July 2020 Open Thread

This is the Open Thread for the month named after Julius Caesar.

Please leave any tips, announcements, or others things below.

79 thoughts on “July 2020 Open Thread

  1. Jared

    The middle of the road is populated by classical liberals and libertarians, Christian democrats and communitarians, center-left and center-right, Rockefeller Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats, unconventional radicals and mushy moderates who just want everyone to get along. They all agree the polarized partisan duopoly is trash, but not all for the same reasons. Getting each faction on the same page to embrace an independent unity ticket is quite a tall order. Add to that the hurdles of ballot access requirements, lack of party infrastructure, little to no media exposure, and popular anxiety over the spoiler effect, and it’s clear to see it ain’t gonna happen, no matter who the candidates are — this election cycle or any time soon.

  2. SocraticGadfly

    Ahh, nice photo, but …

    TOO BAD IT’S A MONTH EARLY and William, Paulie or whoever posted this doesn’t know Roman history.

    That’s not Juli\us Caesar.

    That’s his grandnephew.

    Guy named Octavian.

    Eventually called Augustus.

    As I said … MONTH TOO EARLY.

  3. paulie

    William. All IPR articles are signed at the bottom. I’ve only posted one recently but may post some more tonight or towmorrow.

  4. SocraticGadfly

    Got it, William! (My undergrad degree is in classics, so, I recognized it right away. Keep the Augustus one for next month, though. It’s a fine work.)

  5. paulie

    [Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] Notice of Emergency Meeting 7/3
    lnc-votes@hq.lp.org via googlegroups.com

    11:07 PM (51 minutes ago)

    to Libertarian, Caryn
    Libertarian Party is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

    Topic: LNC Meeting
    Time: Jul 3, 2020 09:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)

    Join Zoom Meeting
    https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85913403964

    Meeting ID: 859 1340 3964
    One tap mobile
    +16699009128,,85913403964# US (San Jose)
    +12532158782,,85913403964# US (Tacoma)

    Dial by your location
    +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)
    +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
    +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
    +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
    +1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown)
    +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
    Meeting ID: 859 1340 3964
    Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kb3MMvYiw2

  6. paulie

    Pretty radical when the circumstances that inspired it have still for the most part not been dealt with.

  7. Jared

    Cops on power trips using excessive force against people resisting arrest will go away when cops go away.

    Police are more likely to initiate encounters with black men than with men or women of other races. True. Some of has to do with patrolling neighborhoods with higher crime rates, some of it is legit prejudice, and there are studies showing the perception that “dark-colored = more aggressive” is built into human psychology. From what I gather, though, once an encounter is in progress, that racial disparity drops significantly when it comes to a willingness to apply deadly force. White, Hispanic, and Asian people also suffer from cops abusing their authority.

    The BLM movement, especially as enthusiastically adopted and promoted by the MSM and woke corporate America, seems more obsessed with exposing systemic racism–broadly defined–in all predominantly white cultural institutions than about meaningful reforms to minimize negative encounters between law enforcement and black Americans, earn community trust, curb police brutality, and weed out bad cops or at least hold them accountable for their conduct.

    If we’re talking about chokehold bans, police misconduct databases, strict bodycam requirements, and ending qualified immunity, then I’m all about it. But if people want to make it about Scarlett O’Hara, Robert E. Lee, and Aunt Jemima, the evils of cultural appropriation, or how business math and search engine algorithms silently fuel white supremacy, then they’ve lost me.

  8. paulie

    There’s no single lockstep BLM. It’s a lot of people using the phrase to focus on a lot of different things with some tangential relevance to racism and/or police brutality and related matters. Some of those people are pushing some other agenda such as Marxism, but not nearly all or most. It’s completely false that all institutions have embraced BLM. While many have given it lip service, real changes have not come in many places and ways, and many have actively resisted.

  9. paulie

    Asked if the boogaloo movement were anti-government extremists, Jorgensen wrote: “The media tend to lump together peaceful protesters and those who advocate violence, and paint the entire group as being violent.”

