Sharp as a Marble - Visually stunning

<< So, uh, Robb. Any chance of, you know? Maybe being a gun blogger? | Home | Green with envy >>

Visually stunning

Politics

Liberty vs Serfdom

Found here

posted @ 11/2/2009 1:11:02 PM

Incoming Links

SayUncle » Leviathan on 11/3/2009 9:03:26 AM

Comments

Phoronus says:

on 11/2/2009 3:26:12 PM

Intellectually stunning, too. That people could be that ignorant to think this makes some kind of cogent point is just, well, stunning.

Robb Allen says:

on 11/2/2009 4:02:06 PM

Got any insight besides insults Phoronus? Really. Dazzle me with your intellect, since apparently it's way beyond my capacity.

Phoronus says:

on 11/2/2009 4:27:18 PM

Sorry, I do apologize, I just get really frustrated with this kind of thing.

Even aside from the politics of it:

The DoI was written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, as part of the Committee of Five. The other four being John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Livingston and Roger Sherman.

I'm going to assume (daring, I know), that the cartoonist was specifically referring to Jefferson. To call him a 'farmer' is absurd. He was a plantation owner, not a dust-covered guy walking behind a mule plowing a field in the sun. He was also a genius. Trying to 'folksy-up' him by referring to him as a farmer is insultingly manipulative.

Of the five, Jefferson was admitted to the bar in 1767, Adams was admitted to the bar in 1758, Livingston was admitted to the bar in 1773, and Sherman was admitted to the bar in 1753. Franklin, of course, was not a lawyer, but was not the 'simple folk' that the cartoon seems to be trying to imply created the DoI.

I'd also say that the DoI makes less sense than the Constitution in this scene. Of course, the Constitution is 4 pages, not one, but it's at least a document that actually involves the laws (setting the groundwork for) of the country, instead of just a statement.

I'll ignore the 'liberals and community organizers' bit, since neither makes sense as a derogatory, though they're both intended that way.

And of course, there's the fact that one document is not related to laws, per se, and the other is amending/changing a great many laws passed over the past 233 years. Of course it's longer. Not to mention that one of the point of the second document is to avoid loopholes and prevent legal problems caused by imprecise language and that causes it to be much longer than the common language version of the bill might be.

As a Second Amendment advocate, I'm sure you can appreciate the problems caused by wording that leaves room for people to misunderstand the intent.

I, of course, disagree with the political message, too, but that is only tangentially related to my annoyance at the cartoon. To be honest, I find the political argument to be so absurd as to be amusing, so that's not really the source of it. It's a badly designed cartoon, even if you agree with the political message.

If you (generic you, not Robb you) want to debate or argue that the healthcare reform bill is bad or whatever, more power to you. I disagree, but that's ok. But it really behooves you (still generic you) to make sense while you're doing it. And not misrepresent your (generic your) evidence/examples.

Robb Allen says:

on 11/2/2009 4:36:06 PM

Thank you for explaining your point. That's something we can discuss, and you have valid points. The issue of course, is that it is humor, not intended to be complete and thorough in its explanation of it's intent. It's not required.

I have more to say to your points (and am glad to have the discussion!) but I have places to go right now. I will return later.

Again, thank you for explaining your position. I'll return snark with snark, but you will completely disarm me if you come in here with valid points backed up by a level head ;)

mike w. says:

on 11/3/2009 9:42:29 AM

I'd also say that the DoI makes less sense than the Constitution in this scene. Of course, the Constitution is 4 pages, not one, but it's at least a document that actually involves the laws (setting the groundwork for) of the country, instead of just a statement.

So the DOI didn't "set the groundwork" for the country?

Not to mention that one of the point of the second document is to avoid loopholes and prevent legal problems caused by imprecise language and that causes it to be much longer than the common language version of the bill might be.

Really? The whole damn bill is full of purposely vague and inprecise language. It was written like that for a reason, and it's not to "avoid loopholes and prevent legal problems"

The sad thing? Liberals are pushing this BS on us while fully admitting that they haven't read the bill, have no idea what's in it, and in the case of my Senator, have no intention of reading it before voting in favor of it.

ATLien says:

on 11/3/2009 3:58:25 PM

I don't think you get it, holmes.

The 1st is a one page document that told an empire that we've had enough tyranny, thank you very much.

The 2nd is a bill that says that the government will PUNISH YOU if you don't buy a certain commodity or product. All that shit you wrote about Jefferson, et all., is just verbal dancing on your part. Do you believe government should force its citizenry to buy a product in order to be a free person?

