Another nut in the white house.....

[Ion01 1]

Cass Sunstein-

In his book Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech Sunstein says there is a need to reformulate First Amendment law. He thinks that the current formulation, based on Justice Holmes' conception of free speech as a marketplace “disserves the aspirations of those who wrote America’s founding document.”[9] The purpose of this reformulation would be to “reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.”[10] He is concerned by the present “situation in which like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another,”[11] and thinks that in “light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals.”[12] He proposes a “New Deal for speech [that] would draw on Justice Brandeis' insistence on the role of free speech in promoting political deliberation and citizenship.”[10]


Animal Rights
Sunstein has also written often in favor of animal rights. “Every reasonable person believes in animal rights,” he says.[13] He also says that human “willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seen … as a form of unconscionable barbarity… morally akin to slavery and the mass extermination of human beings,”[14] and that we might "conclude that certain practices cannot be defended and should not be allowed to continue, if, in practice, mere regulation will inevitably be insufficient—and if, in practice, mere regulation will ensure that the level of animal suffering will remain very high."[13] Specifically he thinks that, “we ought to ban hunting.”[15] He also thinks that “we could even grant animals a right to bring suit”[16] and that it is possible that “that before long, Congress will grant standing to animals to protect their own rights and interests.”[17] This all stems from his claim that "animals, species as such, and perhaps even natural objects warrant respect for their own sake, and quite apart from their interactions with human beings."[18]


Taxes
Sunstein has argued that “we should celebrate tax day.”[19] He appears to claim that the very concepts of property and society are based on government and taxes:

In what sense is the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live?... Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public fisc. … There is no liberty without dependency.[19]

.....adequately serving democratic goals......
.....no liberty without dependency........
I am not going to comment on any of this because I think he is pretty clear on his beliefs.

[wmw999 2,155]

Is the idea of discussing radical ideas really that scary? We have a big, ponderous process to change things like first amendment law -- that's a good thing.

But I don't want to only have people in the White House who think everything is perfect now (or perfect as I would like it to be). Listening only to people one agrees with is a sure way to miss great big problems in one's thought process.

Of course, this doesn't mean he shouldn't be disagreed with. But I don't find it the least bit scary that people are thinking about this, or proposing scenarios about how to deal with unlikely situations, etc.

In skydiving, we think about how we'd react to things we hope never happen (e.g. a horseshoe). That doesn't mean we want those things to happen, it just means that we'll have a plan if they do.

Even if I consider what happens if I were to go to a different DZ, it doesn't mean I'm rejecting my current one.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Ion01 1]

Did you read what he beleives? He has complete disregard for the constitution. Without the constitution we have no rights. The government has ultimate power!
The problem is not that he believes these things or is discussing them....its that he may become one of the most powerful people in the country and wants to make these things happen! He wants to take away our freedoms.
Do you think its a good thing that we discuss the possibility of solving problems by killing anyone who disagrees with my ideals? Its a possible solution to many economic and social issues we deal with today. In fact it would even reduce CO2 levels dramatically. Now what if I was the Regulatory Czar and was discussing this? Would you say the same things you just did?
This man wants to take your freedom and rights and give them to animals! Do you not see the problem with that? Is this really the kind of people you want running this country. Do you not know how the socialist and communist dictators got their power using similar ideas such as his ideas on freedom of speech and regulation of the media?
In fact some of our leaders have commended people like the Castro while people are still trying to escape his clutches!
If you want that kind of leadership then go to cuba and leave us alone! We are a republic and we have a constitution which is supposed to prevent the type of government we have and are moving towards! If you like the direction things are going then go to a country that is already there and leave us alone! There are plenty of communist, facist, and socialist countries. Go to one of them instead of making ours one too!

[lawrocket 3]

Cass Sunnstein aint a bad guy or a nut. In fact, he was the guy I hoped got the nod that went to Sotomayor.

On the 1st Amendment, yeah, there are problems regarding the interpretations. Brandeis v Holmes is a good sign of this. I personally see a problem with people listening pretty much only to like-minded people who all agree because is leads to people on the left and right thinking there are no other viewpoints.

