27 Comments

1. Madrocketscientist  •  Apr 14, 2010 @11:45 am
   

   It strikes me, though, that the rich are a pretty small minority and an appeal to the majority from the political branches that the rich have too much stuff is the kind of tyranny that the courts should be there to prevent.

   Which is the realization that turned me from a liberal into a libertarian.

2. Ezra  •  Apr 14, 2010 @11:46 am
   

   Congrats, I think you just tried to start the National Association for the Advancement of Rich People. The problem is, that minority has a massively disproportionate amount of power & influence in our government.

3. Charles  •  Apr 14, 2010 @11:52 am
   

   To be clear: Ezra's answer is why I can't get on board with madrocketscientist. I don't see EVERY progressive tax – very few, in fact – as theft by bunch of thugs who are only hiding their jackboots until such time as it is necessary to use them. Frankly, I don't mind charging the rich extra so that the police will keep the hordes at bay.

4. Dave (nd)  •  Apr 14, 2010 @11:53 am
   

   Assuming we're going with broad stereotypes, it seems to me that conservatives concept of fair is wanting everyone to play by the same rules whereas liberals think fair is only possible by providing a structure that makes the playing field level to begin with.

5. Charles  •  Apr 14, 2010 @12:08 pm
   

   To respond, Dave (nd), I'd say neutral is not the same as fair if neutrality has a bias towards those who benefited from pre-existing non-neutral rules. For example, discrimination was totally cool until Jim Crow was ruled unconstitutional; the second it was, any effort to rectify the grievous damage done by Jim Crow was accused of being LIKE Jim Crow. That is sophistry masquerading as neutrality.

6. Steve Chaos  •  Apr 14, 2010 @12:13 pm
   

   I think the author (and yourself, by endorsement) fail to make a distinction between the protection of property rights versus the protection of the interests of the wealthy/powerful.

   To wit: Kelo v. New London was a decision that explicitly turned on the notion of property rights – where property rights stood squarely against corporate interests (who benefit from broad uses eminent domain far more than individuals). It wasn't the conservative bloc that cried, "Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead!" in this case.

   The confusion over this issue is perhaps natural to make, as those with wealth often have a vested interest in property rights, but regardless – it is the very difference between being "pro-business" versus "pro-market." But the protection of property rights against actions by the government cuts both ways, and it is clearly demonstrated that the liberal wing values freedom of action by the government over property rights (hence being both less deferential to corporate interests and rolling on individual property rights) versus conservative justices, who tend to the do the opposite.

   I find this analysis to have far greater explanatory power.

7. Dave (nd)  •  Apr 14, 2010 @12:44 pm
   

   Charles, that's why it's a broad stereotype. I'm not familiar enough to classify judges that far back. I would think it wouldn't hold up very well in a modern context.

8. Windypundit  •  Apr 14, 2010 @1:21 pm
   

   "It is true that liberal philosophy tends towards protection of the weak and relatively powerless: anti-discrimination statutes, OSHA, union protection…"

   To pick one of your examples, OSHA may be there to protect the relatively powerless workers, but OSHA itself is not powerless. And just because they have "Occupational Safety & Health" in the name doesn't mean that's the only thing on their agenda. Like everyone else, the people running OSHA want to preserve their jobs, grow their budgets, and increase their authority and control. So a court ruling that supports OSHA against some business is arguably helping the very powerful people who run OSHA.

   (Or it may really be helping the weak resist the predation of the strong, but that doesn't mean we can ignore the possibility that governments, too, are capable of abuses of power.)

   Keep in mind that government power tends to be destructive in nature. The police rarely stop crimes in action, but they can usually punish the perpetrators after the fact. OSHA can't make a single factory safe, but they can shutter unsafe factories. The United States Access Board has never made a facility wheelchair accessible, but they have threatened to shut down many non-accessible facilities. The NLRB can't force a company to use union labor, but they can drive it out of business if it doesn't.

   When government agencies use their considerable destructive power to further their own agendas, they can do far more harm than most of the powerful corporations that seem to worry liberals so much.

   Liberals may want to protect the weak from the abuses of the strong, but libertarians (and small-government fans, in general) recognize that there is a danger to giving governments the kind of power it takes to do that.

9. Dave (nd)  •  Apr 14, 2010 @1:31 pm
   

   And though I may be venturing too far out of my field of expertise, I'm concerned that Geoffery Stone might simply be calling liberal decisions "those I like" and conservative decisions "those I don't." He explicitly brings up Skinner vs. Oklahoma, but Chief Justice Stone wrote the majority opinion and he seems to me a more conservative judge. He was appointed by Coolidge and was supported many a state's rights judgement.

