Bio

I am a Texan living in Chicago. In other words...a stranger in a strange land.

I'm a prosecutor, so my day-to-day is pretty well encapsulated in this line from the movie Magnolia: "Sometimes people need a little help. Sometimes people need to be forgiven. And sometimes they need to go to jail. And that's a very tricky thing on my part...making that call." 

UPDATE:  I'm back in Texas now.  Me and everybody else.

 


People Blake is Following (8)



People Following Blake (5)



Conversations Blake is Following (22)

Display starting at 22 of 22 followed conversations


Conversations Blake has Started (27)

Display starting at 27 of 27 user conversations

Blake's Profile

Blake
Name:
Blake
Hometown:
San Antonio (and the Hill Country), TX
Joined:
Oct 27, 2010

Recent Comments

Blake

You know a thread has gotten off the rails when the posts start to look like optical illusions.

My final word:  I think Chesterton, in his usual brusque and incisive way, has gotten to the core of the Conservative/Libertarian divide here:  How does the individual right to live life as you see fit interact with the concurrent individual right to join together with others and make rules governing our communities?

In my experience, libertarians tend to answer this question with normative language (e.g., laws are fine, but you ought not pass certain kinds of laws -- intrusive laws, "moral" laws, arbitrary laws, etc.).  

Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to rely more on procedural safeguards -- i.e. federalism, or the principle of subsidiarity.  People will pass intrusive laws (and sometimes we favor intrusive laws), but that's fine as long as we intrude on the lives of as few people as possible and allow dissidents to try to change the law or to leave. 

There is, of course, a ton of overlap between those two ideas.  But that's my explanation of how we're different, and how we're the same.  For what it's worth.

Edited on May 16, 2013 at 5:49pm
Blake

Dan Hanson:

...

  Think about what the 'conservative' answer to that question would be if it were used by a socialist to justify the vast array of social planning and control the socialist wants.  I'm pretty sure the conservative would answer, "What really matters is the nature of the laws being passed."

...

 · 2 hours ago

I disagree with this.  I'm a conservative, and I would answer that the "nature" of the laws doesn't matter.  All that matters is the process for passing them -- i.e. who gets to make them.

I think Thomas Sowell says something like: "The question is not what is right, the question is who gets to decide."  I think that's the key.

Example: I think smoking pot is bad.  I would prefer to live where it is illegal.  If I can win that argument and get most of my neighbors to agree with me, then the law is valid.  Follow it or move.  This applies to all laws about behavior that libertarians consider voluntary and harmless -- all the "morality" laws.

The fact that they enforce someone's "morality" on others is fine with me, as long as they were duly passed.

Edited on May 15, 2013 at 8:18pm
Blake

Fred Cole

Blake: I can't help but notice that even though this post has received over 80 comments it has not been listed among the most popular member posts on the main page. 

I guess the suits have decided that these fraternal squabbles over ideology are just too dorky for general consumption -- even on Ricochet.  Can't say I blame them.  No one wants to listen to Libertarians talk about what it means to be libertarian. · 7 minutes ago

No.  That's not it.

It got promoted to the Main Feed, man.  Once it goes to the Main feed it stops appearing on the Most Popular on the Member Feed.

The suits don't spike discussions like that.  Especially ones like this.  Instead they promoted it! · 39 minutes ago

Whoops.  I'm going to go ahead and leave my idiocy out there for posterity.

And no offense to the suits.  I'm wearing a suit right now.  I'm one of youuuuuuu!!!!!

Edited on May 15, 2013 at 4:43pm
Blake

I can't help but notice that even though this post has received over 80 comments it has not been listed among the most popular member posts on the main page. 

I guess the suits have decided that these fraternal squabbles over ideology are just too dorky for general consumption -- even on Ricochet.  Can't say I blame them.  No one wants to listen to Libertarians talk about what it means to be libertarian.

UPDATE: I'm an idiot.  It was promoted to the Main Feed.  Apparently we do enjoy these internecine catfights.

Edited on May 15, 2013 at 8:04pm
Blake
GayFreedomLover: I think the quote is oxymoronic.  Liberties exist at the individual level, not at the "community" level.  Communities, qua communities, do not have liberties. · 12 hours ago

Sorry, but I think this answer is a cop out.  See my response to FrankSoto two posts above.

Edited on May 15, 2013 at 3:42pm
Blake

Frank Soto: This quote makes the ever popular mistake of pretending that a community can have rights.  Only individuals can have rights.   And it is foolish to think that those rights don't take priority over the laws that other individuals wish to enact. 

There is a whole lot of nothing to this quotation. · 14 hours ago

No, Frank, I don't think you're right.  I wrote this in a post above:

  • "...Communities do not have liberties, people do.  But I think it's safe to say that Chesterton understood this.  He used the word "community" to mean a group of individuals operating democratically, not some living breathing organism imagined by lefties."

It's a cop out to just say "Communities don't have rights, so this quote is stupid."  Individuals have the right (or at least the ability) to act collectively -- i.e., democratically.  So I think you're answer just skirts the real question: How does that right to join with others and pass laws interact with the individual right to be free from oppression?

Edited on May 15, 2013 at 3:42pm
Blake
Salvatore Padula: It would also depend on how you choose to define community. Libertarians tend to place a high value on voluntary community.

I agree that if the quotation has a weakness, it is the word "community".  Communities do not have liberties, people do.  But I think it's safe to say that Chesterton understood this.  He used the word "community" to mean a group of individuals operating democratically, not some living breathing organism imagined by lefties.

