Disqus - Latest Comments for Jeffrey Miller

Re: so this is happening.

Jeffrey Miller — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:32:55 -0000

Since the 1980s, at least.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgeQ_y7LMRI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-7gpgXNWYI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjw8m7GmIa4

Re: so this is happening.

Jeffrey Miller — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:09:10 -0000

Although, to be fair, that Reagan quip wasn't a zinger at the other person's expense; it was a joke, but it didn't degrade or diminish Mondale

Re: tumblr dot fronkis

Jeffrey Miller — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 19:01:42 -0000

I'm sure that's part of it, but they sent their girls to private school in Chicago too, and that was before any commotion and inconvenience. So I suspect they are mostly motivated by the quality of the education.

Re: Barbie, Laughter, Happiness

Jeffrey Miller — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 15:29:48 -0000

Having posted the original reference to Althouse's words, I feel compelled to comment. As a libertarian, I certainly don't interpret Althouse to represent anything even close to libertarianism, and in fact, she's posted some rather outrageous and indefensible criticisms of libertarians in the past. She doesn't seem to have a clear political ideology, but hawkish-liberal might come close to describing her views. On occasion, however, she provides a different and interesting take on items of pop culture, and this makes her blog interesting to me. Althouse on politics may be terrible, but Althouse on Barbie is interesting. There is no reason to break up the band.

Re: mills baker

Jeffrey Miller — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:56:38 -0000

This was great, Mills.

Re: mills baker

Jeffrey Miller — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:52:26 -0000

Mills,

Slightly off point, Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers has a very interesting chapter on the leading cause of plane crashes, and I suspect you'd enjoy it.

-Jeff

Re: mills baker

Jeffrey Miller — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:27:23 -0000

I can't really defend Extremes, except to say that it came late in Joel's career, well past his artistic peak, and that a few years later he gave up writing new songs altogether, which might suggest that he knew it was time to hang it up. While reminds me that I should post something about the age at which songwriters peak.

Re: mills baker

Jeffrey Miller — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:12:59 -0000

I feel compelled to rise to defend assertions, perhaps because I've been making so many of them. It would be a rather boring place, and perhaps a less advanced one, if we held back this way. I think that, rather than stifle self-expression, we ought to encourage it. I say: Give me more brashness on the speaking side, and apply the discretion on the listening end.

Re: mills baker

Jeffrey Miller — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 07:38:43 -0000

You've identified the best things about illness, but still, I hope you feel better.

Re: Palin on CBS

Jeffrey Miller — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:00:53 -0000

I think the VP debate . . . if it happens . . . will be very interesting.

Ben Folds concert was pretty much a bust . . . bad sound.

Re: the original joe fisher.

Jeffrey Miller — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:16:44 -0000

I would argue that Byrd endorsed Obama because he thought Obama would ultimately win the nomination, and Byrd simply was courting power. He courts power because he likes to bring pork back to his state for projects that he names after himself: http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ne...

Re: http://jeffmiller.tumblr.com/post/38257979

Jeffrey Miller — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:41:05 -0000

I think you're right, most Canadians believe in the marketplace of ideas. The collapse of freedom of expression in Canada seems to be happening because people are afraid to speak up about it. (A-Boot it, I suppose). And they are afraid to speak up precisely because speech is under attack. If you support the right of a racist or nativist or even a conservative to speak about controversial things, some people will accuse you of advocating in support of those controversial things. And then you might be prosecuted too. It becomes Kafkaesque at this point.

Re: - The Big Sort

Jeffrey Miller — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:43:22 -0000

Well, a couple of things . . .

I don't think anyone should be forced to live anywhere they don't want, and I think people ought to be able to move anywhere they'd like to. I don't want to stop anyone from doing anything . . . but that doesn't mean I can't lament the impulsive, autocratic results produced by the politics of this.

And as for work, I don't advocate that people become hermits. If you work with people remotely, you still talk to them, and with today's technology, you can videochat with them (like we do). (I feel like our conversations are more personal when we videochat from hundreds of miles away than when we used to talk on the phone and were in the same town.) And I'm not suggesting that people never meet for work; maybe twice a week people congregate for meetings at a conference center, for instance. But when I talk about being part of a diverse community, I'm not just talking about work . . . I'm talking about neighborhoods, and your local talk radio and newspapers, and the clubs you belong to.

