(expanded from original post)
Many Libertarians like to point to Oleg Volk as some sort of Liberal Libertarian because of his 2nd Amendment stance. Nothing could be farther from the truth. His recent column makes that clear.
The right to abortion and privacy in the bedroom are not explicitly set out; they spring from interpreting the Constitution expansively.
Expansively means “what we want it to mean”. The problem with that is that at some point someone could interpret the Constitution to mean that GBLT people, adulterers and others are such a threat to “the pursuit of happiness” that they need to be killed. After all, “The right to kill people that we disagree with as a danger to our nation is not explicitly set out; it springs from interpreting the Constitution expansively.”
Madness.
Great use of strawmen to make his case. I used to think well of Volk but clearly he is a backbencher. Care to name the person who thought that owning a vibrator should be a crime, Oleg?
Conservative views on pornography are often that it is degrading to women and encourages men to be degrading to women…a proven fact…and the desire to limit it, as opposed to banning it, has been a main stream conservative principle for about four decades.
So that leaves us with two items. One is sodomy laws, which even conservatives like Hannity are not keen on and abortion.
And that’s the BIGGIE.
More than any other bullshit item Volk puts forth the Abortion issue is one that can not be written off as he does. You see conservatives mostly see aborting a fetus no different than dragging Oleg Volk off to a quite corner and putting a 9mm behind his ear.
It is the most important part of his argument and the one that least falls into his argument. You may argue that a fetus isn’t a person…but you are a douche bag if you call someone who thinks that it is a person a hypocrite for desiring said fetus to have the same Rights as any other American. THEY see it as a person, therefore they cannot be hypocritical as Volk argues. Any argument about abortion other than “if it is a person” on strict Constitutional grounds is fallacious.
As is the argument that some parts of the Bill of Rights can be viewed expansively and others should be adhered to. The Founders included the 2nd amendment with the knowledge that people would use firearms for bad purposes. That was the main concern that men like Adams had. Yet in the end they made the Right to Keep and Bear Arms a part of the Bill of Rights.
All other things not mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, such as marriage, are in the domain of the State. The liberal thinking of people like Oleg Volk is why the Federal Government can now be seen as a threat to the 2nd Amendment…when you start believing that an expansive view of the Bill of Rights is correct, and that you can then use the Federal Government and it’s court system to act on that expansive thinking you perforce weaken the Bill of Rights in it’s entirety.
When we have Federal Court decide that, in an expansive view based on societal good, guns should only be in the hands of the Regular Militia I don’t want to hear Volk’s whinging…his side started us down this path.
Small correction. The column is by John Pettitt. They just used Oleg’s picture with his permission.
You’ve hit the abortion issue on the head though. It all boils down to when you believe what’s involved goes from a lump of cells to a living sentient being. Unfortunately, way to many people on both sides of the issue fail to see this.
Well then Volk endorses the column.
No, Jody, you owe Oleg an apology. You’ve taken a strung-out argument, tacked his name on it (even though it was not penned by him), and attacked him.
And note that Texas used to have a law making it a crime to own more than 6 vibrators/dildos.
What I find interesting is that you’re taking an article wherein a gay man is arguing to the gay community why, if they want respect and support for the rights they desire, they should support gun rights for their fellow citizens, and using it to attack someone in your own community.
And people have any question why I call the Republican Party the “Mexican Firing Squad Big Tent Party”.
Congrats, Jody, you’ve just scored an own-goal.
Bullshit.
Whomever wrote that pile of shit is the one that strung together a bunch of strawmen. I note you say “used to”, whereas whomever wrote that mindless screed implied it was still going on.
I guess to you Big Tent means we include people who think that the Constitution should be a living document.
PASS!
I don’t want people who think that the Bill of Rights is flexible in my tent, thank you very much. If that means the “Sex Positive” community blindly votes
SocialistDemocrat, so be it. Based on how Obama’s treating the GBLT community, they, like the Black community is going to continue to get 68’d. (You blow me and I’ll owe ya one).And if Volk let his picture be used as it was then he endorses the position of Pettit. A mistake you made on your LJ as well. I should not, and will not, be lauding people like Pettit or Goldberg just because they have one position that coincides with mine. Dogs and fleas may work for you but not for me.
You’re right – Texas used to. Alabama does:
http://www.gopetition.com/gopetition-in-the-media/194/alabama-ban-on-selling-sex-toys-goes-into-effect.html
So it’s not a strawman, it’s a real live argument, with a real, live example. The “mindless screed” would be that which is not factually supported. Scroll up to the top of the page.
