True Libertarians Aren't Conservatives
Just last week, because I criticized Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy for being publicly for estate taxes and privately (when it comes to her and Bill Clinton's money) all for seizing loopholes to get out of paying them, an old friend I am very fond of (but haven't seen or talked to for over 10 years) assumed I am a Republican. I am not. I'm a libertarian. Which is why I have been wildly critical of George Bush, the Clintons, and Barack Obama, all of whom are for big government in their own special ways.
This friend also assumed I am for no government. I am not. I'm for limited government -- government where necessary as opposed to government wherever it suits some crony capitalist politician's interest to vote something in.
Robert A. Levy, in a Cato post, notes that people often conflate libertarians and conservatives:
Cato has consistently embraced civil liberties, including but not limited to the right to same-sex marriage. By contrast, conservatives - with whom we are mistakenly equated - have been selective in their endorsement of personal freedom. Indeed, some conservatives, who vigorously promote federalism, have also promoted a Federal Marriage Amendment. That amendment, which defines marriage throughout the country as "the union of a man and a woman," would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriage within their own borders, even if desired by the state's citizens. What could be less compatible with fundamental principles of federalism?More generally, conservatives agree with Cato on some issues - such as the right to bear arms, lower taxes, reduced spending, free trade, and less economic regulation. Liberals agree with us on other issues - such as immigration reform, drug legalization, marriage equality, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. Does that indicate libertarians are philosophically inconsistent? No, it indicates quite the reverse - conservatives and liberals are philosophically inconsistent. Conservatives want smaller government in the fiscal sphere, but they condone bigger government when it comes to empire building and regulating personal behavior. Liberals want fewer government restrictions in the social sphere, but they embrace strict limits on economic liberties. Unlike liberals and conservatives, Cato scholars have a consistent, minimalist view of the proper role of government. We want government out of our wallets, out of our bedrooms, and out of foreign entanglements unless America's vital interests are at stake.
Hear, hear, hear.
Off topic but in topic George Bush is such a likeable guy in person. Obama is good looking guy that I would bang. Bill Clinton reminds me of an incredibly magnetic boss I had when I was 19 (who coincidently tried to fuck me, he was in his 50s). Michelle is a snappy dresser, though I know how controversial that is in this blog.
I wanna say something nice about Hilary but I can't think of anything except perhaps she wears St. John's. I actually like St. John's, I'd wear it on occasion I suppose.
Ppen at June 26, 2014 4:59 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/06/26/true_libertaria.html#comment-4797916">comment from PpenAgree with you on Bush, Obama, and Clinton, PPen, and on Michelle being a snappy dresser.
I'd wear St. John's, too, some of it, but it's way too pricey, even on eBay, where I get clothing, when I do buy clothing these days.
Amy Alkon at June 26, 2014 5:57 PM
"unless America's vital interests are at stake."
I'm with you there. Where we might disagree is on the definition of America's vital interests.
As a historian with some background in economics, I define those differently than a lot of libertarians would.
Isab at June 26, 2014 5:59 PM
I'm willing to listen, Isab, because I'm not a historian. This is part of what I love about blogging and all the people who comment here. A very, very smart person who took me to dinner last night -- smart for a living and loads smarter than lots of other people who are smart for a living -- commented on how smart the commenters are here. I learn a lot from comments here and people here commenting here can (and do) lead me to see there's a better, more nuanced view than my view on a subject.
Being open-minded isn't how we are oriented but I really strive to try to overcome that in myself so I can give a fair hearing to things and maybe advance or change my thinking.
Amy Alkon at June 26, 2014 6:26 PM
Many people get the two confused. Both sides make the assumption you are nihilistic towards government, where all we want is to hack the government back to hedgerow instead of the uncontrolled bush that dones't let people just walk by.
Jim P. at June 26, 2014 6:40 PM
http://www.hoover.org/research/coming-world-disorder
Your fellow Californian, and historian, states the case better than I could.
The entire global economy and prosperity rests on the Pax Americana in force since the end of World War II.
Obama's foreign policy is almost exactly what your non interventionist libertarian foreign policy would look like. How do you like it?
I suspect not a lot when gasoline is eight bucks a gallon, and terrorists control a large portion of the world's crude oil and the shipment of it, via the Suez Canal.
Isab at June 26, 2014 7:22 PM
I'll say something nice about Hillary---she does work hard.
And she's likable enough.
Jenny had a chance at June 26, 2014 7:47 PM
The U.S. actually has more oil, natural gas and coal reserves than the rest of the world. If we were actually allowed to exploit it, OPEC would die on the vine, and the U.S. would be making money hand over fist.
Jim P. at June 26, 2014 8:50 PM
A nation needs several things to thrive and be free, these things may be defined as 'vital interests', they are, fundamentally speaking:
1. GOLD
2. GUNS
3. DIRT
4. ROADS
5. KNOW HOW
1A. 'GOLD' need not be literal, lets just say 'treasure' or 'money'. A nation with no monetary resources is unable to sustain its infrastructure, nobody works for free unless they are slaves, a nation with no money, can only then survive by making its people into slaves of the state.
2A. 'GUNS' representing military, civil authority, and/or citizen might, a nation with no army is a nation unprepared for foreign aggression. Unarmed civil authorities are unprepared for disorder should it become violent, whether in common criminal law enforcement or mass riots. Unarmed citizens rely on both military and civil authorities behaving according to their restrictions, they have no recourse should those former two turn tyrannical. Again, the citizen can be made into a slave of the state.
3A. 'DIRT' representing land, natural resources, and space in which people can live and work. If the land is good and fertile, a nation can feed its people, provide materials with which its craftsmen and tradespeople can work, and energy to sustain a modern way of life. If 'dirt' in this context is scarce, a nation is reliant heavily upon imports and foreign affairs become more important, if places to live or work are scarce, overcrowding becomes a problem and order more difficult to maintain. Should either become impossible to sustain (i.e. if a nation reliant upon foreign raw materials becomes an international outcast, or must rely to heavily upon one nation or a small number of them, its policies can be subbordinated by outside influences, or its ineffectual government may fear that it may fail to maintain order, and only survive by again…making slaves of its citizens. Whether the last is proactive or reactive, the end is the same.
