Home › Blogs › chemjeff's blog ›

"Getting Away From Ideology"

Submitted by chemjeff on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 23:31
in

I often hear from moderates that it should be a worthwhile goal to "get away from ideology".  My response, though, is that a political ideology is really nothing more than a guiding philosophy underpinning a set of political positions.  And "getting away from ideology" suggests that we judge issues based on their own merits, and not according to some guiding philosophy.  Sounds reasonable enough, except that issues are not independent, discrete units.  They are all interconnected, sometimes in subtle ways.  For instance, from the Great Society, we know of the connection between generous welfare state benefits and the breakdown of the traditional family unit.  So, if after some rational cost-benefit analysis of each separate issue, the non-ideological moderate concludes that government should have a generous welfare state but yet still promote the traditional family through family-friendly policies, what is the sense in that?  Isn't this contradictory state of affairs arguably worse than the ideologue's supposedly dogmatic adherence to a rigid philosophy?

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

Comments

If you're going to talk about breakdown of the tradional family

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 00:06.

You'll have to explain why it's a negative first. :D

And yes, I think moderates do, in the eyes of partisans, have a problem in that they have no underlying "framework" to work off of. I doubt most moderates think a 'framework' is necessary though.

It's the reason why we need moderates, of course... a rigid framework doesn't apply easily to every situation, and for that, there are moderates to smooth the fit.

How Dare You?

Submitted by Cahnman on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 11:43.

If you're going to talk about breakdown of the tradional family You'll have to explain why it's a negative first.

Have You No Decency Sir?

Probably not

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 09:30.

But I'm young. I grew up in a generation where going through a divorce was more normal than not. And I think I've turned out fine.

I'm not saying we shouldn't TRY to have a traditional family unit. Just that you will have to provide evidence to show why that should be a goal.

Okay, I will get to the point

Submitted by In between on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 00:22.

Okay, I will get to the point of what I meant. Unfortunately I am going to talk about Bush. So close your ears.

Ideology- tax cuts every year and seeing the deficits pile up.

Ideology- the neocons war in Iraq

Ideology-insisting on free trade and watching factories close

Ideology-a flawed social security program that would have cost 2 trillion dollars in transition

Ideology-stay the course, when everything fails 

So how do you fix anything with ideology like this. So that is why I say we need to get away from ideology. 

http://www.hudson.org/index.c

Submitted by In between on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 00:38.

http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=5656

 

http://www.inc.com/news/articles/200610/china.html

 

Chemjeff, here is a couple articles. One on global worker competitiveness and the other on how research and development effects small business.

Inaccurate terms

Submitted by Progressive Tra... on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 00:53.

If we can agree that:

Principles --> Ideology --> Policy --> Position

Then I would say that the hub-bub of blaming ideology is actually directed at policy.

 

The problem with ideology...

Submitted by birdmojo on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 13:18.

Is that it's something that only other people have.

Me? I have deeply held conclusions that I've reached after a lifetime of trial and error and being open to new ideas.

You? You have "ideology".

The problem with ideology II

Submitted by johnson springs on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 13:56.

I agree with birdmojo's comment. Let me also add this:

The move of advocating moderation "instead" of ideology is itself ideological. After all, only an ideologue of moderation would call moderation in and of itself a value.

Interesting - what do you think about empericists

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 13:59.

Both interesting comments. Can you two tell me if you think an empericist is being ideological?? I would say no, but I'm expecting you to say yes.

Of course

Submitted by Progressive Tra... on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 14:06.

Positivist materialism began with August Comte and has been strictly ideological ever since.

For a rebuttal, see Henri Bergson. 

Looks like somebody's been on the Wikipedia again.

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 14:46.

Looks like somebody's been on the Wikipedia again.

No, dumbass

Submitted by Progressive Tra... on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 14:55.

As I've said elsewhere, I recently finished a book on the history of philosophical thought.

Care to hear some quotes from it?

Ouspensky also countered positivist materialism effectively.  See the Tertium Organum.