Second

Re: http://jeffmiller.tumblr.com/post/56736853

Jeffrey Miller — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:21:00 -0000

Then suppose we add another step to the analogy, and suppose that the masses agree that certain freedoms will protected from democracy, and that certain powers of democracy will be constrained, and that these protections will require 2/3rds vote to upend them. Is this really a qualitatively different step than the others? And to be more precise, suppose that, in practice, these enshrined protections are treated liberally--that in practice, the elected protectors of these freedoms seem to deviate them, explaining that these protections are enshrined in a "living, breathing document" that the political majority may interpret as they believe times require.

Perhaps the problem--the thing that bothers us in the analogy--is the notion that freedom comes from democracy, that freedoms are subject to the whim of the majority. Perhaps we really believe that freedoms exist naturally--that they are inherent in our being. But if we really believe this, we don't govern this way. I would argue that we've fetishized democracy beyond what we truly believe to be appropriate.

Re: http://jeffmiller.tumblr.com/post/64871351

Jeffrey Miller — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:55:13 -0000

The transcript is fake. The fact that an Obama fan thought it would be fun to imagine his superhero's triumph over the evil Dr. Blago is sadly true.

Re: The End of the End of Wars

Jeffrey Miller — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:47:59 -0000

I hope it's okay that I elevated part of your comment to a blog post. I want people to read what you wrote because it is good and interesting.

For what it's worth, I think it's okay to post things without a conclusion . . . I've been posting on Gaza mostly in an effort to try to discover and explore what I feel about it. Considering the complexity of the issues (political and moral), that's about the best we can do . . . just explore and confront and defend and then hope things start to make a little more sense, even though it feels unlikely that they will.

Re: The Libertarian (non) Plan for Healthcare

Jeffrey Miller — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:19:17 -0000

All I can do is relate my experience. You can judge it as you will. But I spent many hundreds of hours working on pro bono cases I didn't believe in, fighting against other poor people who were largely in the right, and more right than my clients. My heart went out to many of the people on the other side of these cases . . . people I would have gladly represented for free. There's nothing fun about representing a tenant who has trashed his apartment, who hasn't paid rent in 18 months, who is destroying something that belongs to someone else--someone who is not rich, who is not a slumlord, who is a nice and decent person who can't afford a lawyer to protect his property. Not every pro bono experience is like this, I'm sure. But this is what mine was like. This doesn't mean that I hate poor people . . . I don't believe that my clients were representative of poor people at all. I wish I had the authority to reject some of the cases I brought, but I didn't. At Legal Aid, you can. That's why Legal Aid works better than the program I was stuck supporting. This discretion makes al the difference.

Re: "rebranding"

Jeffrey Miller — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:38:14 -0000

A substantial percent of the "tax cuts" claimed by the Obama proposal were "cuts" for people that don't pay taxes. These "cuts' were actually "checks." Now, whether it is a good idea to send such checks to citizens is a wholly separate argument, but to label these as "tax cuts" was brilliant rebranding.

A tax law professor explains: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/10...

Re: Sounding Familiar

Jeffrey Miller — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:15:31 -0000

Believe me, the public doesn't want Jeff Miller reblog day . . . we want more thoughts on what you saw in New Orleans, the status of rebuilding, the state of mind of the locals down there, and how did it compare to what you expected?

Re: Dan Brown is the Chris Tucker of Literature.

Jeffrey Miller — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:14:15 -0000

I think Dan Brown is the Nickelback of Literature.

Re: The Reading List

Jeffrey Miller — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:22:39 -0000

I was going to "like" this, but that seemed wrong and even egotistical, you know, to "like" a compliment, when what I really mean is "thanks." So, thanks.

Re: i am the fat manatee.

Jeffrey Miller — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 11:26:56 -0000

Because of her concerns about the diamond market, I bought my wife a man-made (or "cultured") diamond, which are real diamonds, but manufactured in a lab. (see http://www.gemesis.com/, for example). It's a pretty good alternative for someone who wants the beauty and cultural significance of a diamond, without the guilt.