4A. 'ROADS' not necessarily literal, this means a system of transit, rail roads, regular roads, highways, air transport or water travel, people and goods require a means to move safely and reliably from one point to another. A nation with roads binds itself together in common culture, shared experience, and mutual prosperity, north, south, east, and west, share the fruits of diverse economic conditions to provide what one another lack, and all are the better for it. A shortfall of employment in one place means a person may simply move to another with better prospects, and a rise in prosperity in one place may be used to offset recession in another. A nation with no such infrastructure will find itself 'Balkanized' as differing geographic locations do not identify with one another, even if they are nominally part of the same location. Unable to move goods, hunger in one place cannot be offset by plenty from another, recession uncapped by other reserves may become depression, and diverse economic conditions cannot be brought into balance. A state with no infrastructure like this, loses its authority, and while it too may try to survive by making slaves of the citizens, this one cannot survive for long in this way…it will break apart into many different states of many different interests. That is the end of that nation.
5A. 'KNOW HOW' An educated population will free itself when it learns it is enslaved, an ignorant population is easily repressed. An educated population is dynamic, inventive, creative, resourceful, they can build great works, found corporations, invent new tools and cure blights and illness, they can create wealth, and pass both knowledge and wealth on to the next generation through multiple mediums. An ignorant population can do little more than what it is told, it cannot create, it cannot invent, it cannot cure, it can do but menial work, and can scarcely even hope to articulate its slave like status, since it lacks the education or knowledge of the rest of the world or its history to provide a basis for comparison. Absent education, a citizen will never be truly free, nor cane he live well, if his fellows are likewise uneducated.
These are the 5 vital interests of a free people. We must ensure that trade flows freely, that educational standards are high, that our infrastructure is maintained, and that we have sound fiscal policy moving forward, and that our military, civil, and citizen arms are modern and maintained, but also that none are ill used.
Failure to support any one of these 5 pillars appropriately, will lead to disaster, tyranny, or chaos, or each one in turn in one order or another.
Now, is our government sustaining these? If the answer is yes…no problem. If instead it is not, we need a new government.
Now I have to go drive my pirate to work, pleasant days.
Robert at June 26, 2014 8:55 PM
Your friend assumed that you're a Republican AND that you're for no government? Strange view of Republicans he has.
Rex Little at June 26, 2014 9:15 PM
I had a very tolerable view of Hillary until I read the archived account of her representing that rapist when she was fresh out of law school. Made me throw up in my mouth a little bit. I'm good with everything else you said. I've fascinated by Condi Rice, though. Would love to meet that lady.
gooseegg at June 26, 2014 9:49 PM
"...all we want is to hack the government back to hedgerow instead of the uncontrolled bush that dones't let people just walk by"
That is a nice analogy :-)
a_random_guy at June 26, 2014 10:22 PM
I never liked Hillary. I think she is a powerful and eloquent speaker, well dressed…and that is it. Other than that, 60s throwback with an overinflated view of herself and her 'accomplishments', grossly unfit for office, in other words...the ideal candidate for the Democratic party.
That said, I don't resent her represenatation of anyone accused of any crime. That is what defense attorneys are supposed to do. And if you ever stand accused of a crime, that is what you expect them to do, they are oath bound to defend even the reprehensible accused to the utmost of their ability.
Her reaction over the case might seem a bit light hearted or flippant, but that is called 'case hardening' people become accustomed to ugliness until it seems like no big deal.
Robert at June 26, 2014 10:45 PM
The libertarian-conservative alliance was always an uneasy one and started unraveling shortly after fall of the Soviet Union. In retrospect this was inevitable because libertarians have high ideals (some would probably say "absolute ideals") but during the cold war learned to live with moderate expectations. The conservative, OTOH, had and still has low ideals but great expectations.
parbarbarian at June 26, 2014 11:44 PM
"I had a very tolerable view of Hillary until I read the archived account of her representing that rapist when she was fresh out of law school. Made me throw up in my mouth a little bit. "
So you would condemn her for doing the best that her job demanded of her? I don't even like her and I find your view... dangerous and disgusting.
Assholio at June 27, 2014 12:07 AM
I have a less kind view of Hillary. Her attempt to deny the right to counsel to Nixon during Watergate reveals just how ruthless and unfair she is. The Benghazi fiasco proves she hasn't changed. Throw in the six useless years as the junior Senator from NY and I feel justified in having as little regard for her as she has for me. Sorry, I was not taken in by the current glib incompetent, and I expect worse from her.
MarkD at June 27, 2014 4:25 AM
Being an academic, I hear my fair share of pearl clutching directed at libertarians, the Koch brothers, etc. I am always bemused. While Republicans and Democrats sway in the breeze with regard to civil rights protection depending on who is in office, libertarians are the ones who self-consistently apply a standard I support. (That is the secret, of course: most people don't beilieve in fundamental freedoms except insofar as it applies to their own.) My news feed was alive with the sad story in Salon about the baby injured by a police flash grenade during a no-knock raid, a story that appeared in Reason two weeks earlier. But to so many, libertarians = Republicans = tea partiers and all are mouth breathing idiots.
Astra at June 27, 2014 4:34 AM
"While Republicans and Democrats sway in the breeze with regard to civil rights protection depending on who is in office, libertarians are the ones who self-consistently apply a standard I support. (That is the secret, of course: most people don't beilieve in fundamental freedoms except insofar as it applies to their own.)"
Fairly easy to hold on to those high ideals when you have no appreciable amount of Libertarians actually elected to high office. If the Libertarians are ever in a position that they have to govern as a significant portion of the Federal government, you will see those pure ideals being compromised both left and right. Unfortunately, you have to deal with competing interests and parties when attempting to draft legislature and govern. No one comes out of it with clean hands.
causticf at June 27, 2014 5:05 AM
The U.S. actually has more oil, natural gas and coal reserves than the rest of the world. If we were actually allowed to exploit it, OPEC would die on the vine, and the U.S. would be making money hand over fist.
Posted by: Jim P. at June 26, 2014 8:50 PM
Yes, but right now we produce about 9 percent of the world's petroleum, and we use about a third of it.
The government of the US does not have the ability to produce anything. That ability belongs to private multi national corporations who will sell these resources on a global market to the highest bidder, which is how the market operates.
The fact that a lot of these reserves lie under US territory means very little.
"Fairly easy to hold on to those high ideals when you have no appreciable amount of Libertarians actually elected to high office. If the Libertarians are ever in a position that they have to govern as a significant portion of the Federal government, you will see those pure ideals being compromised both left and right. Unfortunately, you have to deal with competing interests and parties when attempting to draft legislature and govern. No one comes out of it with clean hands."