    She added: “The boogaloo movement is highly decentralized and comprises both those who are aligned with the principle of nonaggression, and some who run counter to it”.

    This sounds like the correct answer and is the same thing I’ve been telling people who try to paint all of BLM as violent Marxists. There are some of those who associate themselves with BLM, just like there are violent racists who associate themselves with boogaloo. However, most people associating with either one are not any of those things.

  10. paulie

    That looks like the same link I just addressed. What would you like to add to the conversation? Does posting it a second time change something? “Beat me to the punch” indicates you did not miss that it was already posted.

  11. robert capozzi

    Sorry, it added nothing, really. It just bears out my fears that the LP has gone full-on extremist, which is tragic for me.

    Jo’s also claiming that citizens have the right to the same weapons that the government has. Private nukes as an L view is back, baby…

  12. paulie

    It hasn’t. Her quoted answers were fine. It’s just a biased article which paints a *mostly* peaceful and non-extremist movement as violent and hateful. At some point Biden will talk to BLM and Faux News or someone will helpfully point out that BLM includes some violent Marxists, ignoring the fact that most people who are in some way involved in the equally decentralized BLM movement are neither violent nor Marxist.

    Read what she actually said and did and how they characterize it. She apparently was not even familiar with this movement. She made sure that it was clear she was not endorsing violence or racism. It reads like a pretty obvious hit job. It’s good news that they felt they needed to bother even publishing it at all.

  13. paulie

    Jo’s also claiming that citizens have the right to the same weapons that the government has. Private nukes as an L view is back, baby…

    It could also mean the government shouldn’t have nukes. And the only one I have seen mention she has that on her page, for good or bad, is you.

  14. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Sure, there should NOT be nukes. Be there ARE nukes. Tone deaf statements that imply that private nukes are aOK is profoundly disqualifying and damaging to the brand.

    But, y’all got your non-R retread….

    Perhaps because I’m in recovery from NAP Fundamentalism, I have a particular insight into just how extreme that philosophy is.

  15. robert capozzi

    more…

    Not distancing oneself from the Boogaloos and the NYC Mayoral candidatea/skyjacker/mental patient is political malpractice.

  16. Nick Hensley

    Julie Robbins Muff of the Reform Party of North Carolina is running for Soil and Water Conservation Board in Randolph County, North Carolina.

  17. paulie

    Sure, there should NOT be nukes. Be there ARE nukes.

    And a lot of countries don’t have them. The ones which do could get rid of them if they so chose.

    But, y’all got your non-R retread….

    Yeah, at least that much is good about it.

    recovery from NAP Fundamentalism

    You need a recovery from your recovery. It’s taking up way too much room in your head. There’s been all sorts of people saying all sorts of things both good and bad about Jorgensen but the only one I’ve seen say anything about that particular statement is you.

  18. paulie

    Not distancing oneself from the Boogaloos

    How much do you know about “the Boogaloos” and why do you believe she should distance?

    and the NYC Mayoral candidatea/skyjacker/mental patient

    Again, no one brings him up except you. Distancing would be bringing attention to an issue no one was talking about. Why would she do that? Distancing is something to do, if you are going to do it, when you are being publicly connected to something or someone. If that isn’t happening to begin with, any distancing can by definition only backfire.

  19. paulie

    I guess Robert’s ideal LP candidate would spend their campaign denouncing all the extreme libertarian position they are not taking and no one was bringing up, and proactively distancing themselves from oddball libertarians no one was tying them to to begin with. Doest that sound like a good idea to Robert? Or anyone else?

  20. dL

    I guess Robert’s ideal LP candidate would spend their campaign denouncing all the extreme libertarian position they are not taking and no one was bringing up, and proactively distancing themselves from oddball libertarians no one was tying them to to begin with. Doest that sound like a good idea to Robert? Or anyone else?

    Bob’s ideal candidate is a republican. That much is clear. For some weird reason(or maybe its just old age), he gets his kicks by trolling libertarians.

