[quote]vroom wrote:
Boston,
Of course there are trade-offs. Living in a democratic society I acquiesce to the generally accepted laws and usually am content to do so. My concern is that when people are in fact doing this, they should not be attacked. The laws should be changed or the people should be left to go about their business. [/quote]
I agree with this, but I don’t see how it works with your overall point. As much as I can tell, people are advocating for changes to the law, not bugging people outside of the law.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
It is important that the press and groups that advocate governmental actions and policies be placed under the same scrutiny as the governmental actors – people need to know whether the groups have perspectives, whether the put forth fair information, etc., in order to make informed decisions as citizens in the voting booth.
vroom wrote:
Sure, we are also in agreement in this area. But the way to highlight the actions of these groups is to gather information about them and make it available to the public. The media is diverse enough to watch the watchers and this does happen.
People in here are pointing to various studies and discussing the issue ad nauseum. Again, their does seem to be systematic labelling and attacking going on though. [/quote]
The media is but one check – sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes this is because of its perspective, and sometimes it’s a function of the market, and sometimes it just misses a story. Luckily, there are more and more sources of information out there – with the caveat that one should always evaluate the information and the source, there’s no reason why the media should function as the sole watchdog of the government and the lobbying groups.
Also, “the Media” isn’t a monolith. It includes, on the national level, networks from Fox to CBS, newspapers from the Wall Street Journal to the New York Times to the USA Today, and magazines from The National Review to the Nation. They provide info, complete with spin, and we evaluate and incorporate. Their job is to provide information – our job is to decide how to apply it.
As far as “labels” go, they are used because they are useful shorthand. They convey information about general world view – they are too general to be the end-all/be-all of discussion of any particular group on any particular issue, but they actually do offer a useful starting point. We can argue over how “conservative” Scalia is, or how “liberal” PETA is, but I think we can agree that PETA is generally over on the left and Scalia is generally over on the right – the complete picture comes by filling in the details on specific issues.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
The environmental groups are certainly not a proxy for nature. They are a political group advancing a political agenda, and they should be held to the same scrutiny as any other political group advancing a particular agenda. With respect to the environmental groups, one of their main policy goals is to have private property owners curtailed in their freedoms in using their property.
vroom wrote:
Heh, okay, I know you actually are a lawyer, so I guess I have to expect this. These groups, assuming we are talking about law abiding groups, are representative of the opinions of a significant portion of the populace.[/quote]
I can only presume that the groups represent the views of their members on any particular issue. Anything else goes too far. Especially when support is approximated by questions on polls such as “Are you for clean water?” Who the hell is going to say, “No! I love dirty water!” But the policy question that is pertitent is “Are you for spending large sums of money to lower the levels of certain polluting chemicals to levels that are not proved any safer than current low levels?”
Or, perhaps, “Are you supportive of entering into a treaty to lower U.S. emissions of “greenhouse gases,” to levels that will impact GDP growth by a certain percentage of GDP per year, but will not similarly limit the emissions of the two countries who are forcast produce most of the greenhouse emissions over the next 20 years (India and CHina)?” instead of “Are you for clean air?”
Obviously, you will get different levels of support for those two questions, or the various iterations of the questions one could craft.
Not that this gets to PETA issues – the most prominent of which lately has been attempting to convince people not to eat fish – which is the group I believe touched all this off for you, but it gets to the environmental point.
[quote]
vroom wrote:
Anyway, as you mentioned before, there are trade-offs. For decades, perhaps hundreds of years, people or businesses were free to do just as they damn well pleased with their property.
However, we now know that certain types of pesticide kill off bird species, that certain types of chemical disposal will poison nearby citizens and all kinds of other problems. Beware, I am not claiming all these groups are well informed or law abiding.
There does however have to be a balance between the ability of large business groups to amass money and use it to lobby the government and the ability for the public to put forth a credible counter to it. This is interest group versus interest group. As long as both sides are playing fair and not resorting to unlawful tactics, I think it is appropriate. [/quote]
This is a freedom of speech issue. I fully support the rights of both groups to put their messages out there – people can decide for themselves what to think on the issues.
However, I don’t recall anyone advocating muzzling either side – just people being critical of one side, which is their right. I’d rather debate the criticisms themselves than the fact they are being levelled.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Most citizens aren’t the problem – certain citizens and certain non-citizens residents and illegal immigrants are the problem. If you don’t want average citizens troubled, how would you go about allowing the government to target those groups most likely to contain the “problems”?
vroom wrote:
Now we get to the heart of the matter. The fact that it is difficult or inconvenient to enforce the laws of society doesn’t mean we should eliminate the freedoms that the citizens enjoy. If you are asking me to solve the problem of law enforcement for society, I’m afraid the task is probably out of my grasp as well.