 

Is that really the best you have as a response? 

Heh, interesting, but not the point of my post.

Submitted by birdmojo on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 15:26.

I'll apply it directly to a conflict that exists today within the Republican Party.

Any given group, the Hawks, the Social Conservatives, the Fiscal Conservatives... they don't have a whole bunch of overlap when it comes to their pet issues (of course, it's possible for someone to belong to more than one or even all three... but, generally, people see themselves as one of those first and foremost).

The Fiscal Conservatives/Libertarian types believe that the federal government is too large, too wasteful, too intrusive. The Declaration of Independence *MEANS* something, the Bill of Rights *MEANS* something, so on and so forth. Reasonable people can disagree about whether we really ought to be going to Iraq to depose a dictator. Reasonable people can disagree over whether 1st trimester abortions are any business of the police. But there isn't any room to disagree over whether the Federal Government is sticking its nose where it doesn't belong and if you don't agree with that, you're part of the problem.

The Hawks would like to explain to you that there are people in the world who want to kill us. I mean, like, behead us. Not just us, our spouses. Not just us and our spouses, our The Children. There are people out there WHO WANT TO KILL OUR THE CHILDREN. We need to go out there and make them stop. Either by killing them or by making them say "you know what, it was a bad idea to take on the US of A", but there isn't a whole lot of liberty available to a dead guy. Gay marriage and other liberty issues? How do you think the people who want to kill us, our spouses, and our The Children feel about gay marriage? Think they're for it? You're either on board or you're giving aid and comfort to the enemy which is one of the definitions of "treason". Reasonable people can disagree about gay marriage. Reasonable people can disagree about when we need to cut spending. But you're either helping us or you're helping them.

And, of course, there are the Social Conservatives. Reasonable people can disagree about the Farm Bill. Reasonable people can disagree about the bailout. Reasonable people can disagree about whether we should have gone into Iraq. But you either oppose infants being dismembered in the womb or you're okay with it. Have you *SEEN* what a partial-birth abortion ENTAILS??? The baby is born with the head still in side, then the baby is murdered. While you dither over "tax cuts" and "terrorists who want to kill us", THERE ARE BABIES BEING MURDERED UNDER OUR NOSES.

In each case, each group has an essential issue that is exceptionally important to them while the other groups dither about ideological nonsense.

I'm personally of the opinion that the way for the Republicans to win elections is not to kick out people until they're finally ideology-free. That's *NEVER* going to happen. The way for the Republicans to win elections is for them to actually *EMBRACE* more ideology. Get rid of the "reasonable people can disagree" bs. Tell the social conservatives that the price of dealing with abortion is Fiscal Restraint and A Strong Defense. Tell the Fiscons that the price of lower taxes and lower spending is ending abortion and stuff like DOMA. Tell the Hawks that the price of a strong national defense is Prayer Breakfasts and a balanced budget.

And don't budge.

The Republicans mocked the Fiscal Conservatives by asking "where you gonna go, the Democrats??? HA HA HA HA HA!!!" and, well, look at 2006 and 2008. The Fiscons said "if I'm going to get fiscal irresponsibility from both parties, I may as well vote my 2nd or 3rd most important issues since there ain't a dime's worth of difference on my most important one."

And, what do you know? Their second or third most important issues were ones that the Republicans weren't, in fact, better on.

And now Obama has a majority House, Senate, and a "mandate" exceeded only by Ronald Reagan in 1984 (if you count first term elections only, he beat McCain worse than Eisenhower beat Stevenson, the previous record-holder).

So now the Social Conservatives ain't gonna get what they want and the Hawks might get what they want out of Iraq... but I suspect that there are going to be further military cuts in the future. Deep ones.

How's that mocking of the Fiscal Conservatives working out for ya?

See ya.

Submitted by centerfire on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 20:45.

Tell the Fiscons that the price of lower taxes and lower spending is ending abortion and stuff like DOMA.