Posted by: causticf at June 27, 2014 5:05 AM
Yep. The dems and the repubs have a lot of high ideals too. None of them survive the political process.
Isab at June 27, 2014 5:33 AM
Not all libertarians are non-interventionists. I'm a libertarian and not a non-interventionist. But what I would call "interventionism" would scarcely resemble current forms of "intervention". The idea that interventionism is "wrong" is deranged ... if a government is, say, murdering its citizens just across a border then of course you have a right to "intervene", to come to the defence of the citizens - the idea that those human beings lose their right to self-defence, or their right to delegate those rights to third parties who come to their defence, just because of some arbitrary imaginary lines on the ground, is absurd. I also agree with maintaining strategic military bases as military bases do not per se violate rights, and it only depends what is done with those military bases. I'm not sure if the concept of a "vital interest" is a helpful one, what does that even mean? You could say e.g. that cheap oil is a "vital interest" but using force against innocent people to maintain access to oil cannot be considered ethical - there is no right 'per se' to invade over 'stuff' - although there are grey areas, e.g. if you are attempting to engage in mutually voluntary trade in order to purchase oil, and a third party uses force to prevent the transaction, then there is a right to attempt to defend against that force to allow the trade.
Lobster at June 27, 2014 5:37 AM
I had a very tolerable view of Hillary until I read the archived account of her representing that rapist when she was fresh out of law school. Made me throw up in my mouth a little bit. I'm good with everything else you said. I've fascinated by Condi Rice, though. Would love to meet that lady.
Posted by: gooseegg at June 26, 2014 9:49 PM
I would represent an accused rapist. Everyone deserves a defense.
One of the few things I actually respect her for.
I don't want to live in a country were certain accusations get you red queen justice (verdict first, trial later).
Isab at June 27, 2014 5:40 AM
> and a third party uses force to prevent the transaction, then there is a right to attempt to defend against that force to allow the trade
Example: Say I'm a private owner of some oil well in a Middle Eastern country. I sign a mutually agreeable contract with a private purchaser in the USA who wants my oil. But now my government steps in and uses force of law to declare that I may not complete that sale. This would be akin to you or I trying to purchase shoes at the retail store and men with guns come in and stop finalization of the sale ... in both cases the victims have a right to defend against such initiation of force, and such rights may be delegated to third parties (e.g. commissioned soldiers) to bring the perpetrators to book and allow the trade. Real-world issues can be complex and nuanced. Unfortunately most people use very blunt mental instruments to analyze them.
Lobster at June 27, 2014 5:50 AM
One final comment, I think our troops would have far lower instances of problems like suicide and PTSD if their services were actually used for ethical purposes.
Lobster at June 27, 2014 5:53 AM
So you would condemn her for doing the best that her job demanded of her? I don't even like her and I find your view... dangerous and disgusting.
What was dangerous and disgusting what the lengths that Hillary went to...do her job. She dragged a 12 year old girl thru the mud, making it appear that she was a willing participant in the rape.
Later on, she cackled saying she knew her client was indeed guilty, but got him off with, well, not much punishment. A year, for child rape.
If you're ok with that, well, there's not much I can discuss with you. But don't take my word for any of this: go look it up. GIYF
I R A Darth Aggie at June 27, 2014 6:04 AM
Oh, and I forgot to add #WarOnWomen in my previous posting.
I R A Darth Aggie at June 27, 2014 6:05 AM
Cato has consistently embraced civil liberties, including but not limited to the right to same-sex marriage.
That's not a civil liberty, but a value judgment on certain sorts of affiliation; marriage is the assumption of certain sorts of obligations and the legal-formal aspect of it is their enforceability; it does not map well to a specrum which runs from 'free' to 'constrained'.
It is common (but not universal) among soi-disant libertarians to confound limited government with an endorsement of hedonism and/or of adolescent recreations. Years ago, Ann Coulter explored running for Congress against the residual liberal Republican representing her district, contacting the local Libertarian Party. No candidacy materialized. "I discovered that the only thing they really cared about was the drug laws". The fellow who used to be the director of the Buckeye Institute in Ohio offered that he left the libertarian fold when it occurred to him that prominent libertarians were predominantly childless.
Art Deco at June 27, 2014 6:09 AM
One final comment, I think our troops would have far lower instances of problems like suicide and PTSD if their services were actually used for ethical purposes.
Their services have not been used for unethical purposes.
Art Deco at June 27, 2014 6:11 AM
And she's likable enough.
--
Someone once said of her, "Like egalitarians from Joseph Stalin to Bella Abzug, a terror to work for". Ask Billy R. Dale (or the state troopers once assigned to her security detail) if she's 'likable enough'.
Art Deco at June 27, 2014 6:16 AM
Many people get the two confused. Both sides make the assumption you are nihilistic towards government, where all we want is to hack the government back to hedgerow instead of the uncontrolled bush that dones't let people just walk by.
The problem is that few vociferous people on the starboard elect to devote much thought to how the performance of public agencies might be improved or where to place the boundaries between the state, commercial enterprise, philanthropy, and family. A great deal of it defaults to lines of discussion wherein the errors of a given agency generate the equivalent of playground taunts or to kvetching that this or that state client is sponging off me. Any institution staffed by human beings makes errors and some quantum of cross-subsidy is incorporated into any public service you care to name that you cannot readily finance through tolls and fares.
Art Deco at June 27, 2014 6:23 AM
Art Deco, "Likable enough " was a joking reference to the 2008 campaign. Obama said, unconvincingly, to Hillary "you're likable enough, Hillary" on camera somewhere and it became kind of a meme because it was so clear that they both knew it to be untrue. It was funny. I don't actually find Hillary at all likable.
I always call myself a conservative personally and a libertarian politically. Yes, I have traditional views on family and marriage, abhor drugs, etc...but I don't want my personal views on those things to dictate law.
Jenny had a chance at June 27, 2014 7:09 AM
Yes, but right now we produce about 9 percent of the world's petroleum, and we use about a third of it.
Believe it or not, the U.S surpassed Russia last year as the world's top producer of oil and gas. And Obama admin just recently (quietly) worked to end a decades old ban on exporting oil and gas. How long will the boom last? Who knows?
As far as I can tell, Dems and Reps act the same when they're in power. I can't wait for the Libertarians to win a majority in congress. They'll be just as bad. Lol. That's why we should vote Peace and Freedom all the way.
