Left and Right: Co-Dependent Foes

[Boydstun]

Left and Right: Codependent Foes

[StrictlyLogical]

Traditional Statists and authoritarians on the left and right have played a game and worked with each other for a very long time, and they continue to do so.

 

Trump represents a new kind of right which expressly (possibly honestly..) aims to dismantle the deep state and corruption, promising more individual freedom and rights (as those on the Right understand them).  He certainly is supported by that new kind of Right.

It WOULD be great, if a new kind of Left (not too far now...) arose which also expressly aims to dismantle the deep state and corruption, promising more individual freedom and rights (as those on the Left understand them).  The left which used to stand for an enlightened empowerment of the disenfranchised and the common man in face of perceived corruption by greedy capitalists... needs to step up (as they like to say so often).

What we need is a united front against authoritarianism, the deep state, and corruption, Left, Right, religious and non-religious...

 

we need humans for humanity.

Edited April 18, 2023 by StrictlyLogical

[Boydstun]

SL,

The "deep state" is not a useful concept for attaining better protections of individual rights against the government. The term means different things to different people who find it useful to say. Many of them have no concept of individual rights (which admittedly is not an easy concept). Different people with allegiance to the term and its shifty idea include different things in it. It is witch-doctor fakery to list what is part of the "deep state". On the face of the term, the deepest state in America is the US Constitution together with acknowledgement by citizens and law enforcement that that is the source of power to make any laws at all and how they may be executed. Many of us are in favor of that "deep state" and its social compact here, which gives us what protection of individual rights effected here there are against the government and against private aggressors. For many the "deep state" is whatever politically the don't like, bundled into a personification, like the workings of the Devil in the world. Each morning they wake to the new task set for themselves of divining the latest doings of this imaginary coherent beast. Some of my high school classmates do the same activity each day with regard to the Devil, and they gravitate to each other as a sort of club over the internet in which they compose what they pass off online, as a supposed prayer to God, whatever they have imagined in the tea leaves. "Deep State" rhetoric is not thought nor helpful. In its place can always be placed specific things in established terms with settled definitions, and with those one can proceed to call out what is wrong in it for individual rights.

Edited April 18, 2023 by Boydstun

[Jim Henderson]

Here is a link to an article about one success in restraining the power of the administrative state: https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-rules-against-ftc-sec-in-jurisdictional-fight-f63f1c0b?st=xr51uj3q44n7m8t&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

[tadmjones]

On 4/18/2023 at 6:09 PM, Boydstun said:

. "Deep State" rhetoric is not thought nor helpful. In its place can always be placed specific things in established terms with settled definitions, and with those one can proceed to call out what is wrong in it for individual rights.

VDH gives some fine examples of specific actions of the political 'left' and the damage it has doen to the Republic in the recent past.

https://victorhanson.com/the-frightened-left/

[Boydstun]

 

The specific roles of Left- and of Right-congresspersons in THIS bears at least dishonorable mention, and really it needs to get to front and center of attention. Those massive expenditures of 7.6 trillion dollars are not covered by government revenues. Might that ultimately be why grocery prices have gone through the roof and the value of people's savings have shrunk? 

Since 2015, the Spending-to-GDP ratio has increased from 20% to 25%. 

Top questions to a candidate should not be "Where do you stand on the impeachment charge against so-and-so of inciting an insurrection?" or even "Where do you stand on the criminal indictment charge against so-and-so of corruptly obstructing a congressional proceeding?" In the criminal matters, naturally, violent acts at the Capitol on Jan. 6 have been prosecuted and will continue to be prosecuted as surely as the man who blew up the OKC Federal Building was prosecuted. We don't need candidates' opinions on those matters, though, of course it's thumbs down on any who praise such acts.

Top questions to a candidate should be:

A. Where do you stand on legality of elective abortions throughout the first trimester of a pregnancy?

B. What is your plan for balancing the federal budget? If their answer is merely to oppose expenditures favored by the opposing political party, they are useless on this problem. They have to have a global view, such as when Obama and Boehner agreed to a "I'll cut this, if you cut that" process of reducing expenditures to match revenue. (They did not get to implement this reduction agreement because some of the caucus under Boehner were more set on simply opposing anything appearing as cooperation with Obama than on balancing the budget or any other substantive issue.)

Edited September 12, 2023 by Boydstun

[tadmjones]

I fear we are past the point of budgetary questions , as debtor inflation is “good” being a creditor is the downside of the equation especially during inflationary periods.

