Beg Your Own Question Here
What, if any, are good reasons for a government attorney not to include all non-frivolous arguments on his client (the government)'s behalf?
Reprise: Top 20 songs on your iPod
Also, where do you think Sotomayor would have come down in this mess?
Thanks for the suggestions -- I'll get to them soon!
Sorry for the delay, but as you know, I'm a bit busy these days.
John Adams has famously quoated that "there has not yet been a democracy that did not commit suicide". I think we can agree that folks on the Right would speculate that the most likely scenario for this is a decline into full fledged socialism. I'm curious as to what you think the Left believes is the most likely scenario, and how it would come about. Religeous theocracy? Right-wing facism? Red state/blue state separation?
Why is socialism incompatible with democracy? One is a system of economics; the other is a system of politics. Do you mean Communism (i.e. one-party state rule) rather than socialism?
To expand: until recently India has had a very socialistic economic system (its first PM, Nehru, was a great admirer of Soviet "five year plans" and similar imbecilities). Yet in all that time, it was a democracy, with the possible exception for Indira Gandhi's Emergency rule for a few years in the 1970s. Is it that you wouldn't have considered India 1949-1989 to be "full-fledged socialism," or that you wouldn't consider it a democracy (despite a thriving multi-party Parliamentary system)?
Never ask conservatives to explain what they mean. They are so certain of their beliefs that it is very irritating to have to explain them, and totally incomprehensible that they may ever need to defend them....
Funny. The exact same could be said about liberals.
Sebastian,
Responding to ReallyTall but not to me? Sniff.
Well, I'm really tall. And sorry Sebastian, I was going for humor. The same could really be said of just about anyone....
Ah. Damn impersonnal computer font that does not convey tone. It forces us to resort to improvised keyboard typable expressionisms. 
Could also just be my lack of sleep with a newborn has dulled my senses.
PG, I didn't mean to discriminate. And to be clear, I was asking the question based more off of some columns I've read recently than any personal belief. Yes, one is political and one is economic. My gut feeling would be that while in theory you could have democratic socialism, in reality it doesn't fit. Any co-existence is unharmonious and temporary. Democracy is about people having the ability to steer government, and the includes keeping government out of certain things. With socialism government is into basically everything. The individual loses a vast amount of free choice. Any "democracy" at that point is just picking which politicians will be meddling in your life. The basic democratic principle of the people having power over the governement is replaced by a govenment with power over it's people created by the continued growth of dependence on government.
Perhaps the easist thing would be to modify my original comment to read "capitalist democracy".
"My gut feeling would be that while in theory you could have democratic socialism, in reality it doesn't fit."
But I gave an example of the world's largest democracy also being socialist in its economics. Surely India qualifies as an example of non-theoretical, in-reality democratic socialism. And unless you have an expansive concept of "temporary," 40+ years is evidence that democracy and socialism can co-exist.
I suspect you are confusing the concepts of "democracy" and "limited government." Democracy is defined as "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system" or "a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges."
There is nothing inherent in the people's having the power to steer government that would lead to keeping government out of things. The whole point of having a Constitution is to PREVENT a democratic majority from getting the government into areas where it doesn't belong. But one can have democracy without a written Constitution. (India has a Constitution; the UK doesn't.) The fact that a government gets into areas of people's lives that you may think are inappropriate doesn't mean that the government is undemocratic, so long as a majority of the people want the government to get into those areas. If the democratic majority is icked out by sodomy and wants the government to criminally penalize those who engage in it, why does my thinking that's a stupid thing for government to regulate make it undemocratic to do so? I think Holmes said something to the effect that stupid decisions are the prerogative of a democracy.
Our nation didn't actually become democratic until all adults held responsible under its laws were eligible to vote for the representatives who would make those laws. Since about 50% of the country was not just practically but legally prohibited from voting until the 20th century, we've had less than 100 years of democracy in America.
I don't have to explain what I mean. I am certain of my beliefs and it is very irritating to have to explain them. Oh wait...
As for my confusing democracy and limited government, I would say partially yes and partially no. Of course people can democratically elect to do something stupid...
All: Monorail!
Marge: But Main Street's still all cracked and broken...