  21. dL

    Perhaps because I’m in recovery from NAP Fundamentalism, I have a particular insight into just how extreme that philosophy is.

    Based on your youtube subscribes, you didn’t recover particularly well. The Rubin report. Adam Corolla. Scott Adams. Peter Schiff. Michael Malice. Ben Shapiro. Really, Bob? lulz…Lots of Angry old white dude channels

  22. dL

    This sounds like the correct answer and is the same thing I’ve been telling people who try to paint all of BLM as violent Marxists.

    um, no. BLM==violent marxists is the conservative press. Boogaloos boys==far right white nationalists is the mainstream press. At best, a more nuanced treatment by, say, Vox
    https://www.vox.com/2020/6/8/21276911/boogaloo-explained-civil-war-protests

    dubs Boogaloos as “a joke that people wrapped a bunch of different stuff in.”

    Another inscrutable misstep by the Jorgensen campaign. This is an unintentional joke campaign, spending extremely limited resources trying to nuance a position between “we’re on the side of the jokesters in Hawaiian shorts of the movement, not the side of white nationalists who go around killing cops to spark a racial civil war.”

  23. paulie

    um, no. BLM==violent marxists is the conservative press. Boogaloos boys==far right white nationalists is the mainstream press

    The right wing media is a mains stream now, too. Between Faux, OAN, Breitbart, Limbaugh, all the other right wing radio types, and so on, they have as much in the way of eyeballs and ears as the MSM that both Democrats and Republicans used to consider “the” news. But now Republicans and Trumpets consume their own media, and there’s about as many of them as there are of people who may trust, say, NY Times, WaPo, CNN, et al.

    And it’s a fact that there are violent people and Marxists in BLM. The right wing noise machine makes it sound like all, or at least most, of BLM fits that description. That’s a severe exaggeration, but some do.

    It’s similar with Boogaloo.

  24. robert capozzi

    pf:I guess Robert’s ideal LP candidate would spend their campaign denouncing all the extreme libertarian position they are not taking and no one was bringing up,…

    me: You guess incorrectly. My ideal candidate would have been Amash, preferably a pro-choice Amash. GJ with media training and ditching the Fair Tax.

    These sorts of candidates would be prepared to deflect questions about past L extremist stances.

  25. robert capozzi

    pf: The ones which do could get rid of them if they so chose.

    me: Good luck with that dream. I suggest you not hold your breath on that one. You do, I trust, recognize just how unrealistic that sounds.

    As I read the JJ stance, charitably, it would go: “Governments and individuals should not have nukes, but where governments DO have nukes, then individuals should have the right to ‘keep and bear’ them as well.”

    This is a wacko position, sorry…

  26. paulie

    No such candidates were available. In fact, none of the republican retreads stayed in the race. Bill “L.P. For life ” weld went home to the nsgop, as many on our side of the question of his nomination foresaw. Chafee tried running but gained no traction, and quietly withdrew on his own. No one forced him out. Amash likewise aborted his would be campaign. If any other republicans seriously considered it, they stayed mum.

    I continue to maintain that running republican politicians at the top of our ticket over and over and over and over, most of whom go back afterwards, seriously undercuts any attempt we make to have people believe we are not just a wholly owned minor league subsidiary of the nsgop and rest home for temporarily disgruntled republicans supporting washed up republican politicians. Jorgensen isn’t an ideal candidate, but she’s not the worst either. We can do worse, and have.

    The positions you keep bringing up, or past lp local candidates, wacko or not, are not being brought up by anyone else. You’re accomplishing nothing except creating an increased probability that someone doing media interviews or hit piece articles will come across your comments and use them to attack her and the party. Otherwise, what’s the point of insisting she should deal with nonexistent public relations crises?

    Please tell me who all besides you is discussing private nukes and past NYC mayoral candidate’s mental breaks prior to his campaign in the context of her current run. Or, better yet, don’t.

