In the same way that, for you liberals, wearing a pair of unseen boxer shorts with a small “t” that could possibly be confused with a crucifix appears to consist of state endorsement of religion. If we’re just going to hurl around mindless caricatures, there you have it. All small “t’s” are religious symbols to liberals, and all taxes are infringements of individual liberty to conservatives. We let babies die in the streets of malnourishment, you show children pornography in public libraries and send people to jail for praying. No wonder politics is so divisive. Who shall save us?

I’m old enough to remember the mocking that “National Review” writers used to hurl against liberals in the 1960s who wanted to hold out the percentage of their income tax that they thought went to the Pentagon as a protest against the Vietnam war… Now why shouldn’t we liberals turn around and bite conservatives like you who seem like they’re operating with the same set of ideas?

Because, being enamored as you are of centralized government with the unlimited and exclusive power to tax and spend at its whim, you might just end up looking like a bunch of silly hypocrites?

“Fortunately, I don’t have to speculate, because one of the positions that some anti-abortion proponents (e.g., Justice Scalia) have long argued is that, in their view, the US should be a nation in which some states allow for abortion and others do not.” I happen to agree with this statement from Justice Scalia. If abortion had been left to the states some would have opted for very liberal interpretations; allowing abortion all the way to partial birth and allowing for the state to pay for such procedures. Other states would have severely restricted both the circumstances of abortion and the funding mechanism. People could have voted with their feet, moving to the states where their personal philosophy was most clearly reflected. Instead; we got a ’one-size-fits-all’ solution that ignores the ideological and religious feelings of tens of millions of people. I’m fairly certain this causes you no concern as it is not your ox being gored.

The same with homosexuality. If left to the states, several different interpretations will emerge. Just as in abortion; there is no reason to force the tyranny of the minority on a majority of citizens. Proposition 8 passed in California by 52%. 52% of the US population is 161,200,000. Should all those people be forced to abandon their ideological, political, and religious beliefs in order to accommodate the feelings of a group that makes up no more than 7% of the present population?

“Nowhere in any of my posts have I defended the impossible position of ‘equal outcomes’ or ‘equal conditions.” You are a proponent of social justice are you not? Social Justice, in the most basic of terms, may be defined as; “…the fair distribution of advantages, assets, and benefits among all members of a society.” Are you now going to back away from your support of social justice?

“I’m probably on safe ground in assuming that you dislike the Americans with Disabilities Act because it requires business owners to serve the disabled…” Once again you are correct. The ADA is not about opportunity. The ADA requires business owners to comply with arbitrary regulations regardless of their personal business strategy. If a business owner wants to pursue that demographic, he will accommodate them. Likewise; a disabled person will patronize the businesses that choose to accommodate him. The answer is NOT to force private business concerns to make tens of millions of dollars worth of alterations on the outside chance that, one day, a disabled person may stroll (or roll) by. I’ve been working in the same building for over a decade. We have two handicapped ramps that probably cost us in excess of $30,000 to construct in order to be ADA compliant. The only person I’ve seen use this ramp is the guy that fills the soda machines in the break room, and he looks fairly healthy.

Finally; “So, I guess this means that the part of your tax dollar that supports research into the possible effects of solar coronal mass ejection on the nation’s energy grid, the Internet, and computers just pains you so much and you just want to be able to decide where each of your tax dollars –if any—should go.”

Let me tell you something. I could not possibly care less about a solar CME; for several reasons.

• We live so far out in the country I have to use dial-up, and I only engage that about once a month.
• We have a well, a septic system, and our own emergency power system.
• We have 50 gallons of diesel, 50 gallons of regular, and 500 gallons of propane on site
• We raise a significant portion of our own vegetables, and our own meat as well.

I don’t think a solar CME is going to disturb us at all. The EPS fires itself (and yes the regulatory circuits are in contained in a Faraday Cage). Chances are good our vintage 1960 Chevy truck will still run as well.

We’ll keep pumping water, flushing toilets, taking showers, drinking water, picking vegetables, and smoking meat. You, on the other hand may have a genuine concern regarding this solar CME because there is only two days worth of food on the store shelf and no water or sanitary systems once your power goes out. I’ll begin to fret over what may become of you right after you ensure my house has broadband, OK?

My first question would be; is there a difference between a segregationist and a racist? The MSM has already bent itself into a pretzel trying to establish that the rantings of King Samir Shabazz cannot be racist because a black man cannot be racist. Second question: If King Samir Shabazz’s statements regarding the killing of ‘crackers’ and urging blacks to kill both the ‘crackers’ and their offspring, I wonder what his position is on segregation is, huh?

I believe you are confused over my opinion regarding state’s rights and personal thrift. What I’m attempting to outline is not a prejudice against a particular race, but a prejudice against an attitude or mind set. My belief is that the fifty states do indeed have the ability to refuse a federal mandate.

As for taxes; I don’t mind paying what would be constitutionally considered as my fair share in accordance with the ‘equal apportionment’ clause; but we both know that is not enforced. Reports of 47% of the citizen population not paying income taxes last year are all over the news sites. This is a figure that is not in dispute. It has been said that, under the right circumstances, a family of four making $50,000 per year can pay no tax.

“The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.
With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.
The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15.” http://20smoney.com/2010/04/08/how-a-family-of-four-making-50k-can-pay-zero-income-taxes/

I payed $1,458 last year on an AGI of $21,800. So I figure I’m already paying fairly. My beef is with what the federal government spends those tax dollars of mine on. Common defense; fine. Congressional salaries; OK why not. Department of Education; definitely not. The Dept. of Education has bought us nothing but mediocre results and more highly centralized control.

There were over 177,000 individual school boards in 1944; there are just a few more than 17,000 today. A reduction of 90%. The average amount of money that the Department of Education contributes to any one school district amounts to @ 7 cents on the dollar. The overwhelming amount of budget money for these districts comes from county residents. Yet the federal government mandates a plethora of programs, edicts, and social engineering issues that school districts must participate in; just for that 7 cents. On top of that, the results we get out of our schools is appalling. I don’t have to really go any farther than asking you to check out how much the remedial programs have expanded in your own institution and how much you’ve had to adjust curriculum to accommodate students in the last generation.

You say that you personally do not favor income redistribution. Social justice includes income redistribution by definition. “Social justice – The fair distribution of advantages, assets, and benefits among all members of a society.” Is wealth an asset?

“Fortunately, I don’t have to speculate, because one of the positions that some anti-abortion proponents (e.g., Justice Scalia) have long argued is that, in their view, the US should be a nation in which some states allow for abortion and others do not.” I agree with this statement of Justice Scalia entirely. Abortion should have always been a state’s rights issue. Some states would have generated extremely liberal abortion policy. One could reasonably imagine a ‘laboratory of liberalism’ such as California allowing the state sponsorship and state payment of abortion services all the way up to partial birth. Other states, such as Utah may have outlawed the procedure altogether. Still others would have fallen in between these two extremes. People could have voted with their feet, moving to the state whose law best reflected their personal feeling. That would have been an exercise in liberty. But no, that’s not what happened! We got a ‘one-size-fits-all’ national solution that severely curtails my philosophical belief. But what we got was an exercise in judicial mandate; and over half the nation was alienated.

“As states roll out their newly mandated high-risk pools under Obamacare, a troubling trend is emerging. Pennsylvania and Maryland initially announced on their websites that their plans would cover elective abortions. Additionally, New Mexico posted a draft summary of its high-risk pool services that listed elective abortion as a part of its covered services.

The reaction from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the White House was complete silence. It was not until the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) called out those states that a spokesperson for the HHS announced that abortions will not be covered in the federally funded high-risk pools, except in the cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the mother would be endangered.” http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38291 No mention of that damnable Hyde Amendment until forced to do so.

Neither these states, nor the federal government bothered to qualify these statements regarding abortion funding until forced to do so. One could reasonable conclude that they would gladly fund such procedures if they could just get those awful ‘right-to-lifers’ to shut the hell up.

With regard to your question of homosexuality; some states probably will not allow sanction to such relationships, some will opt for civil unions, and some will opt for defining it as marriage. Once again people of all political and sexual persuasions can vote with their feet and move to the area that best represents their view. I fail to see the problem; other than the fact that you feel that if a gay couple wants to reside in a gay restrictive state that it is incumbent upon all 3 million in the state to shut up, ignore their philosophy, and accommodate that specific couple. I say “Road apples!” This is nothing more than the tyranny of the minority. Let’s make three hundred, or three hundred thousand, or three million uncomfortable so that two or four may feel included.

If that is really the way you feel, travel to Tehran (where they, by the way, say homosexuality doesn’t even exist as it is only a Western ‘problem’) and demonstrate for gay rights. If you have no problem forcing tens of millions of people to part with their beliefs in order to please only 7% of this nation’s population, well Iran’s population is only a little north of 70 million. An easier challenge than 52% of 310 million wouldn’t you say?

We both know the real reason you refuse to show the courage of such a conviction, and it has little to do with the price of airfare. It does however; have everything to do with the distinct habit of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his followers of tossing such protestors off of ten story buildings.

The progressive political philosophy is constantly insisting that we forcibly contribute to help all who merely stretch out their hand, regardless of true need. Any perceived need qualifies. Such a philosophy may be compared to the burden of proof in capital murder cases; “It is better that ten guilty men go free than we execute one innocent man by mistake.” “It is better that ten who scam the system extract benefits than to allow one who truly need them to fall through the cracks.”

This is nuts. I remember what it was like when most charity was local. My mother saw a child at our bus stop once that did not have a brown bag lunch. She made an extra lunch each school day for the next three months and it was my job (I was in second grade) to ensure that child got that lunch each day. The rest of the neighborhood would routinely place bags of groceries on the door step of that house until their father found another job.

There were also persons who lived down by the tracks in tents. We called them bums. They didn’t’ get a lot of assistance from the community; in fact there were vagrancy laws on the books to ensure they kept moving.

Today I don’t have to go too far to find families taking advantage of our ‘assistance’ programs. Families who routinely brag about how they can ‘juice’ the system for help with rent, food, medical care, telephone, and many other things. They say “Why should I work? All this stuff is free!” I say they should be living under a bridge somewhere, and subject to those old time vagrancy laws. Moses said; “Mount your ass and load your camel and I will lead you to the promised land.” Obama says; “Sit on your ass and light up a camel, this is the promised land!”

“Why wouldn’t some states just make homosexuality illegal and a capital offense? Why couldn’t some states—in your new confederal America—make Judaism or Catholicism or racially-mixed marriages, or hazel eyes, illegal within their boundaries? You don’t have a ‘states’ rights’ argument against such a possibility.” I most certainly do. Once again, with persons able to vote with their feet, how populated would a state be today if run by the Taliban?

As a state loses population; it also loses the ability to continue to be viable. All the above exclusions you outline could only occur, and indeed do occur, in Islamic countries. I think it goes a little over the top to equate conservatism with Sharia.

“Nowhere in any of my posts have I defended the impossible position of ‘equal outcomes’ or ‘equal conditions.” Once again; social justice encompasses these. So unless you are ready to eschew the premise of social justice, we can do nothing else other than to ascribe such things as falling under your umbrella of belief.

“I’m probably on safe ground in assuming that you dislike the Americans with Disabilities Act because it requires business owners to serve the disabled, put in handicapped parking, ramps, and other evil intrusions of the nanny state.” Yes I do object to the ADA, because it requires a business owner to ‘serve’. No one should be able to tell a business owner how to run his business.

“43 million are disabled, about 17% of 250 million; almost 1 out of 5 persons
are disabled given these figures.” http://codi.buffalo.edu/graph_based/.demographics/.statistics.htm

Should the US government mandate that all businesses in the US ‘serve’ the 17% of the population that requires it? The building I work in had such accouterments when I began working here in 2000. The ramps have never been used by a handicapped person. So the question is; how many tens of millions of dollars should be spent to make each and every building in the US handicapped accessible? If persons who own businesses want to make the investment because they are shooting for that demographic customer base fine. Also if disabled persons decide to spend their money where they are accommodated and withhold purchases from businesses that don’t accommodate them, that is fine also. It is a decision that each business/property owner and business patron may make. But to mandate such across the country, just in case a disabled person might choose to wander by one day is, in my opinion, supercilious.

“Next time you go to an emergency room, read the little sign that explains that you have a ‘right’ to emergency treatment regardless of the source of your payment, or whether you can pay at all.” So, then why do we need nationalized health care?

There is a difference between eugenics and Darwin. Darwin, as previously stated is ‘survival of the fittest’ and a natural process. Eugenics is a human guided process. Eugenics is more rightly what a person such as Margaret Sanger; both a eugenicist and founder of Planned Parenthood I might add might promote.

“And God forbid that any of your tax dollars goes to assist anyone who has suffered economically because of the Gulf oil spill.” Agreed; that sounds like BP’s issue, not mine.

I also don’t know why you want me to be concerned with a potential solar CME. Because of where we live, we’re already mostly self sufficient. We have a well, a septic system and an emergency generator that will provide power as we see fit. Frankly, I live so far outside town that all we can get is dial-up and I don’t use that but maybe once a month. I don’t think a solar CME would hurt us at all; we’ll keep picking vegetables out of the garden, slaughtering and smoking meat, drinking from the well, and muddling along just as we’ve always done. Now you city folk; with only a three day supply of food on the market shelves, and with limited back-up potential for the reservoir pumps might be a little more concerned about a solar CME. Well, pay for the study. Me; I don’t much concern myself with it. I invested in my emergency back-ups already; and didn’t ask you to help with the well or generator. Why should you have the right to say; “He’s taken care of himself, now he has to help take care of me too!” No I don’t. All I need after everything else is the ability to ensure that those that didn’t’ plan for the emergency stay the hell off my property; something I’ve also ensured I have the ability to do.

Herewith a few responses to some of your criticisms. I’ll put quotation marks around your comments.

“There is no way that anyone can provide a racist connotation to a strong belief in State’s rights!”

It wasn’t all that long ago that a “strong belief in State’s rights’ was very clearly coordinated with racism in the South. Clearly, you weren’t around when ‘states’ rights’ was very plainly understood as the banner of pro-segregationists. In other words, the ‘connotation’ isn’t something I invented; it was right back there in the 1950s and 60s—and furthermore, if you’re half as smart as you claim, you know this as well as you know your own name.

” First of all; as an avowed left wing progressive I would say it is impossible for you to understand the mind of a right winger other than to assume (and we all know the definition of that word) that a right winger holds all the opposite beliefs that you do. You also have to ‘assume’ that all your beliefs are correct. Hubris!”

Now you’re being difficult and refusing to play by even your own rules. It’s very clear that you understand the minds of left-wingers—you say so all the time. And, it’s clear, again from your own posts, that you do indeed hold “all the opposite beliefs” to mine. If you don’t, then whyinhell are you writing your stuff? As for ‘assuming’ that all my beliefs are correct—after which you write “Hubris!”, all I can say is Golly gee, you mean you don’t assume all your own beliefs are correct? Isn’t that what you say in post after post?

You manage to confuse ‘states’ rights’ as a political position with personal thrift. What you really mean with this is that ‘states’ rights’ just means whatever you happen to approve of.. You probably think that brushing your teeth after every meal is a ‘states’ rights’ position too.

As for my alleged evil views, I’ve never said anything on IC to indicate that I favor income redistribution, and in fact I don’t support it. Income redistribution is a huge, unwieldy, ineffective blunt instrument for social policy—it’s like you using your .50 caliber handgun to kill mice. As for ‘social justice,’ I know that’s an evil term for conservatives, but just try explaining to an average American citizen that your political persuasion calls for the elimination of government programs attempting to promote social justice. That will go down really well.

“My fervent belief that I should be allowed to remain in possession of the property I buy, and the wealth I generate, is not, and could never be defined by any reasonable person as racist.”

Indeed, and I never did call it ‘racist.’ Now, is what you really mean that you should pay no taxes whatever, to any level of government? The 4th point from the list of ‘Freedom’ principles in your final comment makes your position very clear. You want to enjoy the benefits of the government—although you don’t want to admit you get any—but don’t think you should have to pay for any of them. There are a lot of words one could use to label that position, few of them complimentary.

