The Election Thread To Talk About The Election

[Dr. Medulla]

So past offences shouldn't be taken into consideration at all?

The inanity of the three-strikes law is that it doesn't really take past offences into consideration—not in any meaningful way. All felonies are treated the same. Convictions for stealing beer shouldn't weigh the same as rape. The three-strikes law doesn't take that into account. Nor does it consider whether a person has otherwise led a good life. If there are forty years of model behaviour between those non-violent acts, it doesn't matter: three strikes is three strikes. It's the mindlessness of it all that is what's so offensive.

Well I don't know that much about it, coming from a civilized country, but I would have thought 3 serious violent crimes would merit the key being thrown away. Not for petty offences, though.

But that's the problem: the law takes all that context out of the hands of judges and juries. As has been observed about zero-tolerance rules, it's an excuse not to think, just obey.

That's why I said for "serious violent crime" in my original post. Obviously life for stealing a cabbage 3 times is ridiculous.

Which is why a person should oppose three-strikes laws.

[Rat Patrol]

Even for serious violent crime?

One would think conviction for committing a violent crime would be on its own merits, not that it was the person's third strike.

So past offences shouldn't be taken into consideration at all?

The inanity of the three-strikes law is that it doesn't really take past offences into consideration—not in any meaningful way. All felonies are treated the same. Convictions for stealing beer shouldn't weigh the same as rape. The three-strikes law doesn't take that into account. Nor does it consider whether a person has otherwise led a good life. If there are forty years of model behaviour between those non-violent acts, it doesn't matter: three strikes is three strikes. It's the mindlessness of it all that is what's so offensive.

Well I don't know that much about it, coming from a civilized country, but I would have thought 3 serious violent crimes would merit the key being thrown away. Not for petty offences, though.

And therein lies the rub. Hardly any of the three-strikes laws in the U.S. are administered with any nuance, because the people who passed them are devoid of nuance. In certain very micro-specific situations it can make sense. But it almost never has the intended consequence as a blanket punishment. If somebody committed a violent crime 30 years ago when they were fucked up on smack, then stole a loaf of bread 28 years ago when they were destitute and in rehab, then became a model citizen for 27 years and got arbitrarily arrested while breaking up a fight, getting some arbitrary-trigger traffic violation, or got caught with 2 ounces of weed while walking down the street--all preferably while brown-skinned--they go away for life. Depending on what statutes of limitations there are. The more "Merica Fuck Yeah" a red state it is, the fewer mitigating statues there are. Nobody cares. Because the only plausible explanation is that they were infected with the evil gene at the moment of conception, and therefore were always evil before, during, and forever after each incident. That is the intent of these laws. Because evil.

People who don't believe that all of human civilization can be boiled down to an unyielding war between pure good and pure evil, who think that people act for a variety of reasons shaped by their environment, could never rationalize passing laws as mind-bogglingly arbitrary and catch-all as this. And they don't. But that's how many politicians--and the people who elect them--in this country do believe in war of good vs. evil that simplistically.

[Dr. Medulla]

I've enjoyed the election discussion on volokh.com (a libertarian legal blog for those who don't know) for the past couple weeks. A frequent topic is who libertarians should support. The most likely answer, one would think, is Gary Johnson, the former NM governor and current nominee of the Libertarian Party. Nope, the choice seems to be Romney or nobody (with more preferring the former). In the end, they come back to roost and rationalize voting for a lesser evil rather than actually vote their conscience.

[Flex]

I've enjoyed the election discussion on volokh.com (a libertarian legal blog for those who don't know) for the past couple weeks. A frequent topic is who libertarians should support. The most likely answer, one would think, is Gary Johnson, the former NM governor and current nominee of the Libertarian Party. Nope, the choice seems to be Romney or nobody (with more preferring the former). In the end, they come back to roost and rationalize voting for a lesser evil rather than actually vote their conscience.

Interesting contrast to the folks at Reason Magazine: http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/24/w ... singlepage

SPOILER: Most of the Reason folks are voting for Gary Johnson, some aren't voting at all, and only one or two are voting for a major party candidate.