  27. robert capozzi

    I saw JJ’s effectively private nuke position on Twitter, her Twitter feed.

    I found out about Commey in Newsweek.

    You (and I) can hope that this sort of extremism will fly under the radar and not damage the cause of lessarchy for decades. We’ve already taken the blows for RP1’s Newsletters. We don’t need any more of this sort of thing.

    The internally focused question is, for me: Why do Ls have this impulse to make outrageous, wacko stances? I’ve submitted that the flaw in using the NAP as a rigid litmus test is the source of this profound level of self-sabotage.

    I’m open to other interpretations……..

  28. paulie

    It’s not news that L.P. Candidates sometimes get bad press. Some of it is for being extremists. Some is for being an unnecessary smaller second republican party. Some of it was for weld de facto endorsing Clinton while running on a ticket against her. Some was for experienced former governor Johnson coming off as goofy, unprepared and habitually stoned.

    No matter who we run we’ll tick off some people and get some bad publicity. There’s no one who enters the political arena, from any direction, with any party big or small, taking any position mainstream or extreme, who avoids that fate.

    By relentlessly focusing on the worst implications of any l.p. Candidate statement you find anywhere…what do you think that does? Cause a prochoice amash (got anyone in particular?) to start thinking more seriously about our 2024 nomination now?

  29. paulie

    Since most people probably aren’t reading the long thread about the first convention sitting which I’ve used to document and discuss related developments in between the sittings since, I’ll repeat myself here.

    Where do we go to get the porcupine national convention app? Will there be any public tests for delegates to familiarize themselves with it before the convention starts two days from now? Why aren’t more people raising a stink about this and who all is willing to help me get to the bottom of this today?

    Every day I get told tomorrow or soon. If not now, when?

  30. robert capozzi

    pf: No matter who we run we’ll tick off some people and get some bad publicity.

    Me: True. Finding the right balance is certainly a challenge. If one is NAP-obsessed, the consideration of “balance” is severely subsumed to the principle of non-aggression. This leads to bizarre outcomes. The NAP-obsessed doesn’t tend to see the bizarreness, and instead expends tremendous energy to rationalize the extremist views of their tiny tribe.

    The NAP-obsessed cannot compute, for ex., JA’s stance that the CARES Act was inevitable in some form, and so he advocated only spending on the people directly vs. the blend of people and corporate welfare that we got.

  31. robert capozzi

    pf: No such candidates were available.

    me: True. The LP has been stuck in a kind of arrested development, what with the depth charges and other NAP-obsessed strictures that scare off lessarchist pols who are uncomfortable with the Rs and Ds.

    This year’s field was a choice of least embarrassing, and JJ probably fit that bill the best, although VS — while embarrassing — was at least amusing and seriously non-serious.

  32. paulie

    scare off lessarchist pols who are uncomfortable with the Rs and Ds

    Not that I’ve seen. We still get plenty, despite the obvious dangers of bucking the duopoly and cautionary tales of those who did. Given how they have either not done very well, gone back, or both, if anything we should do a better job of scaring them off.

    This leads to bizarre outcomes. The NAP-obsessed doesn’t tend to see the bizarreness

    Neither do nonpragmatic cargo cult “pragmatists,” but it is what it is.

    JA’s stance that the CARES Act was inevitable in some form

    So just lay back and enjoy it.

  33. robert capozzi

    No, PF, not “lay back and enjoy it.” More like: “play the game as well as you can, moving things in a positive direction when you can, and minimizing the negatives where you have to.”

    Moralistic grandstanding may well feel good, but don’t kid yourself: It ain’t working.

  34. paulie

    LOL, I try a variety of approaches, as you may know. From what I know of how the game is played, most “pragmatic libertarian” attempts to play the game are a laughable attempt to imitate playing the game. Moralistic grandstanding has its place within the game, or in opposition to it. Get in where you fit in and do something.

