Below is my column in the Washington Post (Sunday) on our recent victory in the Sister Wives case. The column looks at the most significant aspect of the case — the rejection of morality codes that once controlled across the country in prohibiting everything from homosexuality to adultery to fornication. These morality laws were upheld in the decision in Reynolds in 1876 in a polygamy case out of Utah. The Brown decision returned us to the same question involving the same issue in the same state. Some 136 years later however the answer from this federal court was very different. We are a different country today and, despite what one hears from politicians like Rick Santorum, I believe that we are a better country today.
There does seem to be confusion about the ruling with some saying that polygamy is still not legal after the opinion. That is simply wrong. Polygamy is not the same a bigamy. One is the crime defined under cohabitation statutes of living as a plural family or with a person married to another person. The other is the crime of having two or more marriage licenses. The latter has nothing to do with the structure of your family and has almost exclusively involved people who hold themselves out (falsely) as monogamous. We always argued that the state could prosecute people who obtained more than one marriage license. Bigamy has not been an offense committed by polygamists who traditionally have one official marriage license and multiple spiritual licenses. Indeed, the law targeted polygamy with the cohabitation provision precisely because there is a difference between the two. The state fought for years to preserve this law because it reached beyond simple bigamy. Before this opinion, it was a crime for polygamists to live, as do the Browns, in a plural family. After the opinion, it is legal. This is precisely what occurred in Lawrence v. Texas where homosexual unions were a crime but then became legal when the Texas law was struck down. This decision legalizes tens of thousands of polygamous families who will no longer been viewed as criminal enterprises. They will be allowed to be open plural families. They are now legal relationships. Legality of polygamy is entirely different from recognition of plural marriages just as the legality of homosexual relations is different from the recognition of same-sex marriage.
There is also a lack of knowledge about the existence of such laws outside of Utah. This law does exist outside of Utah. Indeed, the very same language is found in the Canadian cohabitation law. I was called as a legal expert in the recent challenge to that law. However, the Canadian Supreme Court in British Columbia upheld the law. Putting these distinctions aside, the thrust of this article is how this decision is part of a larger trend toward the repeal or the striking down of morality codes, including the rejection of a cohabitation law in Virginia this year.
——————————————-
The decision this month by a federal court striking down the criminalization of polygamy in Utah was met with a mix of rejoicing and rage. What was an emancipating decision for thousands of plural families was denounced as the final descent into a moral abyss by others.
Former senator Rick Santorum was among the social conservatives trying to claim the moral high ground. He tweeted on Sunday: “Some times I hate it when what I predict comes true” — referring to his 2003 claim that legalizing “consensual sex within your home” would lead to the legalization of polygamy and “undermine the fabric of our society.” (On Wednesday, with no apparent sense of self-contradiction, he expressed outrage over the removal of a Nativity scene at a South Carolina military base, tweeting: “Our Constitution protects free exercise of religion. No govt entity/official has the right to limit that.”)It’s true that the Utah ruling is one of the latest examples of a national trend away from laws that impose a moral code. There is a difference, however, between the demise of morality laws and the demise of morality. This distinction appears to escape social conservatives nostalgic for a time when the government dictated whom you could live with or sleep with. But the rejection of moral codes is no more a rejection of morality than the rejection of speech codes is a rejection of free speech. Our morality laws are falling, and we are a better nation for it.
In the Utah case, I was the lead counsel for the Browns, the polygamous family featured in the TLC reality program “Sister Wives.” They are members of the Apostolic United Brethren Church, and they have one marriage license and three “spiritual” marriages among them. After the first episode of “Sister Wives” aired, state prosecutors threatened to bring charges under a Utah law that made it a crime when a married person “purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.” The Browns were under investigation for two years and were publicly called felons before they took prosecutors to court in a challenge to the constitutionality of the law.