I do however have the opinion that a solution that removes the carefully deployed freedoms that were put in place by the founding fathers would be a mistake. The government is not a normal entity and it cannot be relied upon to be run benevolently, although the checks in place have kept it so for so long people can’t imagine it any other way.
The country was founded to escape the tyranny of government that was not responsive to its subjects. This is the area that a lot of my thinking and a lot of my ideas are coming from. I’m not so sure believing that checks against the government are critical really qualifies me for the ultra-liberal label I’ve been slapped with. [/quote]
I think this is correct. The government has to operate within the strictures of the Constitution. The government can’t take powers it does not have, and it cannot use powers it does have to override the individual liberties that are in the Constitution. This is why the right to free speech trumps a statutory right to be free from discrimination.
Now, as to what the government can specifically do, I think it needs to respect all Constitutional rights, but shouldn’t be worried about trampling on politically correct sensibilities. Some of the questions don’t have clear answers – I believe the question of whether the FBI can infiltrate mosques that are preaching terrorism is open, provided the services are open to the public. Does profiling non-citizens by nationality offend Constitutional principles? I’m not sure, but I don’t think so. There are many more such questions, and I’m sure they will be litigated over the next few years.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
I don’t think this is a conservative solution – people on both sides of the spectrum encourage regulations to coerce behavior of the type they approve. Helmet laws? Smoking laws? Market regulations? Gas taxes to control driving habits?
vroom wrote:
Again, desire for and expression of control is not always done via laws. If they were in fact being put into effect as laws and were representative of the functioning of a democracy then I’d be less inclined to be concerned about it.[/quote]
I don’t see what you’re getting at here. I don’t recall seeing anyone condoning any extra-legal control of anyone. For instance, with gay marriage, people are talking about constitutional amendments at the state and federal level, or of not changing current laws. How is that outside the proper functioning of government? For abortion, they are discussing legislation to ban partial-birth abortion, or attempting to litigate against Roe v. Wade, which was itself obviously litigation that created a right. While I don’t like this in terms of democratic principles, it’s no more illegitimate than Roe v. Wade itself.
Basically, I don’t see what you see – I don’t see anyone advocating extra-legal measures to accomplish their agendas.
[quote]
vroom wrote:
Because the laws you mentioned are passed, well, being a good citizen and finding them restraints I can easily comply with, I choose to live within them. If they bother me enough I will work with others to follow the process to have them overturned. Isn’t that the way these things are supposed to work? [/quote]
Yes, and this is what I am seeing, so I’m puzzled as to what is bothering you. At the least, you have people expressing opinions without going out and trying to effect any change whatsoever – they’re just expressing their opinions. On the more active side, you have people advocating good-faith changes to the law, not advocating illegal activity to enforce their views.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
To what might you be referring here? And how would you define “imposed.”?
vroom wrote:
Someone quoted recently in these threads “walk softly but carry a big stick”. I meant to find it and ask if they noticed the first two words. Carrying a big stick pisses people off, so walking software with it would be good.
Whether or not anyone is willing to admit it around here and whether or not anyone actually gives a flying fuck what other people around the world think, pissing off sections of the globe for decades at a time doesn’t lead to friendship and peace. I see the big stick, but I don’t see the walk softly very often. [/quote]
Sorry, but our foreign policy is our foreign policy. While the administration could definitely work on its diplomacy, we’re not imposing our foreign policy simply because we decide it for ourselves. It’s our foreign policy – Canada has its own foreign policy irrespective of what U.S. foreign policy is; same with France, Germany, etc.
Actually, I find it ironic that the rest of the world wants a say in U.S. foreign policy, but I wonder what the reaction would be if the U.S. started telling Canada or France what they should do with their foreign policies. Somehow I think I would be hearing the word “imperialist” thrown around a lot.
Again, not to say that the current administration couldn’t work on its diplomacy, but I find the sense of entitlement evinced by citizens of many other countries to a say in U.S. foreign policy ironic. The only actual responsibility the U.S. has in terms of formulating U.S. foreign policy is to act in U.S. interests. All other benefits are gravy.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Maybe massive disregard for property rights and contract rights?
vroom wrote:
There really are two sides to this issue and neither should get a free pass. Isn’t there some type of balance involved here as well?[/quote]
The only ones getting a free pass in modern times have been those advocating for further intrusions on property rights and contractual rights. The Contracts Clause was basically evisercated to the point of meaninglessness back during the Depression, and it has never recovered. Takings Clause jurisprudence has only just recently begun edging toward respect for property owners, and only because dedicated groups of lawyers such as Institute for Justice have represented property owners against the predations of governments – mostly local – who want their property “for the good of the community” (all fine and good, but they should pay market rates in compensation).