Perhaps a better second question would be “ do you support a law that limits the total currency supply to an actual physically possible amount of species”

As to abortion on demand as a federal constitutionally protected right , I’ve always been fairly agnostic , stemming from an ambiguous personal position on deciding between the right of a female to carry to term or not and the right of a third party to kill a fetus. Call me emotionally driven, but wanton destruction of potential humanity as a form of post conception contraception doesn’t feel quite right and should not be encouraged in a civil society,imo.

There should be legal remedies to terminate forced pregnancies and medically necessary procedures that result in termination of a pregnancy should not be unlawful either. Is any abortion ‘non’ elective , what does elective abortion mean in the context of ‘trimesters’?

Edited September 12, 2023 by tadmjones
Add not and imo

[Doug Morris]

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

Perhaps a better second question would be “ do you support a law that limits the total currency supply to an actual physically possible amount of species”

Since our fiat money has been totally divorced from specie, this is currently meaningless.

We could ask "Do you support a return to the gold standard?"  Right now most politicians would probably answer something like "No, that doesn't work."

We probably can't get the gold standard back without first doing a lot of teaching.  But we may be able to get a balanced budget.  A balanced budget would curb inflation and slow the growth of government, thus slowing the slide into destruction and buying us more time to teach the need for limited government.

 

[Boydstun]

8 hours ago, tadmjones said:

. . .

As to abortion on demand as a federal constitutionally protected right, . . .

"Abortion on demand" is a different thing than a right to procure an abortion. The former means someone else (taxpayers) is being forced to pay for the service. The latter is only a right to pay someone for an abortion and that party's right to provide it. (Furthermore, if there are no doctors willing to perform the abortion, even if it is a legal one, then they cannot be forced to do so.)

I erred in writing "first trimester." I should have written "second trimester" because it is near the end of that one (~26 weeks) that viabiity of the fetus will typically be reached, and viability is the exact proper legal turning point. (So: A. Where do you stand on legality of elective abortions until the point of viability in a pregnancy?) Abortions should be permissible in the law at the option of the pregnant woman until the developing embryo/fetus has a reasonable chance (judged by the attending physician in the individual case) of sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support. That, as you likely know, is what is meant by "the point of viability." It is not that this is the mark of personhood, and for sure, just as with any neonate, the little one continues helpless to survive and develop further without close adult care. Rather, it is the mark at which adults not the mother can in principle take up the project of bringing the potential toddler, walker, and talker to actuality without impressing the mother into the service of their project. All of the legal rights in play are rights, correctly conceived, among feasible caregivers of the potential child.

From the time the developing brain of the fetus has gone from resemblance of a vertebrate brain to mammalian brain, to primate brain, and begun to acquire features of a distinctly human brain, I think the potential child has reached a stage at which it should be especially precious to the human community—a profoundly serious possible project—and would-be guardians should be taken for right in wanting to bring such a fetus to actual child and their possible project have legal standing of a parent raising a child. Fortunately, by that stage, the fetus, if normal, has reached viability and is rightly protected (I say) against intentional harm until birth, as under Roe.

So, until viability, termination of the pregnancy should be simply elective by the pregnant woman (meaning it's legal to engage a willing doctor to perform the operation or prescribe the chemical). No special condition threatening the health of the mother need obtain; the woman to that point should be able to simply decide she does not want to carry to full term and live birth. Overwhelmingly, abortions in the US are during the first trimester; women mostly have made their decision by then. It would seem therefore that keeping abortion legal at least through the first trimester is especially important for the liberty of women to maintain their own life plans.

Edited September 13, 2023 by Boydstun

[tadmjones]

Several states and DC have and have had no term limit abortions as legal procedures even under "Roe" , so it seems a legal scheme such as with Roe doesn't protect viablity attained potentiality from intentional harm.

[Jim Henderson]

14 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Several states and DC have and have had no term limit abortions as legal procedures even under "Roe" , so it seems a legal scheme such as with Roe doesn't protect viablity attained potentiality from intentional harm.

 

14 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Several states and DC have and have had no term limit abortions as legal procedures even under "Roe" , so it seems a legal scheme such as with Roe doesn't protect viablity attained potentiality from intentional harm.

Here is a link to the current status: https://www.axios.com/2022/05/14/abortion-state-laws-bans-roe-supreme-courto

My question is would any Democratic politicians stand up against those seven states who currently allow abortions beyond the moment of viability. 

