Posted by Brian Sorgatz at 8:41 PM
Will left this comment at November 1, 2006 10:42 PM
"Want to eat at McDonald’s, smoke a cigarette, or get silicone breast implants? Liberals would discourage those evil deeds through sin taxes and class-action lawsuits."
You're overgeneralizing what most liberals stand for. That's like saying conservatives think that women shouldn't have a right to birth control, when, in fact, most conservatives support and use birth control. I would argue that many liberals see the dangers of eating unhealthy food, and with breast implants that could break... and thus we'd support regulatory measures to prevent dangerous levels of toxins being introduced into our bodies, or unqualified professionals doing surgeries. I'll argue that your McDonald's example isn't so good, because McDonald's violates the rights of many people in other countries through their environmentally unsound practices that destroy the groundwater and create other pollution that hurt the locals in a clear, real way. Is that the sort of thing that would bother you as a Libertarian? I'd like to know.
"Does your family’s limited income prevent you from sending your child to a private school? Liberals think they’re doing you a favor by making you support mediocre public schools through option-limiting taxes."
Of course, by this logic you would be willing to drain public resources so that those who want a good quality public education are out of luck because public money for this will be drained into the private market. The question would be "Does your community spend so much tax dollars on sending kids to private schools that the education quality of public schools has fallen greatly due to lost funds?"
I understand the appeal to wanting to be left alone to do whatever you want to yourself... I just think that your thinking tends to ignore the consequences of that sort of thinking on other people in a negative or harmful sort of way.
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at November 2, 2006 9:45 AM
Ah, Will, the loyal opposition. :-)
I would argue that many liberals see the dangers of eating unhealthy food, and with breast implants that could break... and thus we'd support regulatory measures to prevent dangerous levels of toxins being introduced into our bodies....
I find your use of the pronoun our interestingly vague. It glosses over the value judgments and choices of individuals who tolerate or invite differing levels of risk. Not everyone values the “traditional” family as much as Santorum; not everyone values personal health and safety as much as you and Morgan Spurlock.
Of course, by this logic you would be willing to drain public resources so that those who want a good quality public education are out of luck because public money for this will be drained into the private market.
As Stephen Covey says, begin with the end in mind. The desired end is a good education, public or otherwise. You seem rather sentimental about the preservation of public schools as an end in itself, which strikes me as an example of putting the cart before the horse.
I understand the appeal to wanting to be left alone to do whatever you want to yourself... I just think that your thinking tends to ignore the consequences of that sort of thinking on other people in a negative or harmful sort of way.
Santorum needs to be more specific about the harmful consequences of same-sex marriage. Can you be more specific about the harmful consequences of individuals risking nothing but their own health? Bear in mind that I favor the complete privatization of the health-care system, so “skyrocketing public-health costs” are a moot point for me. Also, before you answer, consider Virginia Postrel’s account of the pseudoscientific outrage over silicone implants.
Robert Paulson left this comment at November 3, 2006 10:24 AM
Rick Santorum is a douchebag, let's get that out of that way. But, when it comes down to it, Democrats want to understand terrorists' motivations, give them civil liberties, and make sure they are being treated fairly under Geneva convention rules. Republicans want to kill them. For that reason alone, my votes' going in the R column even if I disagree with everything else they stand for.
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at November 3, 2006 4:52 PM
Robert,
Statistically, you and I are highly unlikely to be killed by terrorists. I’m less afraid of terrorism than of Republicans’ use of the terrorist threat to rationalize their creeping tyranny. For all their faults, Democrats understand that due process and humane treatment of war prisoners make our system better than the one the jihadists would impose if they could. Let’s not sink to their level.
TerraPraeta left this comment at November 4, 2006 10:02 AM
Right on, Brian.
Republicans have become the party of moral judge and jury.
Democrats have become the party of 'we must protect people from themselves.
I want them both to back off and allow me to do my own self-protection and moralizing, than you VERY much.
tp
« Home
Will left this comment at November 1, 2006 10:42 PM