Re: My favorite type of libertarian

Jeffrey Miller — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:29:52 -0000

For what it's worth, I've typed up some thoughts here: http://jeffmiller.tumblr.com/post/71143208

Re: i am the fat manatee.

Jeffrey Miller — Fri, 01 May 2009 12:31:45 -0000

Does this count as a double face plain: http://deadspin.com/5234761/todd-mcshay-address...

Re: Please Discuss

Jeffrey Miller — Fri, 30 May 2008 17:16:27 -0000

I put this on my blog, but I thought I'd copy it here to see if I can provoke a response from Will:

First, we tend to view taxes as confiscation of our time. The more we’re taxed, the more we feel that we’re working for the Government. Thus, we don’t just feel like we’re being mugged—we feel like we’re being mugged every day until Tax Freedom Day, which meant every day until last April 23 for the typical American.

Second, most people don’t feel that a mugger is entitled to ANY of their money, but most libertarians believe that the Government is entitled to SOME of our money, usually for the few legitimate functions of the state: defense, courts, police. Some libertarians would add roads and environmental protection. Some would add more. I think most libertarians would admit that there’s no divine dividing line that delineates what is an appropriate government function and what is not. At some point on the spectrum of Government powers, it becomes a matter of argument and policy. It’s hard to know what’s absolutely right.

When the Government takes our money for welfare—pure redistribution—it feels completely illegitimate. When the Government takes it for roads or school—something we might actually benefit from, it seems less illegitimate. When the Government takes our money for national defense, it seems completely legitimate. But then again, when the Government uses our national defense for an unjust war, again it seems illegitimate.

If a mugger takes my money, it’s coercive force. But suppose the mugger is someone who I hired to paint my house for $100. Maybe I feel that he did a lousy job and won’t pay him, but in my heart, I know he’s owed something for his work. If he pulls me aside in a dark alley, shows a gun, and takes $50, I might feel he deserved it. If he takes $80, I might think that’s more than he’s really owed. But if he takes $200, it clearly feels wrong—there’s no good argument on his side to suggest that he’s entitled to the $200, and it feels a lot more like theft than if he took $50 or $80. The difference between the mugger taking $80 and $200 isn’t just a matter of damages; the difference is in the nature of the transaction.

Libertarians want lower taxes because we know that we owe the Government something, but we feel like it’s taking a lot more than we owe it.

In the comments above, Will notes: “So, suppose the just functions of the state require a 10% tax rate. The rate goes down from 45% to 30%. That’s no change in freedom, right?” But again, it’s hard to know what the legitimate functions of the state are. I also know, despite my strong beliefs, that I could be wrong about some of them. I know that 30% is closer to what I think is right that 45%. And I know that I’m less certain about the impropriety of 30% than I am 45%. It’s like the house painter example—if the guy takes $50, I probably think he’s entitled. If he takes $80, it’s a closer question. If he takes $200, it’s clearly wrong.

Now, I suppose Will could reply, what if a tax rate of 99% were dropped to 98%. Okay, I suppose we would probably agree that neither rate is anywhere near an appropriate rate for supporting the essential, minimal functions of the state that we want. But I’m still more certain that 99% is wrong than I am that 98% is wrong.

We could, as Will suggests, just look at the nature of the threat against us, whether it's kicking us in the shins or throwing us in jail. But again, we judge the coercion based upon the circumstances surrounding the use of force. If I throw you in jail for killing a man, that coercive force seems fine; if I throw you in jail for insulting me, not so much. If I'm holding your baby and won't give it back, then kicking me in the shins is fine. If I kick your shins to take your money, it's not. But if you owe me some money and won't give it to me, maybe I shouldn't kick your shins, but if I do, it's different than if I have no right to that money.

Re: Norberg on Friedman on Klein

Jeffrey Miller — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:57:57 -0000

Naomi Klein is going to be at Busboys and Poets on Thursday. How nice would it be if someone from Cato showed up with copies of Johan's rebuttal report to hand out to the crowd?

Re: Deuce Loosely - The Libertarian (non) Plan for Healthcare

Jeffrey Miller — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:44:31 -0000

Hey, I told you that nobody would like it. This is why nobody votes for libertarians--our views are very unpopular. We don't solve every problem, and we don't try to. Oh, well.