If you tell me that the price of lower taxes and lower spending is the government embracing bigotry against gay people and poking its nose into individuals' reproductive decisions, lotsa luck Republican Party, because you'll never get my vote again. Ever.

I have this clever idea that the Republican Party can rally around freedom as a first-order value, even if that means tolerating people doing things -- boys marrying boys, women having abortions -- we disapprove of.

 

Yeah, we'll miss you.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 20:54.

Like phony libertarians like you ever voted Republican in the first place.

government embracing bigotry against gay people

Yup, you're a moron all right.

freedom as a first-order value

You believe in a certain kind of freedom as a first order value. There is no such thing as simply 'freedom". It's a meaningless word absent any qualifiers.  

Ladies and gentlemen, I give

Submitted by centerfire on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 21:10.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Jon Sandor: a perfect example of what's wrong with the Republican Party, and why it will remain a rump party for the foreseeable future.

 

Ladies and gentlemen

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 21:13.

I give you centerfire, a perfect example of the illiterate left and why it's so irritating.

He knows nothing and is proud of that fact. Because he has his opinions!

 

The stupid is strong in this one.

Submitted by centerfire on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 21:17.

But please feel free to keep on characterizing people like me as "phony libertarians" who are part of the "illiterate left", who "know nothing and [are] proud of that fact".

It's amusing, if nothing else.

 

Why Republicans suck so bad right now

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 09:35.

Because anyone who advocates freedom and is willing to accept gay marriage and abortions obviously CAN'T be a Republican. I think this clearly illustrates what the poster above was saying.

"Meaningless word absent any qualifiers"

Submitted by birdmojo on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 21:18.

The problem with this attitude is that I have heard this preamble given before speeches against gay marriage as well as before speeches against handguns.

"That's different", I hear you say. "That thing is a right! The other thing is just some weird thing that the fathers couldn't have foreseen when they were writing the Constitution!"

That sort of talk leads to "We should interpret the Constitution the way they would have intended it if only they knew as much about the world as we do!"

Not sure what you're trying to say.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 21:29.

"That's different", I hear you say. "That thing is a right! The other thing is just some weird thing that the fathers couldn't have foreseen when they were writing the Constitution!"

Do you disagree? Do you think that the right to an abortion, or to free healthcare, is on the same level as the right to free speech or to bear arms?

 

The problem with this attitude is that I have heard this preamble given before speeches against gay marriage as well as before speeches against handguns.

I'm pretty sure that's not true. I think you imagined that I said something I did not in fact say. What exactly do you think I did say?

 

That sort of talk leads to "We should interpret the Constitution the way they would have intended it if only they knew as much about the world as we do!"

No, "that sort of talk" is the only possible way to prevent people "interpreting" the Constitution as they like. In my experience libertarians tend to favor judges doing quite a bit of interpreting.

 

"Interpreting"

Submitted by birdmojo on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 21:56.

"Do you think that the right to an abortion, or to free healthcare, is on the same level as the right to free speech or to bear arms?"

I don't believe in a right to "free healthcare". I do believe that people should have the right to, say, medicinal marijuana (if, say, they grow it themselves) or to access to books containing medical information... but when "free healthcare" really means "forced access to someone else's time and materials", I don't think they have that right. Now when it comes to "abortion", it's more that I believe in a right to privacy. I think that abortion is wrong... but I also believe that the amount of intervention required by the government to have abortions not happen would be excessive (I also think that many of the folks who argue the pro-life position seem oblivious to the power dynamics involved and that sort of creeps me out).

When it comes to free speech and to bear arms, I am *HUGE* fans of both. But I probably believe in nutty stuff when it comes to both of them. I think that signing McCain-Feingold was an impeachable act... Bush signed it and said "I don't think it's constitutional, but the Supreme Court can hammer that out." See what he did there? He broke his oath. I also think that citizens should be allowed to own machine guns without a permit. If you want to argue whether citizenry should be allowed to own ordnance, we could have that conversation, I guess.

What do I think you did say? I think you said something to the effect of "freedom doesn't mean *THAT*."

