case of an attempted murder (where the attempt was not successful and no harm actually resulted to the intended victim), for example, there must be a substantial step, beyond mere preparation, in furtherance of the crime.
In the case of hiring a hit man who then carries out the intended murder, the hiring of the hit man is a legal cause of the victim's death. "But for" the hiring of the hit man, the victim would not have been murdered. The hiring of the hit man is as essential a link in the causal chain leading to the victim's death as the hit man's pulling of the trigger. The causal link is far more direct than your example of the person who pays for child pornography and therefore can be said to induce others financially to produce child pornography by creating a market for child pornography. My reservations with prosecuting people who purchase child pornography is that it is highly doubtful whether their conscious intent is to cause others to commit crimes against children. The same cannot be said for someone who hires a hit man to murder a specific person.
So you've got the criminal intent to cause another's death combined with actually causing that other's death. That's a crime if there ever was one. That's the principle involved, spelled out for you.
Why is the NY Times reporting on Todd Palin's DUI from 22 years ago? Not so long before that Obama was snorting coke.
Granted, the criminal law generally does not punish mere intent without more, but criminal intent evidenced by action is what it seeks to punish and deter.
The moment you utter the word "deter" as a justification for something you have left the realm of Principle and are standing firmly in the land of Pragmatism. That's exactly my point, really; hiring assassins is illegal because we don't want potential murderers tempted to take up the job.
In the case of hiring a hit man who then carries out the intended murder, the hiring of the hit man is a legal cause of the victim's death. "But for" the hiring of the hit man, the victim would not have been murdered.
This, again, is a pragmatic argument, not a principled one. A guy cheats on his girlfriend. She finds out about it. She gives $500 to a friend and says "kill that son of a bitch". The friend kills the boyfriend. EVERY step in this is a "but for", including the boyfriend cheating. If the fact that an action is in the chain of causation of a murder is a *principled* argument in favor of making it illegal then absolutely any action which makes a murder more likely can be made illegal as a matter of principle. E.g., criticizing the President increases discontent with the President, making it more likely he'll be murdered, ergo criticizing the President must in principle be illegal.
My reservations with prosecuting people who purchase child pornography is that it is highly doubtful whether their conscious intent is to cause others to commit crimes against children.
It is highly doubtful that people purchasing footage of crimes being committed against children intend to cause crimes to be committed against children?
So you've got the criminal intent to cause another's death combined with actually causing that other's death.
But the person doing the hiring hasn't caused the death; only encouraged it. Like I noted above, if encouraging a death is illegal as a matter of principle then as a matter of principle it should be illegal to criticize the President.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন