Romney Picks Paul Ryan

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
Jan Van
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:42 am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Romney Picks Paul Ryan

Post by Jan Van »

Reub wrote:R/R want smaller, less obtrusive govt.
I'm all for that. Don't like it one bit to be told I can do hard drugs like alcohol, but not soft drugs like weed. That I could't do certain things with a boyfriend in the privacy of my own home. That my daughter couldn't get an abortion if she was violently raped. That I can't choose to end my life in dignity if I were to have a horrible debilitating disease.

Did I miss anything that an R/R form of smaller, less obtrusive government wouldn't bug me about anymore?
"Well, if you're gonna sin you might as well be original" -- Mike "The Cool-Person"
"Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man" -- The Dude
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Romney Picks Paul Ryan

Post by Pointedstick »

jmourik wrote:
Reub wrote:R/R want smaller, less obtrusive govt.
I'm all for that. Don't like it one bit to be told I can do hard drugs like alcohol, but not soft drugs like weed. That I could't do certain things with a boyfriend in the privacy of my own home. That my daughter couldn't get an abortion if she was violently raped. That I can't choose to end my life in dignity if I were to have a horrible debilitating disease.

Did I miss anything that an R/R form of smaller, less obtrusive government wouldn't bug me about anymore?
Image
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Romney Picks Paul Ryan

Post by MediumTex »

I think that a common theme of our political discussions here seem to touch on the idea that we crave a type of freedom that neither of the two major parties are in a position to deliver, or perhaps even comprehend.

When you tell a politician that some problems of society simply do not have state-sponsored solutions, I think that it often just annoys him and makes him want to focus the state apparatus on that problem even more.

Telling politicians that there are certain aspects of life that are simply outside the realm of government control also annoys them, I think, and it's not a party-specific thing.

Here in Texas, which is firmly in Republican control from top to bottom, a jury just convicted a female teacher of having sexual relations with four former male students, each of whom was over 18 years old when the relationship occurred.  She is now facing 20 years in prison because of these mutually consensual heterosexual sexual encounters among consenting adults (I am specifying that it was heterosexual to keep the sodomy angle out of the discussion, which was also illegal in Texas until 2003).

What is interesting about the law above is that apparently if a teacher/student relationship ever existed between two people, a later sexual relationship would constitute a crime with a potential 20 year prison sentence.  Thus, if a female teacher was 23 years old and had a 17 year old male student in one of her classes, and then 10 years later the 33 year old teacher and the 27 year old man crossed paths again and began dating, that would be a felony that could get the woman 20 years in prison and lifetime sex offender status.  Pretty weird.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
User avatar
Jan Van
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:42 am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Romney Picks Paul Ryan

Post by Jan Van »

Yeah, pretty weird.
I also always wondered about this. If I'm 17 and my girlfriend is 16, all's fine. Until my birthday?
"Well, if you're gonna sin you might as well be original" -- Mike "The Cool-Person"
"Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man" -- The Dude
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Romney Picks Paul Ryan

Post by MediumTex »

jmourik wrote: Yeah, pretty weird.
I also always wondered about this. If I'm 17 and my girlfriend is 16, all's fine. Until my birthday?
You would have to take a year off when you reached your birthday.

What's bizarre also in all of these statutory rape-type cases is that it was only a couple of generations ago that it was expected that a woman under 18 would be marrying a man who was over 18 (especially out in the country).  In other words, many of our grandparents got started in what would today be called a statutory rape situation.  Was it moral then but immoral now?  Is morality that loose of a concept?
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4537
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Romney Picks Paul Ryan

Post by Xan »

Jury nullification needs to be much better publicized.  It's up to the jury to judge both the facts AND the law, and if they disagree with the law, they should acquit regardless of the facts.  Judges tell juries that they must follow the law no matter what, which is absolutely not the case.
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Romney Picks Paul Ryan

Post by MachineGhost »

Xan wrote: Jury nullification needs to be much better publicized.  It's up to the jury to judge both the facts AND the law, and if they disagree with the law, they should acquit regardless of the facts.  Judges tell juries that they must follow the law no matter what, which is absolutely not the case.
[align=center]Image
http://fija.org/[/align]
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes

Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet.  I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
User avatar
Storm
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Romney Picks Paul Ryan

Post by Storm »

MediumTex wrote:
jmourik wrote: Yeah, pretty weird.
I also always wondered about this. If I'm 17 and my girlfriend is 16, all's fine. Until my birthday?
You would have to take a year off when you reached your birthday.

