Let the flame wars begin!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 25477 access attempts in the last 7 days.
#58
Many people here do casually advocate for sharply limiting the areas that government operates in without considering who would take the vacant job. A lot of pressure to not have a free market comes from producers\providers of goods\services. Removing regulation by government often means allowing regulation by a mafia or business cartel. Maybe the one isn’t operating in the public interest, but you can be absolutely sure the others aren’t.
I agree that property rights are important. The framers were cribbing from the French ‘life, liberty, and property’ and explicitly chose to water down property to ‘pursuit of happiness.’ It is the kind of semantic change that would make any modern lawyer proud.
The Constitution is important, but the idea of America is more important. We aren’t a geographical people with deep historic roots like the Spanish or French. Any group that comes here with a will to compete faces initial xenophobia and eventual acceptance( usually a decent interval after the population influx stops). The Irish, Germans, and eastern Europeans all used to be viewed as problem groups. Which citizens are widely seen as proper Americans is continually widened over time.
Where you say “to give special favors to larger groups of people” I ask why not? With scarce resources it is proper and logical to do the most good for the most people. I see it as the reverse, where narrower groups get a lot of extra effort. Usually this goes to one of two reasons: concentrated capital allows them to buy out of government regulation, or actual historical victimization\hardship makes people squeamish about appearing to be hardhearted.
That some segments of the population are so special is an error in governance. Just because someone isn’t doing their job properly doesn’t mean that the job itself is at fault.
As to your gift of gab: that’s why we show up, right? You address me directly and on topic. Never going to fault someone for that.
Write that book. We need more books and more people reading books.
#61, Property Rights vs. Pursuit of Happiness
Actually, it wasn’t a watering down. It was a more encompassing notion.
[Men] may act as they choose in their search for ease, comfort, felicity, and grace, either by owning property or not, by accumulating wealth or distributing it, by opting for material success or ascetism, in a word, by determining the path to their own earthly and heavenly salvation as they alone see fit.
Ronald Hamowy on his interpretation of what the Jeffersonian Pursuit of Happiness actually means. Indeed, Jefferson did feel this way. He just didn’t put it in such elegant words.
In the absence of regulations (or substantially fewer of them), the government’s primary role would be to enforce the individual’s rights. I agree, in a weak government setting these cartels would run rampant. But they run rampant now with government permission. Rights violations would have to be enforced strictly on a case by case basis.
To go back to that type of government, the one espoused by the US Constitution, would be hard, might I say close to impossible. However, it could be done if we were willing to tell the corporations that it isn’t business as usual anymore. There isn’t a single instance, where if the government were truly concerned about a person’s right to pursue happiness, that couldn’t be solved in that manner.
We just have to have the willpower to implement it . . . and enforce it.
Where you say “to give special favors to larger groups of people” I ask why not? With scarce resources it is proper and logical to do the most good for the most people.
Hmm. Who would make this decision? That’s what’s gotten us here in the first place. The decision makers are not making decisions based on what is right. They are making decisions based on who gives them the most money. As long as that situation exists, we will never have that decision properly made.
I’ve never been a fan of choosing the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
To all LIEbertarians: come down out of the clouds. Discussing lofty generalities is meaningless: “There isn’t a single instance, where if the government were truly concerned about a person’s right to pursue happiness, that couldn’t be solved in that manner.”
and devolves further when idiocy is directly invoked: “I’ve never been a fan of choosing the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils is still evil.”
Come down to earth. Its actually pretty easy: in the current situation of the USA do you vote a program to achieve balanced budgets purely by cutting social programs -OR- by modifying them as may make sense and increasing tax revenues as may be determined?
How do you think individual happiness is best achieved=======in this, our real world?
Or are you going to throw rational analysis out the window and suggest we vote for either Paul?
Sad how reality impinges on the good and true. But only the good and true can move society towards what works. works in the real world—not the model that requires everyone agrees to begin with.
Silly Hoomans.
#61, it is proper and logical
A further comment on this.
I was tasked at one time with writing a program for a lawyer to help him with his cases. After about four months of trying to nail him down on specifications, I exclaimed, “James, that isn’t logical!” I swear, it was like trying to code the rules for Fizbin.
