I really liked the last segment discussing gay marriage. In some ways, I feel vindicated. My position has been civil unions for all (except children and animals). But marriage (i.e. blessing the civil union) was not a state function. A friend (straight, female) has accused me of being homophobic, maintaining that I am unwilling to embrace full equality for gays - civil unions for all is just a way of not recognizing gay marriages. I said gay and straight couples could still get "married" (get blessed) but they would have to do that through some social, religious or other way. So now I can point to two legal scholars from both sides of the political spectrum agreeing with me. The local county clerk can have a standard contract that two (or more) people can enter into, with boxes that can be checked as to which, if not all, of the traditional rights of a married couple are to be included. By law, this contract on its face would be enforceable. A couple could draft their own contract - which could be subject to litigation. In the abstract, I am approving of polygamy but there are practical issues. If A marries (I should use "unites with" or something like that) B and

For your Tuesday irony shot Dibold Leaks 2008 Election Results. Now perhaps we can do away with all the horse race BS and actually foster some discussion of the issues.

It's a pity the off-camera stopwatch nanny had to intrude. I could have happily listened to this discussion for another hour, at least. Please bring this pair back soon, and ask them to pick up where they left off.

Pisc: Please double-check your URL. I'm getting taken to a page to email the video I think you want us to see, not the video's page itself.

It's the right link, the embedded player takes some time to load. Like you I use FireFox and sometimes it is for crap with embedded players. Click on the Election 08 tab and then the dibold story and it may force the player to load.

That was great, pisc.! The "Clinton" campaign's reaction was the best part -- just spot on.

Charles Fried was great sadly I'm not such a fan of Joshua. Besides his inability to stop stuttering I find his statements at minute 32 in reference to campaign finance reform disgusting and belittling of the American people. Beforehand at minute 30-31 josh agrees that Obama is an example of how big money is not a critical problem in elections but goes on to say that the American people need government to protect them from folks with money outside the election. On (near as I could get, leaving out the umms) quote: "however, I think you may have to do it, things you would prefer not to do because it may just be too optimistic of an assumption to think that the protection of modern liberty gives you all the political equality you need that seems to me to be an extremely improbable statement and hear I agree with McCain.” Josh, YOU are being too optimistic in thinking that government can keep itself free of cooperate influence and that the rules you wish to create will not end up working against your goal of political equality. Further what

How, exactly, has McCain "stuck with" his "genuine principled love of getting money out of politics" when, as Mett Welch explained on Free Will, he's got a 527 called the "Reform Institute" to house his entourage in the off-season and launder donations from the very cable companies he himself regulates...?

No problem, Joel. He's like a vegetarian who eats meat.

Pisc: Thanks. As it happens, I use the Flashblock plugin, and the appearance of the embedded video looked like an ad -- it showed as a skinny column until I clicked on it. (Usually, Flashblock shows the proper dimensions of embedded Flash content.) Pretty funny stuff. Thanks again.

Is this a polite way to call someone disingenuous? http://www.bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs...7&out=00:10:14

For over a week now, I can see both participants when I'm choosing which discussion to listen to, but when I activate it, I only see the speaker on the left and only a partial frame at that. Anyone else experiencing this problem?

I agree this was a wonderful conversation. Joshua was very much the gentleman, allowing Charles whatever time he wanted to flesh out his points. I find Charles' arguments very compelling, yet I actually wanted Joshua to be a bit more combative, simply to throw the issues into stronger relief.

Watch Charles answer Joshua silently, with a smile.
http://www.bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs...8&out=00:34:59

Quoting Simon Willard: I agree this was a wonderful conversation. Joshua was very much the gentleman, allowing Charles whatever time he wanted to flesh out his points. I find Charles' arguments very compelling, yet I actually wanted Joshua to be a bit more combative, simply to throw the issues into stronger relief.

It seemed tome it was more like the deference that a pupil would show to a respected mentor than an unwillingness to challenge. Professor Cohen challenged Professor Fried but not in a combative manner.

