Recently, in the comments section of another blog, I was informed I have a 'limited point of view' when it comes to understanding the Constitution and its relevance to solving social ills.
What's interesting is that while suggesting I am not nearly sophisicated enough to understand why the Constituion implies things it doesn't say, my argument is never actually refuted. (I made the argument that the labor market is the same as the baseball market, and there is no reason to have a regulation forcing purchasers of labor to purchase labor from specific groups any more than there should be regulation on the purchasers of baseballs.) That's pretty common. You'll find the use of a simple logical question will pretty much stop intelligent debate, and instead have a discussion revert back to the crazy mean spirited Libertarian being too obtuse to recognize the nuances in an argument based solely on emotion and prior (often incorrect) legal rulings.
And the solution proposed by the Left Liberals? Why, the government.
The solution to workplace discrimination: Government
The solution to the 'healthcare crisis': Government
The solution to 'global warming': Government
The solution to income disparity: Government
The solution to obesity: Government.
Me? The guy who says there might be another more effective solution that doesn't involve increasing the power of the government and might eliminate unintended results? The guy who suggests there might be a solution that is actually better than government regulation; a solution that would make *insert minority group here* even better off, all without violating the property right of others (and, oh by the way, making sure the government doesn't have more power to violate the rights of whatever minority group in favor of some other group in the future)? I'm the one with a limited point of view.
[Edit: Just in case it isn't clear, I happen to consider Stash a good guy and a friend. He's smart, has a great sense of humor, and he's a heck of a chef, if photos are any indication. We just don't agree all the time when it comes to politics. That doesn't make him a bad person, just like it doesn't make me a bad person. The posts on his blog happened to coincide with another conversation, all together resulting in this particular post.]