US politics 2016: I can see Russia from my White House

[SerHaHa]

Quote

I'm not saying we should kill all foeti either. But in both cases, survival of such a being (hard to call it a person, really) should be the decision of its caregivers.

 

So now the caregivers are given the power of life and death?  The survival of a being should be the decision of its caregivers?  Up to what point exactly, can they decide their 2 year old is a PITA and end its life, since by your definition they are the caregivers, and its their decision.  Or does that power end at the birth/emergence?  At what point do the "caregivers" get, and then lose, this special right to end the life of their "being". 

[The guy from the Vale]

That power ends once the being in question becomes a person. We can debate the cut-off (personhood is a gradual process, after all), but since a baby is far more able to communicate its needs than a foetus, I'd call that an important step. We can even find common ground on third-trimester abortions and make just the ability to survive outside the mother the cut-off point. I'm unwilling to go any earlier though, as before that point, the being in question is essentially a temporary body part of the mother.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 hours ago, TerraPrime said:

Fetuses are not children.

But do continue on with your deliberate obfuscation. It's most scintillating to read.

I, like Anti-Targ, am pro-abortion rights but anti-abortion.  Physically, other than location what is the difference between a fetus moments before birth and moments after birth?  Nothing.  The legal differentiation between moments before birth and moments after birth is arbitrary.

I get frustrated with abortion debates because partisans on both sides like to paint the points of view of their opposition with as unflatteringly as possible.  There is a great deal of nuance on both sides of this argument.  I don't believe that people who are pro-abortion rights (myself include) are delighting in the deaths of children, nor do I believe people who are anti-abortion rights are seeking to shackle women.  It is a difference of emphasis.  I think those on the PAR side see the rights of the woman to have control over her body as more important than the right of the fetus to have a life.  I think those on the AAR side of the argument see the fetus' right to life as paramount.  

This is, and always has been, a difficult and nuanced discussion.  Creating characatures of those we disagree with is extremely unhelpful.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

That person who lives in seclusion certainly has people he or she knows from before choosing seclusion, right? 

We can quibble about the details of personhood, but to me it's pretty clear that somebody who is entirely incapable of communication is not a full person indeed.

That makes infanticide justifiable.  Is that where you are going?  Is someone who is not conscious and thus unable to communicate no longer a person?  

[The guy from the Vale]

Scot, if said person is permanently unconscious (i.e., in a coma), at some point I think it's justified to pull the plug.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Scot, if said person is permanently unconscious (i.e., in a coma), at some point I think it's justified to pull the plug.

tgftv,

But if "consciousness" is the test doesn't that imply that someone who is unconscious is not a person while they are unconscious.  

That said I will concede that what you are arguing is a morally consistent position that avoids the arbitrariness of claiming that fetus' moments before birth are legally different from infants moments after birth.  I simply disagree with hinging all rights to an individuals consciousness.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, SerHaHa said:

I consider myself liberal as well, despite the beliefs and feelings of many of my peers.  True liberalism IMO is a consistent set of rights and freedoms, and fairness for everyone, however what we have now is the left making special rights, and social privileges, for certain groups it deems worthy.  How is that ANY different than an aristocracy, I have to ask?

What are the special rights that you speak of?

I don't think it's a "special right" to work to eliminate discrimination against groups of people that have been historically disadvantaged or ostracized.

I do not think it's a "special right" to give women a great degree of discretion, to include the use of abortion services if they need them, over their reproductive rights. Giving woman said reproductive choices enhances their freedoms in the spirit of liberalism whether we are talking about classical liberalism or social liberalism.

With regard to the term "liberalism" I'm very aware of it's older meaning. What I meant was liberalism in the sense of social liberalism or how the term has been understood in the United States since the 1930s.

The fact of the matter is that I think it's good that Classical Liberalism or libertarian ism, or whatever, worries about government power. But, in my view, both classical liberalism or libertianism have some major blind spots.  One is the fact is that neither recognizes that concentrations of private power can be a problem. The most obvious historical case would be of course the South before the 1964 Civil Rights act. Also, I think a lot of the economic policies advocated by classical liberals or libertarians are non sense or questionable, at least, leading to worse economic outcomes for many people. And I would argue those worse economic outcomes threaten people's freedoms. 

[The guy from the Vale]

Scot,

would you argue that Khal Drogo was still a person after Mirri's resuscitation?

Yes, I would argue that somebody who is unconscious is not a person at that point in time. However, I'm unwilling to cede all rights immediately after somebody falls unconscious. Rather, if said person can't be returned into consciousness within a reasonable timeframe, I'm willing to let his letal representatives make the decisions for him, ultimately ceding the power to them.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OGE,

Concentrations of private power are facilitated via government.  Corporations and the legal protections they enjoy only exist because government allows them to exist.  The corporate form is far too widely available and has promoted the concentrations of private power you complain of.

[Dr. Pepper]

The status of a fetus and personhood should probably go in another thread.

For this thread, let's get back to talking about all the ways the GOP continues to give the finger to life that exists outside the womb.  That means adults, children, the environment, animals, etc.  

The EPA pick continues to be quite alarming to me.  It seems like a pretty extreme conflict of interest to choose the person who spends his life fighting against the EPA.  When Trump stacks his cabinet and leadership with people who deny climate change, the future looks even bleaker than it did on election day.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Scot,

would you argue that Khal Drogo was still a person after Mirri's resuscitation?

Yes, I would argue that somebody who is unconscious is not a person at that point in time. However, I'm unwilling to cede all rights immediately after somebody falls unconscious. Rather, if said person can't be returned into consciousness within a reasonable timeframe, I'm willing to let his letal representatives make the decisions for him, ultimately ceding the power to them.