The case was never about the recognition of multiple marriages or the acceptance of the religious values underlying this plural family. It was about the right of consenting adults to make decisions for themselves and their families. Judge Clark Waddoups, a conservative George W. Bush appointee,ruled that the criminalization of cohabitation clearly violated the due process clause and the free exercise clause of the United States Constitution.
In doing so, he departed from the prevailing precedent: the Supreme Court’s opinion inReynolds v. United States , which upheld a ban on polygamy in 1879. Waddoups wrote that courts today are “less inclined to allow majoritarian coercion of unpopular or disliked minority groups, especially when blatant racism . . . religious prejudice, or some other constitutionally suspect motivation, can be discovered behind such legislation.”
Indeed, in Reynolds, religious and racial prejudice were vividly on display. The court unleashed a tirade of indignation and condemnation, stating, “Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people.” Just a few years later, the Supreme Court also upheld the criminalization of mixed-race relations in Pace v. Alabama .
The idea that polygamy was a “barbarous practice” and contrary to democratic principles drove the demand in the late 1880s and ’90s that Utah outlaw it as a condition of statehood. And in Mormon Church v. United States (1890), the Supreme Court labeled polygamy as “abhorrent to the sentiments and feelings of the civilized world.”
The stigma attached to polygamy continued to distort legal analysis into this century. As recently as 2006, Utah Justice Ronald Nehring began his opinion in a ruling upholding the criminalization of polygamy by lamenting, “No matter how widely known the natural wonders of Utah may become, no matter the extent that our citizens earn acclaim for their achievements, in the public mind Utah will forever be shackled to the practice of polygamy.” Nehring frankly admitted that this hostility “has been present in my consciousness, and I suspect has been a brooding presence . . . in the minds of my colleagues, from the moment we opened the parties’ briefs.” Rather than overcome that prejudice, Nehring not only yielded to it but warned any Utah judge of the peril of being the first to recognize the rights of polygamists: “I have not been alone in speculating what the consequences might be were the highest court in the State of Utah the first in the nation to proclaim that polygamy enjoys constitutional protection.”
Well, it wasn’t. A federal judge in Utah assumed that burden. Gov. Gary Herbert objected to the court making “decisions on social issues.” (He has not yet announced an appeal.) Waddoups, however, was not dictating a decision on a social issue but rather saying that governments could not impose a single version of morality. He limited prosecution under Utah’s anti-polygamy law to cases of bigamy, where someone acquires more than one marriage license — which is an offense more common to monogamous couples, who care about state recognition, than polygamists, who care about spiritual recognition.
Across the country, the era of morality codes is coming to an inglorious end. This year, the Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act barring the federal recognition of same-sex marriage. And this week, the New Mexico Supreme Court and another federal judge in Utah struck down the ban on same-sex marriage in those states — bringing the number to 18 states (plus the District of Columbia) where same-sex couples can marry. Meanwhile, Virginia recently repealed its 1877 cohabitation law and Colorado replealed a criminal adultery law from the 1850s — both relics of a time when states used their criminal codes to force citizens to comply with the religious values of their neighbors.
Most states have wisely turned away from absurd laws criminalizing masturbation and fornication. Obscenity laws have also been curtailed by the Supreme Court in deference to the First Amendment.
Still rightly on the books are laws against bestiality, which involves an obvious lack of consent as well as manifest harm. Likewise, incest bans are based on claims of medical, not moral, harm.
Once any crimes or abuses are stripped away in cases like the Browns’, what remains is religious animus. Yet, polygamy is widely practiced around the world by millions of families and was condoned by every major religion — from Judaism to Christianity to Islam — at one time. While plural families are called polygamists in our popular lexicon, “polygamy” actually refers to a broad array of plural relationships, from polygyny (one husband and multiple wives, like the Browns) to polyandry (a single wife and multiple husbands) to polyamory (couples who reject the exclusivity of sexual relations). The vast majority of these families are based on consenting relations among adults without abusive or criminal histories.