  35. paulie

    Dan Fishman Executive Director

    8:30 AM (5 hours ago)

    to me

    Dear Paul

    We are inviting you to Delegate Training. We will be running an ONGOING training today from 4pm Eastern till midnight and tomorrow from 4pm Eastern till 11pm. Please log in whenever you have 15 minutes to learn the system and set up you account. At the top of every hour we will start the training again anew.

    First we need you to log into a zoom meeting, and from there you will get the details on how to log in to the Porcupine Website.

    Join Zoom Meeting (this link good for Tuesday and Wednesday)

    https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88320437066?pwd=eGZ5TVJVR045cDJ4SVZFb2ZrYnJMUT09

    The topics that will be covered are

    Logging in
    Agenda page
    Microphone queue
    Profile page
    Voting page

    at :30 mins of every hour we’ll show other features

    Please log in at ANY time between 4pm and midnight (Eastern) today or between 4pm and 11pm tomorrow

    Executive Director is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

    Topic: PreConvention Training

    Time: Jul 7, 2020 04:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)

    Every day, 2 occurrence(s)

    Jul 7, 2020 04:00 PM

    Jul 8, 2020 04:00 PM

    Join Zoom Meeting (this link good for Tuesday and Wednesday)

    https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88320437066?pwd=eGZ5TVJVR045cDJ4SVZFb2ZrYnJMUT09

  36. robert capozzi

    pf,

    From what I’ve seen, JA plays the game quite well.

    In my case, I simply don’t fit in with people who are NAP obsessed, even though they are all lessarchists. Could be that many of the NAP obsessed will feel very uncomfortable with the LP if the Mises crowd prevails….I know I would be really uncomfortable the neo-Confederate stuff and hate toleration.

  37. Bondurant

    It’s not looking good for the LP in AZ. My primary ballot came in the mail. No candidates. Only 2 declared write-in total (both for US Senate). Jo will be the only candidate on the ballot in November. Ballot access will probably be lost.

    My ballot is all Howard Stern Show related. Baba Booey + Wack Pack (even a few dead ones).

  38. Bondurant

    According to Ballotpedia it’s attaining 5%+ for governor or by having .66% of all registered voters in the October the year prior to a general election. LP is at .81% as of April 1, 2020. Good for now but those could dwindle under the strain of the GOP rigging ballot access. Not fielding candidates does not influence party registration. The GOP knows this.

  39. Jared

    Sad to see the Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog shut down after 9 years. I’ve enjoyed their reading their articles and getting the perspectives of academic libertarians.

    The current “leftist” faction of the LP seems to be mostly about social progressivism. As someone who’s moderate on social issues and classically radical on economics, I really appreciated BHL’s focus on poverty reduction and labor.

    Free Thoughts podcast retrospective with Matt Zwolinski:
    https://youtu.be/SVEjWqWLlfo

  40. paulie

    Sad to see the Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog shut down after 9 years. I’ve enjoyed their reading their articles and getting the perspectives of academic libertarians.

    Same here.

  41. SocraticGadfly

    If the NAPsters win out in the LP, will the picture of Julius have to come down here?

    More seriously, on Gaius Julius, I remain puzzled 2,063 years later why he was willing to accept the title of “king,” when he, Shakespeare’s witches aside, knew he was facing plotters and likely death when he decided to go through with it. For a man so brilliant otherwise, and not just in military tactics, to not have hit on some version of Augustus’ Principate, for any other reason than pure arrogance, is mind-boggling.

    And, his death changed the world.

    Militarily, he would not have repeated Antony’s strategic mistakes against the Parthians, and would have avenged Crassus’ defeat, but at minimal cost. He probably would have taken eastern Syria and northern Mesopotamia as part of this, coming close to Trajan, and extending the frontier eastward enough to negate future Parthian threats.

    After that, if smart, he would have formalized the succession with Augustus and found a way to cut Antony out, peacefully. Augustus could have dealt with Germany sooner, and with better generalship, than in reality.

  42. George Phillies

    ” Not fielding candidates does not influence party registration. The GOP knows this.”

    That’s an interesting perspective. Why would people register into a political party that does not field candidates?