Bart: Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken
and in most cases that doesn't threaten anything. But with each expansion of government power comes a restriction on liberty in some form. And at some point that expansion will likely occur in ways that infringes on those exact definitions of "democracy" that you quote, which at least I think is the general scenario that Adams was referring to. With a socialist economy, the government in large part determines who can do what, and what people/companies succeeds and thrive. When the government determines things like that, any semblance of "formal equality" is gone.
And I don't argue with India as an example. I will profess a fairly profound ignorance of that country's internal workings. My thought is that 40 years (or even 100) is not a terribly long span of time in the course of a country, and even really bad forms of government (or marriages of goverment and economic system) can function for that long.
What do you mean by that first comment? 
"But with each expansion of government power comes a restriction on liberty in some form."
Interesting statement in light of the Patriot Act and other Bush-era programs (domestic surveillance, enhanced interrogations, et al) that severely limited liberty and freedom. How is all of that different from the economic policies of the current administration? We're either fiscally or morally bankrupt. But economic matters are cyclical, and I think we'll eventually get back to where we were under Clinton. But how do you recover a lost soul, lost purpose? I understand we had to keep ourselves safe from the enemies of freedom (LBJ loved that line too, BTW), to safeguard our freedom, but if the price of freedom is that very freedom, what's to be gained?
And as for your quoting John Adams, keep in mind he used that phrase to defend the founding fathers establishing a republic as opposed to a democracy. The fact is the framers of the constitution and our founding fathers did not want a democracy as they understood it. And we can quibble all day on what that means and what defines a democracy, but our government is what it is, whatever you want to call it. And our country and society is the greatest this world has ever known, whether it lasts another 50 years or 500....
With a socialist economy, the government in large part determines who can do what, and what people/ companies succeeds and thrive. When the government determines things like that, any semblance of "formal equality" is gone.
I am not sure I understand what you mean by a "socialist economy."
The government's choice of contractors determines which military contractor companies will thrive. However, so long as the choice is made by a fair metric (e.g., the kind of open bidding that was not done before awarding Halliburton the Iraq contract), "formal equality" remains: each company is equally eligible for the contract because each can choose to submit the lowest bid. The whole point of using the modifier "formal" for the noun "equality" is to distinguish the concept from a practical/de facto equality (e.g. some companies may lack the economies of scale that would allow them on a realistic basis to be the lowest bidder for such a large contract).
You seem to assume that a socialist economy inherently is unfair -- particularly, more unfair than a non-socialist economy -- yet provide nothing to back that assumption. Laws that specifically constrained the employment and education opportunities of women and minorities were not removed in the U.S. until recently (e.g. Michigan's law, passed in 1945 and upheld by SCOTUS in 1948, that forbade women who were not the wives or daughters of a bar owner from serving drinks at a bar). In this way, governments could decide who would even be allowed to work in a particular job -- much less thrive in it -- without actually being an economic actor. Do you consider the U.S. to have been socialist during that time?
Incidentally there were still states prohibiting women from serving liquor as late as 1971 (California).
Reallytall, no argument on the Patriot Act stuff. The columns I read, which initially sparked the initial request way back when, actually complained that the decline into socialism has been a steady progression (regression?) going back to Wilson. I don't endorse or deny that asserstion (I prefer my history a bit older), but the point being that this is not a recent development, and the both parties share equal blame.
Incidentally, this reminds me of another set of columns I sent to Milbarge a while back for his comment. More than one writer has discussed the coming of the "fourth republic". Didn't buy that arguement 100% either, but it was an interesting idea.
And PG, yes I do assume that a socialist economy is unfair. It is unfair to the individual who would otherwise excel but confined by the imposed restrictions. It is unfair to the people who are made dependents on the government for their basic necessities.
"a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance." - Churchill
Churchill must be crying now. Except people in Britain aren't living in a totalitarian state. Or are they still in the early stages and the Gestapo will show up soon?
"It is unfair to the individual who would otherwise excel but confined by the imposed restrictions. It is unfair to the people who are made dependents on the government for their basic necessities."