Giving people the power of life and death over individuals because they are not conscious or are unable to communicate their desires to the people around them is hugely problematic and implies the ability to successfully communicate is what makes a person a person.  What if someone has severe aphasia, and as such can clearly try to communicate but can never successfully communicate?  Should they then be subject to the whims of their caregivers?

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

OGE,

Concentrations of private power are facilitated via government.  Corporations and the legal protections they enjoy only exist because government allows them to exist.  The corporate form is far too widely available and has promoted the concentrations of private power you complain of.

And, I respectfully, think that is a bunch of bullshit, if we are going to say something like "too much government" created these things. 

One problem is that libertarian ism to work requires everyone to be good libertarians. And I assure you that is not going to happen. The wealthy might preach libertarian ism to everyone, but I doubt that is what they will truly try to do when they influence government.

Also, it ignores, the argument that perhaps capitalism itself pretty much grew up with the state. It didn't start out with a bunch of good libertarians tradin gold, until the mean old state got involved and limited their "freedoms".

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

And, I respectfully, think that is a bunch of bullshit.

One problem is that libertarian ism to work requires everyone to be good libertarians. And I assure you that is not going to happen. The wealthy might preach libertarian ism to everyone, but I doubt that is what they will truly try to do when they influence government.

Also, it ignores, the argument that perhaps capitalism itself pretty much grew up with the state. It didn't start out with a bunch of good libertarians tradin gold, until the mean old state got involved and limited their "freedoms".

I'm not an anarchist.  I'm fully cognizant of the intrinsic ties between capitalism and the State.  I'm also fully aware of the ties between individual liberty and the State.  

That does not change the fact that corporations exist at the sufferance and with the permission of the State.  As such the State has the power to remove all legal protections offered to those who use corporations to facilitate their private concentrations of power.  That is in no way "bullshit".

That corporations will use their power and influence to prevent such a move by the State doesn't mean the State lacks the power to act it means the State chooses to defer to the power it has granted to those private entities and it does not use its existing power.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'm not an anarchist.  I'm fully cognizant of the intrinsic ties between capitalism and the State.  I'm also fully aware of the ties between individual liberty and the State.  

That does not change the fact that corporations exist at the sufferance and with the permission of the State.  As such the State has the power to remove all legal protections offered to those who use corporations to facilitate their private concentrations of power.  That is in no way "bullshit".

That corporations will use their power and influence to prevent such a move by the State doesn't mean the State lacks the power to act it means the State chooses to defer to the power it has granted to those private entities and it does not use its existing power.

Okay, I get your point about corporations. It's just like patent laws. I'm not really fond of them either. They too in my view, redistribute income upwards unnecessarily.

I guess what I'm getting at, is that I take umbridge at the idea that anytime the government gets involved it creates greater private power. And that clearly is not true. It depends greatly on the type of policies we are talking about. If you are going to say something like "the 1964 Civil Rights Act created greater concentrations of private power cause government got involved", that is clearly nonsense. And the fact of the matter, in that case, people were able to use their greater economic means to bully and harass a group of people unfairly, while libertarian sorts called that "freedom". And that is clearly bullshit.

[Commodore]

5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

people were able to use their greater economic means to bully and harass a group of people unfairly

How does this manifest itself?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Okay, I get your point about corporations. It's just like patent laws. I'm not really fond of them either. They too in my view, redistribute income upwards unnecessarily.

I guess what I'm getting at, is that I take umbridge at the idea that anytime the government gets involved it creates greater private power. And that clearly is not true. It depends greatly on the type of policies we are talking about. If you are going to say something like "the 1964 Civil Rights Act created greater concentrations of private power cause government got involved", that is clearly nonsense. And the fact of the matter, in that case, people were able to use their greater economic means to bully and harass a group of people unfairly, while libertarian sorts called that "freedom". And that is clearly bullshit.

I've never said that "any time government gets involved it creates greater private power".  I'm saying that in the context of the corporate form that is what it has done and that government hasn't used its existing power to curb the abuses of the corporate form.

Government has, rather ineffectively attempted to regulate outside of the context of the corporate form.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Commodore said:

How does this manifest itself?

Oh I don't know, things like people having to suffer the indignity of not being able to use the front door in a business establishment? Being denied goods and services because of their race? Being denied employment because of their race.

Are you seriously asking this fucking question?

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I've never said that "any time government gets involved it creates greater private power".  I'm saying that in the context of the corporate form that is what it has done and that government hasn't used its existing power to curb the abuses of the corporate form.

Government has, rather ineffectively attempted to regulate outside of the context of the corporate form.

Okay fine. You've won a narrow technical point over the use of the corporate form or the regulation thereof.

But, that doesn't really rebut my broader point.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

23 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Okay fine. You've won a narrow technical point over the use of the corporate form or the regulation thereof.

But, that doesn't really rebut my broader point.

It does in the sense that government, as currently constituted, has the power to severely restrict and limit the mechanism (the corporate form) by which private power is concentrated... but chooses not to act.

Whether that would be effective long term is unclear.  So, in that sense your point does stand.

[SerHaHa]

Quote

Oh I don't know, things like people having to suffer the indignity of not being able to use the front door in a business establishment? Being denied goods and services because of their race? Being denied employment because of their race.

It isn't 1964 any longer.  You show me one place where someone in recent living memory where somebody had to use a rear entrance due to race in the free world.  It'd be front page news, if any business, tried that stunt, same as being denied goods and services.  Prove it, with links.