Gary Johnson is a Complete Idiot

[Cubo de Sangre]

Are you playing dumb?

I've already covered this a few times with my comments about the CRA etc.

No. Is it dumb to make sure we're straight on the terms?

Then skip it.

@Greoric, wtf is smuggy here talking about exactly?

 

[Greoric]

No. Is it dumb to make sure we're straight on the terms?

Then skip it.

@Greoric, wtf is smuggy here talking about exactly?

I read it as a slight to constitutionalists who use arguments referring to things like a "right to privacy" as nonsense because its an "imagined right". Not sure though. I'm sure he'll clarify.

 

[ncordless]

Local government is almost always more effective than federal governments though for the same reasons privatization is better than any governance at all; proximity of information.

Local governors will have a better "pulse" of their people than someone trying to organize hundreds of millions of people many thousands of miles away.

On the other hand, it's a hell of a lot easier for an outside interest to buy off a state legislature, or a county commision, or a city council than it is to buy a majority in the senate.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Perhaps, were you associating the "right to privacy" as an "imagined right"? If so then, no. The right to privacy has its equivalent... the fourth.

The right to privacy is frequently referred to as an imagined right. Scalia, for example, rejected the idea of a "right to privacy" (both in the context of abortion and more broadly).

No. Is it dumb to make sure we're straight on the terms?

I'm not trying to be smug or condescending. I honestly can't tell with you because I'm using pretty conventional terms that should be familiar to anyone who has talked about these things before. You'll recall that I've mentioned many of your confrontations with people here stem from your odd, seemingly deliberately obtuse, usage of language.

"Right to privacy" is generally discussed in the context of abortion but has been much more generally applied than that (its usage predates abortion discussions). The general idea of strict constructionists (e.g. Scalia) is that the extent of the BoR is restricted exactly to whats on paper.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Perhaps, were you associating the "right to privacy" as an "imagined right"? If so then, no. The right to privacy has its equivalent... the fourth.

So you disagree with the most prominent strict constructionists then.

 

[Greoric]

On the other hand, it's a hell of a lot easier for an outside interest to buy off a state legislature, or a county commision, or a city council than it is to buy a majority in the senate.

Ah yes, but the ease of their purchase inversely matches their incentive to be bought. If a government has less pull then, why would there be the same incentive for an outside party to purchase influence the small government doesn't have as oppposed to a large federal government that does?

You see left of center arguments trying to get money out of politics, but its ironic because policies of growing the state's power just incentivizes more of its purchase.

 

[ncordless]

It is hard for me to see how anyone who has actually read the constitution can say that there are no rights besides the rights made explicit in the Bill of Rights. This was a major problem many of the founders identified with creating the Bill of Rights at all, and was supposed to be dealt with in the 9th. For instance, we have the right to sleep when we are tired, or roll out of bed on the left or right. Yet the Constitution is silent on the issue.

The Constitution at several points besides the 9th shows that there are rights that are not enumerated. For instance, the 14th Amendment states that states cannot infringe upon our "privileges and immunities" which obviously begs the question what those are. The due process clause says a state cannot abridge the right to life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Wouldn't really be necessary if there was no underlying right to life, liberty, and property, would there?

 

[Greoric]

So you disagree with the most prominent strict constructionists then.

I don't understand how that opposes constructionism if I'm saying the use of "the right to privacy" is a reference to the fourth.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I don't understand how that opposes constructionism if I'm saying the use of "the right to privacy" is a reference to the fourth.

Strict constructionism doesn't recognize such a reference. There is no right to privacy made explicit in the fourth.

Look, I agree with you. You're arguing against guys like Scalia.

 

[ncordless]

Ah yes, but the ease of their purchase inversely matches their incentive to be bought. If a government has less pull then, why would there be the same incentive for an outside party to purchase influence the small government doesn't have as oppposed to a large federal government that does?

You see left of center arguments trying to get money out of politics, but its ironic because policies of growing the state's power just incentivizes more of its purchase.

Tons of reasons. A state still retains general jurisdiction. Consider eminent domain. I want to build a new Wal-Mart, and I want the government to help me get the property from unwilling sellers and build sellers and give me breaks on stuff to incentivize me. I can buy a council and enough legislators for it. I don't need federal involvement at all, and it would be prohibitvely expensive.

