US Politics: Papers of Nefarious Clinton Regime Released!

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I'm pretty sure a photographer that refused to work with a couple because they were black would get their assses sued, yes?

Depending on how the United States Supreme Court falls on the issue of photography falling within the gambit of the protections for expression under the First Amendment, it shouldn't matter whether the refusal to serve the couple was because of their race or sexual orientation.

[lokisnow]

and here I thought he was only a Kenya born Muslim Communist.

Seriously, though, many of the far right commentators are so far detached from reality that Obama has in a sense become a blank slate on which they can paint their fears and visions of evil.

Oh I definitely did the same thing with Cheney. :-p

I was thinking last night that democrats should really refocus on modernizing labor law protections in a pro family way, 1930s labor laws designed to help manly bread winners in a society that is majority multi-income is more than a little outdated. Increasing the minimum wage is a great start, but we should also be targeting the following goals:

1. Indexing the minimum wage to inflation (they did it for the estate tax in 2012, they should do it for the minimum wage).

2. All jobs earn Paid Time Off. We start by advocating for two weeks, we'll settle for one and push for more later. for five days of PTO per annum, you earn one full day of PTO for every 408 hours worked (51 weeks times forty hours divided by five days. For ten days of PTO per annum you earn one full day of PTO for every 200 hours worked (50 weeks times forty hours divided by 10 days). This would be true regardless of whether you're full time or part time. If you're only working parttime you can't earn all five days in a year, but you still earn PTO at the same rate as everyone else.

3. All jobs earn sick days, likewise we'll start by advocating for two weeks, we'll settle for one and push for more later. This would reduce the spread of infectious disease from minimum wage food workers who communicate their illness to their customers. The amount saved in lost work to illness in the overall economy would more than offset the cost of minimum wage workers gradually earning a sick day or two.

4. All jobs get the following PAID holidays off and if you have to work them employers are forced to pay double time: New Years Day, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, Day after Thanksgiving, Christmas.

5. a married couple gets one year of paid maternity/paternity leave per child that they can choose how to divide between themselves as they see fit.

6. Reduce full time work to 35 hours a week. Let's switch to seven hour days rather than 8 hour days.

I know a lot of folks take all these benefits for granted, but I get almost none of them, Holidays are just forced time off without pay. Vacations are just elective time off without pay. I always go to work when I'm sick, since otherwise it would be time off without pay, and so do all my coworkers, so disease spreads rapidly and continually in our workplace. Some basic federal labor law standards the rest of the world enjoys would reform my and many other's workplaces.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I'd also note that the photographer in question doesn't want to simply be left alone.

She wants to run a business that benefits from a variety of public goods everyone's taxes have gone into.

Heads I win, tails you lose. The government creates and enforces monopolies over public services. The government cannot then claim that merely existing in vast territorial area over which they have imposed monopolies over public services that you need to live therefore means that the government has absolute authority to impose its will on you.

As has been previously pointed out, these are all just variations on long-discredited "constructive consent" theories of government, and they are all question-begging in the same way. If the question is, on what basis has one consented to subject itself to the authority of government? Then the answer cannot be because you happened to be born within the government's territorial monopoly and if you stay you consent. Because that just presumes that the government ALREADY has the authority to dictate to you, unilaterally, what constitutes consent. Which means that the government ALREADY has the right to impose its authority over you. Which is the question we're trying to answer in the first place.

On one level, I guess I understand the appeal of these arguments. If you can plausibly say "well hey, you AGREED to this by not dying of dehydration because the government runs your local aquifer and water purification plant or never ever going anywhere because the government runs your roads and local public transportation system" then you can, theoretically at least, sidestep all of the thorny issues about the substance of the law and whether it's right or wrong to force people under threat of violence and confiscation to do or not do particular things.

But where's the small-l liberal, social democratic courage to just stand up and say: "Not discriminating against people based on their age, sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, etc. is the right thing to do, and the government should be able to force you to stop doing it under threat of violence or confiscation of your personal property, and it's right for them to do that regardless of whether you've consented to it or not."

I mean, there's a lot of things I think you can unambiguously state in those terms. I think it's wrong to kill people, and I have no issue with any organization preventing you from killing innocent people under threat of violence or confiscation, and I don't think it matters one whit whether you've "agreed" to those terms are not.

[Commodore]

I mean, there's a lot of things I think you can unambiguously state in those terms. I think it's wrong to kill people, and I have no issue with any organization preventing you from killing innocent people under threat of violence or confiscation, and I don't think it matters one whit whether you've "agreed" to those terms are not.

The distinction is in the nature of the act you are using force to prevent. Using force to prevent someone from physically harming someone else (or their property) is different than using force to compel a person to service another person. The former is an act of defense, the latter an act of coersion.

