What Goes Around Comes Around

Top 4. Mar 23, 2000 10:39 AM

» mikeohara - Bible Belt Divorces

Frank:

My only point was that many conservatives I have encountered seem to have a well defined sense of self and the importance of personal autonomy and a less well developed sense of community.

This is best expressed in the current census revolution wherein any number of conservatives I have encountered on the Net seem to take some sort of personal insult from census questions they deem intrusive. I can't count how many I have encountered who cheerfully report that they will answer the question of how many people live in their household, leave the rest of the questions blank and tender a check in the amount of $100 which, I take it, is the fine for not completing the census form.

They seem utterly unconcerned about the effects of non-compliance on their community. Among other things, census data is of course used by the government in determining the distribution of scarce resources as well as by business in determining things like where to locate that new plant or store.

It is this hyper sense of self-importance, and the consequent reduction in the importance of the community to which I refer.

Mike

-- posted by mikeohara

Top 5. Mar 23, 2000 2:19 PM

» JoelG - Mike O'Hara

Among other things, census data is of course used by the government in determining the distribution of scarce resources

Ah, but what is one to do if he disagrees philosophically with the whole concept of a redistributionist state?

as well as by business in determining things like where to locate that new plant or store.

While I have no doubt that this will happen, it sure isn't supposed to. You did read the letter on the front of your packet, right? Something about it being absolutely, positively confidential?

(Incidentally, Mike, you do know how the US govenrment knew where to go when they rounded up the Japanese-Americans and placed them in internment camps, don't you?)

Count me as one more Census non-complier.

Resistance is futile. You will comply.
---The Borg

-- posted by JoelG

Top 6. Mar 23, 2000 6:52 PM

» mikeohara - Joel:

Joel:

Ah, but what is one to do if he disagrees philosophically with the whole concept of a redistributionist state?

That is a problem. Fortunately, I do not share in the problem to the extent that I will ignore the needs of my community. Thus, the fewer guys like you who answer the questions, the more fire trucks and education dollars Topeka gets. Don't say I didn't warn you.

While I have no doubt that this will happen, it sure isn't supposed to. You did read the letter on the front of your packet, right? Something about it being absolutely, positively confidential?

Possibly I was unclear. Your personal information is confidential. The aggregate information (how many people in your community live in homes larger than 2500 sq. ft. or how many eat out more than once a week) is not confidential and is used every day by business. This is information that business finds invaluable.

(Incidentally, Mike, you do know how the US government knew where to go when they rounded up the Japanese-Americans and placed them in internment camps, don't you?)

Actually, I don't. For the sake of argument, I will assume, as you imply, that the information came from the 1940 census. (Of course, if you give it some thought, you will realize that this is extraordinarily unlikely since we would be talking about data that was collected in the spring of 1940 and would have been used about a year later.) But, as I say, I will assume that this did occur which, of course, would have been illegal.

The US has done illegal things before in the belief that it was serving the greater good. Any student of history will have to acknowledge that. Nevertheless, we agree that both acts (obtaining census information and consigning Japanese-Americans to concentration camps) were illegal. Your point?

Count me as one more Census non-complier.

Of that I have no doubt. Individual vs. community. That was my point all along.

Mike

-- posted by mikeohara

Top 7. Mar 24, 2000 7:38 AM

» JoelG - MikeO

Yes, they have done illegal, or at least immoral, things many times in the past. Just yesterday, I was reading about how the eugenics movement was big in America at the same time as it was big in Germany, and how many Americans were forcibly sterilized, even some that had no real defect. Things like forced sterilization and internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry seems despicable to us now. (Oh, and did you know about the slaughter we perpetrated in the Philappines 102 years ago?) What is the government doing now that we will find despicable in 30 years, or 50 years? I guarantee there will be things to talk about and shake our head over, if we live that long.

The big question is, why do we give government the power to make these kinds of mistakes? Yes, we are all human, and we all make mistakes. But government doesn't do anything small, including make mistakes. Government doesn't make mistakes...it commits atrocities.

Nor, in most cases, does government have to pay any price for their mistakes. Mistakes we as individuals, or companies or corporations make, we must pay for. Government has "sovereign immunity". (And here I thought in America we were sovereign. Oh well.)

-- posted by JoelG

Top 8. Mar 24, 2000 12:47 PM

» mikeohara - Joel:

Joel:

Because, quite obviously, it is the only way a nation achieves greatness. To our credit, and what makes us unique among nations, is that ultimately we discover the mistakes and correct them or make amends as best we can.

The legal doctrine of sovereign immunity is an old one indeed. Again, to our credit, the doctrine is seldom enforced. Witness, for example, the half billion dollar settlement made with former female employees of the VOA.

Mike

-- posted by mikeohara

Top 9. Mar 24, 2000 1:29 PM

» JoelG - Mike

Because, quite obviously, it is the only way a nation achieves greatness.

I see. By handing over all autonomy, all decision-making, to these elites a thousand miles away, we achieve greatness. I guess that means that Nazi Germany, the U.S.S.R, and Maoist China, were all some of the greatest nations ever...after all, they had more power turned over to them by their people than any other nations in history.

Thanks, I'll pass. I'm not the least bit interested in national greatness. I'm interested in individual greatest. Mine and yours, both.

The legal doctrine of sovereign immunity is an old one indeed.

Very true. And it has been justified throughout history in a variety of ways, but always having the same effect. However, America was founded upon a very different philosphy, one of individual sovereignty. It is our great shame that we have abandoned that founding philosophy. That was what made us special.

the doctrine is seldom enforced.