What's bizarre also in all of these statutory rape-type cases is that it was only a couple of generations ago that it was expected that a woman under 18 would be marrying a man who was over 18 (especially out in the country).  In other words, many of our grandparents got started in what would today be called a statutory rape situation.  Was it moral then but immoral now?  Is morality that loose of a concept?
Actually, this is a very interesting topic because of the history.  Peter McWilliams wrote a great book about the absurdity of making consensual crimes illegal.  It is one of the best libertarian philosophy books I have ever read.  You can read it for free here:

http://www.drugsense.org/mcwilliams/www ... index6.htm

From what I gather, when the US was in the colonial days, rich land owners were the only ones allowed to vote or pass laws.  Despite the fact that most women were married at the age of 14 or 15, the wealthy aristocratic landowners were deeply offended by the possibility that one of their own daughters might have sex outside of marriage, so they passed statutory rape laws so that they could jail any man found to have deflowered their daughters.

These laws are frankly absurd, but at the time, you have to keep in mind that throughout history fathers have wanted to protect their daughters in absurd and unrealistic ways.
"I came here for financial advice, but I've ended up with a bunch of shave soaps and apparently am about to start eating sardines.  Not that I'm complaining, of course." -ZedThou
chrish
Associate Member
Associate Member
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:01 am

Re: Romney Picks Paul Ryan

Post by chrish »

Storm wrote: These laws are frankly absurd, but at the time, you have to keep in mind that throughout history fathers have wanted to protect their daughters in absurd and unrealistic ways.


What would be the alternative to an age of consent law though? No age of consent at all?

It is notoriously difficult to convict someone of rape anyway, simply because it is very difficult to prove whether or not consent was given. An age of consent provides an important protection for young girls in this case.

Statutory rape is one of those situations where it is more important for prosecutors to exercise some judgement, rather than follow the letter of the law. In the UK, I believe the guideline is that prosecutors won't proceed with a case if there is less than 3 years or so in age between the consenting parties. So a 17 year old won't be prosecuted for having consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend, even though it is technically illegal (age of consent is 16 here).
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Romney Picks Paul Ryan

Post by Pointedstick »

chrish wrote:
Storm wrote: These laws are frankly absurd, but at the time, you have to keep in mind that throughout history fathers have wanted to protect their daughters in absurd and unrealistic ways.


What would be the alternative to an age of consent law though? No age of consent at all?

It is notoriously difficult to convict someone of rape anyway, simply because it is very difficult to prove whether or not consent was given. An age of consent provides an important protection for young girls in this case.

Statutory rape is one of those situations where it is more important for prosecutors to exercise some judgement, rather than follow the letter of the law. In the UK, I believe the guideline is that prosecutors won't proceed with a case if there is less than 3 years or so in age between the consenting parties. So a 17 year old won't be prosecuted for having consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend, even though it is technically illegal (age of consent is 16 here).
That's a very dangerous position to take, IMHO. Why not just make everything illegal and trust that the authorities will only prosecute the bad people? Giving prosecutors a wide latitude will only lead to more prosecutions, not less. At least, that's what happens in the USA.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
Storm
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Romney Picks Paul Ryan

Post by Storm »

The laws should be pretty clearly defined and also have clear age difference limits - like for example, perhaps 14 is the age of consent unless there is a more than 5 year age difference in which case the age is 18.  That would allow an 18 year old to date his 14 year old girlfriend without getting thrown in jail, while perhaps drawing a line in the sand so that the creepy 40 year old guy hopefully wouldn't.
"I came here for financial advice, but I've ended up with a bunch of shave soaps and apparently am about to start eating sardines.  Not that I'm complaining, of course." -ZedThou
chrish
Associate Member
Associate Member
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:01 am

Re: Romney Picks Paul Ryan

Post by chrish »

Pointedstick wrote: That's a very dangerous position to take, IMHO. Why not just make everything illegal and trust that the authorities will only prosecute the bad people? Giving prosecutors a wide latitude will only lead to more prosecutions, not less. At least, that's what happens in the USA.
You have it the wrong way round. The law is very clear, it is illegal to have sex with anyone under the age of 16 BUT the authorities choose to exercise some discretion in the enforcement of the law. So they are prosecuting LESS than the law allows them to.
Storm wrote: The laws should be pretty clearly defined and also have clear age difference limits - like for example, perhaps 14 is the age of consent unless there is a more than 5 year age difference in which case the age is 18.  That would allow an 18 year old to date his 14 year old girlfriend without getting thrown in jail, while perhaps drawing a line in the sand so that the creepy 40 year old guy hopefully wouldn't.
Yes, a law like that would make a lot of sense IMO. Of course any age limit you set is going to be somewhat arbitrary, but is anyone seriously suggesting that we don't need an age limit at all?
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Romney Picks Paul Ryan

Post by MachineGhost »

chrish wrote: Yes, a law like that would make a lot of sense IMO. Of course any age limit you set is going to be somewhat arbitrary, but is anyone seriously suggesting that we don't need an age limit at all?
I think we need to set smoking, drinking, driving, gun buying and consensual sex to age 25 based on recent evidence in neurobiology.  No joke.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Wed Aug 22, 2012 8:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes

Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet.  I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Romney Picks Paul Ryan

Post by MediumTex »

MachineGhost wrote:
chrish wrote: Yes, a law like that would make a lot of sense IMO. Of course any age limit you set is going to be somewhat arbitrary, but is anyone seriously suggesting that we don't need an age limit at all?
I think we need to set smoking, drinking, driving and consensual sex to age 25 based on recent evidence in neurobiology.  No joke.
It seems that people's bodies are maturing earlier and their minds are maturing later.