Part of living in a free society is that you have to tolerate people doing things that you find to be morally wrong. Freedom to do only things you approve of isn't really freedom. "I don't like that, ban it" (or the corollary "I like that, subsidize it") is the typical mindset of the left.

In most states (including AZ), discrimination against gays is not illegal (sexual orientation doesn't fall under public accomodation laws). And yet somehow there are no stores with "No Gays Allowed" signs in the window.

There are ways to influence/deter bad behavior short of the threat of violence. Shaming, ridicule, persuasion, evangelizing, boycotts, buycotts, etc.

[Sci-2]

As has been previously pointed out, these are all just variations on long-discredited "constructive consent" theories of government, and they are all question-begging in the same way.

Hmmm, I'm not sure my argument is equivalent to the one you're rebutting, but do you recall how far back this was addressed? (It's relatively easy for me to find things once I know the rough ballpark.)

"I don't like that, ban it" (or the corollary "I like that, subsidize it") is the typical mindset of the left.

I think only one side tried to have a Marriage Amendment. Let's try to avoid dealing in caricatures.

=-=-=

McDonald's workers sue over 'wage theft'

...The workers have filed a total of seven class action lawsuits in the three states.

In three California suits, workers claim that McDonald's and its franchise owners "failed to pay them for all time worked, failed to pay proper overtime" and "altered pay records".

The cases in Michigan claim the firm "regularly forces workers to show up for work, but then forces them to wait without pay until enough customers show up, and that it also routinely violates minimum wage laws"...

[Ramsay Gimp]

I think the real issue isn't whether or not they're MLK, but that you wouldn't even have agreed with MLK. You oppose laws which ban discrimination by private businesses, on whatever basis. MLK supported anti-discrimination law.

The good MLK did makes up for the small bad he did. The good wasn't just limited to race issues either (his anti-war advocacy was heroic and is what I believe got him killed). Doesn't mean I agree with him on everything

Oh, and speaking of your political and social naivety, in a prior thread you announced that the tea party would welcome the cuts proposed to the military by Obama and Hagel. Within a day or two I posted plenty of tea partiers doing exactly what I predicted and decrying it. Have you found any positive reactions that you swore would be coming since the right has so many divergent opinions on the issues of the military and foreign affairs?

I couldn't tell what you were talking about for the first part of your post, but could you post some of these links? I'm genuinely curious

But even if they oppose the cuts, that isn't enough evidence to say there aren't real and substantive foreign policy divisions on the right

Oh, can you leave off the photographer thing already? I am sure that photographers all over the country are grateful for your stalwart defense of their prerogatives, but you're starting to sound a little obsessed.

Also, when you run to the dictionary to support your position, you're probably losing the debate.

I'll leave off it when people stop saying she's a "bigot", with no evidence, in order to support their case.

I'd also note that the photographer in question doesn't want to simply be left alone.

She wants to run a business that benefits from a variety of public goods everyone's taxes have gone into.

So by that token, since my house is within a police jurisdiction and under U.S. airspace I never "want to be left alone" when I'm inside it? This "the existence of public goods justify anything the government wants to do to businesses/individuals" line of thought makes no sense unless you're arguing for straight authoritarianism, which I doubt you are

Yup. It's almost admirable, the refusal to budge in the face of a generally accepted sign of douchiness.

I guess you could say I'm opposed to involuntary servitude. How douchey...

That being said, I'm willing to be more charitable in some cases. If this couple had been kicked out of a restaurant simply for being lesbian, for example, I would understand their outrage and sympathize with them even while supporting the right of the owner to do that. But this case is very different, for a number of reasons (serving a meal is pretty far off from participating in a gay wedding). This couple do not sound like nice people

BTW, being gay used to be "generally accepted" as a sign of a deviant or sick nature. General acceptance is no way to measure truth

[Ramsay Gimp]

In other news, more of the (idiotic) same from NYT's David Brooks: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/11/opinion/brooks-the-leaderless-doctrine.html?ref=davidbrooks

The Old Guard's panic at the thought of a less-involved United States is leading them to make dumber and dumber claims, it seems

[The Marquis de Leech]

But where's the small-l liberal, social democratic courage to just stand up and say: "Not discriminating against people based on their age, sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, etc. is the right thing to do, and the government should be able to force you to stop doing it under threat of violence or confiscation of your personal property, and it's right for them to do that regardless of whether you've consented to it or not."

Because to frame it like that is to buy into the notion that the state is oppressing the poor business owner, rather than stopping the business owner oppressing the gay couple.

(As for constructive consent, when you rely on the police and military to protect your property, the education system to ensure your employees can read and write, the transport system to provide you with roads to ensure easy supply of goods, the court system to enforce your contracts, I think you're a part of the social contract).