You criticize me for not giving an example of what in fact does not yet exist, namely, a confederal system in which states are free to enforce varying sets of policies on human rights. Fortunately, I don’t have to speculate, because one of the positions that some anti-abortion proponents (e.g., Justice Scalia) have long argued is that, in their view, the US should be a nation in which some states allow for abortion and others do not. What I’m saying is that the underlying principle that justifies such a condition has no built-in limitation. Why wouldn’t some states just make homosexuality illegal and a capital offense? Why couldn’t some states—in your new confederal America—make Judaism or Catholicism or racially-mixed marriages, or hazel eyes, illegal within their boundaries? You don’t have a ‘states’ rights’ argument against such a possibility. And, since confederal America would have nothing like the Constitution’s supremacy clause, and certainly wouldn’t have a Supreme Court that could hold laws of state governments unconstitutional, there would be no institutional recourse whatever for anyone unlucky enough to live in a state whose majority just might, one day, vote away his ‘right’ to exist at all.

As for abortion, haven’t you heard of the Hyde Amendment, which has been in force for a few decades now? The feds can’t pay for abortions. I’m pleasantly surprised when you write, on legal abortion:: “While I may philosophically disagree with such a provision; I don’t have the right to interfere with another’s choice to pursue such a procedure.” This alone shows that your conservative credentials are a little shaky, although you’re on fine libertarian grounds with your position. Many real conservatives think that it is precisely the task of government to interfere with someone’s choice in this area. That’s why we liberals like our (admittedly simplistic) slogan for conservatives: “Keep government out of the corporate boardroom, and get it back into the bedroom, where it really belongs.” I wonder if James Dobson would even get this joke.

As for abortion, haven’t you heard of the Hyde Amendment, which has been in force for a few decades now? The feds can’t pay for abortions. I’m pleasantly surprised when you write, on legal abortion:: “While I may philosophically disagree with such a provision; I don’t have the right to interfere with another’s choice to pursue such a procedure.” This alone shows that your conservative credentials are a little shaky, although you’re on fine libertarian grounds with your position. Many real conservatives think that it is precisely the task of government to interfere with someone’s choice in this area. That’s why we liberals like our (admittedly simplistic) slogan for conservatives: “Keep government out of the corporate boardroom, and get it back into the bedroom, where it really belongs.” I wonder if James Dobson would even get this joke.

“It seems what you decry most is a return to the original idea that we ensure equal opportunity for all as opposed to equal outcome for all.”

Nowhere in any of my posts have I defended the impossible position of ‘equal outcomes’ or ‘equal conditions.’The argument in Aristotle “Politics” (book 3)against a policy of constant equalization of wealth of citizens is actually far better than many later conservative takes on this. Nor does affirmative action require anything more than ensuring equal opportunity for all. When ‘affirmative action’ started being interpreted as requiring ‘racial quotas,’ it lost its original purpose.

I’m fairly sure, however, that you will find many things to object to about any policy that actually IS aimed at ensuring equal opportunity for all. I’m probably on safe ground in assuming that you dislike the Americans with Disabilities Act because it requires business owners to serve the disabled, put in handicapped parking, ramps, and other evil intrusions of the nanny state. I’m sure you find that the ADA interferes with your freedom so much you can hardly wait until you can abolish it. Just send those greedy cripples to the back bedroom where they belong! Hey, maybe you can get some Tea Party friend to put that slogan on his sign!

Next time you go to an emergency room, read the little sign that explains that you have a ‘right’ to emergency treatment regardless of the source of your payment, or whether you can pay at all. The law that set that requirement up was signed by none other than the Ultimate Dead Conservative, Ronald Regan. I guess the guy really was a covert Communist, after all.

I thought the new conservative wisdom was that progressives were the original eugenicists—Jonah Goldberg bloviates at inordinate length on this claim in “Liberal Fascism.” Your comments on those who “fail the tests of survival” shows that conservative eugenics is alive and well. Would you like to go back to the policy of forced sterilization that many states had until fairly recent times? If Goldberg is correct, then you’d be joining the Left with such a move.