Whenever someone begins a speech with something like that, they generally are building up to telling me that the Constitution was meant for a moral people and it won't work if you're dealing with the people like we're dealing with today.

"In my experience libertarians tend to favor judges doing quite a bit of interpreting."

Finding for Dred Scott instead of for Sanford would have been "judicial activism" rather than "following precedent and interpreting the laws as written".

It still would have been the right thing to do. We can argue about that too.

I know

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 22:24.

I don't believe in a right to "free healthcare". I do believe that people should have the right to, say, medicinal marijuana

 

I know you believe these things. The point I'm making is that you cannot simply describe your position here as being one of unqualified "freedom". It's one of qualified freedom. It's one where you are describing "freedom" to mean certain specific things, and to exclude others.

Not everybody defines freedom as you do. There are some people who DO define freedom as including free healthcare. Hence my initial point - nobody believes in undefined and unqualified "freedom".  

 

What do I think you did say? I think you said something to the effect of "freedom doesn't mean *THAT*."

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that freedom does not mean that to everybody. It means different things to different people. I imagine that Bin Laden's definition of freedom is different from yours. So you need to 'qualify' or 'define' what you mean by freedom and not act as if the word is identical with "what libertarians think of as freedom".

 

Whenever someone begins a speech with something like that, they generally are building up to telling me that the Constitution was meant for a moral people and it won't work if you're dealing with the people like we're dealing with today.

Then your quarrel is with the Founders, not with me. They were pretty vocal on that point. They were right of course, which is why libertarians always fall back to making moral arguments in support of their positions. For instance:

when "free healthcare" really means "forced access to someone else's time and materials", I don't think they have that right

is a moral argument. It's one I agree with, but it's a moral argument couched in the language of right and wrong. So maybe you agree with the Founders more than you think.

 

Finding for Dred Scott instead of for Sanford would have been "judicial activism" rather than "following precedent and interpreting the laws as written".

It still would have been the right thing to do.

It's not the role of judges to "do the right thing". They are supposed to be the servants of the law, not its creator.  Once you adapt the idea that judges should say "screw the law, I'm doing what's right" then you have zero defense when the Clinton SCOTUS says that there exists a Constitutional right to free healthcare and a guaranteed income. Saying "that's not what I, birdmojo, think of as freedom" ain't gonna cut it when that happens. If you give them the power, don't complain when they use it in ways you don't like.

That's the practical objection. The philosophical one is that when the judges make the law it deprives each and every one of us one of our fundamental liberties - to live in a society where we make the laws. Self-government was one of those other things the Founders were big on.

 

I don't have much of a quarrel with the founders, per se.

Submitted by birdmojo on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 22:34.

I mean, yeah, I disagree pretty strongly with the whole "slavery" thing but... well, you say "Then your quarrel is with the Founders, not with me. They were pretty vocal on that point. They were right of course, which is why libertarians always fall back to making moral arguments in support of their positions."

My argument is *NOT* that people shouldn't be making moral arguments. They *TOTALLY* should!!!

It's that the Constitution either means stuff or it doesn't. If we agree that the Constitution is meaningless (the Ninth is an inkblot! The Second doesn't cover automatic weapons! The First doesn't cover political speech from the pulpit!) then all we have left is moral arguments of one kind or another.

If, however, you want to assume that the Constitution means stuff... well, you can't throw it away whenever people use "freedom" in a way that pisses you off. Insert argument about negative vs. positive rights here.

Those

Submitted by Warner Todd Huston on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 22:47.

Those that love to hold "slavery" against the Founders are not very educated about either slavery, history, or the Founders.

Not slavery the compromise.

Submitted by birdmojo on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 10:17.

Slavery the act of owning slaves.

I have a friend who points out that, dude, Washington freed them in his will, or kind of, after Martha died, he freed them! That was downright progressive!

But I also see the sting from when Samuel Johnson asked "how is it we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of the negroes?"