Perhaps it would be nice if the state were out of the marriage business altogether, and only issued civil union licenses without regard to sexual orientation. But that ship has sailed, and is too far gone -- marriage is social institution. That insurmountable fact is what imbues your essentially egalatarian idea with a vague sense of uncomfortableness with same-sex marriages, and probably what raised the eyebrows of your friend. And, in this sense, the larger stumbling block to your proposal is not selling the heterosexual community on accepting civil unions for homosexuals, but for themselves. The most persuasive--and simple--arguments for same-sex marriage are the most conservative arguments. A "civil unions for all" stance at first glance appears quite libertarian and anti-statist, but actually serves to undermine and water-down our most important social institutions in the left-liberal/societal-tinkering way that led "liberal" to become a political epithet.

As someone who's been (I hope constructively) critical of Josh's diavlogging presentation in the past, let me say (about halfway into this diavlog) that Josh is pretty terrific here. Either he's learned from the past, or he's better when matched against thoughtful ideological opponents, or both. The discussion of Ancient vs. Modern liberty was really good -- he did a nice job of illuminating the issue with one particular example (campaign finance reform).
I must say that the particular example is actually one where I have come pretty much to agree with Fried, though on the broader issue that ancient liberty is still something we have to bring into the balance, I agree with Josh. Even in the days before the internet and blogs, I felt the best approach was to require free media time for candidates and set up some truth-squadding system, rather than limiting people's speech. The solution to the problems that arise through free speech is almost always more speech. Still, I was initially inclined to take McCain-Feingold as some kind of second- or third-best solution. But as time goes on, it becomes clear that the law would probably never have done any good, and

I have had that problem intermittently. But only when I try to restart a diavlog I've paused. I don't experience it when I first get into a diavlog.
The flash player still seems to have way too many bugs.

BN: I'm with you in coming around to the realization that recent efforts at campaign finance reform appear to have failed to achieve their intent. I have also long had at least some sympathy with people who argue from a free speech basis that contributions should not be limited. Finally, I do think a lot of good could be done merely by insisting on rapid and complete publication of contributions, especially those in excess of some threshold amount. Still, though, I continue to worry that money buys access, and I continue to believe there is something wrong with allowing rich people to set the agenda. I agree with you that Internet fund-raising works for some candidates, but this seems mostly to be limited to high-profile candidates for the presidency and the occasional targeted darling of, say, MoveOn. Down in the trenches, it's awfully hard for most candidates for Congress to get this same attention, which means that a small group with one interest can effectively buy the votes on any issue that matters to that small group, or even insert pieces of legislation into bills at the eleventh hour. So, what I'm asking is, do

Quoting bjkeefe: BN:

So, what I'm asking is, do you think we should stop trying to come up with a system to cut down the influence of well-heeled contributors, even if we so far haven't succeeded?

I certainly wouldn't make that argument. I agree with both diavloggers that we have to guard against the danger of oligarchy in some way. But there seem to be two ways to "reduce the influence of well-heeled contributors" -- one is to try to limit the absolute contributions of those contributors, the approach that leads to conflicts with the first amendment and to lots of unintended consequences. The other attempts to reduce the relative influence of these large contributions by providing more information about what's going on and by lowering the entry bar for candidates with a compelling message. I think this approach involves less conflict of values and is more likely to have good consequences. Bloggers and internet based groups have begun to focus at a level below the presidency -- perhaps they can do this without any effort on the part of the government. But if not, I'd still be in favor of

BN: Good points. I especially like the idea about providing free air time. At first thought, I would be against limiting the number of TV ads a candidate could buy. Assuming the money is raised in a fair way, this seems especially contrary to the First Amendment. Same instinctive reaction to limiting 527s, despite the depths to which they sometimes sink. Nice post by Ambinder. Thanks for the link. I have the same reaction: Obama's many small pledges seem the epitome of democratic fund-raising. I wish he hadn't made that sort-of pledge way back when, but in an amoral political sense, I think he can and should get out of it. It's not like McCain has been Mr. Clean with his gaming the public financing system, after all.

I think Fried is onto SOMETHING in saying that in addition to a contract between individuals, marriage is also a "blessing" from the community, though I'm not sure that that's the best way to put it. I'd prefer to say that marriages are "recognized" by the community.
Ordinary contracts are between individuals, and though society or the state may enforce (some of) the promises made by these individuals, the contract between the two (or more) individuals doesn't normally impose obligations on other individuals -- it's private. In some way, those outside the marriage relationship are supposed to be bound by the contract too -- not to love honor and obey -- but to respect the relationship in certain ways. Primarily, outsiders are not supposed to tempt one partner away from the other, and others are supposed to recognize it as the closest of family bonds. Somehow A's contract with B makes A closer to B than to his mother or siblings, and mother and siblings are supposed to recognize this.
Very little of this actually has to do with the state -- the long arm of the law doesn't descend on the interfering mother-in-law or even on

thanks...I am working at it, and (very honestly) appreciate the criticisms.

Happens all the time for me. Very annoying. Especially when the person on the right hand side is someone I want to see. Like Garrance, Rosa, Meghan...Mickey?? Seriously though, some vloggers are very visually expressive and not being able to see them definitely decreases the overall enjoyment.

Wonderful exchange, one of the best ever, especially the last two topics, that bears re-listening to and time to think about the is being said. A question while am doing that re-listening, if anyone will oblige me: Fried's comment that he hates the idea of "culture" escaped me; I did not understand what he meant, the context of his comment, his notion of culture, nor the reasoning behind that hatred. If someone could enlighten me, I'd be obliged.

Quoting basman: A question while am doing that re-listening, if anyone will oblige me: Fried's comment that he hates the idea of "culture" escaped me; I did not understand what he meant, the context of his comment, his notion of culture, nor the reasoning behind that hatred. If someone could enlighten me, I'd be obliged.

I vaguely remember that, too, but all I can remember is seeing what he was saying at the time. Got a dingalink or approximate time?

Thanks. As the official luddite here, I'll need to scuffle around some to try to pin point the time. But if you give me about 24 hours I'll do it.

Quoting basman: Thanks. As the official luddite here, I'll need to scuffle around some to try to pin point the time. But if you give me about 24 hours I'll do it.

Ahhh, don't call yourself a Luddite for being unwilling to supply a dingalink. A simple typed-in time approximation is fine.

what's a dinga link?

A dingalink is a URL that points to a segment of a diavlog. It features the id number of the diavlog, a starting ("in") time, and optionally, an ending ("out") time. For example: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/7460?in=00:00:38&out=00:00:49 which when allowed to linkify becomes: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/746...8&out=00:00:49 (Automatic truncation of any URL seems to be a "feature" of the vBulletin forum software.) The term comes from the guy who first implemented the push-button technology for creating one: BH.tv's Greg Dingle. Note the "create dingalink" button below any video, and the question mark right next to it. I have never found the button to be of much use. In the early days, use of the button was not well-supported for those of us who prefer Firefox to Internet Explorer. It may have changed since then, but I still prefer to type my dingalinks in by hand. Which, when you think about it, kind of makes me a Luddite, too.

For on interesting follow-up to this discussion, especially regarding the Web aspects, check out the segment with Clay Shirky on this week's On The Media. (Audio available now, transcript in a few days.)

culture:
last topic from about 8:10 to 10:00

basman: Thanks for the time reference. Now, back to your original question:

A question while am doing that re-listening, if anyone will oblige me: Fried's comment that he hates the idea of "culture" escaped me; I did not understand what he meant, the context of his comment, his notion of culture, nor the reasoning behind that hatred. If someone could enlighten me, I'd be obliged.