“Does any person who is blessed to be a citizen have possession of the natural rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Of course, as long as his pursuit of those rights does not interfere with any other person’s pursuit of those same rights.”
You missed a chance to get to the real issue: What does ‘interference” consist of? For you any and all taxation appears to constitute ‘interference.’ So, I guess this means that the part of your tax dollar that supports research into the possible effects of solar coronal mass ejection on the nation’s energy grid, the Internet, and computers just pains you so much and you just want to be able to decide where each of your tax dollars –if any—should go. And God forbid that any of your tax dollars goes to assist anyone who has suffered economically because of the Gulf oil spill. And while you’re at it, you probably want to call back that escaped tax dollar that made it into the small business loan that the guy down the street got from the gubment.

I’m old enough to remember the mocking that “National Review” writers used to hurl against liberals in the 1960s who wanted to hold out the percentage of their income tax that they thought went to the Pentagon as a protest against the Vietnam war. Unpatriotic! UnAmerican! How dare people refuse to be responsible for supporting their country! Now why shouldn’t we liberals turn around and bite conservatives like you who seem like they’re operating with the same set of ideas?

I mentioned this in another recent piece here where Mr. George Shadroui was advocating compromise between conservatives and liberals in modern politics. There are issues where compromise is impossible because each side’s competing concepts are mutually exclusive. In the case of Gestell and the framers of the constitution, there is scarcely and issue where this isn’t the case.

I have a question. Since Gestell says; “In practical political terms, I view rights as being related to needs…”

So; according to this theory, if we determine that we ‘need’ reasoned political discourse on the issues at hand, then we automatically have a right to such: Which would, in turn, actually preclude Gestell from ever posting comment to any article here ever again? To say that rights are ‘needs’ based is patently ridiculous! Almost as ridiculous as stating; “[I]t is an official pillar of conservative philosophy that states have a right to re-institute slavery…” wouldn’t you agree?

The crux of the argument here is that Gestell’s constant cries of racism and his repeated attempts to connect conservatism with slavery are Freudian in nature. Persons will most often accuse others of what they themselves would most readily do.

Gestell believes in slavery and you pegged it in your last post. All producing members of society are to be ‘enslaved’ to the moocher class to provide; “universal access to government (read looter)-provided housing, healthcare, public transportation, food, daycare, university education, or any number of other programs designed to benefit one group at the expense of another.” In other words; the looters will force the producers to support the wants of the moochers. This is Gestell’s democracy.

The same could be said of the federal government we already have, or any other government anywhere, local or federal, foreign or domestic. Repeal two amendments to the federal constitution and presto-chango, you may constitutionally hold slaves again. That’s why this red-herring argument has no real validity unless you accept the premise that everyone who lives below Connecticut harbors 200 year old racial animosity and wishes to re-enslave blacks, and that they are plotting to secede from the union in order to accomplish it. If you operate from that rather paranoid/delusional assumption, then secession becomes a purely racial issue, which makes for a convenient excuse to shout down an entire group of people as “racist” and dismiss any actual discussion of secession from a philosophical, legal, or modern political context.

why in the world do you think I reject universal human rights? If anything, many of my comments should make tolerably clear that I buy into the whole agenda of liberal universal rights. Whether such rights are ‘natural’ or not is a serious philosophical question, as is the question of whether belief in God is necessary to believe in human rights.

I’m sorry if I was presumptuous; I drew my conclusion based on the fact that you have explicitly repudiated natural rights theory many times on this very website. If rights are not “natural”, if they are merely constructed, then they cannot by definition be “universal”. I believe, though I’m not certain, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, that you also rejected rationalism, which is the most commonly substituted secular explanation for “natural” and “universal” rights.