The libertarian position is very theoretical . . . a big departure from our current reality. Maybe an infeasible one. And I'm sure that I'm not the best articulator of it.

Relying on charity isn't a great solution . . . it won't fix everything. The primary benefit of relying on charity, in my mind, is that charity is provided voluntarily.

I don't think doctors would have to research every drug . . . private regulatory groups would form and lend their approval to drugs that survive peer review. You could counter that private regulatory groups gave Lehman Brothers a good rating, and that's a fair rejoinder. I guess, in response, I'd just argue that private companies and the government are both infallible, but that there's only one government, and that there would be multiple private review agencies that would spring up, and that bad ones would go bust, while good ones would stick around.

Re: Obama's Mistake (or one of them, anyway)

Jeffrey Miller — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:52:45 -0000

As always, you raise good points, and maybe we'll just have to wait to see how Obama governs before we'll really know. All politicians are arrogant, that's true, and Obama has admitted that it takes a certain megalomania to want to be President. Maybe that's why I'm so loathe to praise anyone who seeks the office of President . . . yeah, you have to be a megalomaniac to want it, but that doesn't mean we have to like the megalomania.

Re: An Early Observation About Obama

Jeffrey Miller — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:45:17 -0000

With stem cells, I think Bush actually thought he had come to a compromise solution that would please everyone--no government money for certain stem cell research, but no prohibition on private industry. Now, maybe this wasn't much of a compromise--it certainly wasn't perceived as one--but I don't think it was intended to be some great partisan salvo. (My problem with the stem cell decision announcement was mostly that it was a show intended to prove that Bush was capable of thinking about complicated issues--it was designed to try to make the president look smart--not necessarily conservative--but smart. It was not convincing on this point.)

Re: it's astonishing the folks that have been kind to me and made an effort these last weeks. what is even more astonishing are the people that have gone silent. i'm looking at you. you know ...

Jeffrey Miller — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 07:04:56 -0000

I suspect that you have more people who are feeling for you, and rooting for you, than you know. Count me among them.

Re: HELP!

Jeffrey Miller — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:14:44 -0000

I agree with bb . . . listen to your feelings. If you don't feel like being with him or seeing him or helping him with something, then just don't do it. It's weird that he expects things to suddenly be normal, and you shouldn't feel obligated to play along with that. If you say simply "I'd rather not," or "in light of everything that just happened, I don't think I should"--you've acted with grace and still listened to your feelings. You can graceful in tone, but ultimately do what you want to do. (And by the way, grace can be overrated too.)

Re: bunnynico - Me: Remember that time mom asked you to make a...

Jeffrey Miller — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:32:43 -0000

your dad seems very cool

Re: I don't have time for this.... - Peyton Manning is like the Justin Timberlake of...

Jeffrey Miller — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 14:15:35 -0000

No, no, no. It's not about being attractive . . . it's about being funny. (Is Timerberlake really that attractive?) And Tom Brady isn't funny.

Re: Some Numbers

Jeffrey Miller — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:46:22 -0000

Kyle, prying into many of these may be too personal, but who is the historical figure that makes you jealous, if you're willing to say?

Re: The Case for Pardons

Jeffrey Miller — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:31:49 -0000

Very interesting--I hadn't heard of the case. Ten to twelve years seems excessive if there was no malice involved. Prison sentences in American have gotten out of control during the last couple of decades. We're packing people into prisons without regard to the impact this has on families and society more generally. I would very much like to see some kind of prison/sentencing reform, but I don't the the prospects for it are good.

Re: Seriously, who is capable of being fully pregnant (yes, not partially), and only realize you 'don't feel well' a mere hour before going into labor? Then give birth to a healthy kid?

Jeffrey Miller — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:28:47 -0000

I once rented the second and third floors of a house. One day I came home and found the guy who lived on the first floor vomiting over the front porch rail. Later, he explained that his girlfriend and just plopped out a child in their bathroom. Neither had known she was pregnant until the baby was born. This was not a good thing, as there had been much smoking and drinking in the previous nine months.