Stuart the Viking says:

on 11/3/2009 4:39:42 PM

There needs to be some way to test if a congress critter has read a bill before they are allowed to vote on it.

I will go as far as saying that, in my opinion, a politician who votes on a bill without first reading it should be considered an enemy of the free state and should be treated as such. I don't care if he votes the way I would want or not. If he hasn't read the damn thing, he isn't doing his job. I would be fired if I didn't do my job. How is a congress person any differant?

s

Phoronus says:

on 11/3/2009 4:43:04 PM

Mike w, as far as the groundwork for our laws, no, it didn't. I would agree that it stated the tone and ideals for our country, though. (Even if the Constitution would then disregard some of those).

Hrm, I think I disagree as to the purposefully full of vague and imprecise language, but I'm going to do a little more reading on that point.

ATLien,

Are you trying to refer to me in a 'gangsta' style, in which case you mispelled 'homes' or are you trying to make some roundabout Sherlock Holmes reference?

Regardless, if you'd read my second post, you'd notice I attempted to ignore the political message in the cartoon and discuss or point out the flaws in the creation of it. Whether I disagree with the cartoon's message or not, it's a terribly done attempt at persuasion. Which was my primary point.

I don't really understand your last sentence, but I do believe that the government can compel you to do certain things that you might not otherwise want to do for the good of the nation as a whole. Part and parcel of being a part of a civilized society.

I have car insurance, after all, mandated by my state. I don't view that as an onerous burden.

Bob S. says:

on 11/3/2009 4:43:18 PM

Phoronus,

I think that you do farmers a grave mis-justice.
While I'm not a farmer, I have looked into agriculture enough to realize I'm not smart enough to do it.

Modern farmers are part biologist, part-chemist, part lawyers (you try and keep up with all the changing laws), full time agricultural specialists, businesspeople and more.

not a dust-covered guy walking behind a mule plowing a field in the sun. He was also a genius. Trying to 'folksy-up' him by referring to him as a farmer is insultingly manipulative.

Given the complex and technical nature of farming today, who is being insultingly manipulative to refer to farmers in the manner you did?

Phoronus says:

on 11/3/2009 4:55:59 PM

Bob,

Since we're talking about farmers in the context of a document published in 1776, I'm going to stick with the cartoonist as the insultingly manipulative one.

Yu-Ain Gonnano says:

on 11/3/2009 5:56:24 PM

I have car insurance, after all, mandated by my state.

Three points:

First, actually, No, you don't. The state only mandates that you have car insurance if:
A) You own a car
B) You drive it on public roads.

If you don't do *both* of these things then you don't have to obtain car insurance. You can drive your friend's car all you want on his private property and not carry a cent of insurance coverage. It is not a condition of residence/citizenship.

Second, Car insurance is only required to cover the other person. You are not required to carry insurance to protect yourself nor your property. This is not "for the good of society". It is specifically to protect the individual person(s) you harmed from your own actions. Unless you want to argue that my very existance caused your flu, then making me buy health insurance is only apples-to-apples if the plan you require covers me making you sick, and not me getting sick myself.

Three, just because something is currently being done, is not evidence that that thing should be done.

As to whether the DoI or the Constitution "set the groundwork" isn't a simple either/or setup. Is the DoI a legal framework, technically no more than "piss off, you sod" (which is pretty much what it did) is a legal framework. In this sense the Constitution would be better. But the Consutitution didn't set the groundwork for the laws. It is the law. It's just the laws the gov't must obey vice the laws the citizenry must obey. It's the end, and not the beginning. For the begining, the DoI does serve better as it does list the types of abuses that led to our founding. There would be no constitution if not for the abuses listed in the DoI. We find the spirit of the law in the DoI, we find the letter of the law in the Constitution.

As for whether is it appropriate to "folksy" up the framers. I would contend that the difference is that the framers (geniuses and lawyers that they were) were not "professional politicians". Their full time jobs were not in politics, these people had day jobs.

avoid loopholes and prevent legal problems caused by imprecise language and that causes it to be much longer than the common language version of the bill might be.

Which is probably the most damning indictment of all. Freedom is easy to communicate, forcing people do exactly what you want is what is complicated.

Phoronus says:

on 11/3/2009 6:43:17 PM

Yu-Ain,

That's not precisely right, but you're close enough. While I would agree that those are mandates contingent on certain criteria, I would still argue that it falls under the government mandating something that may not be preferred.