Critics often ignore these other plural relationships (and even polygynists like the Browns) in favor of a stereotype of “compound polygamists,” living in remote walled communities where women appear captive and molestation flourishes. It is Warren Jeffs, not Kody Brown, whom critics want to invoke in debating decriminalization — a sinister figure in a secluded compound where women wear prairie outfits and hairdos from the 19th century.
Obviously, there will always be abusers like Jeffs among polygamists — just as there are abusers among monogamists. However, it is no more persuasive to criminalize all plural relationships because of a small number of abusive individuals than it would be logical to outlaw monogamy based on the convicted spouse- and child-abusers in conventional marriages.
One of the great ironies about the focus on compound polygamists is the circular logic of criminalization. The government first declared polygamists felons and then pointed to their hiding as evidence of their guilt. But decriminalization will allow these families to be plural, open and law-abiding as they reintegrate into society.
In truth, 19th-century Americans were no more moral than we are today. It simply appeared that way with the imposition of official morals, including (as Santorum recalls so fondly) being told whom we could love in our own homes. It is not a single moral voice that is heard today but a chorus of voices. Each speaks to its own values but joins around a common article of faith: the belief that morality is better left to parents than to politicians.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and lead counsel in the “Sister Wives” polygamy case.
Washington Post (Sunday) December 22, 2013
Skip:
you are right about mediation but that is agreed by parties prior to entering a business contract. Nothing wrong with that, at least in my opinion, but in a criminal punishment who is going to set the rules? And who is going to execute the sentence? We give the state those powers.
The 2nd Treatise of Government talks about giving the state the power of punishment to take the personal and emotional aspects away from a victim.
Hey Bron, you wrote; “you are right about mediation but that is agreed by parties prior to entering a business contract. Nothing wrong with that, at least in my opinion, but in a criminal punishment who is going to set the rules? And who is going to execute the sentence? We give the state those powers.”
The 2nd Treatise of Government talks about giving the state the power of punishment to take the personal and emotional aspects away from a victim.”
___________________________________________________________
You are correct and this to me, would be an interesting discussion. Has there even been and could there be a society in which tort and criminal law is dispensed by voluntary participation instead of the force/police power of government? There are some very good arguments on both sides of the isle on this issue. I would be glad to have this debate with you. Perhaps however, in order to avoid the unscrupulous and irrelevant postings of the webtrolls, we could debate the various points than post them at one time. I would consent to that.
Bron,
“Efficiency has its place but then so does compassion.
But you wouldnt understand that.”
Said the Objectivist who follows an ideal that promotes egoism, self-worship and denies that society is a real thing let alone that the individual has duties and obligations to its maintenance if it gets in the way of getting what they want. Compassion? My oh my. What would your Aynish Goddess think of you showing such weakness? Tsk, tsk, tsk.
“Based on some of the things I have seen you write about people with whom you disagree, I doubt you have much of a heart for people.”
Sometimes, compassion like love can be tough. I have a lot of compassion for the suffering of others. I don’t have a lot of tolerance for willful ignorance and vices being presented as virtues. Why? Because that creates more suffering in the world. Even then, I feel sorry for the people who perpetrate such things – even if they are clinically ill. That does not translate into letting them have their way. Indeed, the saddest thing about true sociopaths and psychopaths is that they will never truly understand loving another. But ignorance can be corrected. That’s one of the reasons you see both hands from me: I know you can do better. I know this because I have seen the incremental changes in your views over the years, dreadful though some of them remain. Whether or not you want to do better though is entirely up to you.