Yes, yes. I'm sure that I need to have a more historical world view and no one back then was capable of grasping the whole "slavery is wrong" thing. It's like complaining that they didn't know about ipods.

Careful there

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 23:29.

If, however, you want to assume that the Constitution means stuff... well, you can't throw it away whenever people use "freedom" in a way that pisses you off.

The start and the end of that sentence don't go together. I can disagree that "freedom" means the right to free health care AND I can insist that the "Constitutions mean stuff". And so can you. In fact you do reject people using "freedom" in ways that piss you off.

As for the Founders, many of them were vocal on the point that freedom was tied to the existence of a "moral people".  Tocqueville made the same observation.

If we agree that the Constitution is meaningless ..

We don't agree with that. By "we" I mean you and me. Again, I don't follow the point you're trying to make. The fact that people have different conceptions of freedom is an empirical observation of the world we live in. The fact that the Constitution was an effort to embody a specific conception of liberty into law is an historical observation.

In the world we live in today, people with ideas of liberty very different from the Founders are fighting over which of them gets to "interpret" the Constitution so as to make their understanding the new law.

Moral, yes

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 09:56.

Religious? No.

Religious, yes.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 18:57.

Read a little history sometime. Not Zinn.

You misunderstand.

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 23:29.

The point is that while the moral people CAN be religious, and many founders were, it does not mean that we need religious people to uphold the Constitution, just moral people.

I don't.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 23:38.

Assume we pass a law tomorrow. No religious people may vote or serve in government.

Where do you propose to get the moral people neccessary to preserve liberty?  You won't get them anywhere, because morality comes from religion. Even the atheists have completely absorbed and internalized their morals from religious sources.

A nation of Newdows would use the Constitution as toilet-paper.

Wrong and misguided

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 23:47.

So, would you propose to argue that all atheists are immoral? Or only moral due to religion? That's a good way to turn off many atheists from the Republican party.

Morals are commonsense laws for the most part. There's a reason why nearly every culture develops rules that killing, stealing and lying are bad. Mostly because they're antithetical to a functioning society.

Just because there are a few crazy atheists (Newdow and Dawkins being two that come to mind)  is no basis to judge a group of people on, any moreso than I can surmise that all Republicans must be trying to tap their foot under a public stall while seated next to someone else.

Even if I WERE to grant you that all atheists receive their morals through some sort of religious osmosis (which I do not believe in but will grant for the purposes of this argument), then it would make no difference to your supposed law, as the atheists have already 'absorbed' the morals of the religious and could therefore serve the country effectively.

Jump to the end.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 23:50.

I'll start a new thread.

 

You misunderstand.

Submitted by birdmojo on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 21:13.

I am not saying what I think they ought to do in my heart of hearts.

I'm a Libertarian (well, technically, Boston Tea) and the people who agitate against homosexuality make no sense to me whatsoever. I don't know where they get the energy to care.

*BUT* if the Republican party was the party of, sure, poking their noses into individuals' reproductive decisions *AND* the party of getting rid of useless government departments, that'd make it a lot tougher for the Libertarian-inclined to leave.

Compare to 2008.

I don't think so.

Submitted by centerfire on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 21:28.

Because it just reinforces the basic libertarian analysis of the parties: the Democrats want the government in your wallet but out of your bedroom, while the Republicans want the government out of your wallet but in your bedroom.  Making it clear that anti-government-in-the-wallet types have a place in the party only so long as they pay weregeld to pro-government-in-the-bedroom types doesn't make it harder for them to leave; it makes it easier, especially when Republican promises of fiscal responsibility are inevitably broken.

'Government in the bedroom"

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 21:32.

You need to get over these paranoid fantasies. Government is not now and has never been "in the bedroom". You can masturbate to your hearts content without worrying about Big Brother.

 

It must be nice...

Submitted by centerfire on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 22:00.

to live on a little island of ignorance.

Meanwhile, in the real world, states such as Texas and Alabama consider it a fruitful use of law enforcement resources to ban the sale of sex toys, and as recently as 2003 states were still prosecuting people for the "crime" of consensual sodomy.