[TrackerNeil]

In most states (including AZ), discrimination against gays is not illegal (sexual orientation doesn't fall under public accomodation laws). And yet somehow there are no stores with "No Gays Allowed" signs in the window.

There are ways to influence/deter bad behavior short of the threat of violence. Shaming, ridicule, persuasion, evangelizing, boycotts, buycotts, etc.

Except, of course, for the Arizona law that bans same sex marriage. There's that one. It's a sign on the office of the Clerk of the Peace that reads, "No Gays Allowed."

You know, I really wish that these debates could be held more honestly. Instead of engaging in these stupid sorties about photographers or whatever, I wish that one side could just say, "We have no sympathy for gay people, and thus do not care when they are discriminated against. Thank you." That was the case in the 80s, and although things are better now, at least back then you knew where people stood.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Because that just presumes that the government ALREADY has the authority to dictate to you, unilaterally, what constitutes consent. Which means that the government ALREADY has the right to impose its authority over you. Which is the question we're trying to answer in the first place.

On one level, I guess I understand the appeal of these arguments. If you can plausibly say "well hey, you AGREED to this by not dying of dehydration because the government runs your local aquifer and water purification plant or never ever going anywhere because the government runs your roads and local public transportation system" then you can, theoretically at least, sidestep all of the thorny issues about the substance of the law and whether it's right or wrong to force people under threat of violence and confiscation to do or not do particular things.

:thumbsup:

Well said.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

The distinction is in the nature of the act you are using force to prevent. Using force to prevent someone from physically harming someone else (or their property) is different than using force to compel a person to service another person. The former is an act of defense, the latter an act of coersion.

Part of living in a free society is that you have to tolerate people doing things that you find to be morally wrong. Freedom to do only things you approve of isn't really freedom. "I don't like that, ban it" (or the corollary "I like that, subsidize it") is the typical mindset of the left.

In most states (including AZ), discrimination against gays is not illegal (sexual orientation doesn't fall under public accomodation laws). And yet somehow there are no stores with "No Gays Allowed" signs in the window.

There are ways to influence/deter bad behavior short of the threat of violence. Shaming, ridicule, persuasion, evangelizing, boycotts, buycotts, etc.

Believe me - I understand the difference. I'm a philosophical Rothbardian on the non-aggression principle. But I also understand that most people are not, and that while I myself am a philosophical anarchist, lots and lots of very smart and very well intentioned people are not. I just think that the entire conversation will be better if those who believe in an activist state made a full-throated defense of it on its own terms, rather than trying to weasel around the issues with pseudo-libertarian-sounding arguments like "consent" or "contract" and nonsense like that. Although history (and the present) is replete with horrendous examples of Statism run amok, I think there are equally compelling counter-examples from say, the Scandanavian countries, where full-throated Statism seems to have resulted in an enormously high quality of life that, on purely utilitarian grounds, really makes you stop and think.

[Sci-2]

So by that token, since my house is within a police jurisdiction and under U.S. airspace I never "want to be left alone" when I'm inside it? This "the existence of public goods justify anything the government wants to do to businesses/individuals" line of thought makes no sense unless you're arguing for straight authoritarianism, which I doubt you are.

I think it's a mistake to conflate regulation of businesses and individual liberty.

I also think most people would recognize that there's a sacrifice of individual liberty for the sake of functioning society that ties into the descent toward anarchy that Ormond noted previously. Even private property is subject to zoning laws.

It seems disingenuous to me to draw the line of where government cannot interfere at the point of convenience to one's self. Which seems to be what the majority demographic of Libertarians are doing.

That being said, I'm willing to be more charitable in some cases.

As someone who has the privilege to not be discriminated against, can you actually be "charitable"? Seems like a misapplication of the word as there's a suggestion of sufferance and magnanimity that IMO would only apply to those who are actually victims.

[Commodore]

Except, of course, for the Arizona law that bans same sex marriage. There's that one. It's a sign on the office of the Clerk of the Peace that reads, "No Gays Allowed."

Not really, that just defines the definition of marriage as a government construct. Otherwise you could say any definition is effectively "banning" whatever falls outside of it.

Banning would be if the police were actively stopping private gay wedding ceremonies. Which they aren't.

You know, I really wish that these debates could be held more honestly. Instead of engaging in these stupid sorties about photographers or whatever, I wish that one side could just say, "We have no sympathy for gay people, and thus do not care when they are discriminated against. Thank you." That was the case in the 80s, and although things are better now, at least back then you knew where people stood.

"Show yourselves bigots! Validate my caricature of you! Righteous indignation is so much easier and self-satisfying than debating this stuff."