  43. paulie

    It will hurt registration, but a lot of people in AZ register LP because of the presidential campaigns which are still on the AZ ballot, because they identify as libertarian in some national context, because they are Libertarians or people who think of themselves as such who moved from other states, because they registered that way a while back and haven’t seen any reason to or bothered to change it, etc. When attrition starts to kill those numbers, the LP can choose to do what it has done in the past in AZ and pay for people to collect voter regs. Voters can be persuaded to switch to any party, or register for the first time, when someone is actually asking them to.

    However, at this point with the law there as it is, the financial benefits of having and selling the state voter list as a state recognized party may be outweighed by the advantages of allowing the voter registrations to fall below .66% and go off the ballot, which would then require an expensive signature or registration campaign to requalify – BUT then it’s a lot easier to run candidates for the next few years (the Greens, as a “new” party, can run candidates more easily than LP, dequalify, repualify and do so again, etc). OTOH the general national trend in LP voter reg is upwards so that may just not happen.

  44. dL

    Sad to see the Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog shut down after 9 years. I’ve enjoyed their reading their articles and getting the perspectives of academic libertarians.

    Rawlsian justice–which had a a sort of faddish revival at the turn of the previous decade–is no longer in vogue. In the year 2020, a strict Rawlsian would defect to anarchism, judging the social contract forged in an originalist position not to be a normative construct to minimize worst outcomes but rather more akin to drawing straws to see who gets shot in the head. There’s that, but there is also the fact that social media has(for better or worse) supplanted blogging.

    As someone who’s moderate on social issues and classically radical on economics

    markets as distributive justice–which was the BHL spiel–is a far thing from “classically radical.”

  45. Jared

    dL: “Rawlsian justice–which had a a sort of faddish revival at the turn of the previous decade–is no longer in vogue.”

    BHL was not a Rawlsian blog, even if several main contributors were in a broad sense. The writer most friendly to Rawls was probably John Tomasi, and even his endorsement was heavily qualified. Many articles are quite critical of Rawls.

    “[M]arkets as distributive justice–which was the BHL spiel–is a far thing from ‘classically radical.'”

    “Markets as distributive justice” is the libertarian spiel. And I never identified that idea or the BHL blog with classical radicalism. I said that’s how I would describe my own economic views, which is why I’ve appreciated their writings over the years.

  46. dL

    “Markets as distributive justice justice of mutual advantage” is the libertarian spiel.

    FIFY

  47. dL

    Thanks, but it was perfectly fine as stated.

    It was perfectly erroneous as stated. The justice of mutual advantage is not distributive justice. JMA merely holds that a transaction is beneficial to both parties. Distributive justice is concerned with the aggregate distribution of wealth and income. A free market serves no one’s moral ends except the ends of exchanging agents. A distributive justice proponent will say that is not enough. The aggregate result of all voluntary transactions must satisfy an equalized distribution constraint.. Now libertarianism itself is very much concerned with the distribution of wealth and income if it is unjustly acquired. The how and why. For DJ, however, “the how and why” is is immaterial to the final result..the what. The justice is measured by the final outcome, not the means by which the final aggregate outcome was obtained. Libertarianism judges the means, not the ends. It is certainly plausible that highly non-egalitarian results can be produced by free markets.

    Personally, I found BHL’s “markets as distributive justice” to be new wine skins for trickle down economics. And frankly it isn’t true that the worst off in a capitalist system will be better off then the worst off in a pure socialist re-distribution scheme(the condition that would satisfy the Rawlsian criteria). Consumer satisfaction has little to do with mental calculations of gini coefficients, and consumers only start to grumble about how much the CEO is making when they are forced to participate in an obvious racket, like, say, health care.

  48. Jared

    dL: “It was perfectly erroneous as stated.”

    Ah. Guess you’re unfamiliar with Nozickian entitlement theory: just acquisition and just transfer mean just holdings.