Jason S. at June 27, 2014 7:17 AM
Thanks Aggie - I failed to mention any details of that child rape. I don't fault an attorney, any attorney for doing their job. But she admits she knew the guy was guilty and was somewhat proud that she got him off because of a chain of evidence snafu. The girl was 12 years old.
gooseegg at June 27, 2014 7:20 AM
What was dangerous and disgusting what the lengths that Hillary went to...do her job. She dragged a 12 year old girl thru the mud, making it appear that she was a willing participant in the rape.
Later on, she cackled saying she knew her client was indeed guilty, but got him off with, well, not much punishment. A year, for child rape.
If you're ok with that, well, there's not much I can discuss with you. But don't take my word for any of this: go look it up. GIYF
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at June 27, 2014 6:04
No, the jury and the judge let him off. Hillary was just the advocate.
How bout we flip the situation. You are falsely accused of child molestation, by a 12 year old foster child who doesn't like the rules in your home.
Do you want to spend several years behind bars because your attorney treats her with kid gloves?
Isab at June 27, 2014 7:39 AM
Alright, here's the deets, from one of the most unbiased sources I could find. There of course are accountings that defend Hillary and those that deride her for the same. The case never made it to a jury. She did a dang good job, I'll give her that, but to what point? The guy was forensically completely guilty. No doubt. I just don't think an attorney's job is to facilitate freedom to a child rapist when you are certain of their guilt just to get a notch in your belt.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrauss/2014/06/26/hillary-rodham-clinton-and-the-ethics-of-a-rape-defense/
gooseegg at June 27, 2014 7:51 AM
"just don't think an attorney's job is to facilitate freedom to a child rapist when you are certain of their guilt just to get a notch in your belt."
How certain of their guilt do you have to be, before you throw your client, which you have an ethical obligation to defend to the best of your ability, to the wolves?
You can be disbarred, and rightfully so, for not doing your job as an officer of the court.
Blame her for chortling over it, sure, but not for doing the right thing.
Again, it was the system that let him go. Hillary did her job as the advocate.
Isab at June 27, 2014 8:01 AM
" I just don't think an attorney's job is to facilitate freedom to a child rapist when you are certain of their guilt just to get a notch in your belt. "
Then you'd be wrong. It is an attorney's job to do their very utmost in defending their client in court. To do any less is to risk getting disbarred. The client's guilt or crime is ultimately irrelevant.
Now please hold up your hand if you would hire an attorney who only gave you the defense they thought you deserved, or no defense at all if they think your are guilty. Any takers?
Assholio at June 27, 2014 8:03 AM
This.
===================================
No, not everyone does.
However, the law requires that every criminal charge brought by the government against a citizen be vigorously opposed to keep the system honest.
Hillary did her job.
Her cackling about it afterward was contemptible.
I'm sure, as a young lawyer, she was thrilled with her ability to procure a lesser sentence in one of her first cases despite the evidence against the accused. And she was pretty handicapped in that case. Knowing the client is guilty is a serious handicap to a defense attorney. At least she didn't suborn perjury ... that we know of.
Like MarkD, I remain more disturbed by her overtly partisan behavior on the Watergate committee in her blatant attempt to deny the accused (Nixon) any benefit of counsel (unlike the rapist she so readily defended) - granted, a Congressional committee is not a court of law, but still....
Conan the Grammarian at June 27, 2014 8:05 AM
"As far as I can tell, Dems and Reps act the same when they're in power. I can't wait for the Libertarians to win a majority in congress. They'll be just as bad. Lol. That's why we should vote Peace and Freedom all the way."
Posted by: Jason S. at June 27, 2014 7:17 AM
And what party would that be? The one with a unicorn as their symbol?
If your only participation is voting every two years in a national election, and other than that, you are sitting around with your thumb up your ass, don't hold your breath waiting for the Peace Freedom Utopia.
It ain't gonna happen.
Isab at June 27, 2014 8:08 AM
Like MarkD, I remain more disturbed by her overtly partisan behavior on the Watergate committee in her blatant attempt to deny the accused (Nixon) any benefit of counsel (unlike the rapist she so readily defended) - granted, a Congressional committee is not a court of law, but still....
Posted by: Conan the Grammarian at June 27, 2014 8:05 AM
Me too.
That is contemptible. Her ethics, like all modern dems depend on whose ox is being gored.
She is sleazy and dishonest, and not as smart as she thinks she is.
Her term as Secretary of State was a disaster. That should be enough to disqualify her.
Isab at June 27, 2014 8:12 AM
And what party would that be? The one with a unicorn as their symbol?
That's a good idea.
Jason S. at June 27, 2014 8:33 AM
Was Hillary really fired from the Watergate Committee?
This article maintains she was fired. It may be a bit biased against her, but it gives the details of her attempt to deny Nixon the right to counsel, so it's useful for that.
http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/while-on-watergate-committee-hillary-was-fired-for-lying-unethical-behavior/
Some have argued that she was not "fired." Nixon resigned and the now-superfluous investigative staff, including Hillary, was released.
HillaryHub.com: "In a column circulating on the [Internet] Jerry Zeifman alleges that Hillary was fired from her job on the House Judiciary Committee in the 1970s. This is false. Hillary was not fired."
However...
Jerry Zeifman was quoted in a November 4, 1998 article in The Sacramento Bee, as saying, "If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her."
Zeifman was asked in an interview with Neal Boortz if he fired Clinton. Zeifman responded, "Let me put it this way, I terminated her along with other staff members who we no longer needed. And I said that I could not recommend her for any further positions."
Zeifman has also said that he regrets "that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations."
Conan the Grammarian at June 27, 2014 8:37 AM
Call me too sympathetic to the victim, possibly cause I have kids this age, but I still maintain that what she did was overkill in defense of a proven rapist. This was not someone she just thought was sleazy, but there's DNA that says he definitely did it. Off on a technicality? And with double jeopardy when you KNOW they will never be retried again -- it's just not okay. If this had gone to trial and been decided by a jury, I wouldn't be holding this against her. Sometimes police, lawyers, and those in authority have a decision to make that may not be ethical, but it's MORALLY right to look away sometimes.
goosegg at June 27, 2014 8:38 AM
> Their services have not been used for unethical purposes.
WTF - are you high? What do you call killing children with drones? What do you call things like the Collateral Murder incident? What do you call 'shock and awe' campaigns that literally just rain bombs and death and destruction on innocent civilians and property? What do you call bombing wedding parties? Abu Ghraib? Holy crap, I thought even the most hardened pro-war hawks would have had to at least agree to the plain-as-day obvious fact that our troops services have been used for unethical purposes - you must be trolling, nobody could utter such a delusional statement. Next you'll try tell me the sky isn't blue.
The question is not whether they've been used for unethical purposes, nobody disputes that, it's just too obvious - the question should be how can we redirect their use towards ethical purposes once more, so that we can restore some sort of nobility and dignity and pride of purpose to serving in our armed forces.
Lobster at June 27, 2014 8:46 AM
> Call me too sympathetic to the victim, possibly cause I have kids this age, but I still maintain that what she did was overkill in defense of a proven rapist
I don't know anything about that particular case, but it sounds like you both may be right to some extent: Isab is 100% correct that "Everyone deserves a defense" (the only exceptions are self-defence cases) - it seems counter-intuitive but the reason it is ethically valid to 'defend an (alleged) rapist' in court is *because* for justice to take place, a minimum requirement *is* due process and a 'fair trial' - a fair trial for everyone, even (and ESPECIALLY FOR) those we have visceral emotional reactions to ... throwing people in prison because emotionally we feel like they've committed some vile crime but we have no real proof IS the entire reason the modern Western justice system was created and conceptualized as it has been. However, on the flip side, I think the *methods* used by many lawyers today in rape cases seem questionable ... in some cases the methods are undermining the principles of justice. Condoning the principle of an accused being allowed a defence doesn't necessarily condone all *methods* of defence.
> Later on, she cackled saying she knew her client was indeed guilty
I've often wondered how a lawyer can truly "know" someone is guilty if guilt (by definition) is something that must be determined by the courts. Even an outright private confession to the lawyer doesn't prove guilt - people often give false confessions for many different reason. If the lawyer personally witnessed the crime, well OK, maybe.
Lobster at June 27, 2014 9:03 AM
> I just don't think an attorney's job is to facilitate freedom to a child rapist when you are certain of their guilt
But only a court can meaningfully determine 'guilt'. Who is this "you" that was 'certain of guilt'? Forensic evidence is only a piece of an overall picture, and must be evaluated by a court; there are many situations where even supposedly *rock-solid* forensic evidence has been completely and utterly wrong. E.g. there are some now well-documented cases involving contamination of DNA evidence where proper procedures weren't followed at forensic labs. (And more and more recent research on genetics is undermining some of our basic assumptions about DNA.)
> "At first, she failed a polygraph test administered to her by police, because she didn’t understand a sex-related question posed to her. Once that question was explained, she passed the test"
Polygraphs are so unreliable that they are basically meaningless one way or another. They may contribute a small part of an overall picture in some cases, but they aren't evidence.
Lobster at June 27, 2014 9:14 AM
"What do you call killing children with drones? What do you call things like the Collateral Murder incident? What do you call 'shock and awe' campaigns that literally just rain bombs and death and destruction on innocent civilians and property? What do you call bombing wedding parties? Abu Ghraib?"
Is there anyone who believes there were no newborns in the maternity ward at Shima Hospital on Aug 6, 1945? It's called war. If you are going to fight a modern war then innocents will be killed.
Parabarbarian at June 27, 2014 9:44 AM
Our actions overseas today are not actually wars, as a war must be declared by Congress. They are actions undertaken by the President under the War Powers act. There is a significant difference.
The War Powers Act allows Congress to fondle interns and pages and let the president dance in the wind by himself. There are advantages to this: in confusion, there is money to be made.
Meanwhile: we have a government controlled by Democrats and Republicans because the public consists of Democrats and Republicans. Those people do not see an advantage to stepping up to do the work of government themselves, which libertarianism appears to require.
Radwaste at June 27, 2014 10:18 AM
> It's called war.
It's called murder, and it's evil.
Lobster at June 27, 2014 10:43 AM
It's called murder, and it's evil.
You're trafficking in pacifism, and therefore completely unserious.
Art Deco at June 27, 2014 10:57 AM
> You're trafficking in pacifism, and therefore completely unserious.
Lol, apparently you didn't read my comments. Read them and try again.
Lobster at June 27, 2014 11:04 AM
> We want government out of our wallets,
Ok...
> out of our bedrooms,
Alright...
> and out of foreign entanglements unless
> America's vital interests are at stake.
This will not be possible.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at June 27, 2014 11:05 AM
I'll quote the relevant bits of my comments - does this sound like pacifism to you:
> "I'm ... a non-interventionist"
> "The idea that interventionism is "wrong" is deranged"
> "I also agree with maintaining strategic military bases"
> "if you are attempting to engage in mutually voluntary trade in order to purchase oil, and a third party uses force to prevent the transaction, then there is a right to attempt to defend against that force to allow the trade ... such rights may be delegated to third parties (e.g. commissioned soldiers) to bring the perpetrators to book and allow the trade"
> "the question should be how can we redirect their use towards ethical purposes once more, so that we can restore some sort of nobility and dignity and pride of purpose to serving in our armed forces"
Your false claims that prove you haven't read a word I wrote are as bizarre as someone claiming our military forces have never been used for unethical interventions. So rebut my actual claims, not lies.
Lobster at June 27, 2014 11:11 AM
> "I'm ... a non-interventionist"
Ugh, sorry, that was actually:
> "I'm NOT a non-interventionist"
:/
Lobster at June 27, 2014 11:12 AM
> You're trafficking in pacifism, and therefore completely unserious
On second thoughts, I think I'm being trolled - such blatant lies are too obvious. Trolling is unprincipled.
Lobster at June 27, 2014 11:20 AM
"This was not someone she just thought was sleazy, but there's DNA that says he definitely did it. "
Not in the 1970's there wasn't. You are either projecting or misinformed.
Isab at June 27, 2014 11:20 AM
@Art Deco: I'm actually the opposite of a pacifist - I think we should be doing more intervention - but as I pointed out, I think it should be ethically directed, not just aggression and barbarism with a "well war is war it's ugly derp derp" shrug. E.g. I think we should do a carefully targeted attack to take out the Kim Jong-Un regime to liberate the North Korean people. I think we should be intervening to stop Russia's military expansion-by-force. I think we should intervene when foreign governments commit human rights violations against their own populations - e.g. we should take out dictators like Mugabe. You know, using military forces for ethically-focused ends - if you just focus on being ethical as a guiding principle, then a lot of other things would fall into place automatically - e.g. practices that amount to murder like Parabarbarian advocates just shrugging off as some inevitable consequence of "war" would be reconsidered and re-imagined in a different way, with different approaches.