(Insert shocked gasp here.) I'm not sure how to react strongly enough to this asinine statement. The government exercises sovereign immunity constantly. It isn't called that, of course. But try to sue the government on some obvious wrong they have done you, and see how far you get. In most cases, you are only allowed to sue the government if the government says you are allowed to. And that only happens if you can garner enough publicity to become a threat at the ballot box.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

-- posted by JoelG

Top 10. Mar 25, 2000 6:18 AM

» mikeohara - Joel

The obvious difference is that, unlike the countries you mention, the US strikes a balance between the needs of the community and the rights of the individual. That is, after all, the very essence of the Constitution.

Thanks, I'll pass. I'm not the least bit interested in national greatness. I'm interested in individual greatest. Mine and yours, both.

That approach dooms the possibility of national greatness and, fortunately, has been attenuated over the course of our history. We, of course, encourage individual greatness but not at the expense of the needs of the community.

Very true. And it has been justified throughout history in a variety of ways, but always having the same effect. However, America was founded upon a very different philosophy, one of individual sovereignty. It is our great shame that we have abandoned that founding philosophy. That was what made us special.

I read it a bit differently. As I see it, the thing that really makes us unique is that we strive for balance between individual autonomy and the rights of the community. But here you are confusing two very different concepts. The doctrine of sovereign immunity simply provides that the sovereign cannot be held accountable in a court w/o its consent. This doctrine has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of personal autonomy, what you call individual sovereignty.

(Insert shocked gasp here.) I'm not sure how to react strongly enough to this asinine statement. The government exercises sovereign immunity constantly. It isn't called that, of course. But try to sue the government on some obvious wrong they have done you, and see how far you get. In most cases, you are only allowed to sue the government if the government says you are allowed to. And that only happens if you can garner enough publicity to become a threat at the ballot box.

As I have actually worked as a government lawyer and therefore been in a position to invoke the doctrine I happen to know that you haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. The doctrine serves to preserve the scarce resources of the community. Nevertheless, the doctrine is frequently threatened but seldom invoked, as the recent VOA settlement demonstrates.

Mike

-- posted by mikeohara

Top 11. Mar 25, 2000 11:18 AM

» JoelG - Mike

the US strikes a balance between the needs of the community and the rights of the individual. That is, after all, the very essence of the Constitution.

What a lot of socialist bunk. Back this statement up with quotes the writers of the Constitution, please...or even from the document itself.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. After all, you are a government lawyer.

Mike, the whole point of the American Revolution was telling government to leave us the hell alone, and allow us to work out our own individual greatness with the fewest possible limitations. If enough of us become individually great, then the nation becomes great. Not by "from each according to his ability...."

You said in the other thread that you were well-read on American history. I haven't seen any evidence of it yet.

Nevertheless, the doctrine is frequently threatened but seldom invoked, as the recent VOA settlement demonstrates.

As I mentioned above, and you ignored, it is very infrequently called "invoking sovereign immunity". You are right...I don't know of any instance when the government has actually called it that. To do so would be politically disastrous. But the effect is the same, when individual members of government cannot be held responsible for their illegality. Whether that is done by outright claims of sovereign immunity, or backdoor deals where one government official covers for another, or even one whole branch of government covers for another, the effect is identical.

You hold up the VOA settlement as proof that the government can be held liable for wrongdoing. I would submit that settlements like this are incredibly rare, and come about only when enough publicity is garnered to bring about pressure at the polls.

-- posted by JoelG

Top 12. Mar 26, 2000 2:19 PM

» mikeohara - Joel:

Joel:

What a lot of socialist bunk. Back this statement up with quotes the writers of the Constitution, please...or even from the document itself.

Happy to oblige. Although I hope you will understand that I won't go through the entire thing. Let us look for example at the 2nd Amendment, wherein the Founders reference the needs of a free State in connection with the right to keep and bear arms. Or, shall we look at the 3rd Amendment in which you can be compelled to put up a houseguest in times of war. Or the 4th Amendment, which provides that you are to be secure in your person, house, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Or, maybe the 5th Amendment, which provides that any private property you have can be taken for a public purpose upon payment of just compensation. Is that enough, or do I need to slap you unconscious with this?

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. After all, you are a government lawyer.

Actually, I said I was a government lawyer. Thus, unlike you, I am in a position to understand the application of a legal doctrine such as sovereign immunity as I was actually in a position to invoke it.

Your understanding of the Constitution is, shall we say, limited. Not unlike your understanding of the permanence of marriage vows. The revolutionary aspect of our Revolution is that we premised our government on the truly revolutionary belief that rights are naturally vested by God in the people (although a belief in God is not central to the equation here). Previously the only working theory of government was that God vested all rights in the King who then granted such rights to the people as suited him. In our system of government, we believe that the people have the rights or powers which they cede to the government for their common benefit.

You said in the other thread that you were well-read on American history. I haven't seen any evidence of it yet.

Nor are you likely to. As I say, my impression is you get the notes, not the tune.

Your knowledge of the doctrine is incomplete. In fact, individual government employees can be held accountable for wrongdoing, but not when they are acting w/n the scope of their authority (thus the difference in the two recent New York decisions, Louema and Diallo).

There happens to be a pretty good reason for the doctrine. Government, like all human enterprise, sometimes makes mistakes. If mistakes are made, they are compensable (as the VOA settlement points out). However, if a government employee is tied up in court, he cannot be out inspecting water quality or enforcing the drug laws. Thus, all governments (from smallest to largest) indemnify their employees who might have made a mistake during the course of doing their job. Why? Because otherwise the drug guys could end law enforcement in the area of interest to them simply by getting all the DEA agents into court till hell won't have it.

Unfortunately, your prior disposition does not leave open the possibility of an alternative explanation. Such settlements are rare because such wrongdoing is rare. Duh.

Mike

-- posted by mikeohara