I'm not so sure about your second point. I would say that the statement "Drivers who harm people or property should have insurance so that the victim can be appropriately repaid" is for the good of society.

Well, I wouldn't argue that your existance causes illness, it is possible that if you neglect your own health, either intentionally or not, you can cause other people to get sick. Health is a social problem.

I do agree that is isn't aught. But, my last sentenance in that post is my point there. I'm only making the statement that I don't find that to be onerous and that I do believe that government can compel individuals for societal reasons.

Then I think that the Constitution would be an even more appropriate comparison. (And actually more powerful in pursuit of the goal of the cartoon). I would disagree that it's the end, at least in practice, given the massive amount of caselaw that has been built from the Constitution. I would agree that the spirit is in the DOI the letter is in the Constitution.

But, that brings me back to my point regarding the cartoon. The House bill is the letter of the law, and the Constitution is a much more apt comparison.

I would absolutely agree that is a major difference between the two groups. It's not the one raised in the cartoon, though. And, I don't find it particularly damning, I must admit.

Well, yes. "Do whatever the hell you want" is an incredibly easy sentiment to get across. However, it probably won't lead to a successful society. Laws require specificity. I think it's better to have a society with laws than one without. I have a hard time taking this one as particularly damning, either.

Robb Allen says:

on 11/3/2009 6:56:17 PM

Sorry I'm just now getting back to this. I see there's already been a discussion and I'm late!

First off, Phoronus is attempting to discuss this rationally. Outside of the first comment, which he (assumption, please correct me if I'm wrong) has apologized for, the tone from him is civil. Please show the same.

Now, as to the points - regarding just the cartoon, we have to remember it's just that - A cartoon. A caricature of Jay Leno has his chin about 3/4 the size of his head. It's not, but his chin is prominent and thus highlighted during caricature. This visual joke is the same. It's showing the differences between liberty and serfdom in an exaggerated way.

I agree with Phoronus, the Constitution would have been a better comparison, but I understand the point. And I think it's a point you are missing, Phoronus.

You are so caught up in the exaggeration (Jay Leno's chin isn't that big!) that you're missing the point.

Liberty is subject to the Laffer curve just like revenue is to taxation. Anarchy would limit freedom because it would turn into tyranny almost instantly. Some mutual agreement on the framework of social interaction is required to gain the maximum amount of freedom. The health bill is only a part of the downward slide off the balance point.

The problem is society will always function, regardless of the laws placed upon them. Take England - no matter how many stupid laws they make banning butter knives and old LP's that might have sharpened edges, people will still trudge on. I do not want to see that happen here. This health bill has nothing to do with the betterment of our lives and everything to do with more control.

When you talk about loopholes and laws, it's because you have too many laws. When you talk about the issues behind me being a 2A supporter, you damage your argument - My position is simple. Anyone and everyone not currently in prison can have whatever handheld weaponry they desire. No loopholes, no need to run background checks, no 20,000 gun laws discussing what types of welds make a flash suppressor legal, or how 17.99999" of barrel is a felony without a particular stamp.

Now, with all those laws gone, we can focus the court systems of keeping those who are a danger to society (1% cause most of the crime) away from you and me. Just making this illegal or that illegal unless you get form A signed by the Governor doesn't do anything to benefit freedom or stop crime.

Same with health legislation. We don't need 1900+ pages that nobody has read that contain so much bloat and waste that it makes the sum of all the past congresses' pork project pale in comparison.

Robb Allen says:

on 11/3/2009 7:12:15 PM

Oh, and as to laws requiring specifics - That sounds great on paper. Really does. As a computer programmer, I'm all aware of how nice it would be if people could explain what they meant perfectly and that there was no room for misunderstanding. However, when you write something that requires years of law school to comprehend, then you've failed from the get go.

Just like being a good developer requires that you have a feel for what people want (we're human, sorry, that's how it works) and then you fix the discrepancies as you go, the legal system has to rely on the jury to fill in those blanks. It is impossible for any human to know all the laws he or she is required to abide by, what makes you think adding even more will help?

Yu-Ain Gonnano says:

on 11/4/2009 1:38:40 PM

Laws require specificity.

Depends on your definition of specificity. "Thou shalt not murder" is much more useful as law than "Thou shalt not end human life with A: a firearm unless first attacked with an firearm B: an Edged Weapon unless first attacked with an edged weapon or firearm C: a Blunt Force Weapon unless first attacked with a Blunt Force Weapon, Edged Weapon, or Firearm, but then only if you cannot retreat by more than 20 feet if outside the home, but inside the home no retreat is necessary" but less useful than "Bad stuff is bad so don't do it, mmkay."

