I am speaking of property rights in the context of a rational, not a religious based morality. Under a rational morality, the value of the lives of the animals and plants on one's property are not such that they can be destroyed without penalty. That puts property rights into a new ethical context. My point is that if morality were rational, property rights would be an effective check against environmental destruction.

I'm trying to work with this, really I am. Maybe it's the lawyer in me, but I'd like some specifics to go along with this high-minded language. I respect your tone, so I'm trying to be as charitable as I can be with your vagueness.

Under this "rational morality," what are the "penalties" for having destroyed the lives of values and plants on one's own property? Criminal sanctions? Civil liability? If it is a person's own private property we are talking about, from where would these penalities flow? A statute, a law, a new (and novel) form of abstract tort liability? Would this law be federal or state?

If federal, isn't this just describing current federal law that, in fact, imposes concrete penalties for the destruction of certain living and environmental resources?

Also, how does morality becoming rational make property rights an "effective check against environmental destruction?" What does that look like?

Finally, how would any of this be constitutional, if the current regime is not? Or are you saying the current regime is constitutional (putting you at stark odds with Ron Paul), but wrong for other, non-constitutional reasons?

Never mind.

The one and only exhibit you need: that Pat Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani did not immediately and irrevocably destroy him as a candidate.

Kitt:

The title of this thread is, "The Giuliani moderation fallacy". Not the 'Ron Paul for President' thread.

That's funny -- reminds me of Glenn's Update VI (I think) of the previous thread, referencing HTML Mencken's post, where he says:

…which brings me back to my initial point OF. MAXIMUM. SERIOUSNESS. We all have our obsessions, our bugbears, our pet causes. And we should be careful not to assume that they always pertain to whatever question’s at hand. Doubly, we ought to avoid over-specialization, over-investment, and above all avoid the tendency to make a Unified Field Theory (incorporating our obsession to the point of ludicrous aggrandizement) and apply it to everything monomaniacally.

I couldn't help but think, as I read this, doesn't it apply with every bit as much force to Ron Paul supporters?

"Everything comes back to war and the need for the gold standard! Can't you see that Ron Paul would solve all of our problems?!"

Perhaps, if it's true that everything Giuliani says is "a noun, a verb, and 911," everything a Ron Paul supporter says is "the gold standard, Ron Paul, limited government, and Ron Paul. Did I mention... Ron Paul???"

(And before anyone mistakes me, no, I'm not saying Glenn is such a person.)

We don't call people Republicanic Representatives, do we?

Why call them Democratic? Just because something sounds right doesn't mean it is right.

Sorry, you are objectively, certifiably wrong. But by all means, keep speaking/writing like an idiot.

I just don't understand why that is such a big deal. All that happens is everyone gets into an angry semantic rant. Who cares? It's not like they're saying "bad party" or "evil party." What's the difference? Why is it such a "slight"?

#1: It is bad English, and bad English pisses me off.

#2: It's origins were born of a deliberate attempt to make the Democratic party sound harsher, associated with a rat, etc.

#3: It has since become an intentional (in many cases) attempt to slight Democrats. A bit like someone continually calling you a nickname you don't like. I don't know about you, but when someone shows disrespect, I call them on it. Particularly when the display of disrespect makes them sound like an idiot anyway.

Not that Pace was being deliberate. Probably just ignorant. Maybe I was too harsh. Ah well.

*Its* origins

I alomost got sick to my stomach as I read Mr. Greenwald's comment about the WSJ article. He is no better than he claims his critics to be. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. He definitely sees the world through rose tinted glasses from the left.

If you think Glenn's critique was simply that the article was biased, you may want to get your eyes checked.

Also, are you as your name suggests? If so, did you catch that wonderful documentary on PBS last night about the Dover, Pennsylvania intelligent design case?

My absolute favorite part was when they talked about the appearance of the mysterious "cdesign proponentsist" in the intelligent design manuscript, as an accidental result of attempting to substitute the unconstitutional "creationism" with the more scientific-sounding term "intelligent design."

What did the one gentleman call it... the evolutionary "missing link" between creationism and intelligent design! I about fell on the floor laughing.

Oh I just had to link to an explanation of that wonderful, wonderful term. Oh God, I'll be laughing about this for days.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing_link_cd.html