Not a good combination.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
User avatar
Storm
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Romney Picks Paul Ryan

Post by Storm »

MediumTex wrote:
MachineGhost wrote:
chrish wrote: Yes, a law like that would make a lot of sense IMO. Of course any age limit you set is going to be somewhat arbitrary, but is anyone seriously suggesting that we don't need an age limit at all?
I think we need to set smoking, drinking, driving and consensual sex to age 25 based on recent evidence in neurobiology.  No joke.
It seems that people's bodies are maturing earlier and their minds are maturing later.

Not a good combination.
I think we're all finding that most people are still adult children until the age 35 or so.  I know I was.  This seems to mirror the experience of a lot of my old friends and college buddies who, for the most part, still lived life like a carefree teenager well into their late 20s.

I'm encouraged that a lot of people are actually taking the time to wait until their late 30s to start families.  Those friends of mine that started in their early 20s are now all for the most part divorced with teenaged kids.  At least if you wait until your life is more stable and you've figured out what's important in life, you might have a better chance of picking a suitable partner.
"I came here for financial advice, but I've ended up with a bunch of shave soaps and apparently am about to start eating sardines.  Not that I'm complaining, of course." -ZedThou
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Romney Picks Paul Ryan

Post by Pointedstick »

Storm wrote:
MediumTex wrote:
MachineGhost wrote: I think we need to set smoking, drinking, driving and consensual sex to age 25 based on recent evidence in neurobiology.  No joke.
It seems that people's bodies are maturing earlier and their minds are maturing later.

Not a good combination.
I think we're all finding that most people are still adult children until the age 35 or so.  I know I was.  This seems to mirror the experience of a lot of my old friends and college buddies who, for the most part, still lived life like a carefree teenager well into their late 20s.

I'm encouraged that a lot of people are actually taking the time to wait until their late 30s to start families.  Those friends of mine that started in their early 20s are now all for the most part divorced with teenaged kids.  At least if you wait until your life is more stable and you've figured out what's important in life, you might have a better chance of picking a suitable partner.
I know opinions are like assholes, but my pet theory is that society simply expects much less of people than it did before. Used to be by age 16 you were married, and men would be working and women would be mothers. Then with high schooling, 18 becomes the cut-off point at which you're expected to ba an adult, and then along came this glorious ideal of universal college education, so now it's socially acceptable to remain a kid until you're 22. If you go to grad school, you can easily push this out until 27 or 28, or even later. My mother has had grad students in their mid 30s who have been in some higher education institution or other continuously for almost 20 years! These are people we're talking about who may never have had a job, are probably not married, and are in no real condition to take on any kind of responsibility at all. Even if you don't go to grad school, for some bizarre reason it seems perfectly socially acceptable for parents to take their adult children back where if they want they continue to be jobless and carefree. I just don't feel that there's any real social pressure anymore for children to grow up. There's monetary pressure, as always, but that's easily mitigated by easy-money credit, welfare programs, and over-generous parents. I see it time and time again with my generation (22-27). it doesn't seem like people really express disapproval of able-bodied young people who pursue endless expensive education, remain jobless for large periods of time, delay or avoid marriage, move back in with parents, pass up menial jobs as "beneath them", party through their 20s, fail to think about their future, and so on and so forth.

Get off my lawn! [/crotchety old man mode]
Last edited by Pointedstick on Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
l82start
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:51 pm

Re: Romney Picks Paul Ryan

Post by l82start »

Pointedstick wrote: Used to be by age 16 you were married, and men would be working and women would be mothers.
not only just working but often completely autonomous, working for themselves running large farms or starting businesses...
-Government 2020+ - a BANANA REPUBLIC - if you can keep it

-Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Romney Picks Paul Ryan

Post by MachineGhost »

Here's Romney's official pitch to be President:

http://tinyurl.com/9pcnhg3
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes

Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet.  I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Romney Picks Paul Ryan

Post by MachineGhost »

Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson and his supporters have been badgering national polling outfits to include his name along with Barack Obama and Mitt Romney when the polling groups take their surveys of potential US voters.

This week, Rasmussen Reports finally did and on Saturday (Aug. 25), the results showed Johnson getting just one percent, compared to 48 percent for Romney, 48 percent for Obama and 3 percent undecided.


http://tinyurl.com/cvn94ec
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes

Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet.  I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Post Reply