[Boydstun]

Tad, the right to procure an abortion in the third trimester in DC is not a right to an elective abortion in that interval, only a medically appropriate abortion, as determined by the physician. Sounds reasonable. If during that last trimester, the pregnancy has to be terminated to save the health or life of the mother (extremely rare, I imagine), then the halt of fetal life and the spoiling of the would-be guardians' project is part of the bad fortune of nature. The health and life of the mother cannot be sacrificed to someone else's personal project involuntarily. (And perhaps a woman forced to carry [denied legal power of elective abortion of] an unwanted fetus/infant through that interval to full term should be compensated by the state. I'm undecided about this, because it seems to treat the personal services of the woman as in imminent domain, which looks suspiciously like treating her as for public use.)

During the Roe era, around the country, there were a few times that a physician performed an illegal abortion in the third trimester, abortions in circumstances that were prohibited by state law implemented in conformance with Roe. Those physicians were charged with murder or manslaughter. (Where on earth, Tad, did you get your information on history of this? Got a link to particular cases?)

Late term abortions are typically requested by women in which medical issues have arisen. It is a standard practice of the anti-abortionists to switch attention to those late-term abortions in order to take attention away from the first trimester in which 93% of abortions are performed and point of viability by which time 99% of abortions take place. The anti-abortionists' reach in state law now is to drive the legal limit for elective abortion so early in the pregnancy that by the time the pregnant woman realizes she is pregnant, it is too late to get a legal abortion. And that reach is not the end of the reaching. The continuing aim, as those folks readily proclaim, is to criminalize abortion at all stages of a pregnancy.

I expect the RC Bishops would want to go further and reverse legalization of the Pill (1964). But the fact is that American Catholic laity take the Pill, and that reversal is not going to happen without a revival of mysticism throughout the citizenry at the level of the Dark Ages.

Edited September 13, 2023 by Boydstun

[tadmjones]

Stephen

Along with link Jime Henderson provided here is another that indicates where there are no statutory limits on abortion, which I presume to mean that abortion is legal up to live birth.

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/gestational-limit-abortions/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}

Edited September 13, 2023 by tadmjones

[Boydstun]

6 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Stephen

Along with link Jim Henderson provided here is another that indicates where there are no statutory limits on abortion, which I presume to mean that abortion is legal up to live birth.

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/gestational-limit-abortions/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}

I see. 

Alaska

Colorado

New Jersey

New Mexico

Oregon

Vermont

DC

Those have no statutory gestational limits. I gather they have opted to put the decisions into the hands of the medical profession. I like it. Thanks, Tad, for this information of which I was unaware. I mentioned upstream that 99% of abortions in the US are prior to the point of viability. It will be interesting to see if that changes as the years go by in those jurisdictions with no statutory gestational limits. I bet they do not. Similarly, will watch for change from the 93% that occur in the first trimester, which is the term in which the anti-abortionists are having some success in drawing the line for criminality. (By "anti-abortionists," I mean in the law. I've Catholic friends who would never have an abortion, but who are for legality as in Roe. I've one atheist MD friend who would not perform an abortion at any stage (I think he meant elective abortion, not medical-necessity one), but he also has supported legality of abortion as in Roe.) The significance of candidates for federal office, especially Senate or President, concerning the abortion issue is mainly whom they would nominate or ratify as a Justice on the Supreme Court. There are abortion legal controversies headed to the Court, and I'm sure there will be for a long time to come. If Thomas, for example, were to kick the bucket soon (he is the same age as me, Donald Trump, King Charles, and the State of Israel), a replacement who is not an anti-abortionist could be some help with protecting the autonomy of women in making their life.

AMA

Edited September 14, 2023 by Boydstun

[tadmjones]

More interwebs serendipity , an interesting cultural/history piece , and at least tangentially germane

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2023/10/we-are-repaganizing

[Boydstun]

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

More interwebs serendipity , an interesting cultural/history piece , and at least tangentially germane

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2023/10/we-are-repaganizing

Wherein first-trimester abortions are never mentioned, even though that is what is the main fight in the USA. Wherein Christianity introduced humane treatment of women (Ha!). Wherein the Christian authorities rushing homosexuals to burning at the stake is never mentioned in her fondling over that era of alleged sympathy against suffering and the Christian-era contrast with its pagan predecessors. And she admits she does not believe the Christian faith; she's just a sweet rambling agnostic essayist smearing the modern sexual revolution with mention of infanticide in ancient Rome, leaving unmentioned any merits of modern personal freedom. Like when someone opposed to homosexuality drops ye ole association with bestiality. After skimming her essay, I'm going to try some Listerine.