His reply, and one that has stuck with me since, was, “The law isn’t logical. It’s historical. If it was logical, I’d be out of business.” I guess that’s why Spock was a scientist and not a lawyer
That’s part of the problem we have today, I think. Precedent on top of precedent, whether it’s logical or not. And each precedent is biased on personal opinion which can never be logical. Case in point — SCOTUS; Liberals interpret something one way and Conservatives the other way. How many 5-4 rulings have we had lately?
If you want logic in these types of situations, you need a baseline. IMO, that baseline is the individual. Our government is supposed to be for everybody. If one person is neglected without redress, it is a failure (did I say that already?).
to do the most good for the most people
I’m a CERT member (Community Emergency Response Team). During casualty drills, our first order of business is “to do the most good for the most people.” That means letting someone die who might take too much time to save. It is a personal opinion, based on certain facts that non-doctors have to evaluate, as to whether we mark someone dead or not.
That’s why I asked earlier, “Who decides?”
Ahh Republicans and Democrats, It’s like choosing between McDonalds or Burger King when what you need to do is go home and make a salad.
#65, I’m copying and pasting that one . . .
#61 Correcting myself: “French ‘life, liberty, and property’” the French used ‘life, liberty, and fraternity.’ The First Continental Congress used ‘life, liberty, and property’ in the Declaration of Colonial Rights.
Possibly when dealing with an external tax collector, the King, property was more important…
#62 Whatever Jefferson’s personal views, as I obviously don’t know enough to challenge your Ronald Hamowy, many of the other framers DID feel that personal property rights should take a backseat to the Gov’s ability to tax that property. Could be the phrasing provided enough wiggle room for everyone to believe it meant what they wanted it to.
I’m open to other suggestions besides ‘government’ on, “Who would make this decision?” There don’t seem to be many other options out there.
#63 Yeah, I think everybody posits a deeply flawed system. The actual incentives for public representatives often lead them to act for narrow interests(the ones that pay, or have other methods for mobilizing support) at the expense of everyone else.
I do sympathize with the conservatives’ view of the limited exercise of government power. It’s similar to [b]managers[/b], or today’s fashionable( and even more pompous) [b]leaders[/b]. A substantial minority of managers can’t manage, and only a very few can actually lead. Assuming a decently cooperative work environment, most managers should sit down and shut up.
Sadly, that doesn’t mean you can do away with them entirely. Somebody has to make the decision.
I also agree with the old saw “those that can do DO, and those that can’t TEACH.” For every wonderful teacher that opened my eyes to the world there were 10x that were simply phoning it in. I’m talking here about k-12, and I live in one of the 10 richest counties in the country. I doubt it gets better where local tax receipts are less.
The modern right is too pure by half. Tuning out because the system isn’t squeaky clean ignores that the system is going to keep going. Now it is dirty AND unwatched. Not good.
I don’t think you need to embrace the dirty reality, but at least look it in the face.
#64 The person in the hot seat makes the decision. If they make the wrong decision they need to be held accountable. Nobody accidentally gets into power unless your last name is Kennedy or Bush.
#65 That’s funny, but suggests that there is an obvious solution that we are missing because we buy into an ideological program.
Please enlighten me.
Ha, ha. Quite so.
“It” is nothing like the choice between Burger Franchises. And LL is going to copy and paste it.
What do you suppose either of them sees? Not even a platitude, just completely vacant empty metaphor of no application. I only guess it allows for one’s own complete projection–you know, going home to make a salad is the same as not choosing between the two choices available.
Empty calories.
#67, If they make the wrong decision they need to be held accountable.
Agreed. And I feel we are holding them accountable now by refusing to give them more money.
That’s funny, but suggests that there is an obvious solution that we are missing because we buy into an ideological program.
Please enlighten me.
I’ll weight in. Start thinking outside the two-dimensional solution space. The two major powers have managed to screw things up. Perhaps we need to look at something besides the Democrat and Republican platforms.
Let’s think outside the square.
gibberish.
Beneath contempt.
Deal with the reality that evereyone else is.
Here’s a two dimensional harpoon to your whale of a fantasy: define “them” you think deserve punishment and how withholding money accomplishes that in any manner.
What we have here is a 12 year old that has never left his treehouse.
Reviewing…………reviewing………. nope, don’t think I’m being petty at all.
Get real kiddies.