Blake

Mendel

Libertarians do not want to tella community that it cannot make certain laws, libertarians want communities to decide for themselvesthat they do not want to make certain laws. · 9 minutes ago

Hm.  That is not my experience.  My libertarian friends seem to think that the act of making certain voluntary and harmless conduct illegal is an illegitimate application of force that can be ignored by free people.  Sort of like the natural law theory that permitted the colonies to break the rule of England.

So I guess the question is:  What if you lose the argument and your neighbors decide for themselves to make certain laws limiting your freedom to engage in voluntary acts that are harmless to others?  Are you bound to submit to those laws?

Edited on May 14, 2013 at 10:57pm
Blake

Randy Weivoda

Blake: Marijuana should be illegal.  That is, I would choose to live in a place that criminalizes marijuana over a place that doesn't.

Do you want that to be federal law or would you be satisfied if it was legal from the federal government's point of view, but your state still banned it?  Even though there are no states that ban alcohol, there are dry counties, and the same principle could apply here.  If the federal government decided to treat marijuana like alcohol, your state would still have the ability to keep it illegal if that's what the majority of it's citizens wanted. · 58 minutes ago

Federalism fixes everything.  Let local governments decide.  If my neighbors and I want to live in a place that doesn't tolerate certain behavior, we have the right to make our own laws accordingly. 

“What is the good of telling a community that it has every liberty except the liberty to make laws? The liberty to make laws is what constitutes a free people.”

-G.K. Chesterton, Heretics

Blake

Marijuana should be illegal.  That is, I would choose to live in a place that criminalizes marijuana over a place that doesn't.

Just wanted to throw that out and run to a safe distance to watch what happens.  Like tossing an open Bible into a faculty lounge.

Edited on May 14, 2013 at 8:47pm
Blake

Everyone is so mad at Foxman for beating us to that joke.

Paules -- Do you ever recall being certain that an event would happen, but then it didn't?  Have you ever pictured things happening a certain way, only to find that things went down completely differently than you imagined?  I'm willing to bet that has happened to you countless times and you just don't hang onto the memories.

A few days ago I flipped on the TV to find my beloved San Antonio Spurs trailing the Golden State (ugh) Warriors by 18 points with very little time left in the game.  At that moment I knew -- absolutely knew -- that they would come back and win.  They did, in dramatic fashion.  I'm clairvoyant, right?

Except last night they played again.  I checked the score to find them down by 10 with only a few minutes left.  Again, I knew they would come back and win.  I pictured Tim Duncan hitting a fadeaway at the buzzer. 

They lost by nine.  I never would have thought about it again if you hadn't asked this question.

Edited on May 9, 2013 at 9:38pm
Blake

EstoniaKat: In high rotation:

Sigur Ros "Svefn G Englar"   The best band that Iceland has produced (and yes, I know who I'm slagging). This is, IMO, their best song, and fits the Baltic Sea culture in ways I can't fully articulate.

Edited 2 hours ago

I thought Jonsi's (of Sigur Ros) solo album "Go" was incredible.

"Hengilas" may be the most beautiful song of the decade.  Granted, that's probably only because I don't know what the words mean -- but I never, ever want to know.  It's so haunting and beautiful it makes your heart ache, and any message in the words could only detract from the music.  It sounds like a cold night under the stars.  Perfect.

Edited on May 7, 2013 at 10:23pm
Blake

Mollie Hemingway, Ed.

Valiuth: Did any one else find his comments that the only reason a pretty white girl would run to a black man is because she was either homeless or in trouble a bit off putting?  · 1 hour ago

Honestly? No.

I found it refreshingly candid and funny...

Really? I thought it was pretty bad.  I agree that people should have a sense of humor when talking about racial tension -- it's just really, really weird that it crossed his mind at all in this situation.

It seems clear that he lives in a world where everything is seen through the lens of racial division and suspicion, so he just assumes that everyone will naturally understand that it's bizarre for a white girl to approach a black man for help.  But that's not the world most people live in, and it isn't what would have crossed most people's minds. 

I'm not offended or anything.  I just thought it revealed a warped view of the world, and it made me cringe. 

Blake
Valiuth: Did any one else find his comments that the only reason a pretty white girl would run to a black man is because she was either homeless or in trouble a bit off putting?  · 27 minutes ago

Yes, I did...

Blake: I actually think the end is very sad -- troubling sad, not emotional sad.  If I saw a "little pretty white girl" run into the arms of a "black man" it would not be a "dead giveaway" to me that something was very wrong.  That's the sort of racial division and suspicion that takes root in urban centers...

People just don't think that way where I'm from -- but I guess everything's just better in Texas.  I lived in Chicago for several years.  The racial stratification of those progressive utopias astounds me.   

Blake

I actually think the end is very sad -- troubling sad, not emotional sad.  If I saw a "little pretty white girl" run into the arms of a "black man" it would not be a "dead giveaway" to me that something was very wrong.  That's the sort of racial division and suspicion that takes root in urban centers.

That aside, I do love this guy.

Edited on May 7, 2013 at 4:36pm
Blake

It's okay for politicians to do whatever their electorates will tolerate.  That may sound flippant, but I think it's sort of the whole point of representative democracy.  Ted Kennedy got elected in Massachusetts despite causing the death of a young woman.  Anthony Weiner will likely be elected to some public office in New York despite his...um...indiscretions.  The examples are endless. 

I think Farage has built up enough goodwill among his supporters and has cultivated the sort of public persona that will make this easy for them to overlook.

Also: Farage. Is. Amazing.  Just incredible.  I would rather listen to him than to than any American conservative politicians.  He is a bull in a china shop.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In