But really, let’s cut through the rhetorical manure. Call them whatever you want, what you really object to is the idea that a modern secessionist state might institute laws that do not conform with your particular conception of non-natural, yet universal, fundamental, “human” rights like universal access to government-provided housing, healthcare, public transportation, food, daycare, university education, or any number of other programs designed to benefit one group at the expense of another. Slavery is nothing more than a strawman to justify your appeal to the necessity of an extra-constitutional federal government in modern politics. I wish you’d just be straight for once and admit it rather than put ridiculous arguments into the mouths of “conservatives” in general, and particular members here at this website, and then proceed on name-calling tirades based on arguments that were not advanced by anyone but yourself.

God I hate these one day in-and-out business trips! And I hate them for more reasons than one. I go away for one day and Gestell picks that very day to begin self-medicating once again.

“Today a right wing secessionist dream includes a racist element because its advocates seek a return to a states’ rights standpoint, from which a rejection of the very idea of universal human rights can be achieved.” This is unmitigated bovine scatology! There is no way that anyone can provide a racist connotation to a strong belief in State’s rights!

First of all; as an avowed left wing progressive I would say it is impossible for you to understand the mind of a right winger other than to assume (and we all know the definition of that word) that a right winger holds all the opposite beliefs that you do. You also have to ‘assume’ that all your beliefs are correct. Hubris!

I even went so far as to provide you with the definition of racism, which I will repeat here. Racism is defined as; “…the belief that race is the primary determinate of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority.”

Your above comment is specious at best. Seeking to return to a strong ‘state’s rights’ position has no racist connotations. One of the central pillars of such a return is that most state’s rights advocates have lived their entire lives by careful financial planning and the avoidance of accumulating staggering amounts of debt, and saddling future generations with such, in such a cavalier, uncaring manner. Nowhere in the provided definition is there any mention requiring persons who disavow a belief in income re-distribution, social justice, or progressive tax rates to be defined as ‘racists’. That requirement exists only within your own muddled thought process.

My fervent belief that I should be allowed to remain in possession of the property I buy, and the wealth I generate, is not, and could never be defined by any reasonable person as racist.

You further state; “For secessionist conservatives, there would be nothing whatever wrong or undesirable about a Confederation of American States in which legally protected human rights would vary considerably from one state to another, depending upon the whims of a majority of voters in each state.” without bothering to give example. There is a legally protected human right to an abortion is there not? While I may philosophically disagree with such a provision; I don’t have the right to interfere with another’s choice to pursue such a procedure. I may only demand (yes demand) they pay for such out of their own pocket as I have a right to ensure my hard earned dollars don’t go toward a procedure I disagree with. Same with affirmative action. My Irish ancestors were persecuted upon their arrival. That documented persecution doesn’t buy me anything. It shouldn’t buy anyone else anything either. It seems what you decry most is a return to the original idea that we ensure equal opportunity for all as opposed to equal outcome for all.

“Such Balkanization might be great for conservatism, but it is absolutely lethal to the notion of the United States as a single nation.” I could not disagree more. You cannot attempt to unite this nation under an umbrella of entitlement. We constantly hear, particularly from the present administration that this is a democracy and that they are only trying to encourage more democracy. This is a republic. A democracy is mob rule. It is three wolves and a single sheep casting ballots on what’s for dinner. This is what we currently have. When 47% of the people in this country pay no federal income tax, yet may vote on program after program to add additional comfort to their already too comfortable lives; such a nation is already teetering on the brink of dissolution. You cannot ‘unite’ a country by making ‘entitlement slaves’ out of all of society’s productive members, forcing them to contribute to your schemes, in order to provide a façade of earned dignity to those who deliberately choose not to attempt to provide that dignity to themselves.

For instance health care. I walk into an emergency room for treatment and present my insurance card. The first thing the triage nurse asks for is the deductible. Barack Obama may provide all citizens with insurance by decree. But that ‘façade of dignity’ isn’t going to do that public uterus any goo when she walks into the emergency room and demands treatment for her ‘Daddy’s baby’ only to discover she is five tricks away from earning the $100 deductable.

The finality of this is that conservative beliefs cannot be defined as racism; and we no longer give credence to those that insist such is so.