But, please, keep telling yourself that the government isn't now and never has been "in the bedroom".

 

Amazing.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 23:10.

How can one person be wrong so consistently?

ban the sale of sex toys

People are selling sex toys in "the bedroom"?

as recently as 2003 states were still prosecuting people for the "crime" of consensual sodomy.

In fact, they were not. But you're not the sort of twit who lets reality interfere with his fantasy life. So you go right on dreaming of those jack-booted Nazis in their neat uniforms taking you away and doing unspeakable things to you.

 

Was Lawrence v. Texas decided correctly?

Submitted by birdmojo on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 22:04.

Or was it judicial activism where the SCotUS once again found a new right in the Constitution?

No.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 23:13.

Read your Constitution. 

 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Nothing there permitting the Feds to get involved in making state law. Pure activism, judges "doing what is right" and the law be damned.

So do you see why people make accusations of bed sniffing?

Submitted by birdmojo on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 23:39.

Your argument that The State can, in fact, have the power to kick down a door in order to arrest two dudes (or two chicks, I suppose) for humping is messed up.

The Ninth Amendment has a lot of stuff in it and, for that matter, I'd like to see why the right to peaceful assembly doesn't apply to two dudes in the same bed.

A presumption of Liberty would allow you to see that Lawrence v. Texas was an example of The State wrongfully arresting a couple of guys who were minding their own business... and when you argue that the Tenth covers the right of The State to arrest two dudes for whatever they can get 50%+1 of the people to vote for...

Well, you should at least see why someone could, in theory, see that as Republicans putting themselves in the bedroom rather than being incredulous that anyone could reach that conclusion unless they were a libertine who was not familiar with what Conservativism truly entails.

I don't, no.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 00:50.

Your argument that The State can, in fact, have the power to kick down a door in order to arrest two dudes (or two chicks, I suppose) for humping is messed up.

 

First off, there is no "The State". I know it's a staple of libertarain thought, but it's a fiction. There are states". There is "the state". There is no "The State".  You sound like a kid when you say stuff like that.

Secondliy, there is no "messed up clause" anywhere in the Constitution. There is nothing there which permits judges to look at laws passed in a lawful fashion which do not violate the Constitution and say 'Hey, that's messed up! Lets strike it down.". 

Left to their own devices people will pass some laws which you or I may disagree with. Of course it seems to escape yu that left to their own devices the judges may pass laws which you and I may disagree with alos. And unlike the laws passed by legidlatures, there is not a damn thing we can do about those judge made laws.

You complained below about the welfare state attracting poor immigrants. Why does the law permit illegals to come here and collect welfare? Because of judge made law.

The state can have, and does have, the power to do whatever we say it can do. The only real check on that power is "we the people", not the state itself. Judges ARE the damn State which you seem so concerned about.

 

The Ninth Amendment has a lot of stuff in it and, for that matter, I'd like to see why the right to peaceful assembly doesn't apply to two dudes in the same bed.

Incomprehensible gibberish. The Ninth does not have "a lot of stuff in it". It merely says that the people have rights not mentioned in the Constitution. It is up to the people to say what these rights are, not the courts. This devotion to courts runs directly counter to genuine liberty.

At the end of the day the law is what "we the people" say it is. That's the setup the Founders created. Judges have no more right to make laws then do kings or dictators. 

 

The State to arrest two dudes for whatever they can get 50%+1 of the people to vote for...

 

The state does have the right to arrest "two dudes", or anyone else, for whatever 50%+1 of the people vote for. The only exceptions to this is in the cases where the state has the right to arrest those "dudes" for whatever 66%+1 of the people vote for. There is no instance in which the state cannot do something if the majority want it done. Not a single one. And that's the way it's supposed to be.

If you have your heart set on living in an oligarchy, and it seems you really do, can you please just go live in one of the many which exist and not try to make America another one?