A paper straightforwardly addressing these issues, no deceitfulness, much intellect: 

https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/5/3/133.full.pdf 

 

[Jon Letendre]

How about that governor of Virginia in 2019 who was asked what happens under the bill he supports if a late term abortion fails and there's a live baby on the table?

Response: "The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,”

Northam, I think. Big Moloch energy with that governor.

[Boydstun]

Jon. True to backers of the anti-abortionists' wrong metaphysics in its imposition by law: distract from the 99% of actual cases of abortion occurring in the earlier trimesters where the anti-abortionists are taking away freedom, by always shifting to late-term abortions, where 1% of abortions occur. Anything—any sales trickery—to prevent abstention from voting for a Republican, whatever he or she now boosts in the law.

Decision by attending medical professionals in particulars of individual cases is better than external mandated decisions by politicians seeking votes from citizens crazing under revivals of the witch doctors.

[tadmjones]

I read the piece I recommended as commentary on historical attitudes and practices of abortion from pre Christian paganism through to Christiandom. So in the main the subject through that lens would seem to be focused on the sexual practices and consequences of heterosexual relations, I didn’t read it as smearing of sexual revolutions new or old as a main intent of the author. From what I gather about male sexual aggressiveness unwanted pregnancies would by tempered only by the percentage of men of stature or rank enough to enjoy their proclivities among the percentage of females available to them for such purposes coupled with  whatever level of pederasty was practiced by the ennobled males.

I’ve read through the suggested alternative slightly more than skimming , but have stopped at the question at how much intellect to divine from the conclusions of the authors ,when the piece contains statements that equate defective fetuses and fetuses of mixed parentage.

I’ll go over both again and try and discern the pagans from the lion food.

I think I’m apologizing

[Boydstun]

Tad, I haven't studied the philosophy paper in the medical ethics journal thoroughly, but one thing that is sour about it to me is use of the idea of self-ownership, which on its face has always seemed to me a reversal of correct conceptual dependencies. I doubt that mixed-up concept is actually required for their conclusions. That individual life is an end in itself and that autonomy of autonomy-capable individuals is the value protected in protections of individual rights will do the job fine, pretty sure.

[Jon Letendre]

Oh, so Northam's murder Bill was the "sales trickery" of "the anti-abortionists who are taking away freedom" [to murder infants.] Got it, Stephen.

Edited September 15, 2023 by Jon Letendre

[Jon Letendre]

99% of murder victims are over the age of 5.

Therefore, people who express concern with the 1%, as though it was a real problem, are just engaging in, you know, sales trickery.

Just as 99% (claimed) of abortions are early, therefore, people who express concern with a law that would allow murdering newborn human beings, are engaging in a form of trickery.

 

Philosophy.

Logic.

Ethics.

 

Edited September 15, 2023 by Jon Letendre

[Boydstun]

Jon, the freedom-contracting reforms are being made on the 99% as in the states listed below, not the !%. The deception is to distract from that fact and pretend it is not so. In Virginia there has been no change in the law since Dobbs: abortions remain illegal in the third trimester.

Arizona

Arkansas

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Indiana

Kentucky

Louisiana

Mississippi

Missouri

Nebraska

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oklahoma

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

West Virginia

Edited September 15, 2023 by Boydstun

[Jon Letendre]

99% of murder victims are under the age of 70.

Feigned concern with the last 1%, as though it really even matters, is pure deception to distract from that fact and pretend it is not so.

[Boydstun]

Jon, 

The Republicans who should not be voted for are those boosting the outlawing of abortions prior to viability ~ 26 weeks (during which 99% of abortions take place). Among the Republican Presidential contenders, that would be: 

Donald Trump – vacillating; promised voters in 2016 he would appoint Justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, opening the way for anti-abortionists to criminalize abortions prior to viability at the state level. (It was already criminalized after viability in every State, which was in conformance with Roe.)

Ron DeSantis – criminalized abortions in FL after 6 weeks of gestation.

Tim Scott – supports a national ban after 15 weeks of gestation, and even less if politically feasible.

Vivek Ramaswamy – supports criminalization after 6 weeks of gestation.

Nikki Haley – supports a national ban after 15 weeks of gestation.

Mike Pence – supports a national ban after 6 weeks of gestation, preferably even less; supports federal ban of mifepristone.

Chris Christie – vacillating.

Asa Hutchinson – supports a national ban after 15 weeks of gestation.

Doug Burgam – criminalized abortions throughout pregnancy in ND.

Will Hurd – supports a national ban after 15 weeks of gestation.

Francis Suarez – supports a national ban after 15 weeks of gestation.