We know where most of the creativity,
the innovation,
the stuff that drives productivity lies-
in the minds of those closest to the work.
Jack Welch
Sen. Harris v Kavanaugh
The California successor to "Call me Senator" Barbara Boxer tries to sneak in and bait Kavanaugh the "right to abort" among the Ninth Amendment's unenumerated rights. This clip doesn't have Kavanaugh's full response; she makes a dismissive reference to the pocket copy of the Constitution he carries.As I write, I have not heard or read Kavanaugh's full response, but a few general comments:
- There's a general distinction between negative rights and positive rights. The former are rights which the government or others cannot impose upon, e.g., your political speech, right to choose your profession, right to relocate, right to due process under the law, etc. The latter are obligations the State must do on your behalf, e.g., right to healthcare, food, shelter, education, "fair wages", old-age/disabled pension, etc. We right-libertarians claim there is no such thing as the latter. For example, I might choose to seek a career as a professional singer. But that doesn't mean the State assumes the risk of my own decisions, e.g., guarantees a "living wage" as a singer. It doesn't guarantee an audience for my unpopular opinions, a good job if I move out of state, a certain standard of living in old age, etc.
Now Harris' reference to Kavanaugh's praise for the late chief justice's position basically limiting the judicial/political use of the Ninth Amendment as sort of an activist jurist blank check /wildcard to validate, say, an implicit leftist political perspective. I don't think the late justice argued there weren't unenumerated rights, but that the Ninth Amendment was being inappropriately cited .
- There is no "right to abort". There are certain fundamental rights, i.e., life, liberty, and property. Libertarians usually reference the one's rights cannot infringe on another's, e.g., you do not have a right to take my life or possessions.
- We could cite several exceptions to other purported "unenumerated" rights, such as a right to vote (directly). For instance, from the original Constitution, voting for Senators and Presidents was representational vs direct, e.g., by state legislature and electors respectively. All of these ultimately are based on some foundation of direct voting, and the basic Constitutional principle is equality under the law for US citizens. There are some restrictions, like age or any applicable naturalization process. Nobody disputes the right of non-traditional residence (e.g., homeless) adult citizens to vote, but the integrity of the election process requires safeguards against election manipulation and fraud. For example, political whores like Harris typically oppose voter ID laws, arguing they discourage voting by the economically disadvantaged. I believe local governments already must provide some mechanism to accommodate non-traditional residence citizens. I would argue it should be convenient, but it could be non-traditional residences may require more time to validate, and government may require earlier applications at a certain period before an election. Harris, of course, would oppose any such restrictions.
Walter Williams and Milt Friedman on Unions
The Kaepernick/Nike Kerfuffle
I am not a Kaepernick fan. It's not a necessarily a popular position in libertarian cicles, many who want to argue it's a free expression issue but I see it as paid players breaking their contractual conduct on the field. The second video explains this very point very well; the same players could be leading public protests off the field like most of us who protest outside of work. I never initiate a political discussion at work. I did have a former colleague retard back in Arizona who discovered I had a political blog and make some implicit threats. I have constantly argued against Snowden precisely because I take contracts very seriously.Choose Life: Baby-Daddy Moments
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Ken Catalino via Townhall |