#70 I think diluting the Dems and GOP with new parties would be a great thing, but I’m not sure it’s going to happen.
Nader killed the third party movement for those that lean left. End of story. He probably could have played kingmaker, and even he couldn’t it would have led to a much greater voice for third parties.
Personally, I think the tea party is fairly artificial. There is a lot of message coordination that looks a lot more like the GOP rather than anyone actually going rogue.
There is an objective way to see if this supposition is correct. The GOP is really good at freezing their uncooperative offspring out of the money game. If you see a tea-party candidate in the general where they draw sharp distinctions with the GOP, then I’m wrong. I suspect the tea party is going to to turn into a standard pep-rally. It’s the flirtation with something different before heading back to the old standby.
Thinking REALLY outside the box… there used to be powerful unions. They covered more of the working population and were more openly embraced by the Dems. Not as much of a factor anymore.
Religion could play a greater role, but in America most churches have already picked their political representatives by party. That’s kind of set. If you’re following someone for moral reasons it’s hard to change immediately, however much the other side might offer. It offends the non-political, most, of the members who are there because they do believe. The political end of ALL the major religions, IMO, are as dirty as anything inside the beltway. They are trafficking, and profiting mightily off of, the free labor provided their true believers. At least a pimp is obviously a pimp.
The internet is an obvious organizing platform, and I can’t really analyze right now. Longer term question.
Maybe foreign governments should more try to influence our political process. We do it plenty to other countries, and turnabout is fair play. If all of the non-insane governments got together and compared notes on policy outcomes we’d all be a lot better off.
Direct democracy via internet… I always liked the idea of people determining where their taxes go by allocating to different types of expenditure. The debt payments ought would be mandatory of course! Who would be silly enough not to pay their bills when they can afford to do so and not doing so would result in nasty consequences?
I do think this is possible. Sell the policies directly to the people and let them choose.
Who could do that job? Google could knock it out in a weekend, Microsoft would cause governance to cease completely every few days until they could get it back together, and Oracle would somehow end up patenting the Constitution.
The guilds from historical Germany, as I suggested earlier, might be an option. Similar to unions. They play for their team, as Bobbo suggests in #60. They can’t reasonably be expected to make good decisions in the national interest.
Maybe it will be flash mobs. That’s what I think happened with Obama. He was sold very well to a lot of people who are generally uninterested in politics. These new people provide excitement, without a discerning eye, that pumped up rallies. The Obama operatives intentionally played symbolism in a way only the GOP had done previously. That suggests to me that we are going to have a lot more of the high-expectations\low-results type of characters.
Still thinking about other alternatives…
Chris–the dynamic of third party movements is pretty well understood: their issues are co-opted by the D’s and R’s. That is all the more locked in with the Citizen’s United Decision effectively giving our politics over to the Corporations.
Direct democracy doesn’t work. The mob is too easily moved by emotions. Turmoil and upset, greed and corruption is the normal state of affairs. All we can hope for is an accident or personality of the moment to push our politics in the right direction and for inertia to hold it there for a while.
Why there hasn’t been a knee jerk reaction against corporations after the 2008 Crises is beyond me. THats why I think we will have to suffer the inflation and cuts brought on immediately by our credit downrating when the debt ceiling is not raised.
We can day dream about solutions outside of the box, by definition: those that aren’t coming. or–stick more to home with the cartoon leading the thread.
As amply demostrated–why talk theory when reality is so resolutely avoided?
#71, For the most part, I agree with you about the 3rd parties.
The Tea Party, despite its name, it not really a 3rd party. Its goal is to influence the GOP (and perhaps the Dems). Unfortunately, religo-facists found the movement’s ideals to their liking as well. Sometimes I wish they would stay off of our side.
When it became apparent that the Tea Party was not some fad, the GOP tried co-opting it. It didn’t work out too well except to make the average Joe on the street think the GOP WAS the Tea Party.
In actuality, quite a few of the GOP are Tea Party, not a majority but it is a non-trivial amount. The GOP’s refusal to increase the debt limit is all Tea Party. Proof of this lies in the fact Boehner wanted to raise the limit. His freshman class, mostly Tea Party Republican’s, swore to screw him if he didn’t get on board. Since then, most of the GOP has come over to that mindset.
The same with the no tax increases.