   Regarding Citizens United v. Hillary, I know that Patrick and Ken have both fairly consistently said that one must be very careful in restricting freedom of speech of corporations. So, I'm not positive that's a clear deliniation of conservative versus liberal, especially when considering how many view points there were in the decision.

10. Brad Warbiany  •  Apr 14, 2010 @2:07 pm
    

    I'd also take one issue with this statement:

    conservative philosophy tends to favor the powerful whereas liberal philosophy tends to favor the weak

    Remember that Congressional philosophy, whether Democrat or Republican, tends to favor those who have the means to get one elected. In short, they tend to favor large unions and corporations over individuals, and expansion of government power (which makes the influence they peddle worth more to buy) over freedom.

    This is not a liberal/conservative distinction, it's a government/liberty distinction. As proof, once small-government conservatives get elected we get Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind, and once civil-libertarian anti-war liberals get elected we keep Gitmo open, renew the Patriot Act, stay in Iraq and Afghanistan and even (now) assassinate American citizens (probably a pretty bad citizen, but this was the administration that argued for due process).

    In fact, since we're talking about the Supreme Court, I'd point out that the only consistently originalist justice is Clarence Thomas (Scalia is more reliable than most, but diverges). The rest all tend to be "judicial activists" of either a conservative or a liberal bent. Alito and Roberts are not small-government conservatives, and as Dave points out above, it was the "liberal" wing that upheld Kelo to allow corporations to seize houses from relatively powerless individuals. Both sides tend to regularly defer to government against the people, far beyond any "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution.

    In short, I'd say that neither liberals nor conservatives, once elected to power, protect the interests of the weak from the will of the majority. Both sides consistently enrich corporations and protect entrenched interests, at the expense of the weak and the individual.

11. Rick H.  •  Apr 14, 2010 @2:29 pm
    

    What Brad said. The two-party partisan system is a false dichotomy, and so are the labels of liberal/conservative, two terms that are about as relevant to modern government as the Whigs vs. the Free Soil Party.

12. Madrocketscientist  •  Apr 14, 2010 @3:20 pm
    

    Ezra:
    NAARP? LOL!

    Et. Al.:

    What Windy & Brad said.

13. Mike  •  Apr 14, 2010 @3:43 pm
    

    It is true that liberal philosophy tends towards protection of the weak and relatively powerless: anti-discrimination statutes

    Sorry, bro, but I grew up as poor and powerless as can be. And liberals completely destroyed what chance we'd have to live a normal childhood – all because my dad had the back luck of being born white:
    http://federalism.typepad.com/crime_federalism/2009/04/frank-ricci-and-me.html

    This issues are far more complex than you or other liberals want to give it credit for.

    Watch "American Hollow." None of the liberal elite seems to care – because, again, those people are white.

14. jb  •  Apr 15, 2010 @1:46 am
    

    Re Kelo:
    That seems to me to be a perfect example of non-activist judging. The law as written gave New London the right, so the decision stands. Stupid law, but the people must amend it instead of being bailed out by the courts.

15. Brad Warbiany  •  Apr 15, 2010 @7:30 am
    

    jb,

    I'm confused. If by 'the law' you mean whatever justification the local town government decided, then you're right. But the question in the case was over the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. It is not "activist" to overturn an unconstitutional law.

    The controversy over the decision was due to the apparent expansion of the "public use" provision to mean deferring to pretty much whatever local government decided to seize, because if the local government decided to do it (and had a plan), it was probably a public use.

    Frankly, I think that interpretation of the Constitution is BS, as handing a parcel of land over to a private developer just because it might generate more tax use stretches "public use" beyond its ripping point… But that's just my opinion – 5 learned scholars in black robes thought otherwise, and now government can seize just about anything they want.

16. Ezra  •  Apr 15, 2010 @9:44 am
    

    To me the fundamental problem with Libertarians (note the big L) is that food stamps and free school lunches (both of which I received growing up, despite the massive disadvantage of being White) are just as likely to be derided as big government as NAFTA.

17. Charles  •  Apr 15, 2010 @9:54 am
    

    Windypundit:OSHA can’t make a single factory safe, but they can shutter unsafe factories.
    In your first invocation of OSHA you are speaking of the bureaucracy of the OSH Administration but ignoring the OSH Act itself. In the above sentence, you appear to be arguing that the existence of OSHA – both as a means of government enforcement or as a reference for private civil action – did not, and does not make factory design more proactively safe, which ignores history. Enforcement is ex-post but law operates as a deterrent ex ante.

    Dave (nd): Re: Skinner, Douglas wrote the majority opinion based on the equal protection clause. Stone wrote a concurrence relying on the due process clause. All judges agreed that the Oklahoma statute was unconstitutional.