If the restrictions apply equally to everyone, and everyone is equally dependent on the government, why is it unfair? I think we lived in a far more unfair country when restrictions only applied to women and minorities, yet conservatives tend to consider those the Good Old Days. (See, e.g., Trent Lott at Strom Thurmond's birthday party.)
I was talking to a Republican recently who said that freedom has declined in America from what it was in the 19th century.
I said, Speak for yourself, white man. I can now go to school where I want, work where I want, decide whether I'll have sex with my husband, decide whether I'll bear children, decide whether to support a religious institution... I have been getting freer all the time.
I truly see nothing wrong with the current state of affairs in terms of government involvement in private industry, assuming it stays at helping those in need and doesn't get us to a point where we're nationalizing industry. I am troubled by the GM deal, but if the government can pull back once the company is back to some semblance of viability, I think it will be a good thing. A lot of the stimulus package was just throwing money around, which I think the economy needed. It reminds me of the old days when all the farmers would help one recover from a catastrophe, or to raise a barn, or whatever. Yeah, that's what the stimulus was, a good old-fashioned barn raisin'! Gaw, it's been a while.....
PG, no argument that for much of our country's history life, politics, economics, etc. were very unfair. Which ignoblely places us in lock step with just about every other country ever.
"If the restrictions apply equally to everyone, and everyone is equally dependent on the government, why is it unfair?"
Two thoughts on this. First, the restrictions will never apply equally, and there will never be equality of dependence. Rich, connected, corrupt people will always skew policies and regulations to the benefit of a few. Yes that happens today, as it has throughout history. But when the government stands aside and lets an economy work freely, individuals have the chance to rise on their own merit and ingenuity.
Second, if government is interfering where it has no business (subjective, as we have proven) then it is unfair to the people being restricted. The restrictions applied to the colonists applied equally to everyone, yet they were considered unfair enough to declare independence. To your point about the treatment of women in the 19th century, would you say that if everyone today was treated today as women were then that it would be fair? It might be equal, it sure as hell wouldn't be fair.
I actually came up with two more, unrelated request ideas for Milbarge.
1) If you started your own brewery/winery, what would you name it? What would be the name of your signature drink?
2) Without naming the channel you watch the most, describe who that network thinks you are based solely on the commericials. For instance, are you an energy drinking, mountain hiking, person who is in need of a great many razors. Or perhaps you are an AARP member with a Life Alert braclet, poor denture cream and are in desperate need of a Hover-round.
Sebastian,
I think we have different understandings of the word "fair." I usually interpret it to mean "equal." So if two children receive the same punishment because both ate the chocolate cake I told them not to touch, whatever punishment I give them is "fair" because both get it. I therefore consider "fairness" relatively easy to measure: is everyone being treated the same?
You seem to be using a concept that I think of as "justice": is X being treated the way that X ought to be treated? This is a lot more difficult to measure because we may have very different ideas about how X ought to be treated. You might think that the just punishment for touching the forbidden chocolate cake is to miss out on dessert for the rest of the week; I might think that the just punishment is to repeatedly whack the kid's hand with a ruler (perhaps because dessert is already a rarity in my household so depriving the kid of something he's unlikely to have gotten anyway doesn't make for much of a penalty).
The restrictions applied to the colonists applied equally to everyone, yet they were considered unfair enough to declare independence.
From what I understand, the problem is that the restrictions applied only to colonists, and would not have applied to people who lived in England. So the colonists were complaining of unequal treatment, not just of injustice.
To your point about the treatment of women in the 19th century, would you say that if everyone today was treated today as women were then that it would be fair? It might be equal, it sure as hell wouldn't be fair.
I don't know how we could have a functioning society if everyone were treated today as women were in the 19th century. If married men, like 19th c. married women, also were not treated as competent to contract, we'd have very few people getting married because it would entail forming a household where no one could make a contract.
This is actually part of the importance of equality in a democratic country: when EVERYONE is treated the same, the people in the majority and/or with more power generally won't put up with really bad treatment. So it's more important to me to be treated equally than to try to work out what would be the individualized just way for me specifically to be treated. I figure that if I'm getting the same treatment as people of the dominant race, sex, sexuality, religion, etc., I'm probably being treated OK.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