And this doesn’t even get to regulatory takings – you know, having the Army Corps. of Engineers declare your property to be a protected “wetland” because there is a puddle there one month a year, and forbidding any improvements to the property (like building a house) – that pretty well destroys property values. If there is to be legislation – especially environmental legislation – “for the common good”, then the government needs to compensate property owners for reasonably predictable losses. In other words, property owners shouldn’t bear all the costs of environmental legislation.
[quote]
vroom wrote:
Well, I see this one a lot. Unless I’m able to instantly solve this problem my point is supposed to be moot? I don’t have to single-handedly be able to solve problems that an entire nation of experts hasn’t solved yet. However, when solutions are proposed I am of the opinion that they should not unduly restrict freedoms.
If the US starts to throw away it’s freedoms now it will end up a different place than it was meant to be. If your choice is safety with the possibility of a future tyranny or some additional danger under freedom, I’d advocate choosing to live with a bit more danger. However, it is your country, feel free to fuck it up any way you like – won’t stop me from advocating what I believe in when the issue is being discussed. [/quote]
I think you get asked these types of questions to force you to identify the precise competing interests. I don’t think it matters whether you can come up with a solution.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Very true again – but we can identify groups to which they would likely be affiliated, be it cultural, religious, nationality, etc. – how do we use that information?
vroom wrote:
You already know my answer. In ways that won’t unduly impact the rights of the innocent citizens among them. Yes, there is room for balance and disagreement as to which degree loss of rights is acceptable.
Personally, I don’t think a knee-jerk loss of rights due to one incident in several hundred years is a wise tradeoff. Think about it for a decade or two… then decide. Right now the American psyche is a bit rabid with respect to revenge, control and protection… and honestly, it is only natural. [/quote]
I think we need to hammer down on precisely what rights people have and don’t have – to the extent possible anyway. Also, which rights are constitutional and which are statutory. Other than that, people are going to talk around each other here.
[quote]
vroom wrote:
I think the hundreds of billions of dollars now being funnelled into the CIA, homeland security and military will all yield dividends… imposing restrictions on freedoms is more dangerous. Just like income tax was a temporary war measure, loss of freedoms represent a way to make it harder to dissent in the future. Remember McCarthyism? [/quote]
I don’t think McCarthyism was the best example you could have chosen, given it lasted a few years and went away.
Anyway, I agree that Constitutional freedoms should not be eroded. But neither should statutory freedoms be elevated to a Constitutional level.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Who gets to decide which laws are important?
vroom wrote:
Come on now, the importance of laws is generally telegraphed by the penalty attached when breaking it. Okay, I’m rolling my eyes and kidding here, but thats why there is such a large penalty for personal use of steriods. The public, in it’s wisdom, decides on these issues via its elected officials. Hey, we all know it isn’t perfect, but democracy is the best way so far. [/quote]
I brought this up only because you couched your statement by using the qualifier “important” on the laws to be followed – I just wanted to emphasize this would be a relative measurement.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Does this include gun control? Just curious. You did mention the right to bear arms as a freedom up there, so how would you agree that the right to bear arms should be allowably diminished? Should people have fully automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns, etc.? Seriously, because this would be an excellent example of the trade offs between some restrictions on a freedom versus taking the freedom away, and which ones should be allowable as a trade off with safety.
vroom wrote:
Good question Boston. Gun control is an issue which gets a lot of people up in arms! However, I’m going to take the easy way out and say that I will respect the laws passed in the democracy I live in.
I expect, because of the right to bear arms, that a reasonable right to own and use weapons will be maintained. Whether the general public believes it needs machine guns and hand grenades to effect this is something they get to decide upon as conditions warrant.
Strangely, I believe that the weapons available do not need to be small enough to be concealed, at least for general use. I believe the weapons need to be in the hands of the public for the day that they decide to fight either for or against their government… and hopefully that day never comes.
So, I don’t have a problem limiting weapons in ways that makes it harder to commit crimes, if possible, while not limiting the ability of the populace to use them for or against their government. [/quote]
I agree – it’s a matter of trade offs – I just wanted to use this Constitutional right to illustrate the point.
[quote]
vroom wrote:
Anyway, thank you for the thought and effort it took to look into the issues I raised and to put together your own thoughts on them. I’ve tried to return the favor and supply responses to most of the areas where there seemed to be something less than general agreement on the point at hand.[/quote]
Thank you for your response. It’s always good to have a reasoned discussion on things.