[Shryke]

Heads I win, tails you lose. The government creates and enforces monopolies over public services. The government cannot then claim that merely existing in vast territorial area over which they have imposed monopolies over public services that you need to live therefore means that the government has absolute authority to impose its will on you.

As has been previously pointed out, these are all just variations on long-discredited "constructive consent" theories of government, and they are all question-begging in the same way. If the question is, on what basis has one consented to subject itself to the authority of government? Then the answer cannot be because you happened to be born within the government's territorial monopoly and if you stay you consent. Because that just presumes that the government ALREADY has the authority to dictate to you, unilaterally, what constitutes consent. Which means that the government ALREADY has the right to impose its authority over you. Which is the question we're trying to answer in the first place.

On one level, I guess I understand the appeal of these arguments. If you can plausibly say "well hey, you AGREED to this by not dying of dehydration because the government runs your local aquifer and water purification plant or never ever going anywhere because the government runs your roads and local public transportation system" then you can, theoretically at least, sidestep all of the thorny issues about the substance of the law and whether it's right or wrong to force people under threat of violence and confiscation to do or not do particular things.

By living within society, you consent to the social contract. You can't get around that. You can, of course, work to change that contract. The ability to do that is practically the very definition of what we think of as "political freedom" or "the opposite of tyranny". But your claims of lack of consent doesn't mean you can escape the social contract.

No human is born a blank slate without dependance.* It's one of the reasons the libertarian philosophy fails so badly.

* Well, I guess babies left out to die of exposure lack dependance. It just doesn't last long.

But where's the small-l liberal, social democratic courage to just stand up and say: "Not discriminating against people based on their age, sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, etc. is the right thing to do, and the government should be able to force you to stop doing it under threat of violence or confiscation of your personal property, and it's right for them to do that regardless of whether you've consented to it or not."

I mean, there's a lot of things I think you can unambiguously state in those terms. I think it's wrong to kill people, and I have no issue with any organization preventing you from killing innocent people under threat of violence or confiscation, and I don't think it matters one whit whether you've "agreed" to those terms are not.

It's everywhere. It's all over these discussions. Ask anyone and they'll tell you that. It's just that when you present an argument that contradicts itself, people will tend to point that out by adopting your framing to show it's lack of internal consistency. Which is why people in here keep using the language of libertarianism to show it's utter silliness.

[TrackerNeil]

Not really, that just defines the definition of marriage as a government construct. Otherwise you could say any definition is effectively "banning" whatever falls outside of it.

Banning would be if the police were actively stopping private gay wedding ceremonies. Which they aren't.

Categorically excluding a class of Americans from a "construct" others may enjoy is not discrimination in your book? One wonders what is.

[Castel]

By living within society, you consent to the social contract. You can't get around that. You can, of course, work to change that contract. The ability to do that is practically the very definition of what we think of as "political freedom" or "the opposite of tyranny". But your claims of lack of consent doesn't mean you can escape the social contract.

No human is born a blank slate without dependance.* It's one of the reasons the libertarian philosophy fails so badly.

* Well, I guess babies left out to die of exposure lack dependance. It just doesn't last long.

This doesn't seem contradictory? I thought that the point of contract theory was that it wasn't about individual consent? So if I don't immediately freak out and break everything I have consented? edit: Hell, and even that might not be an escape!

[DanteGabriel]

Banning would be if the police were actively stopping private gay wedding ceremonies. Which they aren't.

Is it "banning" if the state refuses to recognize the married legal standing of a same-sex couple? Maybe you could deal with a situation that actually occurs instead of trotting out farcical hypotheticals.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Because to frame it like that is to buy into the notion that the state is oppressing the poor business owner, rather than stopping the business owner oppressing the gay couple.

(As for constructive consent, when you rely on the police and military to protect your property, the education system to ensure your employees can read and write, the transport system to provide you with roads to ensure easy supply of goods, the court system to enforce your contracts, I think you're a part of the social contract).

If you really believe that then you are woefully ignorant of multiple strands of incredibly influential political theory that stretches from Plato to Thomas Aquinas to John Locke to John Rawls. All of these people (and dozens more, to boot) have offered full-throated defenses of state action in ways that simply do not accept or acknowledge that those who are subject to state action are victims. Sounds to me like there's a failure of imagination going on here.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Is it "banning" if the state refuses to recognize the married legal standing of a same-sex couple? Maybe you could deal with a situation that actually occurs instead of trotting out farcical hypotheticals.

So now you've decreed that we can't discuss with the real-life case with the photographer because it's a "red herring" but we also can't deal with hypotheticals....

[Commodore]

Categorically excluding a class of Americans from a "construct" others may enjoy is not discrimination in your book? One wonders what is.

Any definition is categorically exclusionary (which is why there should be none).