    Mike: Sorry, bro (do we have to resort to that?), that your childhood was tough. I am sorry that I have to respond to your childhood trauma by regretting that you want to shape policy decisions based on personal anecdote. Is a written police exam a BFOQ? Even if you think the tests are useful, are they so accurate that scores that close are anything but a virtual tie? If the 5 point boost made a difference, do you really think your father was "more" qualified for the job? If you think I'm oversimplifying the question, remember that you're the guy treating a 5 point boost on a written exam as equivalent to what I'm going to guess was decades of an police force that was all-white by design.

    Don't get me started on Kelo. It was a decision that I don't bother to defend. I wish more states would pass laws that rein in the eminent domain powers of municipalities (even post-Kelo, those laws would prevent the New London taking) but very few conservative legislatures have done nothing in Kelo's wake to preserve the property rights that they claim to revere.

18. Jess  •  Apr 15, 2010 @12:20 pm
    

    very few conservative legislatures have done nothing in Kelo’s wake to preserve the property rights that they claim to revere.

    This is correct, but only by virtue of a confusing double negative. Read the way it's presumably meant,
    this claim is ridiculous.

19. Charles  •  Apr 15, 2010 @12:24 pm
    

    I didn't mean to be correct by virtue of a double negative. Thanks for the fact-check, Jess. I heard a lot about proposed legislation after the decision but nothing about actual passage. I'm glad to hear that I get to bear the burden of "wrong" and "ridiculous" because it is more important – even to me – that the law be reasonable than that I be correct.

20. Jess  •  Apr 15, 2010 @2:12 pm
    

    The claim was ridiculous, but I didn't imply that you are, or that you should bear any burden you don't care to bear. The claim wasn't ridiculous because it was wrong, but rather because it was refuted by ten seconds of wikipedia perusal, inspired by the same memory of proposed legislation that you had.

21. Patriot Henry  •  Apr 16, 2010 @8:53 am
    

    "The problem is, that minority has a massively disproportionate amount of power & influence in our government." – Ezra

    I know people who range from being millionaires to billionaires. Not one has any more govt power than I (young poor part time service worker) do.

    "I don’t see EVERY progressive tax – very few, in fact – as theft by bunch of thugs who are only hiding their jackboots until such time as it is necessary to use them. Frankly, I don’t mind charging the rich extra so that the police will keep the hordes at bay." – Charles

    No, you don't see it. You are not a sociopath. In order to threaten, rob, beat, cage, and kill people you need other people to do the dirty work for you, more people to give a facade of due process in order to provide the superficial appearance of legitimacy for your actions, and nice euphemistic language to conceal the brutality you are advocating in favor of.

    It's true rich people got something you don't have. If it's "right" for you to take it by force because you say so (assuming it's done through the mechanism of government), then why isn't it "right" for them to tax poor people to pay for extra luxuries for rich people?

22. Patriot Henry  •  Apr 16, 2010 @9:08 am
    

    "It is true that liberal philosophy tends towards protection of the weak and relatively powerless: anti-discrimination statutes, OSHA, union protection, etc."

    I'm on of the weak and relatively powerless you want to protect by giving jobs to less competent people because I'm of the "wrong" race, by imposing arbitrary capricious insane impossible and or absurd rules that hamper or prevent me from starting my own business, and by keeping me from working as an individual and instead dragging me down to the level of competency set by the unions. Great. Thanks. A lot. I really appreciated getting screwed. I mean protected.

    "Conservative opposition to these programs – particularly on the grounds of a vague liberty that the poor have to choose their own means of degrading exploitation – is a pretty swift kick in the teeth of the weak."

    Strange, that opposition to tyranny doesn't bother me. However, if you would kindly remove your boot from my neck and allow me to live my life, I'd be most grateful. Perhaps start with the minimum wage, which means my coworker makes 11/hour and I who is no less than 10 times more valuable than he make 12/hour. Those unable to find a job would also appreciate that, very likely the 50 percent of black male teenagers without a job would also appreciate it if you stop them from getting a job. I'm sure some of them are willing to trade your "protection" for a job, a paycheck, an opportunity to advance themselves and their lives.

    "Maybe the answer requires a kind of not-entirely-principled line drawing, since absolutism in either direction leads to absurd results."

    It's very simple. NO STEALING. That is The Law, the basis for all real law. The rich shouldn't steal from the poor, the poor shouldn't steal from the rich, the powerful should not steal from the weak nor the weak from the powerful, nor should the government steal from the people nor should the people steal from the government.