    “The complete principle of distributive justice would say simply that a distribution is just if everyone is entitled to the holdings they possess under the distribution.” Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia (p. 151)

    Your definition is too narrow and tangled up in John Rawls. So tell your contrarian, INTJ AF ego to let this one go. Your understanding is inadequate. It’s possible. It happened. Get over it.

  49. dL

    Ah. Guess you’re unfamiliar with Nozickian entitlement theory: just acquisition and just transfer mean just holdings.

    Nope. I got Anarchy, State and utopia in my kindle.


    “The complete principle of distributive justice would say simply that a distribution is just if everyone is entitled to the holdings they possess under the distribution.” Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia (p. 151)

    Yeah, from Chapter 7, Distributive Justice, “Entitlement Theory.” Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice was a critique of distributive justice, not an endorsement.

    Your definition is too narrow and tangled up in John Rawls.

    And yet you bring up Nozick, whose 1974 book ASU was a direct response to Rawl’s 1971 book, Theory of Justice, noting the gist of Nozik’s critique is pretty much the same as I wrote in a previous comment above. And like I said in that comment, proponents of distributive justice will say merely looking at the justice/injustice of the acquisition is not enough. And I think its bad form to call justice/injustice of the acquisition “distributive justice,” because that is not what the term means. I know Nozick wrote that’s all it should mean, but Nozick was not the deciding authority on defining other’s terms.

    If a proggie wrote a paper, “The entitlement theory of self-ownership,” and argued that the justice/injustice of abridgments self-ownership were subsidiary to the means of how said abridgments were executed and concluded that any restrictions on self-ownership mandated by democratic means were just and legitimate and re-defined the self ownership principe to be: “property in one’s own person, the exclusive controller of one’s own body and life, subject to limits and restrictions of the legislature,” I would call that a flat out expropriation. In particular, if said proggie never again defended that position in a published paper and was said to later life to have repudiated that position, I would sort of mock anyone who tried to refer to “The entitlement theory of self-ownership” to define SOP.

    So, yeah, distributive justice is more than Rawls, but I do not include Nozick’s entitlement theory in that space. Most people would refer to the justice/injustice of the acquisition to be more along the lines of restorative justice.

  50. paulie

    I don’t think he’s done with politics. He suspended his congressional campaign before he even started his presidential exploratory and this is just the last nail in a coffin that was practically nailed shut already as it was. He has correctly figured he’s not going to beat Meijer as a third party candidate, incumbent or not, in one of the few remaining straight ticket states, and a swing state at that, in a presidential year. Even if he had massive funding from the LP he still wouldn’t, and the presidential campaign is going to suck most of that up, such as it is.

    He’s not done with internal LP politics, as he did participate in both sittings of the national convention somewhat and expressed preference on some internal party members. However, he declined nomination to LNC, which I also appreciate. He’s taking time to learn and plan, which are good first steps when switching parties, even for an experienced politician.

    This comment is not about issue positioning, just tactical maneuvering only.

  51. paulie

    Which states is he paying for ballot access in, and how is their progress? What about volunteer sigs, how many do they have where? How many state parties have disaffiliated, or have plans to or are considering it, and how many of those will put someone else on the ballot instead?

  52. Jared

    dL: “Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice was a critique of Rawls’s distributive justice, not an endorsement. . . .Most people would refer to the justice/injustice of the acquisition to be more along the lines of restorative justice.”

    No, most people would not. Justice in aquisition does not fall under the category of restorative justice. Restorative justice (vs. retributive justice, for example) has more to do with criminology than with property creation or the allocation of resources and responsibilities. Nozick’s third subsidiary principle under the entitlement theory, justice in the rectification of injustice, is “activated”, so to speak, only when there has been a violation of just acquisition or transfer — that could relate to restorative justice.

    Nozick’s theory of distributive justice in ASU was a critical response to Rawls’s theory of distributive justice in ATJ. Obviously, it wasn’t an endorsement. But political philosophers apply that term to Nozick’s libertarian theory, and Nozick applies it himself. You’ll also find it applied to theories as ancient and illiberal as Aristotle’s defense of aristocratic privilege. So no, dL, my original remark was not “perfectly erroneous”.