This kind of thing happens all the time. I know a town who, just this week, spent 15 million buying land, relocating the businesses already there, demoing the land to Wal-Mart's specs, etc. Wal-Mart gave them each a small donation for their time. In addition, in the last election opponents seemed to drop out for no reason. The rumor is Wal Mart bought them off to not run. They were going to get all kinds of tax and utility breaks, and had a deal in place to buy the land for 4.5 million. But one thing the city forgot to do was test the soil. When Wal-MArt did due diligence and found the soil was contaminated, they left that town holding the bag. Now the town has spent $15 million for a contaminated lot that no one will buy.

 

[Greoric]

Strict constructionism doesn't recognize such a reference. There is no right to privacy made explicit in the fourth.

Look, I agree with you. You're arguing against guys like Scalia.

Ok, but it depends on what we're referring the "right to privacy" to. Every context that I've heard or read "the right privacy" used has been with respect to the fourth, not abortion.

I can't comment on Scalia's remarks on abortion, because I haven't read them.

 

[ncordless]

Strict constructionism doesn't recognize such a reference. There is no right to privacy made explicit in the fourth.

Look, I agree with you. You're arguing against guys like Scalia.

ARe you talking about strict textualism, or strict constructionism? Similar but different.

 

[UpaLoompa]

ARe you talking about strict textualism, or strict constructionism? Similar but different.

I'm just a small town pizza lawer...

Following a quick google search, I was using the common and looser conflation of textualism with constructionism, not the likely more precise legalese usage.
If Cubo is a laywer, that would suggest I was the one that was wrong in our exchange. My bad.

 

[Greoric]

Tons of reasons. A state still retains general jurisdiction. Consider eminent domain. I want to build a new Wal-Mart, and I want the government to help me get the property from unwilling sellers and build sellers and give me breaks on stuff to incentivize me. I can buy a council and enough legislators for it. I don't need federal involvement at all, and it would be prohibitvely expensive.

This kind of thing happens all the time. I know a town who, just this week, spent 15 million buying land, relocating the businesses already there, demoing the land to Wal-Mart's specs, etc. Wal-Mart gave them each a small donation for their time. In addition, in the last election opponents seemed to drop out for no reason. The rumor is Wal Mart bought them off to not run. They were going to get all kinds of tax and utility breaks, and had a deal in place to buy the land for 4.5 million. But one thing the city forgot to do was test the soil. When Wal-MArt did due diligence and found the soil was contaminated, they left that town holding the bag. Now the town has spent $15 million for a contaminated lot that no one will buy.

You're highlighting a scale of government influence, not government's expanse geographically.

The greater the influence in place the greater the incentive to be bought. That's separate than what we were discussing about the effectiveness of local judgement comparing a governance over a small area versus a larger one.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I read it as a slight to constitutionalists who use arguments referring to things like a "right to privacy" as nonsense because its an "imagined right". Not sure though. I'm sure he'll clarify.

Let's find out. I fear I'm testing his patience inadvertently.

The right to privacy is frequently referred to as an imagined right. Scalia, for example, rejected the idea of a "right to privacy" (both in the context of abortion and more broadly).
I'm not trying to be smug or condescending. I honestly can't tell with you because I'm using pretty conventional terms that should be familiar to anyone who has talked about these things before. You'll recall that I've mentioned many of your confrontations with people here stem from your odd, seemingly deliberately obtuse, usage of language.

"Right to privacy" is generally discussed in the context of abortion but has been much more generally applied than that (its usage predates abortion discussions). The general idea of strict constructionists (e.g. Scalia) is that the extent of the BoR is restricted exactly to whats on paper.

Full disclosure. My brain doesn't deal in labels as well as many people around here. Call it a defect, a disinterest in stereotypes, or a disinterest in remembering everything some "type" says about shit. I generally don't waste my time "playing dumb" for the purpose of obfuscation. So when you go from "state's rights 'tards" to "constructionists" I don't necessarily know those are the same people. As for my confrontations, those are almost always with the same people who coincidentally are prone to being assholes. Like yourself. You pride yourself on being a dick to people whose arguments you view as insufficient. Right now that appears to be me. I don't see how I've used any "odd" language. Just you getting upset that I'm clarifying my understanding of your language.

