felice Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 5 hours ago, Fury Resurrected said: It’s Rep. Shes a member of the House of Representatives, so she’s a representative. That's an abbreviation with a lot of potential for misunderstanding, though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 49 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: Libertarian conceptions of property rights and economic rights will also have to go, insofar as they bar the state from enforcing duties of community and solidarity in the use and distribution of resources. Is this communism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 1 minute ago, Zorral said: Is this communism? I don't think so. But, it seems this particular writer is willing to ditch the libertarian thought, at least the hardcore version of it, that has been influential on the right for about 8 decades or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said: Read this opinion from a presumably conservative legal scholar. It's implications are pretty worrisome. It maybe the future of the conservative legal movement. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/common-good-constitutionalism/609037/ I met Vermeule a few months ago. You are right to be worried, this man's ideas are extremely dangerous. Among other things he worked with the W. Bush administration and helped build the legal case supporting the USA Patriot Act. He is quite influential is some circles. At first sight some of his ideas can seem reasonable (his rejection of originalism certainly is), but the man is a religious fanatic. He's very good at quoting obscure Christian thinkers or scripture but laughingly spineless when it comes to defending his positions: he literally fled me as soon as I started asking him questions, hiding in a corner of the room rather than discuss his ideas with anyone who might not fully agree with him. Anyway, I think you missed the really scary parts of that article of his: Quote Common-good constitutionalism is also not legal liberalism or libertarianism. Its main aim is certainly not to maximize individual autonomy or to minimize the abuse of power (an incoherent goal in any event), but instead to ensure that the ruler has the power needed to rule well. A corollary is that to act outside or against inherent norms of good rule is to act tyrannically, forfeiting the right to rule, but the central aim of the constitutional order is to promote good rule, not to “protect liberty” as an end in itself. Constraints on power are good only derivatively, insofar as they contribute to the common good; the emphasis should not be on liberty as an abstract object of quasi-religious devotion, but on particular human liberties whose protection is a duty of justice or prudence on the part of the ruler. Quote Constitutional words such as freedom and liberty need not be given libertarian readings; instead they can be read in light of a better conception of liberty as the natural human capacity to act in accordance with reasoned morality. Quote The claim, from the notorious joint opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that each individual may “define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life” should be not only rejected but stamped as abominable, beyond the realm of the acceptable forever after. The likes of Vermeule are people who would make The Handmaid's Tale a reality. I hadn't read this text of his, thank you. I will feed this to my students to eviscerate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 5 hours ago, OldGimletEye said: So too should the libertarian assumptions central to free-speech law and free-speech ideology—that government is forbidden to judge the quality and moral worth of public speech, that “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric,” and so on—fall under the ax. Libertarian conceptions of property rights and economic rights will also have to go, insofar as they bar the state from enforcing duties of community and solidarity in the use and distribution of resources. Neither of these is likely or even plausible. The first one is a completely needless provocation. As things stand, there is no need to rescind any free speech protections because for the vast majority of the population, free speech is already restricted to that which is acceptable to a very small group of wealthy people. That is, the average citizen cannot be sent to prison for saying something unacceptable, but if it goes viral, they most certainly can be (and almost certainly will be) fired from their job. Furthermore, a subset of the same rich people controls the infrastructure of both the traditional mass media and the more recent social media as well as web hosting and payment processing so it's quite difficult to consistently reach an audience of meaningful size. Now yes, there are a few individuals rich enough to be independent (the most famous being Donald Trump) and some activists on the left and on the right whose job is pushing these limits, but for the most part, public speech in the US is already quite constrained without invoking the law. On the other hand, if the courts try to have the government control speech, there may be unrest as Americans are rather fond of the idea of free speech (and there exist groups who have purchased significant quantities of weapons against precisely such an eventuality). It's just not worth the effort. For the issue of property and economic rights, the author misunderstands the guiding principle of contemporary American government. It is quite flexible on various social and cultural issues, but messing with the property of the wealthy is a completely different matter. It's a government of the wealthy, for the wealthy and it's not likely to allow that wealth to be targeted. Of course, it is nearly guaranteed to come to the rescue of these rich people when they latter are in distress (we saw these bailouts during the financial crisis and again in the past few months of coronavirus), but this is already the status quo -- no changes to the libertarian conceptions of property rights are required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 It's expensive and a pita which will go on forever, but -- could sites that deathcultists demand for rallies sue the RNC for endangering the lives of their citizens / voters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alarich II Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 8 hours ago, Rippounet said: I met Vermeule a few months ago. You are right to be worried, this man's ideas are extremely dangerous. [...] The likes of Vermeule are people who would make The Handmaid's Tale a reality. I hadn't read this text of his, thank you. I will feed this to my students to eviscerate. The worst part IMO is this: Subjects will come to thank the ruler whose legal strictures, possibly experienced at first as coercive, encourage subjects to form more authentic desires for the individual and common goods, better habits, and beliefs that better track and promote communal well-being This is sounds like straight out of Orwells 1984. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 Maybe there really is something in the water in Florida. Change Research, which has been one of the stronger Trump pollsters for a while, has a new batch of polling out. It's the best for Trump in a while (which is saying something considering they found Biden up in every battleground state they polled), though much worse for him than their last around of polling. But Florida stands out in particular: That's now 6 straight public polls of Florida with Biden leading, going back to mid-April. All but 1 of them at Biden+3 or better. And that's just the RCP database; I'm pretty sure I remember at least one other recent gaudy Florida poll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 House Republicans Seethe as Pelosi Orders Mask-Wearing in Committees https://www.thedailybeast.com/nancy-pelosi-orders-mask-wearing-in-committees?ref=home Quote Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA) is particularly upset by the idea of covering his mouth, telling CNN last month: “It’s part of the dehumanization of the children of God. You’re participating in it by wearing a mask.” Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL) previously said there’s “no need” to wear a mask because he believes in “herd immunity.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 So let's see if the token black Republican Senator is partially full of shit or completely full of shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freshwater Spartan Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 I always feel bad for authentic African American conservatives. All they want to do is push ideas of lower taxes, less regulations and public services but to do that, they got to hang out with a bunch of awful folks who despise them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 5 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said: I always feel bad for authentic African American conservatives. All they want to do is push ideas of lower taxes, less regulations and public services but to do that, they got to hang out with a bunch of awful folks who despise them. I don't. It's a two party system. You pick the party that you agree with on more stuff that matters to you. They picked Republicans; so something about making beds and laying in them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 16 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said: I always feel bad for authentic African American conservatives. I'm sure they both have good reasons for their decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted June 17, 2020 Author Share Posted June 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Maithanet said: I'm sure they both have good reasons for their decision. I'm sure there are very fine people on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Maithanet said: I'm sure they both have good reasons for their decision. Both? Did you count Ben Carson twice? I thought his siamese twin had been successfully removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 I don't think so. But, it seems this particular writer is willing to ditch the libertarian thought, at least the hardcore version of it, that has been influential on the right for about 8 decades or so.am rather fond of my custom title, nevertheless. he cites vermeule favorably several times--it is accordingly maurrassian integral nationalism--basically theocratic fascism. difficult to imagine something more rightwing. ETA: fuck, vermeule wrote the article. and cited himself favorably several times. wtf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 17 minutes ago, sologdin said: I don't think so. But, it seems this particular writer is willing to ditch the libertarian thought, at least the hardcore version of it, that has been influential on the right for about 8 decades or so.am rather fond of my custom title, nevertheless. he cites vermeule favorably several times--it is accordingly maurrassian integral nationalism--basically theocratic fascism. difficult to imagine something more rightwing. ETA: fuck, vermeule wrote the article. and cited himself favorably several times. wtf. He’s the Professor that requires you to buy and read their book, isn’t he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derfel Cadarn Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: He’s the Professor that requires you to buy and read their book, isn’t he? No doubt with an annually released updated version, so students can’t pass their copies on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 32 minutes ago, sologdin said: he cites vermeule favorably several times--it is accordingly maurrassian integral nationalism--basically theocratic fascism. difficult to imagine something more rightwing. The conservative movement as we have understood it since the 1960s has always had it's Burkean Branch and its Ayn Rand Branch. Frank Meyer called it fusionism. In the second half my life, I could very well see it becoming more Burkean, nationalist, and authoritarian. The first piece of evidence of course was the election of Donald Trump. Given the right wing takeovers in countries like Poland and Hungary, who have decided to wage a full blown KulturKampf, I find this stuff worrisome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 "An officer was gunned down. The killer was a ‘boogaloo boy’ using nearby peaceful protests as cover, feds say." https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/17/boogaloo-steven-carrillo/ Quote [....] Now, federal authorities say the man, identified as Air Force Staff Sgt. Steven Carrillo, 32, was an adherent of the “boogaloo boys,” a growing online extremist movement that has sought to use peaceful protests against police brutality to spread fringe views and ignite a race war. Federal investigators allege that’s exactly what Carrillo was trying to do last month. [....] [....]The newly detailed alleged motive behind the attack at the Oakland courthouse comes as concerns rise about right-wing violence at Black Lives Matter protests. On Monday, a counterdemonstrator shot a protester during a scuffle in Albuquerque, after a militia group in military-style garb and armed with semiautomatic rifles stood menacingly in the crowd throughout the afternoon. Other boogaloo boys have been charged recently with fomenting violence at other protests.[....] Boogaloo, as we recall, began with Vietnam vets back in the 1970's and 80's (earlier than the article's author seems to know, dating their nomenclature only from a 1980's movie) murdering then, mostly people on the southwestern borders. It's been going on all this time. Nobody cared enough to stop them, or break them up, or even prosecute, it seems. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ In the meantime, from the same era, here is Joe: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/joe-biden-character-anita-hill.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.