Whether that is an artificial stance or not, it was driven by the Tea Party.
Paul Ryan’s healthcare bill is not Tea Party. You hit the nail on the head about freezing out rogues. Gingrich slammed this healthcare plan (as he should have — but don’t take the comment as support for Newt) and immediately the GOP establishment crawled all over him and forced him to rescind his statement. He’s been sliding downhill since.
Sarah Palin’s coronation as the Queen of the Tea Party was pure media hype. Sarah Palin is a moron and most people with half a brain recognize it.
Unfortunately, if you don’t pay attention to what is actually happening in this country, you would think the GOP and the Tea Party were one in the same. We are making inroads in the GOP with plans to remake it so it doesn’t look so much like the Democrats, but it will take a few more elections. It’s just not widely known because the media receives so much money from the two major parties through advertisement and such. It’s hard to bite the hand that feeds you.
Direct democracy via internet
I have to strongly disagree here. Mob rule never works. Part of our problem is the 17th amendment.
AFA letting the people determine where their tax dollars go . . . it would be very hard to build budgets based on the changing whims of the mob. And when Congress votes to cut off funding to something and then the President decides to do it anyway (see ACORN), then you know we have other issues other than budgeting, too.
Guilds
I did some research on them after you pointed them out. They didn’t do Germany much good . . . I have to agree with you about that not being a good alternative, either (and Bobbo if he said that).
Still thinking about other alternatives…
And that’s really all I can hope for. Sticking to the party line, whether Democrat or Republican, is not the answer. Too long the people of this country have listened to them and it’s led us here.
Who says we never agree on anything…
#72 Bobbo- “Direct democracy doesn’t work.”
#73 LibertyLover- “Mob rule never works.”
I’m not too sure. Could be more about establishing a proper cutoff, like a super-super-majority. The Iraq war was hated by the polar extremes on both ends of the political spectrum, but for very different reasons. How about if 70% of people want something it just gets done? The last time that I saw public outrage really change policy was the “Do Not Call List.” Take the case of Ireland’s voluntary assumption of private bank debt by a lame duck government when this was absolutely counter to public sentiment. This will damage them severely for decades.
Right now public sentiment is broadly ignored and things don’t seem to be getting better. At least it’s an idea.
Here is another one, but a bit fantastical. It’s from a guy named Daniel Suarez who wrote two books: Daemon and Freedom.
He posits an automated system that is set up to make a best-for-all decision and then runs automatically. I can’t describe it as well as the guy himself, which you can see here:
http://fora.tv/2008/08/08/Daniel_Suarez_Daemon_Bot-Mediated_Reality
The first book, Daemon, is about breaking down the current model. The second book, Freedom, is about what takes its place.
#72 “Why there hasn’t been a knee jerk reaction against corporations after the 2008 Crises is beyond me.”
Easy: Obama. He was presented like Gold Bond medical powder. Got any kind of problem with government\modern society\general boredom? Just sprinkle some Obama on it! Sadly, like most universally applicable products, there was a lot of fluff involved. That’s how that inflection point got missed. Things really could have changed. Maybe for better or worse, but real change. Now… not so much.
#73 “if you don’t pay attention to what is actually happening in this country, you would think the GOP and the Tea Party were one in the same. We are making inroads in the GOP with plans to remake it so it doesn’t look so much like the Democrats, but it will take a few more elections.”
As I said in #71, only time will tell. If people are still talking TEA party a few elections from now it is a real thing. If it fades away, that is because the GOP won’t cannibalize their own brand on a long term basis.
#74, I used to favor super majorities but you only need look at CA to see what it does to an economy if not handled properly.
In order for the Democrats to get their taxes through they had to do things they never would have thought they could do. The same with the Republicans. What they ended up with was an economy that couldn’t get anything done. I have to agree with Mr. Fusion on super majorities for taxes increases.
Now . . . if you wanted a super majority on EVERYTHING . . . Hmm. That might work. I would like to see at a minimum 2/3 but would prefer 90%. And once the vote was made, it was good for 4 years unless fraud could be shown to have influenced the vote.
#76, Easy: Obama. He was presented like Gold Bond medical powder. Got any kind of problem with government\modern society\general boredom? Just sprinkle some Obama on it!
Holy Moly! You nailed it, hoss.
only time will tell.