Loopholes generally arise for over specificity not under specificity. An real example. Here in TN it is illegal to text and drive. However, it is not illegal to browse the web and drive, update contacts and drive, review pictures and drive, revise excel workbooks and drive, or any number of other things one can do with a cellphone. A single distracted driving law would cover all these things. What constitutes "distracted driving" well, that's what juries are for. That is, it makes your peers in the community ask themselves whether if that standard were applied to themselves would they consider the outcome just. Would they consider it "just" to be convicted for yelling at their kids? Would they consider it "just" to be convicted for changing the radio station? Would they consider it "just" to be convicted for sticking their head out the window to get a better look at that helicopter?

Society functioned quite well under laws that could be read and understood by the laity. We didn't suddenly burst out of anarchy when it required a law degree just to understand a tenth of what the law says.

I would say that the statement "Drivers who harm people or property should have insurance so that the victim can be appropriately repaid" is for the good of society.

And I would say it's for the good of the individual. Once you say that any benefit to an individual is a benefit to the whole society you effectively destroy the concept of any limitation on gov't. I can do anything I want so long as I can find someone, somewhere who benefits.

Another "proof" that car insurance is restitution to an individual who you harmed not restitution to the society who you harmed is that if it were, the injured party would be the state and hence that's who you would pay restitution to, but you don't, so it can't.

Health insurance, though, isn't about providing restitution to anyone and certainly not providing restitution to the society. It is about hedging against the probabilities to oneself. Which is why no state mandates that your car insurance covers yourself or your own property.

The proper car analogy to health insurance would be seat belt laws which truly are about protecting you from yourself. The problem, again, is that you won't find many supporters of seat belt laws around these parts.

The purpose of the law is to protect individuals from the predation of other individuals or groups of individuals. Laws against murder, theft, and fraud protect me from you while laws against due process or free speach violations protect me from gov't. The health care bill protects me from neither.

Yu-Ain Gonnano says:

on 11/4/2009 2:23:28 PM

And completely off topic: How much shorter do you think laws would be if the "authors" actually had to hand write the laws they wished to pass?

Yu-Ain Gonnano says:

on 11/4/2009 4:59:01 PM

Back on topic:

Health is a social problem.

How? The closest analogy I can come up with would be the fire department analogy.

Let's suppose the fire department were a private business. Only those that paid premiums will receive service from them. Let's also say that I pay for the service and you do not.

My house being on fire is a tangible risk to your property, and thus putting out the fire is a tangible benefit to you even though you paid no cost.

Furthermore, you can not opt out of this benefit.

Additionally, demand for fire services is almost always less than supply (firefighters spend most of their days twiddling their thumbs).

This makes fire-departments (approximately) non-exclusive and non-rivaled. A classic public good.

The problem with this analogy for health care is three-fold.

1) While this works for communicable deseases like the flu, it fails for a whole list of other ailments: Cancer, obesity, organ failure, injury. And thus there is no benefit to others that they cannot opt out of (because their is no benefit to others at all) thus the non-exclusion condition fails.

2) There are already vast medical personnel shortages: nurses, doctors, pharmacists. Every patient that takes the time of a doctor means time that the doctor can't spend with someone else and thus the non-rivalry condition fails.

3) Fire departments are funded and managed at local levels to the point that some locales don't provide the service at all (when houses are half a mile apart there's little risk to someone else's property which removes the non-excludability aspect). There are no state managed fire departments. Neither are there federally managed fire departments. If your city wanted to provide a communicable diseases clinic funded by the city residents, there's nothing to stop them. Citizens could then make the decision whether such a service is worth living in the city or not and choose accordingly.

EMP says:

on 11/4/2009 7:41:34 PM

How much shorter do you think laws would be if the "authors" actually had to hand write the laws they wished to pass?

Let's start by getting them to read 'em.

dagamore says:

on 11/5/2009 3:47:43 AM

But the people in office are not writing the bills, they are getting handed to them by other outside groups, i doubt if they were hand written would slow them down at all.

Yu-Ain Gonnano says:

on 11/5/2009 10:13:34 AM

That's why I put "author" in scare quotes. I know the particular congress critter isn't actually writing it. Baucus didn't write the "Baucus Bill".

What I'm saying is what if we actually made Baucus handwrite (handcopy?) it before it could be submitted.

Comments have been closed on this topic.