Also, you know very well that agreement is not required and that I apply the Ethic of Reciprocity in most interactions, i.e. if you act like a dipstick and I’m going to treat you like you are acting like a dipstick until you cease. You should know this. It has been a recurring theme in our relationship. When you play nice, I play nice. When you don’t? Well it’s not my fault I’m better at the verbal smack down. Oh. Wait. Yes it is. Argumentation is one of my areas of expertise. It’s an acquired skill bolstered by a natural proclivity. Then again, some people never learn. I’ll also properly characterize actions and thoughts, especially if they are being sold under a false light. It is not ad hominem to characterize someone as something negative if they are espousing negative values. It is accurate. Is the thief a good person because he thinks possession is ownership? No. Is the murderer a good person because they think they are vindicated for another wrong? Not unless it is self-defense or the defense of others. Is the pederast an upstanding fellow because he sees nothing wrong with having sex with children? No. And it is no vice to apply the labels which go with such values as expressed. Is a Nazi any less bad because they say they are not a Nazi while espousing the views of Nazism? No. They are still a Nazi in action. That’s the thing you always seem to miss about the Law of Identity. Things and people are what they are in action, not by self-applied labels. I’m sure Hitler thought he was a perfectly sane and wonderful fellow despite all the objective evidence he was a monster and had the ethos of a monster. Bad ideas are bad ideas independent of the speaker, but the speaker owns those positions of advocacy nonetheless (unless, of course, arguing the devil’s advocate position which is rhetoric employed for a different purpose than true advocacy).
Just so, you and the other two Mouseketeers espouse some really bad ideas. If you don’t like the negative associations that those bad ideas bring in action? Then perhaps your positions should be reconsidered.
_____________________
1) That would be the parts of the Constitution and the disparate state constitutions that allow their legislature to enact laws, Skipples.
Also, it isn’t “permission” just because it is called a marriage license. It’s a record of a formalized specialty contract at law so that if it is dissolved the special rights and duties attendant to that contract can be enforced.
2) Generally no. Not unless the license in someway proved unconstitutional like saying you couldn’t marry someone of a different race. Or like the swing in motion to recognize the equal rights of homosexuals to enter in to such specialty contracts.
3) Yeah, and generally they have and continue to do so on a more expansive basis. However, in most jurisdictions, if you want to marry your sister or daughter or mother, you’re still going to be out of luck as incest laws (often) have a rational non-secular basis.
Skip: Yes, a fifth grader.
What was ratified did NOT include a Bill of Rights. What was ratified contained a mechanism for setting law, without any specifics about Rights.
The Bill of Rights used that mechanism in order to specify some rights, and not necessarily “unalienable” ones: Because they are Amendments, those Rights can be repealed, modified, or weakened. Other Rights not explicitly mentioned by the Constitution can be added as new Amendments. To clear up confusion or disagreement on an unspecified Right, Amendments can be created to clarify, modify, or repeal such Rights; like the 16th Amendment.
Yes, the Bill of Rights is NOW part of the Constitution; and so is the 16th. The SC has had a hundred years to overturn it, and has not. It is never going to happen.
But first and foremost, the Constitution provides the mechanisms by which laws are passed, and any law (including licensing) passed in accordance with it is a “Constitutional” law. Just as if, I claim 17+33 = 50, there is nothing in the rules of arithmetic that explicitly provides that answer, but it is true under the rules of arithmetic.
You do not understand the purpose of the Constitution; it is to define a machine that churns out laws. Lots of them. And you have no such thing as an unalienable Right, even your Right to Life is conditional and subject to denial for behavior society frowns upon, like premeditated murder.
Tony C. Wrote: “The Bill of Rights used that mechanism in order to specify some rights, and not necessarily “unalienable” ones: Because they are Amendments, those Rights can be repealed, modified, or weakened. Other Rights not explicitly mentioned by the Constitution can be added as new Amendments. To clear up confusion or disagreement on an unspecified Right, Amendments can be created to clarify, modify, or repeal such Rights; like the 16th Amendment.”
Bravo Tony, you just passed into 6th grade.
Tony, the 9th Amendment says. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
FYI: Thomas Jefferson used the term unalienable in the Declaration – those rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred to someone else and why the Citizens demanded that a Bill of Rights be added. Because they didn’t trust government from encroaching on them and wanted them specified, even going to the point of protecting those not specified. There is also a very specific method to alter those rights.
So why would any right that is already protected by the 9th, have to be added as an amendment?
Tony C. the answer is, because idiots like you don’t understand what rights are and therefore we must obviously spend a lot more money and years of work to pass additional amendments, so that boneheads like you and Gene H. can understand what a “right” is. Must we really specify what a right is? You’re not intelligent enough to understand what they are after the many years and voluminous amounts of literature on the subject.
Or is it that your a fascist and do not want others to have any rights to security and property?
As far as the 16th Amendment. The 16 amendment does not specify a right so you are wrong again; it clarified a government power. Once again read the book “The Law that Never Was.” Let me see: Trust the government, and Tony C. or trust Bill Benson who was willing to risk imprisonment, like our founding fathers, I might note, to give the public the truth. He provided notarized copies of all the document involves.
You bone heads just can imagine how a government can be corrupt despite 6,000 years of evidence.
You don’t realize that it was the central banksters behind the 16th Amendment?
I feel like I’m arguing with someone who doesn’t understand a cows fart is also methane gas or perhaps you are full of the methane gas.
Skip,
I fail to see how the will of the people is “a dangerous game.” Our laws should be based on the will of the majority of people, so long as the laws don’t violate the constitution.
I’m unaware of a government that works better than democracy, unless you can show me one.
John530, Why is the accepting the will of the people as dangerous game? Because sadly, most people vote for their own self interests, believing that this is what in the best interest of the majority. Additionally they do not educate themselves well enough, especially in economics, psychology and sociology to be considered knowledgeable Citizens. Special interest groups constantly vie for greater benefits over others through the political process causing massive redistributions of wealth. There is a plethora of information on the web, on why democracies fail over time and is a real eye opener. I just gave you three or four quick reasons but there are many more, such a political compromise, competing ideologies, government contracting fraud, corruption and psychopathic people within positions of prominent political and economic leadership. Trust me it is really worth spending the time to read from many many authors. Actually don’t trust me, just read.
Based on some of the things I have seen you write about people with whom you disagree, I doubt you have much of a heart for people.
Gene H:
Efficiency has its place but then so does compassion.
But you wouldnt understand that.
Such a waste, Bron. I thought you liked efficiency.
DavidM:
“Sometimes I feel sorry for you.”
You too?
Skip:
DavidM gave you some very good advice.
Why would you feel sorry for one who accomplishes what he sets out to accomplish? That is a wasted emotion, David. It is irrational.
Said the guy with no demonstrable grasp of formal logic himself.
Skip (and you for that matter) are not wrong because you are you, David.
You’re wrong because your logic and your factual understanding are impaired.
That you are both you is simply seriocomic.
That you both make it easy to skewer you with mockery is simply good theatre.
Gene H wrote: “That you both make it easy to skewer you with mockery is simply good theatre.”
[sigh] Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Sometimes I feel sorry for you.
Tony did not claim that the Bill of Rights was not a part of the Constitution, Skipples. Just not part of the body proper. He understands the incorporation doctrine though. I know. We have discussed it before.
I’m not sure you understand it though.
Gene H.
Like I said, where in the Constitution “and Bill of Rights” does it require me to get government permission through a licensure or some other requirements to get married?
1. The General Welfare Clause?
2. If a State enacts a licensure law, does the 9th Amendment protect Citizens from the requirement(s)?
3. Should the Supreme Court uphold the right of contract and association?
From Wiki:
For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the 16th-century, Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows—even without witnesses—the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
Some states in the US hold that public cohabitation can be sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. Marriage license application records from government authorities are widely available starting from the mid-19th century. Some are available dating from the 17th century in colonial America.[1] Marriage licenses have been required since 1639 in Massachusetts, with their use gradually expanding to other jurisdictions.[2]
___________________________________________________________
Guess who ran the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1639? The Crown and the Church of England. Talk about a fascist society. Although started by the Pilgrims, the Church of England and Crown soon followed them with their barbaric laws that caused such atrocities as the Martyrs at Boston Common and Salem Witch Hunts over the next 60 years. These “folks” (being kind) would take the Citizens children and possessions away, if they did not properly school them with the Church’s propaganda. The Crown was still using beatings and even cutting off peoples ears as punishment, hence, why so many people “may” have claimed to be Christians during early colonial times.
Do you think that our founders wrote the 1st and 9st Amendments as a protection for the right to marriage?
If you accept the concept of “Unalienable Rights” one would ascertain the Constitution protects someone from entering into a marriage contract and association, with out government permission or other requirements, as long as they are acknowledging the rights of those they are marrying. In others words, you can coerce some 15 year old into marriage, as they would take away their rights to not be coerced, but as long as no coercion is involved the 15 year old, would also have the right to contract and of association. Hence why through out our history, it was not uncommon to see marriages of very young women. Hearing some of the stories of young women after puberty, their Mothers were perhaps the quickest to give their blessings.
If you do not accept the concept of Unalienable Rights, Then the State is allowed to use force or coercion against it’s Citizens into accepting it rules of marriage, as a necessity to contract and association under the terms and conditions created by political enactment or by simple majority rule if enacted by a initiative petition and an election.
Which do you all choose. A fascist would of course choose the latter and a libertarian, the former.
Oooo. Blather. How very . . . exciting.
“Gene H wrote” “I guess it’s a good indicator of the ethical character of a person or group of people when they think “defeat” is not being able to force their subjective moral choices upon others.”
He also wrote “Thanks for illustrating that you don’t understand the natural world, systems theory, information theory or the mathematics underlying them either, Bron. Binary thinking? Is the intellectual equivalent of training wheels. Or blinders. Which is more appropriate for you.”
He rightfully criticizes one person for trying to push their morals on others and ironically criticizes the other when they try to call out the same thing against him.”
That is called hypocrisy Gene H.
I don’t think you know what the word “hypocrisy” means, Skipples. Let’s take a look at that. The OED defines “hypocrisy” as “the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case”.
In regard to the first part which you quote and then conflate out of context, your assumption is that my goal is to force any one to my subjective morals. This would be wrong. My morals are my choice. My ethics, however, are driven by reason and observation. They require no force for others to adopt them, only comprehension and acceptance of the arguments behind them. I have a complex goal in that regard and none of it requires than anyone be forced to my point of view. If someone is persuaded that the logics behind my arguments are valid and worth adopting, that is just gravy. If they learn something, that’s okay too. However, much like Napoleon, I never stand in the way of an opponent making a mistake. If I can use the ignorance of others against them to illustrate the weakness of their positions and the fundamental flaws in their understanding, I will do so. If I can make them look like a buffoon in the process, well, that’s just funny. And fun. So. Given that is (part of) the shape of my victory, there is no hypocrisy involved as you attempt to illlustrate. I’ve been arguing with Bron for years and he’s only changed his mind a minimal amount and with great strain and difficulty on his part. To be clear, I don’t care whether any specific person changes their mind or not. Why?
Because somewhere out there in the audience, someone did change their mind and they did so voluntarily. It’s a common mistake that people always think because I am addressing them directly that I am talking for their direct benefit.
As for the second part of your “critique” (such as it is), I was pointing to Bron’s ignorance of natural systems when he tried to pretend complexity either wasn’t real or was “for stupid people” when, in fact, complexity is a naturally occurring phenomenon with known mathematical parameters. Pointing out factual error? That’s nowhere even near the definition of “hypocrisy”. And speaking of words that you use but do not understand . . .
