What are those Chicago boyz smoking? Fascism was also efficient (in the short term).

... but I'm not sure, since Jack gave him little chance to expand upon any points. I agree with much of what Jack said, but, as I've said before, his interruptions and long-windedness irritate me. Calling what I just watched a conversation is stretching the definition to the point of tearing. To the degree that I did understand Eric's philosophy, I was troubled by his apparent rosy expectations of government's sense of responsibility and the ability of the democratic process to keep a misbehaving government in check. There's an excessive tendency to deify the authors of the Constitution whenever we're discussing issues like civil liberties and limiting government authority, but one thing I will always admire about them is their skepticism regarding the self-restraint of those in power. Offering as evidence the idea that George W. Bush didn't use the Patriot Act to go all Nixon on his enemies is hardly reassuring. For one thing, it's not clear that he hasn't, and for another, it is no guarantee that future administrations won't. It's easy to imagine Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani being tempted, at the very least. Eric used the idea that we give cops

Rights are NOT a service the government provides. They are not something that the government allows. They are inviolate and are what the government serves. The Constitution and Bill of Rights isn't about giving government power, it is all about limiting the government's power in the Founding Documents. These documents are not limits of what the people can do, but rather documents that strictly limit what government can do...and you cannot simply legislate rights away. ALL attempts to do so are, by definition, unconstitutional. Oh, and no thank you. I am not hiding under my bed in fear. I do NOT need nor want government or any subcontractors to protect me from big, bad poor people in the 3rd World. If it is between being threatened with being blown up in a terrorist attack or losing my absolute right to privacy, I'll that the threat of being blown up any day. I can handle the necessary protection part myself if need be. Eric, in particular, has WAY too much faith in government and completely ignores the objective facts of abuse of civil liberty that has been the entirety of the Bush Administration since day 1. It isn't a

I am not going to watch it. Sadly, I didn't watch yesterday either. I just can't listen to one more person telling me to be afraid, give up my civil liberties to keep them, take off my shoes and give up my chapstick at the airport, and watch out for politicians that don't wear flag pins. Good grief - On new year's eve we have Mickey telling us that the Mexicans are coming to take back the country. (It is very clever of the Mexican government to propagandize their children in school by telling them their side of what happened when we took parts of their country by force. Step two is obviously keeping the economy in such terrible shape that thousands of hungry people will sneak into the United States and get jobs with low pay and no benefits. The next step in this diablolical plan is unclear to me but I know it has something to do with (a.) id cards - which real Americans should have and Mexicans shouldn't - and (b.)children's health care - which only children smart enough to be born to responsible parents

Civil libertarians would be making a huge mistake to ignore Posner's ideas--there's a logical coherence behind them that's missing from most defenses of executive power, such that reading his argument actually enables you to make a better argument against executive power. Take this paper The Credible Executive Posner and Vermeule wrote.

We suggest several mechanisms with which a well-motivated executive can credibly signal his type, including independent commissions within the executive branch; bipartisanship in appointments to the executive branch, or more broadly the creation of domestic coalitions of the willing; the related tactic of counter-partisanship, or choosing policies that run against the preferences of the president's own party; commitments to multilateral action in foreign policy; increasing the transparency of the executive's decisionmaking processes; and a regime of strict liability for executive abuses.

and

For one thing, the very availability of these mechanisms, once generally known, indirectly provides the public with information even if they are not used, and indeed because they are not used. The failure to invite members of the other political party, or foreign nations, to participate in a crucial decision of foreign policy might cause voters

Eric Posner: Remarkably naïve about human nature. Those in power respond differently to the "popular demand" for security and the "popular demand" for liberty. Governments have a natural tendency to enhance their power. Demand for security serves that tendency, demand for liberty does just the opposite. Which demand do you think governments are more inclined to accommodate (especially when the government's responses are not fully transparent)? Posner also simplistically assumes that "popular demand" is an independent force: the government responds to it, but has no ability to control it. He ignores the government's power to manipulate popular demand in favor of security over liberty. Successful war-and-fear-mongering neutralizes the opposition and undermines the "political competition" Posner banks on. Jack Balkin: Much too fond of his own voice. Nevertheless, both are serious thinkers who put to shame others who reduce profound constitutional issues to ill-informed soundbites and one-liners (e.g., D. Lithwick).

Posner's totally casual attitude about the death of American values does scare my socks off

Instead of assuming we care about your feelings, why not point to some specific passage--one where Jack doesn't interrupt Eric so much to obscure the point he's trying to make.

ohc: Nice essay and an admirable resolution.

Ah, Mr. Posner does make me miss my time as an undergrad at Chicago. And though I find myself siding more, perhaps, with Mr. Balkin's argument, his disruptive and rude badgering reminds me how despicable those Ivies can be.

_______________

monovlog ? That was amazing... do people really lack self-awareness to that degree? I stopped watching halfway through.

I think Posner made an interesting point with the EPA agency's decision making- we choose to allow a certain amount of death in our society in many ways- the setting of speed limits on roads- not wanting to pay for extra policing in the crime ridden areas- not wanting to pay for free yearly cancer checks on all members of society- but we do pay to fix potholes (which saves lives). we do mandate a special service regimen for jet engines that transport the public (which costs money). Our society is constantly weighing life and death, and making decisions about how much death is acceptable based on things like cost (if every car had an extra twenty grand in safety features how many thousands of lives would be saved every year?), ease of use ( we would rather drive 65 on the highways and have some extra people die than go slower)- the extra death is not enough to bother the majority of us. SO MY QUESTION TO JACK AND THOSE WHO APPLESAUCE HIS POSITION, which, ahem, I think his position is that even a few hundred mistaken deportations, or five year long stays in prison without being charged, or any