I suppose abortion really is the only thing keeping you from being libertarian (speaking of which... hrm. I wonder if your assertion on that is problematic. I've been thinking about that recently. My counter-point is still slightly flawed at the moment though -- a few minor things and even then there's still one point that just comes down to definition... anyway. We can talk about that later.)
McCain's logic taken to it's farther end would lead to some interesting places..
So you're saying that the government has no right (or place, business.. whatever; you're philosophically opposed to it) to regulate the sporting industry, correct? (Keep in mind that I haven't read the actual bill McCain introduced, so I don't know what exactly it covers). And yet, the 'performance enhancing drugs' -- I'm assuming steroids -- are already illegal anyways. So if he can force the sports industry to regulate that, what's to keep the government from *forcing* private businesses to drug screen *every* applicant, no matter what? Interesting slippery-slope there. Not sure if it applies... I should read up on the matter some more.
I would wonder, however, why McCain in particular is unacceptable. So so so so many other Republicans (If you really want a list, I can supply one) who.. take the same tact, basically. Increase federal power at the expence of state, personal power, etc. Even the whole nuclear option debacle is at least in part about increasing the power of the executive branch (which is on the whole, less representative of the nation than the legislative branch as a whole). And heaven forfend the citizens of DC ever have reasonable representation in Congress.
What else about McCain displeases you, out of curiosity? I don't exactly agree with the bill either, but I'm just curious. John McCain is one of the few politicians - on either side of the aisle - that I actually respect.
In many ways, for domestic stuff, I actually am in the liberty side of the Republican party. I basically favor minimal government regulation (minimal being regulation only when somebody else's Constitutional rights are being unquestionably infringed upon or when someone is clearly and physically endangered).
That being said, here's my take on performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) in sports. In fact, to get into the details, many of the PEDs are not illegal; rather, they are prescription based, and obviously these athletes generally don't have prescriptions. Thus, what this is is a failure of the government to enforce its own laws, and so it blames another organization and increases its power as a result. As with many things for which we have laws that pertain to fairly specific things, the law came about after the action was already illegal; the new statutes just made it "more" illegal. Think Columbine - what happened already violated over 20 laws, but inevitably new laws were passed that eroded civil liberties.
Now, that's not my major objection and this is where the slippery slope part comes in. I read the 10th Amendment (which I think is one of the most important amendments in there), and I wonder, where does the federal government conceivably get the power to tell a private business what its employment regulations should be, because after all that is what we're talking about here with steroids - private businesses relations with their "workers." If federal agents want to serve warrants against athletes who break prescription laws or take amphetamines, fine - those athletes would in fact be criminals - but the McCain bill is effectively the same thing as the federal government saying that the federal government should mandate that a restaurant fire an employee who doesn't wash his hands. The analogy works because the worker would have broken a law, but if the restaurant wants to keep him on, that's their business if they want to risk another fine. Enough of this could possibly lead to a standardization of federal regulation to the point where the federal government makes specific regulations for companies when they have done nothing wrong (as we already see to some degree with affirmative action).
As for the rest of the Republicans, YES! So, so many politicians in general follow the philosophy of, if I like the program, I support the legislation. That's not what their duty is. Their duty is to preserve the Constitution and the freedom of the American people. Thus, programs that may or may not be a good idea (like the national speed limit) don't even matter on merits; it's simply not allowed constitutionally for them to deal with it. I resent the spending runups we see from both parties because that signals big government to me. I am without a doubt an idealized Reagan Republican in that sense (a smaller federal government except for our foreign policy posture).
Finally, the other things that I don't like about McCain. Well, to begin with, his campaign finance reform was more of the same, but even more dangerous. What that did was limit free speech (in that it prevented people from promulgating certain opinions) in the arena where that is most dangerous: politics, i.e. the arena where bad people in office could limit our freedoms even more. I think that this is just one of many things where he supports a larger, more ominous federal government, and that's why I don't like him.
At any rate, I'd love to continue this, and let me know when you find out about living with us.
McCain's logic taken to it's farther end would lead to some interesting places..
So you're saying that the government has no right (or place, business.. whatever; you're philosophically opposed to it) to regulate the sporting industry, correct? (Keep in mind that I haven't read the actual bill McCain introduced, so I don't know what exactly it covers). And yet, the 'performance enhancing drugs' -- I'm assuming steroids -- are already illegal anyways. So if he can force the sports industry to regulate that, what's to keep the government from *forcing* private businesses to drug screen *every* applicant, no matter what? Interesting slippery-slope there. Not sure if it applies... I should read up on the matter some more.
I would wonder, however, why McCain in particular is unacceptable. So so so so many other Republicans (If you really want a list, I can supply one) who.. take the same tact, basically. Increase federal power at the expence of state, personal power, etc. Even the whole nuclear option debacle is at least in part about increasing the power of the executive branch (which is on the whole, less representative of the nation than the legislative branch as a whole). And heaven forfend the citizens of DC ever have reasonable representation in Congress.
What else about McCain displeases you, out of curiosity? I don't exactly agree with the bill either, but I'm just curious. John McCain is one of the few politicians - on either side of the aisle - that I actually respect.
Reply
That being said, here's my take on performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) in sports. In fact, to get into the details, many of the PEDs are not illegal; rather, they are prescription based, and obviously these athletes generally don't have prescriptions. Thus, what this is is a failure of the government to enforce its own laws, and so it blames another organization and increases its power as a result. As with many things for which we have laws that pertain to fairly specific things, the law came about after the action was already illegal; the new statutes just made it "more" illegal. Think Columbine - what happened already violated over 20 laws, but inevitably new laws were passed that eroded civil liberties.
Now, that's not my major objection and this is where the slippery slope part comes in. I read the 10th Amendment (which I think is one of the most important amendments in there), and I wonder, where does the federal government conceivably get the power to tell a private business what its employment regulations should be, because after all that is what we're talking about here with steroids - private businesses relations with their "workers." If federal agents want to serve warrants against athletes who break prescription laws or take amphetamines, fine - those athletes would in fact be criminals - but the McCain bill is effectively the same thing as the federal government saying that the federal government should mandate that a restaurant fire an employee who doesn't wash his hands. The analogy works because the worker would have broken a law, but if the restaurant wants to keep him on, that's their business if they want to risk another fine. Enough of this could possibly lead to a standardization of federal regulation to the point where the federal government makes specific regulations for companies when they have done nothing wrong (as we already see to some degree with affirmative action).
As for the rest of the Republicans, YES! So, so many politicians in general follow the philosophy of, if I like the program, I support the legislation. That's not what their duty is. Their duty is to preserve the Constitution and the freedom of the American people. Thus, programs that may or may not be a good idea (like the national speed limit) don't even matter on merits; it's simply not allowed constitutionally for them to deal with it. I resent the spending runups we see from both parties because that signals big government to me. I am without a doubt an idealized Reagan Republican in that sense (a smaller federal government except for our foreign policy posture).
Finally, the other things that I don't like about McCain. Well, to begin with, his campaign finance reform was more of the same, but even more dangerous. What that did was limit free speech (in that it prevented people from promulgating certain opinions) in the arena where that is most dangerous: politics, i.e. the arena where bad people in office could limit our freedoms even more. I think that this is just one of many things where he supports a larger, more ominous federal government, and that's why I don't like him.
At any rate, I'd love to continue this, and let me know when you find out about living with us.
Reply
Leave a comment