[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Rome never had libel laws. It was said a citizen should be able to engage in calumny and various people including Machiavelli have given interesting reasons for why this system is preferable.[/quote]
Interesting. Wasn’t at all aware. I’ll look into that, and thanks.
No criminal calumny law that is. It had to be brought by the individual.
Edit: the point being the state is not involved and prosecutions only occur when an individual has been measurably harmed by indentifiable and legally liable individual or entity.
I have no interest in re-re-redebating the merits of libertarian shibboleth that society has no right to make me do anything I don’t want to do with my property ever. Entering into commercial transactions by inviting the public into a place of open accommodation is a different transaction than a purely private one in the privacy of your own home. As smh23 alluded to, you can lie all you want to the woman you brought home to spend the night, but if that same woman walks into your publicly open business and you sell something to her, even though it is on your property and using said property, you can’t lie to her about the stuff you are selling her.
What makes a difference is the public nature of the transaction and the social good of needing to protect a party in the transaction. Anti-discrimination laws are part of that.
In the real world, we don’t fetishize rights because we understand that on the other side of a right is a responsibility. Rights are balanced against them whether by private virtue ir public action. Where to balance? That is the subject and art of statecraft. Adhering to absurd abstractions that require a purity that ignores reality might be good for goof-off time for libertarians, but not useful for real world debates.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You’re talking as if the base of the party were all radical libertarians. If anything the base is religious / socially conservative. And all the candidates except Jeb Bush pretty much already have the religious / social conservative vote but without being tainted as “one of them” by the city folk.[/quote]
I don’t think the Jacobins are necessarily “the base”, but they are influential enough to require a candidate to kiss their ring during the primaries. The voting results of the CPAC are proof of that.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…I tend to agree with you on denial of service…
That surprises me a bit coming from you, smh…
How so?
(Again…I’m trying to understand the line of reasoning…)
Mufasa[/quote]
Not answering for smh but it has everything to do with the gray area where TB’s “rights and responsibilities” intersect. The generally speaking, more urban crowd (leaning left demographically) desire government to forcibly expand responsibilities. The rural crowd (leaning right demographically) desire government to tread oh so carefully when laying down the rights/responsibilities chalk lines.[/quote]
There is some truth to this, but the basic non-ideological reason this is so is because of the higher volume and velocity of transactions between people in more densely packed urban areas. That heightened interdependence requires more regulation, even before ideology enters into it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You’re probably right but it could be argued that the increased regulation heightens the interdependence. Chicken or egg?[/quote]
I don’t think so. If your livelihood depended on some guy down the street doing their job, you’re interdependent with one another. Increased specialization (essentially trade skills, really) requires you to have other people provide you with products as well- you’re spending the vast majority of your energy doing something else. And so you become interdependent with one another. You depend on another guy to provide you with some service, and that guy probably depends on you to provide some service as well (Assuming, of course, that only you and that other guy can provide the required services).
Modern life is essentially full of people with heavily specialized skills that don’t sustain you within a vacuum. Rural life/farmers arguably have specialized skills that can sustain you within a vacuum. As such, regulation isn’t really necessary for them- they don’t really depend on others to sustain them.
Whether this is a bad thing or a good thing is something I’m not going to touch with even a hundred-foot pole.
I just wanted to say “Thanks!” to everyone.
Why?
These are the kinds of discussions that have kept me coming back to “PWI” all these years. While many people frequent Forums for various reasons, mine is to learn. And over the years (for me, at least), the best discussion are not the ones where you are lead down someone ideological “Rabbit Hole”…but one in which you learn.
Back to observations on the candidates (for this discussion, we are talking about the CPAC, and Hillary, to an extent):
I really don’t know if his Dad was the same…but Rand has shown a propensity to get extremely irritated and “thrown of his game” when he is challenged. (Santorum was the same in the last election cycle).
In all fairness, so can Hillary.
“Steadiness”…even a “coolness” in defending your positions is something that many voters (myself included) look at when evaluating a candidate.
Thoughts?
