Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cthulhu]

There's no such thing as impartiality, especially not at that level. The best you can hope for is someone who is highly versed in all the nuances of law and dedicated to the good of the nation even in spite of temporary squabbles amongst elected politicians.

Besides, in some things you don't want impartiality, I wouldn't want a Justice who was impartial to the principles of the Constitution, no matter how fucked their view was. The machine often destroys all the humanity we put into laws, a good Justice ameliorates this.

As long as it's my kind of humanity, and not the other guy's kind.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There's no such thing as impartiality, especially not at that level. The best you can hope for is someone who is highly versed in all the nuances of law and dedicated to the good of the nation even in spite of temporary squabbles amongst elected politicians.

Besides, in some things you don't want impartiality, I wouldn't want a Justice who was impartial to the principles of the Constitution, no matter how fucked their view was. The machine often destroys all the humanity we put into laws, a good Justice ameliorates this.

As long as it's my kind of humanity, and not the other guy's kind.

Such as it is. Though frankly, I think I'd prefer even a conception of humanity I disagreed with with a Justice who got to that position and was still a full literalist who dismisses the spirit of the law. At least there is something there to appeal to, as opposed to a Asimov robot wearing a face. Lawful Neutral worst alignment, 0/10.

[Strife26]

Ken White wrote a pretty good piece over at Popehat awhile ago. I consider myself a libertarian, albeit a regulation friendly one.

   https://popehat.com/2016/06/02/libertarianism-as-ten-questions-rather-than-ten-answers/ 

Does the United States Constitution permit the government to do this?
. . .
What would this power look like if it were expanded dramatically in scope or in time?
. . .
What would this obligation look like if exercised indifferently by unaccountable people?
. . .
What would your worst enemy do with this power?
. . .
Does this power make a choice about morals, ethics, or risk that individuals ought to make?
. . .
Does this power represent the government putting its thumb on the scales to prefer some competitors over others, perhaps based on their relative power and influence?
. . .
Does this power set up a conflict between laws and rights?
. . .
Are we giving this power to the right level of government?
. . .
Are we acting out of fear, anger, or self-promotion?
. . .
Is there any evidence the government is any good at this?

I'm particularly worried about 2, 5, 9, and 10 but they're all very good points to consider with any policy discussion.

[Mephansteras]

I've found that the libertarian platform is a very wise set of baselines taken to their idiotic extreme by most of the actual candidates. Seriously, I've even heard arguments that things like Police and Fire should be private and for-profit because it would be cheaper overall outside the hands of the government. Anyone who seriously thinks that would improve things needs to seriously rethink their ideals.

I really wish I actually liked more of the Libertarian candidates as much as I like the basic ideas of the party.

[SirQuiamus]

Ken White wrote a pretty good piece over at Popehat awhile ago. I consider myself a libertarian, albeit a regulation friendly one.
   https://popehat.com/2016/06/02/libertarianism-as-ten-questions-rather-than-ten-answers/ 

Does the United States Constitution permit the government to do this?
. . .
What would this power look like if it were expanded dramatically in scope or in time?
. . .
What would this obligation look like if exercised indifferently by unaccountable people?
. . .
What would your worst enemy do with this power?
. . .
Does this power make a choice about morals, ethics, or risk that individuals ought to make?
. . .
Does this power represent the government putting its thumb on the scales to prefer some competitors over others, perhaps based on their relative power and influence?
. . .
Does this power set up a conflict between laws and rights?
. . .
Are we giving this power to the right level of government?
. . .
Are we acting out of fear, anger, or self-promotion?
. . .
Is there any evidence the government is any good at this?

I'm particularly worried about 2, 5, 9, and 10 but they're all very good points to consider with any policy discussion.

...and yet there are lots and lots of self-identified "libertarians" who support capital punishment, corporate welfare, Trumpism, etc. 

[Strife26]

Yeah, for whatever reason all big L Libertarian candidates are nut jobs. I've heard it explained as public office being antithetical enough towards the libertarian ideal that you have to be a crazy flavor of libertarian to seek office.

 I think that the "Does the government not suck at this" question covers the fire and police questions well. Private cop shops and fire departments have generally been pretty questionable services.

[Mephansteras]

I think that the "Does the government not suck at this" question covers the fire and police questions well. Private cop shops and fire departments have generally been pretty questionable services.

Precisely. They don't seem to understand the basics of their own party's platform.

Although, thinking about it, most of the crazy ones seem to get stuck on an anti-tax craze. Including some so delusional as to wish for some 'tax free utopia' where no government is ever allowed to take money from people if they don't want to pay. It's like the opposite of the Communism naivete, where they have this amazing vision in their minds about how everything would work while completely ignoring reality and how humans actually behave.

[Strife26]

Yeah, that seems to be a big one for some reason. I'm perfectly happy with taxes, even raising them, as long as the money gets used effectively.

[itisnotlogical]

I believe that those most able to bear the burden should bear most of the burden. However, people that I've asked, of all income levels, have this bizarre idea that "higher wage = higher tax" is just punishing people for financial success.

Maybe I just live around crazies, but everybody seems to simultaneously hate rich fucks that lord it over all us hardworking peasants, but also love hard-working successful individuals that have earned the right to have a fleet of solid gold boat-houses crewed by supermodels.

[syvarris]

I think that's born out of the remarkably common belief that everyone is a potential millionaire, who just hasn't made it yet.  People think things like "If I work hard enough, I'll *earn* the right to having lots of money", so saying all rich people should be taxed for more money seems like you're saying reward for that work should be reduced.  Basically, "It's not fair to rich people", Itisnotlogical.

[Zangi]

When kids are taught that they can make it anywhere if they try hard enough.  Reality be damned.

[Strife26]

Equality of opportunity, not results. Classes aren't so stratified that high achievers cant move up if they're smart, dedicated, and lucky.

[milo christiansen]

Equality of opportunity, not results. Classes aren't so stratified that high achievers cant move up if they're smart, dedicated, and lucky.

Exactly. Equality of results is impossible (humans being human), so equality of opportunity is the best anyone can get. The thing is, you really have to work at it to get anywhere, plus you need to be lucky...

[Strife26]

And it depends on what one categorizes as successful too. If the goal is "leave my children with a better life than I had growing up" then I'd put that at 99% achievable for a population.

[Cthulhu]

I believe that those most able to bear the burden should bear most of the burden. However, people that I've asked, of all income levels, have this bizarre idea that "higher wage = higher tax" is just punishing people for financial success.

Maybe I just live around crazies, but everybody seems to simultaneously hate rich fucks that lord it over all us hardworking peasants, but also love hard-working successful individuals that have earned the right to have a fleet of solid gold boat-houses crewed by supermodels.

More than 80% of income tax comes from the top 20% and the top 1% pays almost half of that.  Same with the minimum wage thing so many of these discussions seem like they're based on truisms and stuff that's either already true or doesn't apply.

It's what turned me off of Bernie Sanders, his platform was "I believe this thing that you'd be an asshole to disagree with and is already the case"