With modern technology we have the ability more than ever before for military objectives to be more targeted and focused - with the technologies we're developing now (e.g. remote-controlled robots and drones) you won't necessarily need to bomb entire cities to try take out cruel totalitarian leaders. I'm not against drones. I'm against using drones to e.g. murder children or innocent women. But I'll gladly fly the drone that takes out e.g. Kim Jong-Un.
And by focusing on ethical objectives, a side bonus would be more support from the international community.
Lobster at June 27, 2014 11:37 AM
Isab says, As a historian with some background in economics, I define [America's vital interests] differently than a lot of libertarians would.
Well, as a historian with some background in economics who is also a libertarian, I define those differently than a lot of other historians, liberal and conservative, would.
Your passive-aggressive sentence above is a bullshit logical fallacy commonly known as "argument from authority." In layman's terms, what you're essentially saying is that you have the expertise to know better than those poor benighted libertarians. That's horse manure. History and economics would both be extremely dull disciplines if everyone agreed, and they don't. Plenty of historians and economists see things from a fundamentally libertarian perspective.
Your opinion may have merit, it may not. But presuming that it does because of your background or profession is always logically fallacious, and also factually unreliable without supporting evidence.
Grey Ghost at June 27, 2014 11:47 AM
Your opinion may have merit, it may not. But presuming that it does because of your background or profession is always logically fallacious, and also factually unreliable without supporting evidence.
Posted by: Grey Ghost at June 27, 2014 11:47 AM
Ah gee, try and keep it pithy, and you get jumped on for being passive aggressive.
Most libertarians are as deluded as their isolationist brethren scuttling about in all the other political parties..
They are convinced that somehow in spite of all the economic evidence to the contrary that if the gubmint allowed it, we could ignore the rest of the world, refuse to intervene anywhere militarily, and everything worth having could be produced and maintained right here in the good ole USA.
Naive, and stupid.
Diplomacy, which is basically finger wagging, loses its effectiveness, if your adversaries believe that you are making empty threats.
It is like being a substitute teacher in a class full of ill disciplined eighth graders.
This is the position that Mr Obama has put us in.
And most libertarians want this same sort of isolationist foreign policy. They just think it will work, if the 'right' people are put in charge of the finger wagging.
Clear enough? Or do I need to link to the isolationist drivel that regularly makes it into Reason magazine?
Isab at June 27, 2014 12:22 PM
With modern technology we have the ability more than ever before for military objectives to be more targeted and focused - with the technologies we're developing now (e.g. remote-controlled robots and drones) you won't necessarily need to bomb entire cities to try take out cruel totalitarian leaders. I'm not against drones. I'm against using drones to e.g. murder children or innocent women. But I'll gladly fly the drone that takes out e.g. Kim Jong-Un.
And by focusing on ethical objectives, a side bonus would be more support from the international community.
Posted by: Lobster at June 27, 2014 11:37 AM
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Until an all knowing moral authority, like GOD starts putting a little red x on the forehead of the bad guys, I don't think your surgical drone strikes are going to work nearly as well as you think they will.
One unintended consequence, (if that level of precision was an actuality) would be a mad scramble for every tin pot terrorist and dictator to acquire either nuclear and biological weapons to target major American cities in the event of any of their leaders being taken out by a U S backed drone strike.
Running around zapping individual bad guys only works well in science fiction movies.
Isab at June 27, 2014 12:34 PM
We (the US military) haven't bombed entire cities to try to take our cruel totalitarian leaders since the '70s.
Reminds me of that scene in Memphis Belle where the pilot tells his bombardier to aim carefully because there's a school next to the factory they're going to bomb. Pure propaganda.
A World War II bombing raid on a factory was probably 500-1,000 planes spread over at least a square mile (and scattered wider by enemy fighter attacks). The "dumb" bombs dropped by them at 30,000 feet drifted with the wind, the plane's momentum, and other factors. If we were lucky, 30% of them fell onto the target ... or near enough to it to actually damage the target. That school was toast. So was the nearby town and the houses in which the workers lived.
But the movie makers needed to make sure the moviegoers understood that we were the good guys. So, they put unrealistic expectations of accuracy in the movie.
Same thing today. While our weapons are amazingly more accurate, mistakes happen. Wrong targets are identified. Bad guys hide inside schools and hospitals.
An unfounded faith in technology to deliver clean wars bathed in moral purity is naive.
We do the best we can - and we may be the only nation on earth devoting this much of our military budget to creating weapons that are specifically designed to avoid killing the civilian population - but even we make mistakes. And those mistakes, though tragic, are not "murder."
Conan the Grammarian at June 27, 2014 1:02 PM
Alright, true, Isab - not DNA, but blood evidence. Here's her words derived from the audio about it. By the way, Taylor is the defendant:
“You know, what was sad about it,” Clinton told Reed, “was that the prosecutor had evidence, among which was [Taylor’s] underwear, which was bloody.”
Clinton wrote in Living History that she was able to win a plea deal for her client after she obtained forensic testimony that “cast doubt on the evidentiary value of semen and blood samples collected by the sheriff’s office.”
She did that by seizing on a missing link in the chain of evidence. According to Clinton’s interview, the prosecution lost track of its own forensic evidence after the testing was complete.
“The crime lab took the pair of underpants, neatly cut out the part that they were gonna test, tested it, came back with the result of what kind of blood it was what was mixed in with it – then sent the pants back with the hole in it to evidence,” said Clinton. “Of course the crime lab had thrown away the piece they had cut out.”
Clinton said she got permission from the court to take the underwear to a renowned forensics expert in New York City to see if he could confirm that the evidence had been invalidated.
“The story through the grape vine was that if you could get [this investigator] interested in the case then you had the foremost expert in the world willing to testify, so maybe it came out the way you wanted it to come out,” she said.
She said the investigator examined the cut-up underwear and told her there was not enough blood left on it to test.
When Clinton returned to Arkansas, she said she gave the prosecutor a clipping of the New York forensic investigator’s “Who’s Who.”
“I handed it to Gibson, and I said, ‘Well this guy’s ready to come up from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice,’” said Clinton, breaking into laughter.
“So we were gonna plea bargain,” she continued.
gooseegg at June 27, 2014 1:26 PM
"This is the position that Mr Obama has put us in."
Wasn't it a couple years ago that conservatives were saying Obama's air strikes on Libya were unconstitutional?