I don't really agree agree with most of the writers, but they're definitely mining the different options. Here are the articles (besides the overall list of who is voting for who):

"Your Vote Doesn't Count" by Katherine Mangu-Ward: http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/03/y ... esnt-count
"The Libertarian Case for Mitt Romney" by Robert Poole: http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/30/t ... g-for-romn
"The Libertarian Case for Barack Obama" by Mike Godwin: http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/26/t ... g-for-obam
"The Libertarian Case for Gary Johnson" by Nick Gillespie: http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/30/t ... ry-johnson

I'm not a Reason Magazine/Beltway Libertarian, but I'm reasonably impressed with their attempts to thoroughly interrogate the choices available to them.

[Dr. Medulla]

I've enjoyed the election discussion on volokh.com (a libertarian legal blog for those who don't know) for the past couple weeks. A frequent topic is who libertarians should support. The most likely answer, one would think, is Gary Johnson, the former NM governor and current nominee of the Libertarian Party. Nope, the choice seems to be Romney or nobody (with more preferring the former). In the end, they come back to roost and rationalize voting for a lesser evil rather than actually vote their conscience.

Interesting contrast to the folks at Reason Magazine: http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/24/w ... singlepage

SPOILER: Most of the Reason folks are voting for Gary Johnson, some aren't voting at all, and only one or two are voting for a major party candidate.

I don't really agree agree with most of the writers, but they're definitely mining the different options. Here are the articles (besides the overall list of who is voting for who):

"Your Vote Doesn't Count" by Katherine Mangu-Ward: http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/03/y ... esnt-count
"The Libertarian Case for Mitt Romney" by Robert Poole: http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/30/t ... g-for-romn
"The Libertarian Case for Barack Obama" by Mike Godwin: http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/26/t ... g-for-obam
"The Libertarian Case for Gary Johnson" by Nick Gillespie: http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/30/t ... ry-johnson

I'm not a Reason Magazine/Beltway Libertarian, but I'm reasonably impressed with their attempts to thoroughly interrogate the choices available to them.

Generally some good stuff there—political without politicking. Do the Reason crowd also moonlight as academics? I ask wondering whether the bullshit world of academic politics bleeds into the volokh crowd's disdain for Johnson because he can't win.

[tepista]

SPOILER: Most of the Reason folks are voting for Gary Johnson, some aren't voting at all, and only one or two are voting for a major party candidate.

What is the point of voting for someone that has no chance? And what is the point of running? Tell your grandkids that you ran for president once, even though no one has ever heard of you?

[Dr. Medulla]

What is the point of voting for someone that has no chance? And what is the point of running? Tell your grandkids that you ran for president once, even though no one has ever heard of you?

If you believe that voting is about exercising your conscience, you go with the candidate who best meets your views, rather than settle for the one who might win. You run because you hope to influence the debate and build a movement. The Republican Party, it might be worth mentioning, was fairly fringe when it began but eventually replaced the Whigs as the counter to the Democrats.

[tepista]

If you believe that voting is about exercising your conscience, you go with the candidate who best meets your views, rather than settle for the one who might win.

yeah, i get that, but I would just vote for for nobody in that case.

You run because you hope to influence the debate and build a movement. The Republican Party, it might be worth mentioning, was fairly fringe when it began but eventually replaced the Whigs as the counter to the Democrats.

I still vote Whig.

[Dr. Medulla]

If you believe that voting is about exercising your conscience, you go with the candidate who best meets your views, rather than settle for the one who might win.

yeah, i get that, but I would just vote for for nobody in that case.

Which is why I no longer vote. The Canadian election last May was my last time

I still vote Whig.

An admirable position, especially because Wolter still has a burning hated for Henry Clay.

[tepista]

there's still propositions, county measures, things about condoms, etc.

[Dr. Medulla]

there's still propositions, county measures, things about condoms, etc.

That's why Wolter hates Clay.

[Rat Patrol]

there's still propositions, county measures, things about condoms, etc.

That's why Wolter hates Clay.

WolterPAC's negative ad barrage has really done a number on Clay's favorables.

[Dr. Medulla]

there's still propositions, county measures, things about condoms, etc.

That's why Wolter hates Clay.

WolterPAC's negative ad barrage has really done a number on Clay's favorables.

I know his ad featuring Rosie O'Donnell and John Tesh have made me question how I feel about the Wilmot Proviso.

[Wolter]

I'd rather Clay be right than president...

[Rat Patrol]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation ... the,30248/

http://www.theonion.com/articles/undeci ... iot,30229/