I am of the impression that what Charles meant here was that he dislikes the way some people will invoke "culture" as a sort of ultimate trump card that is meant immediately and absolutely to silence anyone who might disagree with some tenet of whatever the term "culture" is meant to include. I think he views it as a club that some people use upon those who dissent. He clarifies this a little later, when he makes a distinction between legal acknowledgment of rights and judges saying everyone in society "has to salute something." As I understand him from the rest of the diavlog, he would like gay people to be able to form contractual arrangements that pretty much offer to the participants the same things as heterosexual marriage does, without requiring

The comments on listening to them again are fairly cryptic so that construing their meaning is like reading tea leaves. But to try and put them in the context of Fried's argument: his defence of liberty starts with his notion of each person's individuality, his or her ultimate responsibility for his or her own beliefs, judgments, and choices. His argument is that liberty, our liberties, precede creation by the state—inalienable rights, if you like. They are natural, part of what it means to be human, a universal natural state. So put in that context his antipathy to a certain idea of culture, I tend to think, is his recoiling at the notion of culture as something formative of people as opposed to emanating from choices individuals make starting from the existential fact of themselves. The state is a protector of liberty rather than a provider of it. (It follows from these views that he, as you note, favours judges who apply the law rather than make the law. And in fact he strongly championed Roberts and supported Alito.) My view of his view includes your view of his rejection of the rationalization

basman: As far as I understood where Charles was coming from, I agree with your summation of his point of view. I particularly liked this phrase:

... his antipathy to a certain idea of culture, I tend to think, is his recoiling at the notion of culture as something formative of people as opposed to emanating from choices individuals make ...

Moving on ...

I have to admit I got a little lost in his marriage arguments as they relate to his overall argument.

I think part of the reason that he might have sounded a little muddled when discussing the issue of gay marriage was something he spoke to directly: since his book came out, some of the reaction he's gotten has made him less sure of the views he apparently put forth in the book. This was something I found admirable -- it's not every tenured professor and highly accomplished legal theorist who can display such flexibility, especially when you add in how much of life he has already lived. Most people a third of his age would do well to be as receptive to new perspectives as he is. I tend to think, not

If I can jump in, I get the impression he's siding with Locke's individualism against a more Hegelian view according to which some collective entity, theWorld Spirit or less grandiosely, Culture is primary and individuals are of secondary importance.
Brendan's example is relevant. What comes to my mind is the insistance that we must maintain a culture even at the expense of individuals. A possible case in point, though a controversial one, would be the opposition of Deaf culture enthusiasts to cochlear implants. Of course, the technology may be inadequate to make a fully hearing person out of a deaf child, and one might well wonder whether hearing parents will make the best determination for their deaf child. But suppose the implants were perfect. If everyone used them,that would mean the death of Deaf culture and the amazing achievement of Sign would be relegated pretty much to the dustbin of history. That would be a pity, but should the continuation of Deaf Culture be allowed to trump the good of the individual to such a degree that we would keep children deaf who could hear -- hear not only

Good example, BN. And one needn't even go that far. In some deaf circles, even learning to speak or to read and write English is discouraged. And think about the phenomenon noted by John McWhorter, among many others, of black kids in some situations been shunned by their peers for "speaking white" or even doing well in school. And consider (straight) marriage outside one's religion or ethnic background -- still a problem for many. The more I think about it, the more I hate culture, in Charles's sense, too.

I wouldn't go too far in hating "culture." If you follow that all the way, you wind up with a fairly extreme libertarian view-- there are just individuals and the market to coordinate. Think of Dan Ariely's point that market norms can drive out more altruistic social norms -- or the point that Will raises in that diavlog that even the market is dependent upon certain norms/customs/traditions/"virtues." These norms are "culture" -- mutual understandings that can coordinate the actions of individuals, and which can't reside entirely in this or that individual.
On this subject of "culture", I'd highly recommend two books by Kwame Anthony Appiah: _The Ethics of Identity_ and _Cosmopolitanism_.
Appiah shares a good deal of Fried's individualism: he thinks that the only reason to regret the loss of a culture is if it serves individuals. Thomas Nagel (himself a big liberal), in a review of one of the books in TNR, disagrees with him, pointing out the quasi-aesthetic value of cultures. Even he, though, would presumably side with individuals who just didn't want to live according to some (possibly very beautiful) dying culture any more. (I can't find the review right now, or I'd link

Yeah, good call out. I was exaggerating in my last, but I deserved to be slapped.

Slapped? Good heavens! I was going for more of an intellectual tickle.

You say that like there's some sort of meaningful difference.