Agreed. I’m not of the opinion it is a done deal. But I’ll keep pushing my Senators and Representative. I’ll let them know I’m still watching . . .
#76, Easy: Obama. He was presented like Gold Bond medical powder. Got any kind of problem with government\modern society\general boredom? Just sprinkle some Obama on it!” /////
A meaningless rhetorical statement of no value whatsoever. Chris–its obvious you are thinking of something that statement is derived from, but meaningless rhetoric should be avoided. LL–amusing how many meaningless statements you grab for. Never heard of guilds? What are you, some kind of 12 year old idiot savant with a computer? Read that as a compliment==but you too should avoid the sounds good but is actually meaningless rhetoric that swamps our political and popular culture.
Who knows what Obama would do if he had a free hand? Doesn’t matter because the Obama record is more about his caving to Republican pressure than it is any other metric.
All to our harm.
#78
Nope, that’s all me. I might have unconsciously gotten it from somewhere, because I read hundreds of articles on RSS feeds each week. If you can find similar I’d tell you honestly if that site is in my reading list.
Obama was the incredible productized President. The level of salesmanship surrounding him was second to none. Bush was branded in the same way, but his inability to speak marked him as a boob. I’ve heard he was a capable manager… maybe his advisers were confused. there’s a movie reference in there…
I’m just feeling playful today.
Obama gets no credit in my book. He doesn’t understand momentum or random opportunity. Sure, he’s obviously very intelligent, confident, and cool. Maybe he was so good at counter-punching in his political assent that he never needed to risk trying to move things ahead. When you make the decision on your own, rather than in reaction, the personal danger is much greater.
Bush II would have been fine if he’d only done Afghanistan. The necessity would have given him cover, no matter the result. Iraq was his call and he blew it badly. There is NO way history will be kind to him. Nobody reads anymore, though…
Obama would have needed to play against type to move in strongly and clean up the banking sector immediately upon entering office. Everything was waiting on his move. He chose to shuffle some little stuff around, and that established the tone ever after.
In many things that followed the administration caved on the important stuff as an initial bargaining position. I’ve seen it repeatedly. It’s just something that’s in the air.
#77
I was thinking more in the sense of a public veto. Yeah, CA proves that needing public acquiescence to originate policy is a VERY BAD idea. Listening to massive public outrage to stop policy move *might* be a good idea.
Thinking specifically about Iceland and Greece. In both cases their governments decided to voluntarily take on big debts by bankers, and faced united public opposition to those moves. The Irish government went ahead anyway and made the deal. I’m betting Iceland comes out better by far. We will see.
The US ought to be pushing debt out to longer maturities, rather than flirting with a strategic default. There was a dramatic fall in the average bond maturity in 2000-2002. I remember, vaguely, that this was by choice to get lower financing costs. Right now we should be doing exactly the opposite: push the debt maturity as far out as it will go. Then tighten up collection of Estate Taxes, aka Death Taxes. Baby Boomers decided to give themselves tax cuts while implicitly planning to partially rely on gov’t benefits (average case). We can just expense it and collect on the other end.
Even in that case you still end up hosing the rich. I can live with that. Income\wealth inequality has increased dramatically since the 1980′s, due largely to GOP led tax policy. Before you disagree, please tell me which income quartile benefits almost EXCLUSIVELY from the change in capital gains rates.
Sure, I’m advocating passing on debt to our children, but only to the extent we can’t raid the estate of our parents. Terrible stuff.
If you want to get really twisted, also consider that debt with longer maturities is going to be more likely to be around for a debt revulsion. Then the government can buy up, and retire, its own long term debt at good rates. The CHEAP buy on debt improves the balance sheet, and then new debt issues will be on better terms.
Oh yeah, I’m saying the US Gov’t should be pulling the same kind of moves that any successful private company does. Use every available lever to get itself the best deal.
Speaking of, in regards to actually defaulting on debt( which wouldn’t ever happen, just a unilateral restructuring of debt): I am not opposed to that by any means.
In Greece default is probably the way to go. Even though our debt-to-gdp levels are similar many of the other details are very different. It could be a good idea for us at some point, but not now. Our back is not against the wall. Not going to be like that for a long time. That moment will NEVER come if we tax closer to expenditures, averaged over a long period.