Mufasa
Oh…
Thanks for the clarification, smh…
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I just wanted to say “Thanks!” to everyone.
Why?
These are the kinds of discussions that have kept me coming back to “PWI” all these years. While many people frequent Forums for various reasons, mine is to learn. And over the years (for me, at least), the best discussion are not the ones where you are lead down someone ideological “Rabbit Hole”…but one in which you learn.
Back to observations on the candidates (for this discussion, we are talking about the CPAC, and Hillary, to an extent):
I really don’t know if his Dad was the same…but Rand has shown a propensity to get extremely irritated and “thrown of his game” when he is challenged. (Santorum was the same in the last election cycle).
In all fairness, so can Hillary.
“Steadiness”…even a “coolness” in defending your positions is something that many voters (myself included) look at when evaluating a candidate.
Thoughts?
Mufasa
[/quote]
I would think doing trial lawyer work would give good training for that trait. Other side is attacking your client’s motive, actions, character (Hell maybe even talking about your mama). The wise lawyer remains calm, jots down rebuttals, and most importantly - stays on point.
One difference is that the lawyer is the representative, and not being attacked personally.
That said, a candidate that wilts or explodes under fire does look weaker, even when the attacker is lying, unjustified, or merely an asshole.
Agree, Treco…
A candidate is going to be attacked both “fairly” and “unfairly”…and they have to become somewhat “battle-hardened” against both.
This is one reason why I think Walker needs to begin to “open up” about his positions if he is planning to make a serious run for the Presidency.
Mufasa
Walker with Chris Wallace re immigration position change
[quote]treco wrote:
That said, a candidate that wilts or explodes under fire does look weaker, even when the attacker is lying, unjustified, or merely an asshole.
[/quote]
I think staying cool under fire is actually a very desirable trait among leaders.
It’s one of the reasons why I don’t like Obama all that much- The guy gets swept into things a bit too much imo.
It is way way way down my list of why I don’t like him
Push,
I definitely think it’s egg, certainly to start. It’s inevitable as the world shrinks and interdependence has risen in connection with the Market. Magick discussed it well above - we are simply more and more interdependent as we specialize further and further at the same time demand ever more things as needs and wants.
There’s no getting around it - and the great irony is that with the growth of the Market and our reliance on it, the more law and regulation is needed. This effect is more pronounced in cities.
I think the “cool under pressure” trait is extremely important - it’s the world’s most powerful position and the right temperment and good judgment are essential. That isn’t merely an issue of style - it is at the core of expected performance.
Paul doesn’t exhibit it. He looks easy to knock off his game. He looks reactive and excitable, not assured and presidential.
And this is the problem with libertarian candidates. Their ideology already has the sheen of being radical - becausr of that, in my view, a successful libertarian candidate has to have the personality of a wiser, older…almost patrician to sell what already has a bias of being a little radical. That isn’t Paul.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
BTW, what’s with all the whining here among moderates here about CPAC - that’s CONSERVATIVE Political Action Conference – rallying behind CONSERVATIVE candidates at their annual conference?[/quote]
Well…some points:
CPAC is a HUGE Political event, that is often a Bellwether of not only the upcoming GOP Primaries, but the upcoming political seasons as a whole. This is not some weekend Tea Party convention.
My HOPE is that I’m throwing out there observations, not “whining”.
Beyond Hillary…there really isn’t much to talk about with the DEMS…
Mufasa
What do you think of Rand’s chances Ina national election against the ice queen mufasa?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What do you think of Rand’s chances Ina national election against the ice queen mufasa?[/quote]
Hillary will always win when it comes to a national election.
Hillary is associated with Bill Clinton, the guy who presided over one of the great economic jumps of the U.S. (whether he had anything to do with it or not is another story, but people tend to equate things that occur within a certain administration as their doing, so …)
Rand Paul’s ideology is hard for even most Republicans to get behind, and not because he’s too liberal or conservative or w.e. His ideology is just different. For all the noise people make about how Republicans and conservatives have libertarian values and whatnot, the fact is most Americans aren’t exactly supportive of genuine libertarian beliefs.