How many troops were in Afghanistan when Obama became pres in 2009? There were 30.000 troops there in 2009. What happened? Obama increased the number to 100,000. Fuckin' 75% of casualties in Afghanistan have come under Obama. Four marines were killed just the other day.
Dick Cheney is on record saying that invading Iraq would be a mistake. Now he's saying that Obama has put so much in jeopardy? Yeah, probably partly. Why doesn't Cheney admit he messed up as well? Seems like nobody really knows what time it is.
Jason S. at June 27, 2014 2:07 PM
"Dick Cheney is on record saying that invading Iraq would be a mistake. Now he's saying that Obama has put so much in jeopardy? Yeah, probably partly. Why doesn't Cheney admit he messed up as well? Seems like nobody really knows what time it is."
Posted by: Jason S. at June 27, 2014 2:07 PM
A lot of people know what chaos Obama is responsible for.
This isn't debate club, playing a comparative blame game. This is a man who is so incredibly arrogant that he has done literally nothing right in the foreign policy arena.
I didn't think we should invade Iraq either, but once we were there, I thought we did well. Our military is the best in the world.
And: Who the fuck cares what Dick Cheney said or did ten years ago? It isn't relative.
Obama is a walking talking disaster as president, and the best you can come up with is "Dick Cheney said once we should not go into Iraq."?
Last I checked Cheney was never the president, and never made the decision of go into Iraq. Congress authorized it, based on military and CIA Intel.
Isab at June 27, 2014 2:47 PM
" but blood evidence"
You do realize that blood evidence is pretty much bullshit, since it can only rule you out as a perpetrator, and not determine you were the attacker, as it could have been any one of several million people in the US with your blood type?
Isab at June 27, 2014 2:57 PM
So a man, identified in a lineup by the girl as being the perp, is found with BLOODY UNDERWEAR (what's up with that? he's got an uncontrollable UTI?), the same blood type as the girl. Dude, I'm just connecting dots here, and they lead to a guy committing rape in my book. I do NOT have to have a video of it to believe that this took place and that was the guy. But there's definitely audio of Hillary being fairly smug about getting him off. What on earth does it take to convict someone for you, Isab? Cause if I was sitting on a jury, I'd convict.
goosegg at June 27, 2014 3:21 PM
"Obama is a walking talking disaster"
God, you don't know anything, do you?
Obama is the greatest person, president, and family person that has ever lived. Dick Cheney is a close second. People don't know that he was president, but he was. Condoleezza Rice and Hilary Clinton are tied for third. Coolidge is fourth.
Who the fuck cares about what Cheney said ten years ago and last week in WSJ and on the Sunday tv talk show and on the Daily Caller? You should care because he's our second greatest president, and the voice of a new, vibrant group of conservative people.
Jason S. at June 27, 2014 3:36 PM
If the Libertarians would run some decent candidates instead of the local guy who wears a beard made of bees they'd probably get a better response.
As it is I hold my nose and vote Any Independent I Can Find ANYWAY, but damn I'm tired of seeing these unelectable freaks.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 27, 2014 4:21 PM
"If the Libertarians would run some decent candidates instead of the local guy who wears a beard made of bees"
Goddamnit, now I have to clean beer of my monitor and out of the keyboard while it drips out of my nose. That was actual LOL.
causticf at June 27, 2014 4:32 PM
@Art Deco: I'm actually the opposite of a pacifist -
You're a bad logician too. Get it through your head. If you concede the necessity of war, you accept non-combatant deaths.
Art Deco at June 27, 2014 6:21 PM
I agree with that statement. But the government can hold up leasing the property they own or use the EPA to deny drilling on property. Look at the Keystone pipeline as a simple example.
That falls squarely on the the government's lap.
Jim P. at June 27, 2014 8:11 PM
Congrats, Isab. You've moved from "argument from authority" to "ad hominem" and "incomplete comparison" and "straw man", a nice quadrifecta.
Here - I'm providing you with a list of logical fallacies so that you don't miss any. I fully support your bid for the record. We'll let the Guinness Book folks know later.
Grey Ghost at June 27, 2014 8:39 PM
Back to the original topic ---
I remember from Junior high some interesting graphs. One was a square. The left side and bottom side were labelled - one was something like social and the other was something like economics. There was a line from the top left to the bottom right label U.S. Politics. Those two corners were label Rep. and Dem. the lower left was label libertarian. The upper right was something -- totalitarian maybe?
Another was circular...if you go far enough right you start looking like the left (e.g. liberty to do everything to right to do everything).
Another was like a U or a bump. I don't remember the labels...but it showed that those who stick logic & science and those who stick to religion instead of science where both "conservatives" in the US system.
The Former Banker at June 27, 2014 9:51 PM
> If you concede the necessity of war, you accept non-combatant deaths.
But Art, you can't even tell the difference between accidental deaths and intentional death and destruction through actions you have control over.
Lobster at June 28, 2014 4:49 AM
> You're a bad logician too. Get it through your head. If you concede the necessity of war, you accept non-combatant deaths.
Fallacy of false choice - if you accept the necessity of war it does not follow that you accept the necessity of killing innocent people, deliberately raining unnecessary death and destruction, deliberately violating due process, murdering children with drones, and so forth. If the only type of "war" you are capable of conceptualizing in your mind is the way we currently wage war then I kindly suggest you expand your mental horizons a tiny bit, because you (and I put this as politely as possible) are an evil barbarian.
Imagine for a moment that some neighborhood within the US had heavy gang activity. Or let's say, a city with a high crime rate, such as Detroit. Would you support a domestic "shock and awe" campaign by dropping bombs from the air all over that neighborhood or city, or would that seem obviously like it would kill innocent people to you?
Lobster at June 28, 2014 4:55 AM
> “Of course the crime lab had thrown away the piece they had cut out.”
One has to wonder if they just 'accidentally' threw it away, or if some lab technician got slipped some cash under the table.
Lobster at June 28, 2014 5:03 AM
> If the Libertarians would run some decent candidates
The biggest problem with L/libertarians is their sloppy, unprincipled thinking (Cato is no exception, unfortunately) - i.e. no principled political philosophy based on reason. E.g. from Robert Levy's post:
"Does that indicate libertarians are philosophically inconsistent? No, it indicates quite the reverse"
Ha ha. I'm a libertarian, and libertarians are hugely philosophically inconsistent - it's the single-biggest problem with the movement. Libertarians can't even agree amongst themselves on the *absolute basics* such as whether we should even have a government at all. Or whether "intervention" is wrong. Or whether patents are wrong. Or even whether taxation is wrong. Or whether there should be police. Some libertarians don't believe in due process. I've never met such an inconsistent bunch. Put any group of libertarians around a table and they will soon be arguing or debating about something - guaranteed. And yet, so few use reason.
