I’m relieved to witness these recurring fallacies finally put to rest. We’ll never hear of them again, I trust, and thank goodness. I so look forward to actual thoughtful, constructive drug policy discussions from here on out.
So, even a very conservative legal scholar examining the Constitution and precedents could not find a convincing argument to overturn “Obamacare” – and that is because the Founders intentionally empowered Congress to address national economic problems.
I don’t think the author of this piece quite grasps the nature of Ron Paul’s objection. Ron Paul’s objection is that courts throughout American history have mangled the Constitution beyond recognition. To counter the objection, the author cites the most recent U.S. Appeals Court mangling of the Constitution as an authority on the meaning of the Constitution. The author quotes actual founders but once. There is nary a reference to the Federalist papers. The only thing the author proves is that modern conservatives like Judge Laurence Silberman continue to screw up the Constitution just as well as anyone else.
That said, I’m somewhat put off by the founder worship and the constitution worship surrounding the Ron Paul campaign. The founders did not speak with one voice. The Constitution is often a puzzle.
Better hear this debate late than never. The enlightening moment occurs at about 35:35, when Tom asks Sandra Aistars, a SOPA proponent:
What’s the club that’s over these American firms [like Google and Twitter]? What’s your leverage to get them to stop including these foreign websites where you say piracy is going on?
Proponents first response:
I’m not following your question.
Tom keeps digging. Proponent’s second response:
The bills would establish a process by which a case could be brought by the Attorney General or by an individual copyright owner that has been harmed.
Tom digs further:
With what threat? With what threat? With what threat to the American web company?
Proponent’s third response:
We’re not talking about American web companies.
Tom digs further. Proponent’s fourth response:
The federal district court has the right to enforce the orders that they issue. … If Google thumbed its nose and ignored an order that was issued to stop directing people to infringing sites, there would be a federal remedy.
Tom keeps digging:
Proponent’s fourth response:
The remedy that applies in civil cases.
Tom digs. Proponent’s fifth response:
The court would select the remedies.
Those, like Sandra, who propose government solutions to any problem often either fail to connect or minimize the connection between government and the use of force. Tom Ashbrook does an excellent job of reminding the listeners of the gun in the room. Remember: There’s a gun in the room. There’s a gun in the room. There’s a gun in the room.Stefan Molyneux would be proud.
But most of all, we don’t see the health insurance company as providing us a service. … The same goes for the rent/mortgage, for the utilities, for the car, for the cell phone bill, for nearly everything. Most of these things are necessary commodities for most Americans. Many are socially expected, even if not technically necessary.
I found the problem right here. There’s a bit of a disconnect between the author’s expectations and reality. These expectations have so skewed his perception that he simply can not recognize a service to see it. The author labors under the misapprehension that he is entitled to the fruits of other people’s efforts.
Here is a fun video. The running dude is probably a trespasser, and deserves to be removed from the premises–forcefully, if necessary. But does it take four guys to do that, kneeling on him and jabbing at him? The police officers may have became aggressors through over-reaction. The valiant soccer player’s karate kick to the head of one of the police officers could be seen as an act in defense of another. Tough calls all around. The lesson is: Just because the principles are often difficult to apply, that doesn’t mean they should be abandoned.
“In the beginning I was intrigued because it’s such a benign activity. It’s development, exactly what every leader speaks about and so I thought that we would be celebrated and we would be supported by the system. But what I did not realize then, and do now, is that in many situations, leaders, especially leaders in undemocratic countries, have not been keen to inform their people, to empower their people, to help them solve their problems. They almost want them to remain needy, to remain poor, to remain dis-empowered so that they can look up to them, almost like gods and adore them and worship them and hope that they will solve their problems. Now, I couldn’t stand that.”
What aspects of religion should atheists (respectfully) adopt? Alain de Botton suggests a “religion for atheists” — call it Atheism 2.0 — that incorporates religious forms and traditions to satisfy our human need for connection, ritual and transcendence.
I had always been skeptical of the subtitle of Christopher Hitchen’s book: God Is Not Great: How Religion Poison’s Everything. From community support to art, here are some things that religion actually does well and might be emulated. This was a great talk right up until the end, when the guy in the suit to suggests:
But you did leave out one aspect of religion that a lot of people might say your agenda could borrow from, which is this sense of … spiritual experience: some kind of connection with something bigger than you are. Is there any room for this kind of experience in Atheism 2.0?
Alain politely responds, “Absolutely…”, but the answer is really “No”.
Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.
This entry was posted on Saturday, January 21st, 2012 at 7:42 pm and is filed under Diigo. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.