One-handed typing: the doom of mankind!

[elfs]

Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissent from the ruling Lawrence v. Texas, said that the court's overturning its own opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick, "calls into question state laws against masturbation."

Remember, this isn't just Scalia spouting off here. His version of the constitution may be weird, but it's consistent in the notion that some things, such as sexuality and privacy, which aren't explicit in the constitution, are not to be dealt with by the courts but must be deferred to the states. On the other hand, religion, which is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, is the province of the Court, which has the final say and sometimes defers to "the verdict of history." Anyone who remembers the Judge Bork case can remember his dissenting opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut.

As if that weren't bad enough, the religious right is now interested in "strengthening marriage," which include "addressing deliberate childlessness is marriage."

Isn't that special?

Comments

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Everyone has two sets of potential: what they themselves can do, and what genes they can pass on in their issue. An ideal society would seek the full realization of both sets of potential in every individual.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with both of these premises: that we have two sets of potential, and that it is the responsibility of an ideal society to seek the full realization. We don't have two sets of potential, we have just our own; it is unfair to put the burden of our own failure to acheive on future generations, and that's exactly what you do when you put our potential to make of ourselves what we can and our genetic potential into the same argument.

I also disagree that society has any responsibility whatsoever. Individuals have responsibility; society is the epiphenomon of individuals working together. It is the duty of those individuals to craft a "society" that gets out of the way of individuals. Anything else invites abuse "in the best interests of society" or "in your best interests, whether you know it or not."

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Would you agree that public education, in concept, is a good idea, in that (at minimum) an educated electorate will make better decisions than an ignorant one?

Would you agree that public health efforts to control/cure/eradicate infectious disease is a good idea, in that if your neighbor is healthy it is less likely he will pass a contagion to you?

What are, in your view, the minimum functions of good government?

The government we have is the result of 200+ years of mostly agreed-upon social policy, tempered by the courts which try to make sure we live up to the principles set out in the Constitution.

I believe that we suffer too much government and it doesn't often do what it sets out to do in the most efficient or effective manner, and the federal government doesn't live within its means.

The hard part is twofold: first, agreeing on that minimum subset, and secondly, being firm in saying "no" to all those small (in the context of government) requests for resources outside that minimum agreed-upon subset of government functions.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Really? How about this: the maximum function of a good government is to use its monopoly power on legitimate violence to the least of its capacity; to enforce contracts between sovereign citizens and to maintain the property rights of individuals. Everything else is extraneous, distracting, and possibly detrimental to the functioning of "good government."

I read the other day that the price of laser eye surgery has dropped precipitously in the past decade even as the procedure itself has become more refined and desirable outcomes more commonplace. It is one of the few corners of the medical establishment where market forces, unskewed by government regulation, has worked.

Why isn't this true of, say, education?

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

Plastic Surgery is also well regulated by market forces - it's elective, and not (generally) a matter of life & death. I would argue that the healthcare market is otherwise skewed badly by urgent necessity on the part of the consumers.

I'm fully in favor of school vouchers to inject market discipline on the educational system - something the teachers' unions have mostly successfully resisted. I still think that education should be required of all minors, unless we decide that people without a high school diploma (or equivalent) aren't allowed to vote.

[omahas.livejournal.com]

Really? How about this: the maximum function of a good government is to use its monopoly power on legitimate violence to the least of its capacity; to enforce contracts between sovereign citizens and to maintain the property rights of individuals. Everything else is extraneous, distracting, and possibly detrimental to the functioning of "good government."

1) The government (the legal arm of Society) does not have a monopoly power on legitimate violence, or there would be no right to use lethal force in self-defense, or the defense of another life. I can provide you with much case law if you don't believe me.

2) Let's look at minors in our country: Unless violence is performed on a child, any actions, or inactions, that brings danger to a child (such as emotional harassment, neglect, mental abuse, etc) does not fall into the first category of government's role as you stipulated. There are no contracts that our government currently recognizes as existing between child and guardian that can be enforced (the child did not sign a contract), so any actions or inactions that brings danger to a child does not fall into the second category of government's role as you stipulated. And government, and Society as a whole, does not recognize children as "property", so any actions or inactions to a child that brings danger to a child does not fall into the third category of government's role as you stipulated.

So, my question is, where is CPS allowed to exist within your narrowly defined "good government"?