 

Well, you should at least see why someone could, in theory, see that as Republicans putting themselves in the bedroom

 

No, I could see that as some adolescent kid who does not have the foggiest understanding of the law or of the principles this country was founded on going off on some silly fantasy about his freedom being violated.

 

A presumption of Liberty

 

That gets us back where we began., You don't believe in Liberty. You believe in your conception of liberty. Your concepton of liberty is one which demands a gigantic state, because your conception of liberty is one in which the enemy of the individual is really not the state, it's other people. Your conception of liberty is one in which people do not posses the most basic liberty, the right to goven themselves. You don't believe that people possess to liberty to ever do "messed up stuff" to each other, and you think that the state exists to stop them from doing that "messed up stuff".  You think that you're a small atate person. But like so many libertarians, you're confused. Your philosophy grants "The State" unlimited power.

Which is why we get your idea of the law enacted, and we also see the state growing by leaps and bounds. But you can console yourself with this: We may no longer have any control over the state which is supposed to serve us, we may no longer be able to curb it's spending, but at least it permits us to sleep with anyone we like. To libertarians, thats a great trade-off.

So, as a thought experiment

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 22:33.

If slavery were ratified as legal today in Alabama, you think that would trump the federal constitution? I'm pretty sure the 14th has been interpreted to say that the states must also follow constitutional law.

Do you advocate that it should be otherwise?

Huh?

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 23:29.

I've looked carefully, and that question has no bearing on anything in my comment.

As far as slavery was concerned, it was ended by exactly what I've been describing - the majority asserting their right to make and change the law. You know, the Civil War. Not by anything else. It was pure majoritariansm in action.

Let's dumb this down some.

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 23:36.

There's a reason I started the post with "As a thought experiment". I would just like a simple clear answer.

Do you feel that if the majority of people in a state (or, to put it more clearly, a majority of the legislators chosen by the people in a state) were to enact a law that clearly went against the Constitution or any Amendments, do you feel it would be proper for courts to strike down that law as unconstitutional?

Good old "thought experiments'.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 23:47.

Dumb indeed. It still has no bearing on anything I'm discussing here. But since you ask so nicely ...

 

Given that the Constitution explicitly prohibts slavery, I don't see how the courts could fail to rule against it. For whatever that's worth, which is close to zero.

I get the impression that some people think there would have been no war if the courts had ruled differently in Dred Scott. Which is amazingly silly. Slavery beng outlawed has nothing whatsoever to do with the courts. It was and is the much maligned majority in action.

You still did not answer my question though

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 23:50.

I did not ask you if you thought the courts would strike down the ruling. I asked you if you thought it would be proper if the courts struck down the ruling. I.e. if the majority of a state votes for a law that runs counter to a federal law (or, in this case, an amendment), which trumps which?

What the hell is wrong with you?

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Tue, 01/20/2009 - 00:24.

1) You are not a prosecutor and I'm not a witness in the box  Knock it off.

2) I have no idea what it is you are fishing for, but it's getting annoying.

3) Yes, it is "proper" for the courts to strike down laws which violate the Constituton. (Duh!!) I guess I did not formulate my earlier response using the specific words that you wanted.  Any futher inane question you'd like to ask?

4) If you'd like to explain at some point what any of this has to do with the topic at hand, I'd be very obliged.

 

.

Sorry for being anal-retentive

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Tue, 01/20/2009 - 00:32.

But I blame it on my mother being a counselor.

I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page that state laws are beneath federal law, and just because a majority of the people vote for a law in a state does not make the court unable to rule against such a law if it is found to be unconstitutional.

In this thought experiment, the promises *AREN'T* broken.

Submitted by birdmojo on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 21:33.

Stop laughing.

The basic idea is that when all three legs of the proverbial "Conservative Stool" are taken care of, the stool will hold up the politicians.

Lose one of the legs, the folks will vote their conscience.

(If you asked me if I thought that the Republicans were capable of the self-reflection necessary to do this, I'd snicker for a while and then talk about how the only thing that will give Republicans power anytime in the near future is Democratic overreach and/or the pendulum swinging back.)