23. Patriot Henry  •  Apr 16, 2010 @9:16 am
    

    "To me the fundamental problem with Libertarians (note the big L) is that food stamps and free school lunches (both of which I received growing up, despite the massive disadvantage of being White) are just as likely to be derided as big government as NAFTA."

    Food stamps subsidize the following:

    poverty

    hunger

    drugs

    other non-food luxuries

    indigence, laziness, and disinterest in being a useful productive member of society.

    Free school lunches aren't free. There is no such thing as a free lunch if you didn't know it. Not only are those lunches paid for by tax victims, but they are also paid for by those poor children who have to eat the garbage served to them. In addition, taking money from Joe in Alaska, filtering it through a huge apparatus of government departments and corporations, and giving the end (piss poor) product to Jane's kid in Florida is a great example of big government. Tax victim gets a little poorer, bureaucrats and corporatists get a little richer, and some poor schlep gets a serving of something that is a mockery of terrible food.

24. Tim Chang  •  Apr 16, 2010 @10:04 am
    

    patriothenry, so i guess you'd just want all the poor people of this country to fall over and die. sorry they inconvenience you i guess.

25. Ezra  •  Apr 16, 2010 @10:40 am
    

    Again, I was a recipient of both food stamps and school breakfast & lunches. My families food stamps didn't subsidize any of those things. I wonder which luxuries you mean? Is Pepsi a luxury? Might be.

    I taught in the 9th Ward in New Orleans. I saw first hand how important those free lunches were to those kids. I had at least one student that might only have that meal that day.

    I think programs like food stamps, WIC and free school lunches are the reason I pay taxes. I would love to see a fraction of my tax dollars that go to the Defense Department used to expand programs that help those who need it. We don't need more bombs, we need to help the needy.

26. Patriot Henry  •  Apr 16, 2010 @8:38 pm
    

    Dear Tim Chang,

    "patriothenry, so i guess you’d just want all the poor people of this country to fall over and die. sorry they inconvenience you i guess."

    I am one of those poor people. Most of my family and friends are those poor people. Since I want to live, and I want the people I know and care about to live, and I want those people I don't know but still care about to live – I don't want to support that which will end up killing them.

    Regards,

    Patriot Henry.

27. Patriot Henry  •  Apr 16, 2010 @8:54 pm
    

    "Again, I was a recipient of both food stamps and school breakfast & lunches. My families food stamps didn’t subsidize any of those things."

    Your family may not have been a typical case.

    "wonder which luxuries you mean? Is Pepsi a luxury? Might be."

    Pepsi is empty calories. Unless it's your only source of calories in an emergency situation, it has no nutritional value. Taking my money that I earned, that I would otherwise spend on healthy food, to give to someone who didn't earn it so that they can spend it on Pepsi and other junk food – that leaves me hungry (literally), leaves them in worse health, and leaves us both with less incentive to work.

    "I taught in the 9th Ward in New Orleans. I saw first hand how important those free lunches were to those kids. I had at least one student that might only have that meal that day."

    What percentage of those kids were in the welfare system? I might be wrong – but I bet at least some of them wouldn't be on welfare of any kind if their parents hadn't been able to mooch off the system. How many of their parents knew that by having kids, and by having them out of wedlock, they could make money?

    Meaning well is no reason to harm people.

    "I think programs like food stamps, WIC and free school lunches are the reason I pay taxes."

    No, the real reason you pay taxes is because if you don't you'll be caged for the crime of keeping that which you own. Yes, that is what it is, and that is why you obey.

    "I would love to see a fraction of my tax dollars that go to the Defense Department used to expand programs that help those who need it."

    That's why I favor getting rid of coerced taxation and replacing it with voluntary taxation. I won't give a single cent to kill Iraqi kids. I will give to help those in need.

    "We don’t need more bombs, we need to help the needy."

    There is one need more urgent than any others – we need to learn to think and act like civilized human beings.

    Ezra, you seem like a nice guy. I'd say that you have a heart of gold, if you were born in a different age you would have, but instead you have a heart of fiat money and the corresponding empire of debt, lies, and crime.

    What is more important to you – believing your current beliefs and defending them and yourself? or learning, thinking, and doing the right thing that produces the results you desire?

    If it's the latter, I can recommend many good books, one of which is "The Conquest of Poverty". http://mises.org/books/conquest.pdf

    The welfare you support failed in Rome. It was proven an absolute failure in England before your grandparents were born. It was proven to fail here, in Europe, everywhere and every time people have tried to make things better by stealing and doling out the loot it's made things much much worse. It hasn't worked, doesn't work, and can not work now or at any point in time so long as human beings are human beings. It's based on good intentions, a deeply flawed understanding of human beings, and ignorance of economics.