I’m not sure how you jumped from “guys, you need to interpret the 2nd amendment the same way you choose to interpret the other amendments” to “It’s a living document” and “They are EEEEEVIL.” But that’s what you have done.
Frankly, I don’t give a flying fuck at a rolling donut about their, or your, sexuality. It’s none of my business. I do care for a consistent, straighforward interpretation of my rights. Free speech includes offensive speech, and the cure for bad speech is more speech. Same logic applies to guns – you do not have a right to restrict their behavior because you are offended, and they do not have a right to restrict my 2A rights because they are offended. There is no right not to be offended. Period. It cuts everybody equally.
You’re defending a bad position, Jody. Nothing wrong with you being offended… but on a factual basis, you’ve got nothing at this point.
What I really don’t understand is why you feel the need to insult Oleg AND me. But you’ve done that, and pretty thoroughly.
There is a really good book called “Americas War on Sex” that details the anti sexuality attitudes I complain about in the article. As has been pointed out above Alabama and Texas both have or had anti sex toy statutes. The FCC chased Howard Stern off to satellite radio because he said words they found offensive (strong parallel to making guns illegal based on looks – I live in California where I can’t buy a stock AR15 because it looks scary but my Mini 30 is fine).
Porn has not been proven to be degrading – in fact in countries with open porn laws (denmark, holland) rates of sexual assault and teen pregnancy are way lower than they US.
Rights are rights – honest people can disagree about the merits but we should all stand up when they get taken without due process.
Oh and for the record I own a couple of rifles, 6 handguns and shoot about 1000 rounds a month.
John (author or the original article)
Pingback: On rejecting Keith Preston | No Treason
Sorry, Chuckles, you can nit-pick the facts. But you can’t nit-pick selectively deciding which Right can be interpreted “expansively” and which should be interpreted “originalistically”.
Your points on sex toys are, indeed, stretches. It’s still legal to sell vibrators, it isn’t legal to sell one that looks like an exact replica; an offshoot of the necessity of writing a law so that a town could ban a strip bar in it’s environs. You see, that’s the trouble with red noses. Instead of letting a small town decide what it wants in it’s locale a vast sweeping law has to be written to stop the red noses from preventing said town from establishing it’s own community. This is the case in the other states that have similar laws.
Mr. Pettit neatly tries to side step the conservative view of caution about pornography. I never said it causes men to go out and rape. I said it degrades women…and it does. Annie Sprinkle has often spoken of the number of women who would not have chosen being a sex worker had other circumstances been available, or their circumstances been different. Other women in the Porn biz have tried to establish a business model that doesn’t degrade the female sex workers.
Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin…both liberal feminists…claim that pornography promotes violence against women. And in googling Dworkin I found this article about porn and violence
The facts are clear. Sex and violent crime offenders have a critical link to pornography. These sex offenders had a high exposure to pornography as adolescents, and it carries on with them during their lifetime. This fact is particularly significant when one considers that the respondents were from low socioeconomic homes and financially would have more difficulty getting pornographic materials. I think that it’s very important to see where people get their attitudes on pornography.
Do I think the facts say that pr0n turns people into rapists? No, but I do worry about people that are tending that way. We do need to be careful because the effects may not be solely confined to “one’s bedroom”. And I support local communities regulating it. You can always drive down the road to the next town.
Both you and Mr. Pettit are taking things out of context to prove a point. That’s the definition of a straw man.
And I fail to see how you were insulted, Charles.
And i hope both of you have some good lengths of 8” PVC pipe and some screw on end caps for it to bury any weapons you might have that the State of California doesn’t know about. I’m worried you may need it. Because right now there are people looking at an “expansive” view of the 2nd because “They say the framers never heard of
Internet pornsemi-automatic rifles orcable TVinner city drug violence as if this somehow makes the taking of a right okay.”PS: there’s a reason that I recently delisted several blogs from the blog roll. In their fear of Radical Islam they have sided with national socialists like Velam Belang. I do not think the tactic of The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend is usually wise…it frequently has bad results. For example we probably would not have the situation in Iran that we do today had we not brought in the Shah because the Brits convinced us the recently elected government was communist, which resulted eventually in the Ayatollah and then supporting Saddam Hussein against him (continuing the enemy of my enemy thing). Requiring us to clean that mess up.
I guess that limits the size of my tent.
“The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend is usually wise…”
Yeah, 7 habits got that one right. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy, nothing more, nothing less.
Everytime we have in-fighting in the NRA for example, that is what it comes down to, Strict vs. expansive. And everytime gun owners lose ground it’s when the expansive view prevails and when we make up lost ground or gain ground, it’s when the “Strict” views are back in power.
I’ll compromise on somethings, but not the constitution or the BoR’s.