But - I don't like any of the possible solutions to this.

Animal rights? Yeah, I have a problem with granting animals standing to sue. To me, that's WAY out there.

Taxes? Yes, I see his point. I think he has taken it reductio ad absurdum. Yes, some taxes are necessary to protect the free market. Most don't have problems with "taxes" - it's the amount and use of those taxes.


Ideas should be put out there and discussed. I think people should be free to put weird ideas out there. They do it in science, art, etc.

Sometimes kooky ideas in politics, etc. are dangerous. How many millions were murdered because of Marx's ideas?

But it doesn't mean that they should be blocked.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Ion01 1]

He isn't just saying taxes are necessary....he is saying you have no right to your money!

Fine if he wants to discuss these ideas but they are blocked by the constitution itself....but thats the problem....he wants to change the constitution or he twists it in order to get what he wants!

This is not just some guy getting on the net to discuss his ideas (which he want the government to regulate the net to aid the democratic agenda) but this guy is a leader of our country and will ingore or twist the constitution in order to put his own ideas in place.

[quade 3]

Wanna get rid of him because of his ideas that you've posted out of context? Yeah, good luck with that one. Sunstein has a huge body of work; one of the more prolific legal authors of our time. Considering the volume of material he's written, I'm nearly certain a more than few choice phrases can be taken out of context. So what?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wmw999 2,155]

thanks for a much better post on the topic than mine.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Sometimes kooky ideas in politics, etc. are dangerous. How many millions were murdered because of Marx's ideas?

same with jesus (except even more dead)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

He isn't just saying taxes are necessary....he is saying you have no right to your money!

Even as a libertarian I did not read that. What he was saying is that government is paid for by taxes. He is saying that the government has assisted in unifying and standardizing the currency by which business is transacted and wealth is earned.

Also, that because of the order government brings we are able to live our lives freely and build our wealth.

I don't agree with how far he has taken it. However, he has a point. Without taxes we'd have no government, ergo, no secure wealth.

(My comment: Nowadays, thanks to government, our wealth is less and less secure.)

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Sometimes kooky ideas in politics, etc. are dangerous. How many millions were murdered because of Marx's ideas?

same with jesus (except even more dead)

The fact that you'd put a smiley face after commenting about millions dead causes me great concern.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[TomAiello 25]

The thing that caused me concern was actually that he had put both his comment and his parenthetical aside on the same line.

Apparently, even the dreamfu master has his weak days.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Ion01 1]

Quote

Wanna get rid of him because of his ideas that you've posted out of context? Yeah, good luck with that one. Sunstein has a huge body of work; one of the more prolific legal authors of our time. Considering the volume of material he's written, I'm nearly certain a more than few choice phrases can be taken out of context. So what?

Wow! The typical excuse...."it was taken out of context...."
Then tell me what the context is.
Its not like he hasn't been around for a long time talking about this stuff. Its only now has he had the position to actually make some of this stuff happen.

[Ion01 1]

Quote

Quote

He isn't just saying taxes are necessary....he is saying you have no right to your money!

Even as a libertarian I did not read that. What he was saying is that government is paid for by taxes. He is saying that the government has assisted in unifying and standardizing the currency by which business is transacted and wealth is earned.

Also, that because of the order government brings we are able to live our lives freely and build our wealth.

I don't agree with how far he has taken it. However, he has a point. Without taxes we'd have no government, ergo, no secure wealth.

(My comment: Nowadays, thanks to government, our wealth is less and less secure.)

Yes a government must be funded, however, to make the claim that the money that is in the bank is not ours, and that we didn't earn our money, that without the government we couldn't be rich, that without the government we couldn't even spend our money, that without taxes/government we would have nothing to defend is rediculous and so far beyond the fact that a government must be funded. Obviously it takes funding to run an institution...even the government but that is clearly not what he is saying. Before there was a standard were people completely destitute and completely without anything worth defending? No, there is this incredible thing called trading. In fact money is just an enhanced version of trading goods for goods.