DISQUS

I love how "public option" has become the euphemism for "single payer" which was once the favored euphemism for various, government-invoking terms, such as "public option."

I'm not completely convinced that religious institutions wouldn't be required to provide services for gay couples. The Unruh Civil Rights Act states that no business can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Apparently, this includes non-profits :
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/publications/publication...
(and wedding ordination is often a "business" owned by a clergy-member, anyway).
Citing Unruh, the State Supreme Court ruled for the plaintiff in Benitez vs. North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, when a lesbian woman was denied IVF tx by a doctor, who refused to perform the procedure for religious reasons.
And on the federal level, there was that whole e-harmony thing.
I strongly support gay marriage. Gay people should be treated as equals not just on a legal level, but on a cultural level. I am happy when any person enjoys happiness by finding the person he or she loves. But the idea that religious people have nothing to fear about their religious institutions being sued and coerced is disingenous, considering the enormous number of successful lawsuits filed against private individuals, businesses, and non-profits, relating to similar issues.

Another problem with Hitchen's book is that, as witty as he is, I'm not sure if some of his arguments pass empirical muster. He spends a lot of time talking about awful events in human history, and how religion caused them. People do lots of killing without the need for religion, so the correlation of even seemingly faith-based evils with religion may just havbe because people wanted to do bad, and they decided that religion was a convenient excuse. If religion weren't there, maybe they would have invented Stalinism a few centuries early.

I think that the criticism against Hitchens concerns more his tone than his content. His book didn't strike me as an attempt to convert with kindness (although I still enjoyed it, and appreciate Hitchens).

Fred, why do you assume that all of us have no connection to the country? My grandma and cousins still live there, and I visit at least once a year. I know the streets, the cafes, the museums, and all of the bridge-playing senior citizens in my bubbe's neighborhood. I will concede that becoming a citizen is not necessary for many practical purposes, but I feel affinity for a country that's been part of my life, for as long as I can remember. So, why not? Anyway, if you want to move to the U.S., I say welcome, to you and most everyone else.

In libertarian utopia, there may still need to be "default" laws that determine what to do a situation where the couple did not adequately address certain issues in their private marriage contract (such as regarding property allocation, alimony, etc.)

I think this conversation is interesting as it relates to the Patri Friedman's piece in Cato Unbound. We can plan libertarian utopia on the high seas, but disavowing folk activism has significant consequences on people, such as regarding the issue of gay marriage. Additionally, activism on this issue is not useless- we can actually make marginal gains, by advertising and adding libertarian support to the liberal support for gay marriage. Many Goldwater/Reagan conservatives may change their minds and actually see things in a new way. This folk activism can actually benefit gay people's lives, and shouldn't be discounted.
Still sucks for single people, though.

The whole argument is very strange, and I've found some "paleonconservatives" make it, but not many libertarians. It's like, so if the government shouldn't be in the business of public schooling, it's ok, once it creates public schools, to seperate them based on race (or even exclude one race)? It's convenient to accept legislated inequality and then say, "Hey I didn't ask for this service in the first place!," if you're not the one being excluded.
I've gotten into countless arguments with more Right-libertarians regarding Prop 8, where they insist that reasonable libertarians can have differences of opinion on the matter, just like we can disagree regarding abortion. I find this so contemptable; Either you accept discrimination or you don't, and your utopian views about proper functions of government are irrelevant.

I get to be Canadian, too, on April 17 (Thanks Momma!), but it seems like some anti-Kafkaesque nightmare if I go to sleep as that guy, and wake up as the same guy, just with more moose memorabilia.

Christopher- If some of your best friend is indeed a ______, then that does let us know that you are less anti_____ than most bigots, who won't even hang out with a ____, as a rule, let alone consider her smart, kind, and interesting enough to be a best friend.

What's with all the armchair psychoanalyzing? I support gay marriage, but I don't have an fMRI to truly know why many people oppose it. They claim it's because their religions say it's wrong, and maybe they really believe that.

Bob, It was all going so well, until you had to go with the ultimate cliche of trolldum ("Did I hit a nerve?"). It's like when the villain goes mwahhahahahah, just to broadcast a verification that he is, in fact, the villain.
You'll do better next time.

Will, I really don't say this often (although you obviously have no way to verify this), but your writing is too excellent to languish in a blog. Your style reminds me a lot of that other Will (George), although I'm sure you disagree with him on a few topics.

Excellent point When we complain that "insert political movement" is "holding us up," we often fail to consider the fact that efficiency is not our only value. I've been asking Democrats if there would be a downside if they continue to maintain or gain control over the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. They've mostly said it wouldn't be a problem, because Republicans, to them, would still be very powerful.
Even if fascist governments were more efficient, I'd still prefer a some-what less efficient democracy. But considering that fascist countries don't have to deal with all the messiness of people holding up their endeavors, why are they generally less efficient than democracies? Is there a threshold beyond "too much democracy,' as well as "too much tyranny," where efficiency starts to go down?

I agree with muirgeo. But I don't consider low wages, lack of cozy independent stores, or increased consumption of unhealthy foods to be legitimate negative externalities. Carbon emissions, yes, although it's very difficult to quantify how much.

I said "no "both times. What do I win?

I'm not sure if his primary goal matters, so long as he 1) Understood the concomitant effects of his actions 2) Had proper control over his decisions and 3) Did it anyway.

If a person murders, either because he wants another person's money (money being the primary goal) or just for kicks (killing being the intrinsic goal...or perhaps more specifically, a shot of dopamine in his brain that, to him, could only come from killing), he's equally culpable. If he killed just for money, but wanted that money because he was starving, that would diminish his culpability, because starvation allows for less control over one's actions.

Those countries have large social welfare systems, but have very low rate of voluntary charitable contributions. Religious people in the United States donate a disproportionate amount of their money to charity, even if you exclude donations to churches, and account for differences in income.

I meant easier to refute, more difficult to defend

Blogging isn't about positive declarative statements, which are more difficult to refute than negative declarative statements.

My greatest regret concerning college was that I didn't party enough. Everyone always went out, while I always said I'd join them "next week, as soon as I get over this organic chemistry to physics or something else hurdle." By the time I graduated, I wondered where the four years went. I'm only in my late 20s, and am a pretty happy med student, but I feel a bit like I squandered my youth. And I'll continue squandering it until I finish the end of my residency in my early to mid- thirities. My advice to anyone considering a career that requires a lot of formal education: think about how short life is, and whether or not you could be happy in a job that requires less training, yet provide similar fulfillment (PA or nurse practitioner for med students).

A very conservative estimate agreed upon my many distinguished scientists is much closer to the accurate amount than zero. We can all agree that one cent is more reasonable than zero cents, so let's start there.

I agree with Al. Economics is pretty fundamental (as is English, Math, Science, etc). Except, while we learn all those other subjects in middle and high schools, we don't have the opportunity to study ANY economics until college. If economics were incorporated into a standard h.s. curriculum, we'd all major in Medieval and Renaissance Studies instead.

It is true that people often make woefully mistaken decisions and statements. Therefore, we should use our benevolent government to restrict Cassidy's writing priveleges- for his own good.

Gravel is not an economic libertarian AT ALL, When asked about government role in economy, schools, regulation, he kept saying "well, that we can work out." I am practical (I wouldn't abolish welfare or anything, but Gravel is just an old fashioned liberal- socially and economically liberal).