I may not like your “hate speech” but by God you have the right to say whatever you want to, same as I do. Says so right in the First. and don’t even try to touch the Second. When you let the expansive view take away the Second, then the next one’s going down are the First and the Fourth.
We are already seeing attempts to regulate “hate speech” again, after the Tiller and Little Rock and Holocaust museum incidents. wanna bet Eric Holder is thinking for himself or just saying what he’s been programmed to say. If “Hate speech’, “fightin words” “Incitement to violence” are made illegal, where ya gonna hide then ? cause your guns will be tools to further the crime of hate speech, giving you means along with motive.
Not everyone fits in the Big Tent. and that analogy only goes so far as long as you don’t push it anyway. I don’t demand that everyone agree with me 100%, damn but that would make a boring world and I’d have a heck of a time bluffing at poker if everyone thought the same way I did. I’ll settle for the big items. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness, that kind of thing.
I’m not nit-picking the facts, Jody. I’m saying you’re outright wrong, and documenting it.
And I’m not nitpicking “which Right can be interpreted “expansively” and which should be interpreted “originalistically”.” I said, and will say it again, that if the LGBT community wants to interpret one Right expansively, then they should be prepared to interpret all rights the same way. Their argument, not mine. The only “nit” is “be consistent, damnit, or admit that you’re being hypocrits”.
You’re right, y’know. For a lot of people, porn is degrading. So are a lot of other jobs. But this falls under the “life isn’t fair” discussion. And, unless I misremember, there isn’t a “right not to be degraded in a survival situation”, just like there isn’t a “right not to be offended.”
By the way, what’s your feeling on this:
“Instead of letting a small town decide what it wants in it’s locale a vast sweeping law has to be written to stop the red noses from preventing said town from establishing it’s own community.”
As applied in this case:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a82l6tNgMpFQ
No, it’s not particularly nice to point out that the parallels are…striking. But they are, and they should be self-evident.
As to the PVC pipe… you haven’t noticed, I guess. We’re winning, mostly, though the legislature is still packed full of idiots, and it seems to be a 2-steps forward, 1 step back kinda thing.
Which, ironically, gets us back to why I like the article in the first place. It would be nice to get the LGBT community to recognize that their desires WRT prop 8 greatly map to our desires WRT the 2nd Amendment… and throwing their weight behind 2A causes will probably bring out a non-trivial # of swing voters on the gay marriage front.
Right now I know of a number of people who voted for prop 8 in part because of exactly that demonstrated hypocrisy.
Fine, you don’t like Pettit’s argument. You’ll note, from the postings on my LJ, that a lot of people disagree with you. A lot of pretty conservative people.
Then they are idiot. You can not blend “expansive ” and “strict”.
So if they disagree with you, they’re idiots, but you aren’t willing to debate the issues nor the facts? Especially when the facts disagree with you?
I expect better of you, QM.
I’m really not sophisticated enough to make an exceedingly long post on this and comment on all points…except to ask a simple question, with some follow up:
What, honestly, gives anyone ANYONE the right to say what someone else should do, within the easily and naturally observable right of interfering upon original said person, persons within their care, or undeniable species-wide interests?
When in doubt, assume the individual right to be sacred, and seek out specific damages to prove otherwise if you’re still skeptical.
No community has any right to dictate behavior within my own property, unless they can undeniably demonstrate in court, to a jury of our peers, damages upon them, those under their care, or undeniable damages to the entire human race. And no, legislation without being tested in court in front of a jury of peers is nowhere close to being demonstrated “correct.”
For example from the posts above: Owning realistic dildos, even multitudes of them, cannot be demonstrated to do so. If someone is using them in their living room, with the blinds open, while the neighborhood kids play outside, I think you’ll easily have a court case. Otherwise, writing law to limit someone’s order from Adam & Eve is simply ridiculous and immoral.
Likewise for any other human right…including possession arms.
I will agree that abortion falls into a special category since both sides can convincing (certainly within their own point of view) show it to be a human right or to be a threat to themselves, those within their care, or the species at large. Basically, the fetus is either a human, or not…and 99% of all abortion arguements tend to ignore that the other side holds that viewpoint. If it ain’t human…what’s the big deal? If it is human, then HOLY SHIT, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING KILLING HIM? Recognize that difference, and recognize that the other side has that opposite view, and the huge disconnect stems just from that. And no, you don’t need to be a Christian, or even religious at all, to believe It Is Human.
On a much lighter note…I really wonder what sort of traffic we’re generating here with search hits for “dildo” “vibrator” “guns” “abortion” “gay sex” etc…
Good times.
OK, fine, it turned into an exceedingly long post.