1 - 9
Mr. Williams, I daresay that it's a bit odd to call these "unforeseen" consequences. They've been at the center of the minimum wage debate for the last 50 years and the exact same questions get brought up every time the issue is discussed. A higher minimum wave decreases the likelihood of business expansion or of hiring another worker, thereby preventing the unemployed from finding jobs. It's pretty much a given at this point. They do know. They just don't care.
In response to:

23 Ways of Poking Fun at Libertarians

John4853 Wrote: Aug 03, 2013 1:12 PM
That's actually a pretty decent point that I've considered many times, regarding national defense being one of the few true "national-level public goods".
In response to:

23 Ways of Poking Fun at Libertarians

John4853 Wrote: Aug 03, 2013 12:57 PM
I don't get nearly so outraged, as an admitted libertarian, when Glenn Beck claims the title as when Bill Maher does. "You shouldn't be able to exercise your right to bear arms, you only have what property you own because you've stolen it/we let you have it, and we shouldn't let you keep as much of it... But... I like my drugs, so I'm slightly outside of the Democrat mainstream. Call me a libertarian".
In response to:

Gays Don’t Have a Right to Marriage

John4853 Wrote: Mar 28, 2013 2:07 PM
Ms. Wright- I do believe you're missing the point. Any man currently has the protected right to marry any untaken and consenting woman. Any woman has the right to marry any untaken and consenting man. However, men are discriminated against on the basis of gender, in that they cannot marry other untaken and willing men, as can women. And women are discriminated against, likewise. There's no possibility of a compelling public interest on behalf of either the state or federal governments to justify the gender discrimination (which demands heightened scrutiny) and, as such, it doesn't pass the necessary test for gender-based discrimination. It's really a simple question. Full disclosure: I am not a lawyer.
In response to:

Woodward-Sperling Flap May Turn Tide

John4853 Wrote: Mar 03, 2013 10:29 AM
I'd be interested in knowing why the author of this article consulted politifact, of all things, to assess a politician's truthfulness in some matter.
Honestly? Yes. Reid has typically been a hesitant ally to those concerned about the weakening of the second amendment. The more concerning portion of the interview comes from Reid's apparent assumption that the second amendment is about hunting, rather than being about the fundamental right to protect oneself, one's families and one's properties (fundamental rights themselves) from those that would do them harm. The more people come to accept that "The second amendment is about hunting", the less important it seems to be to the average populace in a modern, multi-national society.
Sarah Palin was the right choice for McCain's campaign. She energized people about an unexciting campaign, had executive experience in a state with logistical concerns closer approaching those of a country than an average state, and got the dialogue started. However- the campaign is over, McCain and Palin lost, and I now have little interest in hearing what she has to say about, well, just about anything outside Alaska, when there's the opportunity to listen to Mark Levin or read the bloggers at Volokh about actual legal/legislative practice, or someone like Tammy Bruce about the more politics-based side of things.
Rules? no. Gravity? Yes. Which is more serious, posting a fake status on your friend's facebook site pretending to be him as a joke? Or filing his tax return on TurboTax with your own bank account as the recipient? However, in doing some more research, SCOTUS has found that state party-legislatures act as state officials when conducting primary elections, so there may well be something to this. I'm just saying that, personally, I'd be more offended were it to occur in an actual election at the state or national level that had binding results. After all the discussion of a bartered convention and whatnot, it should be clear that primaries don't have nearly the gravity of binding elections.
Rather damning, I'll admit, but it's unclear to me that primaries count as legitimate elections due to political parties being, for the most part, glorified private clubs that have found legitimacy through congressional bylaws (for lack of a better word) rather than actually being a constitutional element in and of themselves. If this were an actual state or federal election, I'd feel much differently, though, and I see no reason why the same thing couldn't happen then.
1 - 9