The term "regulated," in both its situational (i.e. "the militia") and historical (i.e. 1789-1791) context doesn't mean "buried under a shit-ton of restrictive laws, essentially transforming the right into a meaningless privilege."
Here are other words whose meanings have changed/shifted over time: 1.) cool (used to refer to temperature) 2.) bad (used to mean "the opposite of good") 3.) gay (used to have nothing whatsoever to do with sexuality)
Recommended reading in re 'well-regulated': http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_.22well_regulated_militia....22 http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals%2Ftlj42&div=45&id&page https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=76+Chi.-Kent+L.+Rev.+291&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=6e1d6a4734adf028757cfee0c6430627 http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Tremoglie/a_well-regulated_militia.htm
BTW, prominent "liberal" constitutional lawyers (pretty much THE biggest two names in constitutional law) Sanford Levinson and Laurence Tribe both agree with me on this. LOL, j/k. It's the other way around... I agree with /them/ on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanford_Levinson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Tribe
My ConLaw prof at Texas Tech was good friends with Levinson and assigned his seminal article "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" to us as reading. Originally published in Yale Law Journal, Guncite reprints it with permission from Yale L.J.: http://www.guncite.com/journals/embar.html
Sanford Levinson (1989). "The Embarrassing Second Amendment," Yale Law Journal, v.99, pgs.637-659.
These are not the only two issues related to arbitrary governmental increases in the minimum wage. Here are some other issues to think about:
"minimum wage" AND "crowding out"
"minimum wage" AND "opportunity cost"
"minimum wage" AND inflation (that is, any short-run benefit a MW worker might see would erode in the long term due to inflation)
"minimum wage" AND "savings rate" (related to the above)
I sometimes like to tease my more Progressive friends by adopting a hee-haw, 'hickish' accent and calling it "Socialist Security" (or "Socialist Insecurity"), but the truth (as always) is more complex than that.
"The Social Security and Medicare ‘Trust Funds’ Are a … What’s the Word? | Cato @ Liberty" http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-social-security-and-medicare-trust-funds-are-a-whats-the-word/
"Social Security Trust Fund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund
Further, it's neither a trust fund completely nor completely pay-as-you-go, but the PAYG.the fact that wholly certainly complicates non-partisan discussion on the matter.
Get it? Anyhow, Hoover sucked, but not for the reasons most commonly attributed to him (e.g. the myth that he was a proponent of laissez-faire policies which led immediately to the Great Depression).
And I don't vote lightly, either. I take it seriously. Just like I take jury duty seriously.
However, the two are not the same, largely because voting is not a duty (i.e. it is not mandatory, at least not in this country).
It is a right (at the macro level; that is, in the aggregate) and a privilege (at the micro level; that is, for any particular individual). [1,2,3,4,5, 6, 7, 8]
But it is not a duty.
That doesn't stop some from thinking about it that way, though, or from attempting to frame the debate in such a manner.
Every election season I hear people imploring their fellow man (or woman, or why not just "citizen") to get out and vote, to be represented, to "let their voice be heard."
But largely our voices are not heard.
When a [let's assume male] politician votes a certain way, he doesn't poll his constituency. He votes his conscience (if you're a purist), or his donors' conscience (if you're a cynic). And he sometimes goes against both and votes his re-election.
I have never witnessed a politician say "I don't have any strong opinion one way or the other on abortion," (for example), "so I'm going to poll my constituents.
I was surprised after this latest bout of elections to see an article by John Carney (on CNBC, of all places) that forgave non-voters their 'sin' in a hopefully-intentionally manner.
It is for all of these reasons and more that I defend non-voters and the concept of non-voting.
On one of the favorite economics-related blogs in my blogroll ("in my Google Reader account" is probably more accurate), Agoraphilia, blog co-author Glen Whitman tries to make a libertarian case against non-voting... and despite (IMHO) making the argument only half-heartedly (and probably only half-seriously) still manages to be quite convincing.
Granted, some people do not vote out of any rational calculation. They are apathetic, they forget, whatever. This post is not about those people. Rather, it is about the ones who decide to not vote based on at least some form of cost-benefit analysis.
As I mentioned to a dear childhood friend in a recent Facebook post, the reason is not always apathy:
Just to clarify, some people would take issue with the premise ("If you don't vote, your apathy..."). The reason is not 'apathy' for everyone who chooses non-voting. The vast majority of people who don't vote probably do so out of apathy. But some people have principled reasons for not participating in the process, even if I don't agree with them (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses, such as the Williams Sisters, who don't participate for religious reasons; some journalists, such as Newsweek/WaPo columnist/editor Robert J. Samuelson, for reasons of 'impartiality'; and some people, who believe that by doing so, they are sanctioning evil).
What are your thoughts? If you are a non-voter, did I cover your reasoning/rationale? If you are a voter, had you ever even considered the possibility of principled, informed non-voting? Do you agree or disagree with the concept of "non-voting" categorically, or is there any particular justification that you find particularly interesting or abhorrent? I am particularly interested in any glaring (or otherwise) problems voters and non-voters alike can find with any of the logic undperpinning any of the reasons discussed here.
Some links above have expired. As of 10/23/2014, this list is current:
http://www.thenation.com/article/right-vote
http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=2344
https://web.archive.org/web/20110413120128/http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/il02_jackson/sp040907DoAmericansHaveTheRightToVote.shtml
http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=12581
https://web.archive.org/web/20080918115231/http://www.tompaine.com/articles/the_fundamental_right_you_dont_have.php
https://web.archive.org/web/20130529093917/http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0106-35.htm
http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/right-to-vote-amendment/right-to-vote-f-a-q/
http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/does-the-us-constitution-guarantee-americans-an-affirmative-individual-right-to-vote
