Active Users:1544 Time:03/05/2026 04:09:29 AM
Qualifiers are clarifying by nature. Joel Send a noteboard - 04/02/2010 10:49:06 AM
But still, libertarians aren't anarchists. That's why Ron Paul wants to 'Audit the Fed', not 'Abolish Washington'.

Anyways, I don't pretend to understand too much about the legal aspects of the ideology. i.e. juries and such. If you care to enlighten me I'd appreciate it :)

I used that as a tantalizing example; I honestly don't know, but I suspect it would be fun to confront most libertarians with a choice between supporting "government interference" or opposing "tort reform. " The latter is a textbook case of government trying to tell the public "we know better" with the added bonus of flying in the face of the spirit if not the letter of the US Constitution, which, for SOME reason, states in its Seventh Amendment that, "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. "

The ultimate government of the United States (i.e. the Constitution, not any elected official or body) very clearly places nearly all authority in civil trials with juries. Yet because juries often award victims of malpractice and/or negligence (or their surviving dependents) millions in damages, a host of politicians and their industry patrons who routinely castigate "big government" argue that should be overruled, usually on the grounds juries are too easily manipulated (i.e. stupid) or vindictive (i.e. greedy) to be trusted. It didn't originate with malpractice and isn't confined to it, but when those in the healthcare debate say the solution to rising costs is tort reform that's invariably what they mean, because the same private insurers raising medical insurance premiums are just as happily raising malpractice premiums passed along to consumers (which, of course, means they have to raise medical premiums again. ;))

That aside, qualifiers exist for a reason: The make inherently inaccurate generalities a lot less erroneous, because they allow for exceptions. I don't mind speaking of God in absolutes, but I won't be comfortable doing it with temporal human matters until you show me a perfect human and/or world. My posts are often long for this reason, but I still get the most grief for painting with too broad a brush (I did once catch hell for verbosity, but I still say if I have to pick I'll choose the latter every time. )
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
Why bipartisanship can't work: the expert view - 01/02/2010 11:34:58 PM 999 Views
And a personal comment - 01/02/2010 11:39:28 PM 740 Views
Re: And a personal comment - 02/02/2010 01:16:53 AM 700 Views
Who's to say YOU really know what's happening in Washington, though? - 02/02/2010 01:41:20 AM 769 Views
*thumbs up* *NM* - 02/02/2010 01:50:45 AM 304 Views
Or should I say... ? *NM* - 02/02/2010 01:51:03 AM 296 Views
I Don't watch tv - 02/02/2010 02:29:53 AM 739 Views
not to mention those who mistake knowledge for understanding - 02/02/2010 10:41:14 PM 593 Views
Even so. - 05/02/2010 05:45:54 AM 630 Views
Like the NYT? - 05/02/2010 02:12:36 PM 627 Views
I don't believe the Times has ever conceded bias. - 05/02/2010 06:03:02 PM 656 Views
and neither does Fox so I am not sure that matters - 05/02/2010 06:40:15 PM 714 Views
Note that I didn't mention Fox (or anyone, for that matter. ) - 05/02/2010 07:13:31 PM 632 Views
PBS is biased - 05/02/2010 07:21:14 PM 608 Views
You're entitled to believe that. - 05/02/2010 07:31:07 PM 753 Views
PBS has an obvious yet undeclared bias so does NPR - 09/02/2010 04:47:53 AM 579 Views
We have been for some time. - 02/02/2010 03:31:10 AM 668 Views
I don't think that's the case - 03/02/2010 02:59:50 PM 614 Views
Universal healthcare was the primary plank in Clintons '92 platform. - 04/02/2010 10:02:18 AM 603 Views
That does not mean his bare plurality was an endorsement of National Healthcare - 04/02/2010 02:09:32 PM 714 Views
I don't think he won by default, and that was his primary issue. - 05/02/2010 08:09:50 AM 770 Views
Re: I don't think he won by default, and that was his primary issue. - 05/02/2010 03:52:23 PM 717 Views
[insert witty subject line here] - 06/02/2010 02:15:21 AM 722 Views
Let me break this into multiple replies here - 06/02/2010 07:45:36 PM 712 Views
'K - 08/02/2010 01:22:12 PM 723 Views
Probably time to go into 'summary mode' - 08/02/2010 07:34:55 PM 740 Views
Again, we're back to "how would you prefer to do it?" - 09/02/2010 09:42:51 AM 736 Views
Any way that works, which currently probably is none - 09/02/2010 06:12:41 PM 693 Views
I think HDI is more accurate than nothing, though it certainly needs some fine tuning. - 10/02/2010 11:03:08 AM 764 Views
Sorry for the delay... - 12/02/2010 11:40:21 PM 829 Views
NP, life happens. - 15/02/2010 02:06:55 PM 839 Views
I'll play a bigger age card since it was my third election to vote in and he won because of Perot - 05/02/2010 05:57:04 PM 603 Views
Let's put it another way: Why did Dems nominate him instead of, say, Gephardt? - 06/02/2010 02:22:04 AM 692 Views
you don't get mandates from primaries - 08/02/2010 02:12:29 PM 592 Views
No, but end of the day more people wanted healthcare than didn't. - 08/02/2010 03:09:31 PM 607 Views
everyone want health care they just don't want congress runnig it - 09/02/2010 04:56:44 AM 645 Views
Whom do you prefer? - 09/02/2010 10:07:39 AM 683 Views
Sorry not a big fan of socialism I hear it big over in Europe though - 09/02/2010 02:23:55 PM 575 Views
I prefer Thomas Woods Jr's description of bipartisanship - 02/02/2010 02:49:06 AM 649 Views
If only someone had stood up on 8 December, 1941 and said, "hey, you're not supposed to do stuff!" - 02/02/2010 03:28:38 AM 781 Views
you're making a good job taking things out of context, Joel - 03/02/2010 12:47:57 PM 614 Views
Don't speak in absolutes and I won't read absolutes. - 04/02/2010 10:08:43 AM 610 Views
Some qualifiers can be left unsaid for a clearer message. Or better delivery - 04/02/2010 10:26:56 AM 611 Views
Qualifiers are clarifying by nature. - 04/02/2010 10:49:06 AM 725 Views
Pearl Harbor would never have happened to a classically liberal nation - 05/02/2010 01:33:56 AM 630 Views
Maybe; Billy Mitchell might debate that were he alive. - 05/02/2010 05:34:54 AM 746 Views
Wow - that was a dumb statement even for you! - 05/02/2010 04:22:59 PM 777 Views
Some information and a question - 02/03/2010 05:49:20 AM 1185 Views
Or the democratic party has shifted so far to to the left they can't even get all of the dems - 02/02/2010 02:39:14 PM 589 Views
You didn't hear all the whining when Bush was in charge with a Republican Congress? - 02/02/2010 08:50:05 PM 599 Views
I there was plenty of whining going on - 02/02/2010 10:36:56 PM 550 Views
Is this you conceding that the GOP is being obstructionist? - 08/02/2010 01:43:04 PM 581 Views
I agree they are obstructing the libs from doing whatever they want - 08/02/2010 02:19:13 PM 493 Views
They've tried including Republicans in drafting bills. - 08/02/2010 03:08:17 PM 689 Views
tyring to pcik off one republican is not including republicans - 09/02/2010 05:03:44 AM 599 Views
Um... sorry, man.... - 10/02/2010 11:06:22 AM 821 Views

Reply to Message