“You are differently a fascist”
Yes, I am “differently a fascist”. If you are using a different definition of fascist than the actual definition of fascist. For that matter, I could differently be a platypus if you don’t know what a platypus is. If you actually know what fascism entails and what a fascist in action looks like, you’d know I’m definitely NOT a fascist. I’m both a liberal and anti-oligarchical and pro-democracy for one thing. That automatically means I cannot be a fascist by definition as part of the definition of fascism is an anti-liberal, anti-democratic, pro-oligarchcy (either in the form of a strong leader or a syndicalist/corporatist oligarchy) stance. I regularly write here about the injustice of allowing corporations to participate in the political and legislative process, the imbalance of rights created by thinking money is free speech, promote liberal idealism and espouse the value of egalitarian democracy. Only a doorknob would think I’m a fascist based on the evidence of my postings. Or someone who doesn’t have a clue what fascism actually is. But your buddy David, who is all for oligarchy by the wealthy sure is close to what you’re looking for. If you’re looking for someone here to berate for being a fascist, I’d consider starting there.
“and I would not be at all surprised if you are a web troll. ”
I’m willing to bet there is a great deal that does indeed surprise you, Skipples. You certainly demonstrate a lot of confusion. Surprise often comes as a side dish to an entrée of confusion. That meal is usually preceded by an appetizer of ignorance.
The rest of your inane rambling is simply not worth addressing.
Not that the first part was either.
It was just funny (and fun) pointing out you have the language skills of a hedgehog and no understanding of the words you use.
Gene H:
Since Skip couldnt beat you, I have joined the SPUSA.
Skippy sez: “…I believe Jonathan Turley’s website has be in fact compromised and infiltrated by webtrolls that will use the above techniques to break up legitimate discussions…”
******************************************
Yup, you are right, but not in the way you imply. We know who only shows up in certain thread topics with long convoluted comments that border on spam. It is a dead giveaway. For people who allegedly have businesses to run and people to supervise, some folks seem to have a LOT of time on their hands to jump into the discussion with ALEC talking points. Makes one go, “Hmmmm…..”
Skip:
Gene H wins again. They come, they post, he posts, they go.
Is there no one who can “slay” [in the logic and idea department] this preternatural guest blogger?
I had such high hopes for you, those hopes now lay in ruins upon Gene H’s keyboard of highly tempered steel. An apt accoutrement for his highly logical, some would say [or maybe just him], stealy mind.
I guess libertarians just dont have the stomach [read huevos] for an intellectual donnybrook.
“changes to social security, medicare or education.”
David,
My point was that the poll that you showed doesn’t seem to show that the majority of Americans want less government, It looks like the poll shows that Americans see that the tax code is unfairly tilted in favor of the rich. Here is an article that shows that the majority of citizens dont want changes to social security, medicare or medicare.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/poll-clear-majority-want-no-medicare-social-security-or-education-cuts/
John530, Statistics of what the populous likes or dislikes is a dangerous game.
In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison comments on the problem of democracy to be overcome:
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
Socrates himself was among the original type of “obnoxious individual” against whom a pure democracy may turn. A fine statement about the danger of the tyranny of the majority comes from Alexis de Tocqueville:
If it be admitted that a man, possessing absolute power, may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should a majority not be liable to the same reproach? Men are not apt to change their characters by agglomeration; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with the consciousness of their strength. And for these reasons I can never willingly invest any number of my fellow creatures with that unlimited authority which I should refuse to any one of them.
There are some that think poorly of some of the great minds in history, believing that they are somehow passé and/or were poorly educated in human nature and potential social and economic conditions, yet they point out the very circumstances and problems we are still experiencing today.
I guess it’s a good indicator of the ethical character of a person or group of people when they think “defeat” is not being able to force their subjective moral choices upon others.
Governments Hire Web Trolls to Sway Public Opinion
Hiring paid shills to propagandize for the establishment is a common practice
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
September 20, 2013
http://www.prisonplanet.com/governments-hire-web-trolls-to-sway-public-opinion.html