Does any person who is blessed to be a citizen have possession of the natural rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Of course, as long as his pursuit of those rights does not interfere with any other person’s pursuit of those same rights. Expecting me to pay your rent, your food, your utilities, or your health care is you interfering with my rights; especially if you are refusing to attempt to provide these for yourself. That is not racist; it’s only common sense. It is nothing more than Darwin’s Theory. I’m certain you ascribe to Darwin: Then why eschew its most common manifestation? Whether Black, White, Brown, or Yellow; color makes no difference. These people fail the test of survival and the gene pool will not miss them. Unless you feel as if these people cannot possibly make it by relying on themselves. That they are ill equipped; mentally, physically, or emotionally, to fend for themselves and it is attendant upon the balance of society to carry them along, allowing them to bask in the false dignity we provide them through our own efforts. Who’s the racist now? The bigot that tells an African American aspirant that we’ll give him ‘extra’ credit for correct answers on the SAT/ACT. Or is it the bigot that tells the single mom with five kids by four different men that it’s not her fault she has ‘round heels’; society will care for your little ones.

Allow me to refer to one of the Ten Principles of Freedom http://www.freedomvrights.com/tenprinciplesone.html
Specifically principle 4: “No one person, group of people, or institution howsoever constituted (including government), has any authority, natural or otherwise, to compel another person, without that person’s consent, to labor for any other person, group of people, or institution (including government), or to compel any person to surrender all or part of their labor, income or property to any other person, group of people, or institution (including government).” Period. To live by this is to embrace liberty, not racism.

Within my lifetime, some of the most prominent American conservatives–Bill Buckley, Wilmoore Kendall, Mel Bradford, and, in general, the editors of “National Review”–have assented to the proposition that states have a right under the US Constitution to deny blacks the right to vote, as well as the right to impose a system of legal discrimination that has popular (=white) support. The Constitution, as interpreted from an originalist position, did not allow the federal government to eliminate slavery–war was required. (And now Mr. Wavering will charge in, saber drawn, to tell me that, no, the war in question was really just Lincoln’s power grab in service of Northern economic interests, but that’s another story.) Nor will it do for you to invoke the post-Civil War constitutional amendments, since they were ratified by Southern legislatures that were not permitted by the victorious North to act freely.

So, here’s what we’re left with: If today’s Southern states seceded, they would have no reason, by definition, to pay any attention to any federal law or court decision because they would no longer be subject to the US Constitution. Secessionist states would be independent sovereign states (which might or might not choose to form an alliance). It follows that, if the populations of these states so desired, that any sort of oppressive system of control could be imposed on any segment of that population by a majority. Are we to believe in all seriousness that a secessionist regime in charge of any state of the Old South would have some reason to continue to abide by federal laws and court decisions to which many of its citizens objected? The fact that conservative secessionists can’t figure this out attests to their extraordinary obtuseness. The whole point of being a sovereign state, again, by definition, is that no other government controls your government. So, if a majority wanted slavery, slavery it could have.

So, Mr. Mulligan, why is it that we should expect racial harmony in a secessionist (former) American state?

t is an official pillar of conservative philosophy that states have a right to re-institute slavery and other violations of “universal human rights”, even though you don’t believe in natural rights or universal rights, both of which would be required philosophical foundations for a concept of “universal human rights”.

As for my views, why in the world do you think I reject universal human rights? If anything, many of my comments should make tolerably clear that I buy into the whole agenda of liberal universal rights. Whether such rights are ‘natural’ or not is a serious philosophical question, as is the question of whether belief in God is necessary to believe in human rights. The history of debates about these issues contains virtually every conceivable alternative, and philosophical agreement is nowhere in sight. In practical political terms, I view rights as being related to needs, as do most social liberals. If this belief is accepted (and conservatives clearly don’t accept it), then the door is open for such things as new discoveries about human beings to become a basis for a rights argument. For example, it is now pretty clearly understood that a host of developmental issues in children is related to inadequate nutrition. Does this mean that human infants have a ‘right’ not to have their brain development adversely affected by poor nutrition? I have no problem in saying ‘yes’ to such a question, although my answer alone doesn’t point in a specific policy direction. As we liberals look at it, that is a collection of pragmatic issues to be worked on. A conservative’s position should be something like: “Well, life’s unfair, and kids whose brains don’t function optimally are just going to have to get along as best they can.”