Near as I can tell you're saying something like this.

People who believe states have rights are retarded.
These people are also knows as Constructionists.
They say there is no right to privacy because it's not in the Constitution (4th Amendment notwithstanding).
You believe it's implied/guaranteed by the 9th Amendment due to historical legal precedents.

I guess I'll keep an eye out for one of these types making one of these arguments and see how it goes. Better yet, next time you're schooling some 'tard on the 9th just go ahead and tag me in. Or don't. Either way, thanks for your time here.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Full disclosure. My brain doesn't deal in labels as well as many people around here. Call it a defect, a disinterest in stereotypes, or a disinterest in remembering everything some "type" says about shit. I generally don't waste my time "playing dumb" for the purpose of obfuscation. So when you go from "state's rights 'tards" to "constructionists" I don't necessarily know those are the same people. As for my confrontations, those are almost always with the same people who coincidentally are prone to being assholes. Like yourself. You pride yourself on being a dick to people whose arguments you view as insufficient. Right now that appears to be me. I don't see how I've used any "odd" language. Just you getting upset that I'm clarifying my understanding of your language.

They're not "stereotypical labels' or any of the above nonsense.
Words have meanings. Sometimes we know those meanings, sometimes we're ignorant of them (e.g. I was ignorant of the more precise legalese distinction between constructionists and textualists; now I'm not).

There usually are pretty clear connotations and dennotations of words and phrases, the oddity I mention has been when you've used phrases with well accepted connotations and then claimed you weren't using either the accepted connotations or dennotations.

Also, I wasn't getting upset, I just wasn't sure if you were serious. The idea of a "right to privacy" and whether that is an "imagined right" has been a central issue of discussion for decades. Honestly it is odd for someone to have an interest in constitutional issues and ask what it means.

Near as I can tell you're saying something like this.

People who believe states have rights are retarded.
These people are also knows as Constructionists.
They say there is no right to privacy because it's not in the Constitution (4th Amendment notwithstanding).
You believe it's implied/guaranteed by the 9th Amendment due to historical legal precedents.

I guess I'll keep an eye out for one of these types making one of these arguments and see how it goes. Better yet, next time you're schooling some 'tard on the 9th just go ahead and tag me in. Or don't. Either way, thanks for your time here.

Yeah, not at all.

 

[ncordless]

You're highlighting a scale of government influence, not government's expanse geographically.

The greater the influence in place the greater the incentive to be bought. That's separate than what we were discussing about the effectiveness of local judgement comparing a governance over a small area versus a larger one.

Sure, you get more geographic area. But the reason why people would rather buy influence at the local level is shown in your remark.

If you were buying property, would you rather buy the grazing rights to 100,000 acres, or fee simple absolute to 10,000 acres? The answer is it depends what you want the property for. Same goes with buying influence.

 

[Greoric]

Sure, you get more geographic area. But the reason why people would rather buy influence at the local level is shown in your remark.

If you were buying property, would you rather buy the grazing rights to 100,000 acres, or fee simple absolute to 10,000 acres? The answer is it depends what you want the property for. Same goes with buying influence.

I don't understand how that follows from my remark. If the local government doesn't have the influence to doll out a favor, and its less likely that it would, then the incentive to buy them is equally as diminished.

 

[ncordless]

I don't understand how that follows from my remark. If the local government doesn't have the influence to doll out a favor, and its less likely that it would, then the incentive to buy them is equally as diminished.

That's not really true though. Local and state governments retain the general police power, and have much more influence in their limited geographical area. What's more if that locality doesn't have the control, there is another one down the road that does. What level of government to buy influence in just depends on what you want done.

 

[Greoric]

That's not really true though. Local and state governments retain the general police power, and have much more influence in their limited geographical area. What's more if that locality doesn't have the control, there is another one down the road that does. What level of government to buy influence in just depends on what you want done.

Sure as long as what someone wants done is on a smaller scale and to a smaller degree. That's precisely what you want to limit.