At least they actually debate it, unlike Republicans and Democrats who just blindly accept status-quoism as political gospel. I mean, it's only thanks to libertarianism that we've made any progress at all on things like the War on Drugs.
Lobster at June 28, 2014 5:12 AM
"At least they actually debate it, unlike Republicans and Democrats who just blindly accept status-quoism as political gospel."
You might not agree with the tea party movement or the occupy movement but I would say that there is a significant population in both the conservative and liberal camps that are not satisfied with the status quo. These groups haven't just been sitting around the kitchen table yelling at each other.
There is dissatisfaction with politics all through this country and of all political persuasions. If you have an issue with it, you must get involved. If the Libertarians can't get their act together to the point of even fielding candidates, your best option is to try and change the direction of your local chapter of Republicans or Democrats. you might still get stopped by the state and national parties from making significant impact but you are doing something besides bitching at how bad those people are.
causticf at June 28, 2014 9:45 AM
If the Libertarians would run some decent candidates instead of the local guy who wears a beard made of bees they'd probably get a better response.
The last LP candidate, Gary Johnson, had previously been elected to two terms as governor of New Mexico. Previous candidates included Andre Marrou (a state legislator in Alaska) and Ron Paul.
Rex Little at June 28, 2014 9:50 AM
Wikipedia: "Marrou had most of his campaign staff resign during the summer of 1992. Many of them sought to have the Libertarian Party strip him of the nomination because he had unpaid child support, had an arrest warrant in Massachusetts for an outstanding contempt of court charge, claimed to have been married twice when it was in fact four times, was being investigated for campaign improprieties from his time in Alaska, that he was running up unpaid credit card bills in a campaign PAC's name without their approval, and that he was habitually months late in making his house payments. The national committee decided to take no action for fear it could call attention to these issues."
Tell me that's not the presidential campaign equivalent of the crazy guy with a beard of bees.
And let's not forget Bob Barr. The Libertarian Party ran him for president in 2004 - after campaigning against his re-election to Congress in 2002. What did he do to get the party's support? He ceased his opposition to legalizing marijuana. Otherwise, he was the same pompous windbag that he was during the Clinton impeachment (while I agree with some of his positions, he's still a pompous windbag). He was way to controversial to ever win - the LP ran him for publicity and not with an eye toward actually winning the election.
And, of course, there was Harry Browne (1996 and 2000), author of several books touting his investment formula - just buy his book and you'll be on your way to "getting rich slowly."
When Ron Paul ran in 1988, he had served twice in the House of Representatives (non-consecutively) and was a once-defeated candidate for the US Senate in 1984 (defeated by Phil Gramm). He was the chairman of what was then considered a right-wing think tank (it was later instrumental in founding the Tea Party movement). His only experience outside politics was running his gynecology practice in Texas.
Gary Johnson was the first viable candidate the Libertarian Party has ever run. He founded and ran a construction company which he later sold for a large sum of money and was a two-term governor of New Mexico. Johnson wasn't the usual candidate the Libertarians are so obsessed with running - a "thinker" with no real experience running anything. He was a man with practical experience running a business and a state.
Conan the Grammarian at June 28, 2014 10:31 AM
Here - I'm providing you with a list of logical fallacies so that you don't miss any. I fully support your bid for the record. We'll let the Guinness Book folks know later.
Posted by: Grey Ghost at June 27, 2014 8:39 PM
Grey Ghost, I don't think you would recognize a real logical fallacy if it bit you in the ass.
And I recognize your entire post as an ad hominem attack. Do you?
Waving your arms around and humming logical fallacy is not an argument in and of itself, no matter how much you would like it to be, nor does it go to the truth or falsity of an argument.
Start out with a faulty axiom, and all the logic in the world wont yield a correct conclusion.
Politics is mostly opinion. This differs from science where local fallacies are somewhat more applicable.
Isab at June 28, 2014 12:25 PM
> Politics is mostly opinion. This differs from science where local fallacies are somewhat more applicable
I couldn't disagree more. As it is practiced, yes, people practice it as if everyone has 'equally valid opinions'. But it's not like that, and should be practiced more like a 'science' - logical fallacies are applicable. Some political views really can be shown to be "correct" or "incorrect" (e.g. anarchism is logically self-contradictory, as is left-libertarianism).
Lobster at June 28, 2014 4:40 PM
Fallacy of false choice - if you accept the necessity of war it does not follow that you accept the necessity of killing innocent people,
I'm afraid in a world of imperfect human beings and imperfect technology, it actually does follow.
Art Deco at June 28, 2014 6:14 PM
Oops. The Libertarian Party ran Michael Badnarik in 2004. All I can find out about him is he ran unsuccessfully for several political offices before becoming the Party's nominee. At least one commentator called Badnarik's nomination "an embarrassment" for the party.
Badnarik's main competition for the nomination that year was Aaron Russo, the producer of Trading Places, a wonderful film, but hardly a foundational qualification for the presidency.
The Libertarians ran Barr in 2008.
Johnson's run in 2012 remains the first time the party took the presidency seriously and ran a real candidate.
Conan the Grammarian at June 30, 2014 10:21 AM
I couldn't disagree more. As it is practiced, yes, people practice it as if everyone has 'equally valid opinions'. But it's not like that, and should be practiced more like a 'science' - logical fallacies are applicable. Some political views really can be shown to be "correct" or "incorrect" (e.g. anarchism is logically self-contradictory, as is left-libertarianism).
Posted by: Lobster at June 28, 2014 4:40 PM
The rules of logic spring from simple premises, of only one concept, like " I saw a black sheep in Whales, so all sheep in Whales must be black"
Because with politics and social issues you can never be certain to have all the facts, or know which set of facts are even applicable to the question, is almost impossible to apply the formal rules of logic to a political question.
So you can believe what you want, but you would be wrong.
Isab at June 30, 2014 7:42 PM
And Johnson is out for 2016:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gary-johnson-ceo-pot-firm/2014/07/02/id/580472/
Conan the Grammarian at July 2, 2014 9:50 AM
Leave a comment