    But what does it matter? If you want to define the term differently in such a way that refers only to structural theories and not to historical ones, then go right ahead, but don’t take pedantic swipes or call me out because you happen to prefer a narrower, non-standard definition. If I’ve failed to convince you, then look up “distributive justice” in any philosophical encyclopedia (“restorative justice” too, while you’re at it). My usage is not in dispute, and it certainly isn’t worth arguing over. Either take the last word or let it go, but I’m done talking about it.

  53. paulie

    I can’t remember if that was the one I read or a different one but the one I read said the governor will pardon them.

  54. robert capozzi

    A-/B+ for Jorgenson/Cohen vid, End the Wars. Not bad. Jo should lose the reference to Switzerland, though. Aspiring to be another nation probably appeals to few, even though I personally agree with her sentiment. Spike’s attire needs a serious makeover, too.

  55. Just Some Random Guy

    Not sure if this would even apply to anyone, but I know the American Solidarity Party is trying to get their candidate on the ballot in Wisconsin. Unfortunately, COVID means it’s harder to gather signatures than usual. If anyone lives in Wisconsin and is interested in signing the petition to help (even if just to support a third party), you can find the information here:
    https://www.facebook.com/WisconsinASP/

    Or you can just e-mail wisconsin.asp at gmail.com (there’s no period between “wisconsin” and “asp” and obviously the at should be replaced with an @ but I figured I should try to minimize things against the spambots) and ask. I don’t expect anyone here to actually go and try to get other people to sign, but you can just sign it yourself and mail it in.

    Not sure if anyone reading this even could help, as you need to live in Wisconsin, but I figured I might as well throw it out. I think some other states are gathering petitions, but I don’t know the details for them.

  56. dL

    Restorative justice (vs. retributive justice, for example) has more to do with criminology

    Restorative justice(or restitution) is civil. Retributive justice is criminal. In this instance, restorative justice would apply to any redistribution that would remedy any injustice from an acquisition or exchange.

    If I’ve failed to convince you, then look up “distributive justice” in any philosophical encyclopedia

    Yeah, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, an online resource I certainly made use of, oh, about 10 years ago when I was writing long-winded blog posts. But you are misreading a bit the inclusion of the “Libertarian Principles” section. That section does not establish that there is a libertarian version of “distributive justice” that’s another cog in the cannon, but rather that libertarianism is at odds with the predominant philosophical understanding of DJ that judges the final outcome by some egalitarian criteria. The first paragraph of that section is pretty much what I wrote in my original comment.

    As I alluded to by analogy in an earlier comment, one problem with including Nozick’s entitlement theory in the DJ canon is that Nozick never again defended his position nor answered his critics in a published paper. There is also that little matter whether Nozick repudiated his earlier positions later in life.

    One thing, however, is not uncertain. BHL’s “markets as distributive justice” schtick was not referring to Nozick’s entitlement theory or the Lockean proviso.

  57. Thane Eichenauer

    FYI, Impish 88 year old Joe Arpaio, who looks surprisingly robust in pictures, is again torturing Arizona journalists by running for his old office of Maricopa county Sheriff in the Republican primary (after loosing the general election in 2016). Primary election day is Tuesday, August 4th [one week from today!]. I didn’t vote in the open Republican primary this cycle but I would have voted against him due to the many unwarranted deaths of prisoners in jail custody at the incompetent hands of his jail staff. He has two ballot printed opponents and one write-in opponent. I believe the odds of him winning the primary to be 42%.

    https://ballotpedia.org/Joe_Arpaio
    https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2009/mar/15/2925000-in-recent-settlements-involving-maricopa-county-and-sheriff-joe-arpaio/

    On behalf of the taxpayers of Maricopa county that have settled several wrongful death suits at about $3 million dollars per death during his 24 years in office, please encourage your Republican voting relatives to vote against him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *