Pro-Wrestler-turned-Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura went on Larry King Live Tuesday and unloaded on a variety of topics, including his take on the 2008 presidential candidates, what he’s looking for in a commander-in-chief, and whether he plans on running for president. Ventura told King that he thinks it’s time for a revolution in the United States, that we are a nation of “lemmings,” and that the only difference between the two major political parties and street gangs are that the politicians wear Brooks Brothers suits. After blasting the two-party “dictatorship” in America, he gave his opinion of the three presidential candidates (hint: it wasn’t very favorable). And he reserved special judgment for the “chickenhawks” who he said marched the country into war in Iraq.
2
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
#25 – 24-wow, believing that this inept government who has failed at every turn…
It hasn’t. The Bush Administration is almost nothing but failure… But the government as a whole has had morte than few helpings of success despite the direction Bush is taking us.
I don’t believe the conspiracy theories about 9/11 not because I don’t think the government is that insidious (it is)
It isn’t. It isn’t a monolithic entity and it doesn’t have a hive mind. I mean really… Is the Director of Transportation in Indiana or the Mayor of Austin, Texas evil? What about Wilmington, Delaware’s school board president or the executive secretary to the assistant to the director of HUD?
, I just don’t think it’s smart enough to pull something like that off.
That’s all true!
Venture raises a variety of good points, but the biggest problem facing his revolution he mentions is the amount of money it takes to get involved. Until there are spending caps, until there are actual limits to how much money can be raised and spent there will always be epic levels of corruption in government.
I agree.
But another roadblock is us.
Every time someone raises an idea about how to fix a problem, 10 guys come out of the woodwork to say it can’t work – either that’s not the way we do it or that ain’t human nature or whatever. We create a perpetual string of self-fulfilling prophesies.
Great changes are made throughout history by men and women who knew they would fail and tried to succeed anyway. It isn’t so much money… It’s doing a thing and not stopping the doing of the thing until you die or until the thing is done.
Bobbo – Your post #26 is a great post. You are exactly right.
Bobbo – I love that our people are welcoming of new ideas and cultures. I love that deep down inside, our people want nothing more than fairness and equality. I love the passion that people share about this country. And frankly, I still believe that this country should be a place of hope for all, not just a few.
#33–Mac Guy==yea, you ALREADY SAID THAT. Now, back up and think abit before responding to what you were fairly asked===how does your assessment about America differ from anyone else’s assessment of their own countries?
Shouldn’t a desire for fairness and equality be on the surface rather than buried deep down inside??? etc.
Without something substantive, your post is just unthinking jingoistic drivel.
Guys,
Wasn’t this the minigun guy in Predator? Wow, did he age! Serves him right for getting involved in politics. No, really, this guy should run for president. I’d vote for him.
#34 – bobbo, get off your high horse. My statements about my country were made simply because while other countries turn a blind eye to blatant discrimination or corruption, America does its best to confront it. My wife’s from Argentina, and their society, according to her, is nothing but filled with corruption. She’s seen it firsthand, which is why she came here. Here, we have anti-discrimination laws, antitrust laws, anti-defamation laws, etc. There, those laws simply don’t exist, or are simply not enforced. Here, we have recourse for ill actions taken against someone unjustly.
Now stop being an ass and learn to have a decent discussion.
#6–Mac Guy==So your position is that America stands unique among nations in keeping us free from discrimination or corruption?
HAH!!—I say HAH!!!!
or do you actually just mean to say America is better than Argentina??
Wonder why the EU is seeking penalties against Microsoft anti-trust violations not being corrected while in USA Microsoft hasn’t even been charged?
Is the USA having the death penalty a good thing because it is disproportionately used against our black population?
Its fine to think well of your country, but not when it prevents identifying much less correcting what is wrong, and when unbalanced statements such as your own are made, I suspect that is what is going on.
Drivel and hurt feelings go together like republicans and values voters. Please learn how to think critically and vote your own self-interest.
BTW–can’t have a discussion if you wont respond to a specific question twice. A discussion is not a soap-box rant.
SO we start a revolution only to be called terrorist and either be shot and killed or locked up for the rest of our lives? I don’t see anyone now a day’s being able to amass a large army without attracting attention of the power hungry government! DO you?
#13 – What OFTLO said.
Even though Jesse’s son managed to piss off some of the neighbors of dad’s Summit Avenue mansion with his keg parties, overall, the guy was a breath of fresh air.
#38 So, you’ve made it half way to the truth; opposing the masters of violence with violence only empowers them against you. Their better at it, and they’re pretty good at demonizing people for doing things they do daily too, so it goes no where. Even marching and demonstrating have been taken from us, largely because it is ignored completely, or intentionally minimized; if it can’t be, in go the black shirts to make the violence needed for the prior behavior. So, many people have given up, but there is still hope. 81% of us think we are heading the wrong way, so why are we still pedaling at this big tandem bike? All we have to do is stop pedaling, stop doing anything, and the nation will grind to a halt, which is actually much better than the fast train to hell we are on now. Then, given a breather to reconsider, perhaps we can set things up so that the corruption isn’t quite so inevitable, and the waste not quite so catastrophic.
#22 good for him. I don’t buy this idea that taxes should keep going higher and higher and never cut so long as someone can think of a way to spend the money. If only the Minn legislature had cut spending to match. I like Jesse going to a college and saying he wouldn’t do anything for students. ‘If you’re smart enough to get in, you’re smart enough to get thru’ When the questioner replied,’But I’m a single mother’ his response was that that’s your problem.
#29 – Mac Guy “More and more, it appears that the liberties our forefathers fought so desperately to preserve and protect are being eroded away, little by little.” Ya THINK?!?!?!
Setting aside specific merit considerations for the moment, and regarding only the very basic nature of laws and rules, there seems to be no escaping the conclusion that LAWS ARE THE ANTITHESIS OF FREEDOM (PLEEEAASE!!! – stay with me here), but it’s worse than that.
To the average citizen, each law has two consistent net effects: a) less freedom, and b) less money.
LESS FREEDOM: In the sense that a law, basically, defines that which we are required to do, or that which we are prohibited from doing, each law (to those who are paying attention and are capable of seeing it) also defines that little bit of freedom which we no longer have.
LESS MONEY: To make matters worse, we, as taxpayers, pay for the conception, creation, enactment, implementation, enforcement, and correction in the case of non-compliance. TAKE THE TIME TO CONSIDER each of these stages separately, and it becomes easier to see how much laws cost us. We pay dearly. We virtually hemorrhage money into the process. (Another little morsel of food for thought – there IS one segment of our society which actually benefits from the erosion of our freedoms and the siphoning off of our money: the attorneys. To them it is like an exclusive toybox. That, however, is a separate, and pernicious, issue.)
One wonders how the founding fathers would react to the metamorphosis that has taken place in America, from the nation they envisioned to the nation we have today. It’s hard to imagine that they would be pleased.
ALL THIS IS NOT TO SUGGEST EVEN FOR AN INSTANT that we could exist satisfactorily without ANY laws – such a suggestion would be ridiculous. However, if one is able to grasp the concept that every law represents another little bite out of our personal liberties, and one considers that we have (at the local, city, county, state and federal levels) organizations and facilities – FACTORIES, if you will, HUNDREDS OF THEM – engaged in the production of NOTHING BUT laws, one begins to think about how many freedoms we have lost. Many of these bodies have been at it for over 200 years. When I think of the freedoms we have lost in just MY lifetime, it’s alarming. Unfortunately, however, it seems certain that the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, as long as they have food, clothing, shelter and TV to anesthetize themselves with, will remain oblivious to the situation. Media could bring about change, but probably won’t. It’s a matter of financial self-interest.
How encouraging it would be, if one day we were to wake up to a new conciousness in these United States of America – that we have entirely too many laws, and that our country is inexorably becoming less and less of, by and for the people. We need a moratorium on new legislation, followed by a study to determine WHAT LAWS WE ACTUALLY NEED in order to be the republic we were supposed to be, and a sweeping repeal of the volumes and volumes of legislation that we don’t actually need or want. AN ABSOLUTE BAN ON LOBBYISTS AND POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES IS ESSENTIAL, because what we have today is a BRIBE-OCRACY. For the laws which we determine to be crucial, I would suggest things like SOME of the Ten Commandments (ONLY the ones we agree on, like THOU SHALT NOT KILL, and THOU SHALT NOT STEAL) and some version of the Golden Rule. You know – IMPORTANT LAWS, but with VERY SHARP TEETH (more on this below).
We should be very thoughtful of what we allow our representatives to pass into law. Making something illegal because somebody COULD get hurt or killed takes away our freedoms and negates the concept of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Then, when we’re back to an easily understood legal code, we need to activate the legislative branch (and perhaps many of the lesser rule-making bodies, as well) only on an as-needed basis. And while we’re at it, perhaps we should consider banning lawyers in any legislative position. All they really contribute is deliberate obfuscation in order to make themselves necessary as guides, at great expense to us. The exclusive toybox I mentioned earlier.
MORE ON SHARP TEETH, as promised: For example, let’s go back to the thread in the Paris Hilton post – DUI. DUI is a very serious problem. And yet, we know from experience that Prohibition doesn’t work. People will drink. So – what to do?? How about this. You can drink. You can drive. You can even drink AND drive, but if you do so, and you hurt or kill someone else while doing so, and after due process you are found guilty of it, YOU GET THE DEATH PENALTY!
No appeal. No second chance. YOU’RE OUTTA THERE! How long do you think it would be before DUI fatalities became of thing of the past?
This concept accomplishes several objectives: it PRESERVES OUR FREEDOMS, it honors the principle of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, it relieves society of the obligation to house, feed and care for problem drinkers, and it rids society of ACTUAL problem drinkers one at a time, and POTENTIAL problem drinkers by the thousands. Problem solved, and society is much better off for it. IMHO.
The VERY SHARP TEETH part of our new and improved legal code would have to be commensurate with the degree of harm caused by the transgression.
So what we would have after all is said and done, is a society where we have a LOT more freedom, a system EVERYBODY can understand, and everybody is responsible for their own actions, and motivated to play well with others, AND have more money in their pockets..
As for Gov Ventura, I agree with everything he said until he got to the part about Al Gore. It says something about Al Gore that that folks who knew him best (the voters in Tennessee) didn’t want him to be President.
BertDawg, you strike me as both a Thomas Jefferson and a Napoleon at the same time. 😉
Jesse got in in MN because he really was a breath of fresh air. At the time Skip Humphrey wanted to tax us into oblivion to set up a metric shitload of new social programs and Norm Coleman wanted to tax us into oblivion to build new stadiums for every team in town. Jesse actually talked about cutting taxes, which is a concept that doesn’t even register in MN politics.
I remember election night. The first returns started coming in and Jesse was in the high 30’s, Norm in the low 30’s and Skip in the high 20’s. The analysts on all stations pooh-poohed it as a fluke or the result of ignorant soccer moms or whatever excuse they could come up with. It was “wait until the metro counts come in”. Then the metro count started coming in and the percentages held so it was “wait until the northern counties come in” and then the percentages still held. They held all night and he “shocked the world”. Everyone was stunned. What was even more amazing is that a Humphrey in MN took third!
Jesse had an incredible opportunity and blew it. Halfway through his term, he basically quit. He became very self-centered and everything became for and about Jesse rather than MN. He started with some good tax cuts but ended with a huge deficit. He could have really held create a viable national 3rd party, but didn’t bother to try. He can talk a great game, but doesn’t follow through – which is weird, because by all accounts, he was a good mayor.
That being said, I wish he would run. Looking at the current crop of candidates, we’re utterly doomed anyway so we might as well have some fun as we ride the rails to Hell. He would definitely make it entertaining.
#24
What in the 911 report do you find that raises “more questions than it answers?”
Look I do not like the current administration either. Anyone of us could go on Larry King and “straight talk” just like Ventura because none of us are running for any political office and thus none of us have nothing to lose. Just like Ventura. With all this praise put upon him for shooting off his mouth I feel the need to point out that he believes the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolitions and that is a reality that has been proven false over and over again.
# 43 Mac Guy said, on April 5th, 2008 at 6:46 am
BertDawg, you strike me as both a Thomas Jefferson and a Napoleon at the same time. 😉
Because it just seems so obvious to me – LAWS ARE THE OPPOSITE OF FREEDOM – it is an almost constant source of frustration to me that the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens don’t seem to be able to make the connection. What makes it worse is that most of the ones who DO see it like it this way, and hope the majority NEVER catches on.
As for the Jefferson, Napoleon comment, I would like more clarification if it would help me get the message out more effectively, because, as I said, we have let our elected/hired lackeys piss away so many of our personal liberties in just my lifetime, I worry about what kind of a country my grandchildren will inherit.
#42–BertDawg==mostly wrong in everything you post. You have the kernel of an idea==that there are pros and cons of any idea, but you conclude wrongly that “laws take away freedom.” The opposite of “many laws” is not freedom–it is anarchy.
Let me take your major points as you list them.
1. Less Freedom?–. No. Laws in fact also provide for what you CAN DO and without such laws, many things you think you can do “as a natural right” have no meaning. Lets take Freedom of Contract. Without laws enforcing those contracts–contracts have no meaning at all. Do many laws take away freedom–yes. So==each law has to be analyzed for the freedom it provides, the freedom it restricts, and balance the two.
2. Less Money. Purely an argument of construction, but indeed, freedom is not free, and anarchy has a different set of costs. You possess a chicken. I take its eggs. The LAW says its not first come, first serve but rather its your chicken and therefore your eggs. Money well spent on laws to enforce a stable economy based on freedom to contract.
3. Your drunk driving is a fairly good example to highlight many of these issues. Would death by drunk drivers go down if there was a death penalty? I do assume it would go down a bit, but no way near zero. I think “thinking about consequences” stops when you get drunk. I think more people are more upset about killing some innocent than they are about getting the death penalty themselves on such an occurrence. So–death penalty won’t stop people from drinking, and once drunk, deaths from driving will occur. The analysis here should be on how best to reduce deaths from driving. Now==you see those steps to prevent the drunk driving deaths as an infringement on personal freedom, but defining freedom as the ability to kill other people while drunk driving goes too far. If you think taking the drivers life fits with your notion of freedom, I don’t see why prohibiting the last drink he takes at a bar when he is obviously intoxicated is somehow a greater violation of his freedom. Such an evaluation is “unbalanced.”
I’m sure we could find many issues and where we think “freedom” has been infringed, but letting people drive drunk until they kill someone and then issuing the death penalty is not one of them. Maybe you can think of some other issues where your “freedom” has been illegitimately infringed?
Easy ones are the drug laws and prostitution and gambling laws. I think people should be free to do all three===but I don’t feel that badly that its illegal. I am still “free” to read, think, speak, post as I wish. Certainly, there are Class A freedoms, and a host of lesser ones.
The freedoms your grandchildren will miss from your perspective will seem natural to them===more likely a result of overpopulation than some ideology being enforced. Course, many lack of freedom is simply just everything not being the way you would have it, but then your freedom would be gained at the expense of others freedom. Freedom is like that.
I believe what BertDawg (and Thomas Jefferson) were referring to was the fact that laws and government prescribe that certain behaviors are “off-limits.” Thus, freedoms become limited. Anarchy? Yep, pretty much. You are correct, bobbo, that laws often protect liberties. However, the vast majority of our laws prescribe penalties for certain behaviors. They, more often than not, state what someone is NOT allowed to do.
As for the Napoleon comment, well, I was referring to the Napoleonic Code of “throw ’em to the wolves.”
#48–Mac Guy==I don’t know if you are restating the obvious–which I do think BertDog doesn’t “quite” agree with, or making a point more subtle than I am understanding.
Yes–given the natural state of man is to be free to do whatever he wants, laws do restrict. The opposite would be quite totalitarian and unnatural==meaning that what society would have it that you can do nothing without the law authorizing you to do so??
Bertdogs notion of being free to do whatever you want and therefore the law be restrictive of freedom has a certain appeal until there is more than one person involved. After that==freedom needs laws to restrict societies participants for the greater freedom of all.
#26
The “system” was designed with the assumption that it would become corrupt. The Founding Fathers were not naive. They knew that people at the upper reaches of any government would eventually become corrupt. Their idea was to pit corrupt interests against each other. That worked great when the Federal government was relatively weak as you had the interests of the States competing with each other. However, there simply is not enough separation of power in the Federal government to create the same balance.
I can think of one change that would make a dramatic difference: eliminate income taxes. That would take from the Federal government of a huge degree of power. Of course, that idea would be great if were not 9 trillion dollars in the hole.
#31
> Great changes are made throughout
> history by men and women who knew
> they would fail and tried to succeed anyway.
For every great person that succeeded despite the odds, there are dozens more than failed according to the odds. Great disasters are made by men and women who thought they were right but were not.
> It isn’t so much money… It’s doing a thing
> and not stopping the doing of the thing until
> you die or until the thing is done.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but is it not the case that you oppose the Iraq War and Bush’s foreign policy with respect to the Middle East? Is that not an example of someone doing a thing and not stopping until the thing is done?
#51 – #31
> Great changes are made throughout
> history by men and women who knew
> they would fail and tried to succeed anyway.
For every great person that succeeded despite the odds, there are dozens more than failed according to the odds. Great disasters are made by men and women who thought they were right but were not.
And since there were failures… screw it… Don’t do anything… nothings worth doing… everyone is corrupt… no one will care… we’re doomed… bla bla bla…
Life’s messy and risky. Who cares? Get in the game or get out of the way.
> It isn’t so much money… It’s doing a thing
> and not stopping the doing of the thing until
> you die or until the thing is done.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but is it not the case that you oppose the Iraq War and Bush’s foreign policy with respect to the Middle East? Is that not an example of someone doing a thing and not stopping until the thing is done?
It is.
And so to prevent madness like we see from the Bush Administration, it is now critical that thinking Americans start getting hands on with their governments.
Okay bobbo, let’s really do this. First of all, it seems clear to me that you are a lawyer, or something like one. You contend that I am wrong, when in fact what I am is merely expressing an opinion, much like yourself. In both cases, the results/conclusions are subjective. Just because you don’t agree with me doesn’t make me wrong. So, to the points once again.
1. LESS FREEDOM. Are you kidding me? The minute you start attaching rules to an activity it becomes less free. The ONLY exception i can think of would be Calvinball.
Now I will be the first to recognize and say that we would be in a terrible fix without ANY laws, but when a homeowner can’t modify his home to make an apartment for a child who’s experiencing hard times (or for his parent(s) who are no longer are able to look after themselves) without violating zoning laws, that’s wrong. Or when a 93-year old gets busted for talking with a cop disguised as a prostitute, that’s WAY wrong. Or when an individual can drink alcohol and get obnoxious and aggressive with impunity, but gets thrown in jail for the mere possession of a certain amount of marijuana (which would probably do no worse to him than cause him to get all peaceful and mellow), that’s also wrong. Plus, we have so many laws on the the books that are just stupid (it’s illegal to whistle underwater in VT, for example). In my opinion, there
absolutely should be no such thing as victimless crimes. An individual should be able to do whatever the hell he wants, as long as nobody other than himself gets hurt in the process. I think you kinda agree there, but have a hard time admitting it.
2. LESS MONEY. Purely an argument of construction ?!?!? Hardly. Let’s take the steps in turn:
CONCEPTION, CREATION and ENACTMENT of our laws: We pay our local, city, county, state, and federal representatives (including senators) huge amounts of our tax dollars to dream up new rules, regulations and laws, most of which limit what we can do. And to accomplish their tasks, studies are initiated, research is performed, committees are established. Sometimes the findings are ignored and the proposed legislation goes into effect anyway. But it’s mostly lawyers doing
all this activity and billing the taxpayers to pay for it, so I can understand why you would be reluctant to acknowledge it. Deny it all you will, it’s there.
IMPLEMENTATION: This involves such things as the publication of new rules, and in many cases
signs have to be manufactured to make the public aware. One small example would be observable over and over and over on every freeway and interstate in the country. As soon as you get on the highway there’s one sign to tell you what road you’re on (and in most cases which direction you’re going) and then more signs to tell you the rules – speed limit, lane usage, etc.; between every interchange, on every highway, from coast to coast. And when the speed limits (which are arbitrary to begin with) get changed – usually lowered – the signs must be changed as well. Just a small example, but the costs are not insignificant.
(As an aside, our beloved government lies to us about these things all the time. Back when
the “55 saves lives” campaign was underway, it was decided that the reporting criteria for
highway fatalities needed to be more “relevant.” Previously, if a person died as a direct result of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle crash, he/she showed up as a highway fatality. Under the new, “more relevant” rules, if that individual makes it to the hospital alive and dies there later as a direct result of the crash injuries, he/she can no longer be reported as a highway fatality.
That’s not only wrong, it’s dishonest, but of course the highway fatality rates went down,
supporting the assertion that “55 Saves Lives.”) That’s just one example – I got lots more.
There are plenty more examples of implementation costs, which I would be delighted to discuss, if you wish.
ENFORCEMENT: Well, most obvious would have to be the police and all their equipment. Apart
from the salaries, go (with a calculator) to any police motor pool in any major metropolitan area in the country and start taking inventory. Then there’s the armories. And the computer
networks. Then consider the prosecutors’ offices and their equipment. We have empires created whose sole purpose (at our expense) is enforcement. And the more laws we add on, the more they have to enforce, the bigger (and more costly) the empires become. So do we really want to pay for them to enforce laws against activities that don’t hurt anybody? Let’s have a show of hands. I certainly don’t.
CORRECTIONS: Here in the the USA, we have the highest rate of incarceration per capita IN THE
WORLD. Incarceration rate per capita – HIGHEST IN THE WORLD. Even higher than Russia and China, according to several sources. According to DOJ stats between 20% and 25% of our prisoners are there for drug violations, and since those very same statistics have separate categories for violence and property crimes, it follows that the one-fifth to one-fourth of our prison population who are there for drug violations did nothing to hurt anybody else. Of course you will latch on to this as an assumption, and it is, but I can’t imagine what collateral harm might be included in the drug category that isn’t accounted for by the other two. Feel free to enlighten me. In any case EACH INDIVIDUAL PRISONER costs us somewhere in the neighborhood of $17,000 to $22,000 a year, on average, according to government figures. Free room and board and gym membership and education in a depressed economy might seem an acceptable alternative to life on the streets to many. It would sure beat eating out of dumpsters.
Then there was the case recently of the 93-year old man in Sarasota County FL who was picked up
and is being charged in connection with a police prostitution sting. This IMO is nobody’s business but the two consenting adults, and neither of them would be consuming our tax dollars without stupid and unnecessary laws.
SO, does our system of laws and law factories cost us a fortune?? – Damned right it does!
Okay, drunk driving. First of all, I’m going to have to raise the bullshit flag. I did not in any way define freedom as the ability to kill other people while drunk driving, YOU DID. Shame on you! I did, however, posit that current steps to reduce drunk driving deaths are not as effective as the death penalty would be. DUI statistics bear me out in the contention that we are far too lenient. What I suggested, and I still believe, regardless of how you may wish to twist my words, is that if we were to eliminate the drunk driving threat to others one drunk driver at a time, it won’t be long before POTENTIAL drunk drivers get the message and opt not to drive drunk. You seek to minimize my contention by asserting that people don’t think right when they’re drunk. Well, DUH. Of course not, but they don’t STAY drunk. And when they start to see drunk drivers being executed for harming others, you can be damned sure they will think twice about
getting drunk in the first place. What I suggested was a much more direct route for a return to individual responsibility. Have you got a problem with that?
We DO agree regarding drug laws, prostitution laws, and gambling laws. However, these are just the tip of the iceberg where I am concerned. You assert that we should be satisfied that we are still “free” to read, think, speak, post as we wish. Don’t forget the freedom to dress ourselves. There may come a day when we find ourselves grateful for that.
Obfuscation and spin are the stock in trade of the most successful lawyers. To suggest, however that some laws GIVE us freedom is patently absurd. If we have the freedom do something, why would we need a law telling us we can do it?
I repeat: of course we need laws against murder (as opposed to self-defense, etc.), assault,
theft, etc., etc. In as basic a way as I can, I contend that laws define things which we
henceforth MUST do, or are henceforth no longer permitted to do. My basic premise, therefore,
stands unrefuted – that LAWS ARE THE ANTITHESIS OF FREEDOM, so we should be a great deal more
careful about the laws we allow our designated representatives to shove down our throats.
Moreover, I contend that we have an almost inexhaustible supply of laws already on the books that we could (and should) abolish, and finally, that there IS such a thing as too many laws.
Thank you for your time.
Oh. I can’t rest my case just yet. I recall an amusing anecdote about how sloppily our laws are passed. A few decades ago, there was a legislator in the state of Texas (I LIKE Texas, that’s just where this event took place), who went into the legislature as a bit of an idealist (certainly a very intelligent one) and was subsequently disgusted by the process. This was back in the days when instead of global warming the PC concern was rampant population growth. A book had been written called The Population Bomb, by Paul Erlich. Anyway, our hero, disgusted by the legislative process decided a point needed to be made, so he introduced a bill for a proclamation praising Albert deSalvo for “his valiant efforts in the field of Population Control,” and his colleagues passed it overwhelmingly if not unanimously. After it was ratified, he informed them that Albert deSalvo was the Boston Strangler, and that they had just made him a hero in Texas.
While the story is amusing in one respect, it’s even more sad, because instead of using the event to resolve to do a better, more responsible job, they simply got rid of our hero, covered it up and returned to
business as usual.
Again, thank you for your time. I relish the areas where we agree, but respectfully suggest we agree to differ on the rest.
And I very much appreciate your willingness to listen even when we don’t agree.
#53 – Okay bobbo, let’s really do this. First of all, it seems clear to me that you are a lawyer, or something like one.
A Lawyer!?!?!?!
BOBBO????
Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Man, that’s rich…
#53–BertDog==you honor me with your thoughtful response. So, I’ll give you a round back. The subject may be blog-worthy, but is it book worthy???
I’ll go line by line. I’m anal that way, yet still think it also shows respect.
What makes you think I’m a lawyer or something like one? What is like one? I’ve wanted to define words since I could first talk. Anyway, while implying several occupations, and revealing several activities on this blog, I have never stated my education or occupations directly. It leads to ad hominem statements which are even more boring than the average posts, so I don’t want to provide any grist to that mill. Better to stick with “ideas.”
This will be a book–should I skim or just go as long as I can??? If I miss anything you actually want discussed, just repost.
Your Para 1. We agree. “but” you really do come at this from the freedom as can be experienced by one man on an island. What good is that? How about freedom as one person living with 320 Million others??? You also fail to really deal with the multiple freedoms of interest to all that unavoidably conflict. How to strike a balance without crying over each compromise? Arguing from a complete vacuum is “right” but only in a vacuum===and there is no vacuum.
2. Less Money. Everybody is against Fraud and inefficiency==but criminals and politicians are hard to catch with that pesky “freedom” concern. If Fraud and Inefficiency were a line item in the budget, we would have a 30% chance of having it eliminated. But that is how large societies work/don’t work==there is lots of inefficiency. Take the bi-cameral legislation system. Adds Billions for little benefit except a concern for freedom. Does it hit its target. No, I don’t think so. Rule by the Beneficent Despot is much cheaper, but we can’t trust it. Most likely wind up with cretins like Bush rather than Philosopher Kings like- – – – – – who?
Isn’t your para 2 rather long? At least it is spaced.
I’m all for legalized drugs, prostitution, organ sales, womb renting, cloning===anything someone wants to do that doesn’t directly, sometimes indirectly, hurt someone else. Not so much on a freedom basis, but because trying to prevent these activities costs money, doesn’t work, and creates crime. The fact that it infringes freedom at the same time is just a coincidence.
Drunk Driving. You didn’t say it, you just set up your argument so that drunk driving killing was the unavoidable result. I think people have a bigger dose of insanity and lack of foresight/responsibility about them than you do. Neither of us can “prove” our assumptions. Societies around the world, without exception, have taken my position. We could all be wrong. I say==lets give it a trial run and see what happens. Still–given the whole world agrees with me (other than Madd?), you have a large burden to overcome with your Objectivist Theology, a burden you fail to meet by mere assertion. BUT THE REAL ISSUE was under which system would people (LOTS OF PEOPLE)be more free? Well, people wanting to drink and drive would be more free, and people wanting to drive the streets completely sober in confidence there was no one else legally driving while drinking, would be less free. The world sees the sober driver as having the more protectable freedom interest. I’ll go with the majority since I have it so seldomly.
Obsfucation and spin==gee, you sound like a lawyer or something like one too? I’ll bet you’ve read a book or two? Like words??? So, it may not be worth the discussion as it was a philosophical point. You rail against laws because they take your freedom away==but only in the vacuum sense. Thinking of the sober driver, they provide for freedom. Perspective, or spin?? Probably definitional, which we haven’t gotten to. Please define Freedom. Do you really think freedom in USA would be represented by NO LAWS? No, you admit some laws are “necessary.” So, Freedom is no laws except those you approve of. I agree. Freedom Defined. Turns out if doesn’t exist. What are we gonna do???
I don’t like Texas. Every Texan I have ever met (and I have family there) has a nut loose. Something about rodeos, cowboys, Mexico, the Aggies–it gets all mixed up. I would like nothing more than to “Mot mess with Texas.” Your story has about 3 more reasons I don’t like Texas–or maybe its just authority figures??
I think we basically agree on most things and disagree only where we haven’t defined our terms. I’m pollyannish that way.
#55–OFTLO==YOU sound like a lawyer too–until you get off on your taxi days. Of the two, I suspect taxi driver would be more fulfilling–but I only drove a mail truck for awhile. (Not saying I worked for the post office.!)
#57 – Drive a taxi someday… It’s rewarding in the way any traumatic experience is rewarding.
I wish I had become a lawyer. Many of my “heroes” are lawyers. Clarence Darrow comes to mind.
They reasons I didn’t become a lawyer are:
1. I may be the smartest guy in most rooms, but I have the academic skills of a small barnyard animal.
2. The market for lawyers requires 500 personal injury lawyers and 1000 corporate lawyers for every lawyer who specializes in Constitutional law… and all the guys in Constitutional law are smarter than me.
3. If I were to be a lawyer, I would only want to work for organizations like the ACLU or The Southern Poverty Law Center. That’s not a reason I didn’t become a lawyer… just thought I add it so you know what sort of lawyer I’d be.
4. My work in the porn industry is very rewarding and has provided happiness for millions of women and couples across the globe.
#58–Any job meeting the public can be challenging–the more uncontrolled the environment, the more the potential for good and bad.
Lawyers come in many shades–as you say from personal injury, to constitutional law, to social activism. They all however deal in “conflict” and “on average” a lawyer loses a case 50% of the time. In short, a horrible environment not kind to many otherwise self actuating types.
I find reading about the law to have all the rewards (except the money) with none of the drawbacks. Same with being a criminal, a cop, a cowboy, sstronaut, firefighter, or test pilot.
It disturbs me how poor an author John Grisham is, and that has nothing to do with myself not being published at all.
Not so with love. You are either a porn star or haven’t been asked. I envy your success.
Well, bobbo and OFTLO,
Between the two of you, you lightened the tone a little, which is always a good thing.
What is like a lawyer is very much open to interpretation. I think I’ll leave it that way, with the given that neither I nor anyone I know has much affection or even admiration for lawyers in general. To be sure, there are exceptions, but they rare indeed, and getting more so, to the point that they are almost extinct.
One man on an island – interesting analogy – easily understandable, perhaps too easy, as
that’s not at all how I see it. The way I see it is as I would imagine my ancestors (on my mother’s side) and their contemporaries saw it in the period between the American Revolution and the ratification of the Constitution (my home state – NH – “Live Free or Die” – made it official, being the 9th of the 13 states to ratify), and four years later, the Bill of Rights.
Having gotten rid of crushing British rules, laws, and taxes, they were left with a bit of a vacuum, and valuing personal liberty as highly as they did, they basically set up the best system in the history of civilization, drawing on the best parts of the Magna Carta and other precedents. My point here is that back then personal liberties were a priority. Also, they recognized that with those liberties came personal responsibility.
It is not so today. Today, you can be driving (or walking) down the street, not bothering or harming anybody and the police have an almost endless litany of offenses available they can charge you with, and if you don’t have the resources to mount an effective defense, you are basically screwed. And anybody who might take up your cause is going to want something for it. We’ve got cops not far from here, who sit and wait for people who fail to come to a complete stop at the end of an exit ramp onto another divided highway, even though there’s a complete view to the left. You will say we should try to get a YIELD sign there instead of a STOP sign. We have, to no avail. It’s a matter of money for nothing – revenue. And just so you know, there has not been a single accident there in the twelve years I’ve been living here. I’m sure everybody reading this knows of countless situations like it, where cops can make a living and bring in money for the state basically with behavior that most people outgrow in kindergarten – “THAT’S against the RULES; I’m TELLING!!”
Today, the average citizen is just a number and unless he has plenty of resources, he is highly vulnerable to the caprices of the system.
Your response to the LESS MONEY premise was a smokescreen. I didn’t say anything about Fraud and inefficiency. I cited several specific areas where we pay through the nose for legislation of any kind, even that of dubious value to society, and you failed to address the issues directly.
One thing you did bring up there was the bi-cameral legislative system. You seem to think that THAT colossal waste of money is a cross we must bear, when in fact it is nothing more than a grandiose pissing contest that hinders the system. It’s almost tragic. Again, if we were somehow able to bring the framers of the Constitution back for a show and tell on how we’ve managed the gift they left us, it is very difficult to imagine that they would be pleased.
DRUNK DRIVING: You said: “Societies around the world, without exception, have taken my position.” (Oh, REALLY?) “Still–given the whole world agrees with me (other than Madd?)” WTF is your position? I have no idea after having read that paragraph several times, but I tend to disagree; try driving drunk in Malaysia or any Muslim country (Oh wait ALCOHOL itself is illegal in most Muslim countries.) In most countries they would lock you up and throw away the key.
You said: “THE REAL ISSUE was under which system would people (LOTS OF PEOPLE)be more free? Well, people wanting to drink and drive would be more free, and people wanting to drive the streets completely sober in confidence there was no one else legally driving while drinking, would be less free.” Do you honestly believe that?, ’cause you’re twisting my words again.
“The world sees the sober driver as having the more protectable freedom interest.” So do I. I can’t imagine anything that conveys more disapproval for drunk driving than the frickin’ DEATH PENALTY. I’m beginning to think you just like to be contentious, no matter what your personal beliefs might be.
OBFUSCATION AND SPIN: Here we go again. I have said over and over that I’m not for NO LAWS. You choose to ignore that. Just to be clear, I am, however, against any laws which compromise personal liberties with little or no appreciable benefit to society. This should be decided on by an informed public. I have no illusions about the oblivion of our fellow citizens. I’m doing my part to get people to pay attention, alas with Quixotic effect. I am most definitely against Big Brother and/or the Nanny State, And I am resoundingly FOR personal responsibility and common sense. All of these are achievable, or WOULD be if the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens were paying attention to what is going on around them. And yes, I Have read a little…
The state I don’t like is OHIO. Basically it has to do with my biggest pet peeve – speed limits. when you have to drop down from 70mph in almost every neighboring state to 55mph in OHIO, that flippin state takes FOREVER to get across, and there’s no good reason for it. Oddly enough, it was a Texan President who expressed his own dislike for OHIO in a way that resounds with me to this day. LBJ was thwarted in his attempt to get what he and many others thought was good social legislation passed by the efforts of legislators from Ohio. For the remainder of his time as President, he directed the crew of Air Force that whenever they were flying over Ohio, they were to empty the holding tanks, and if they were flying anywhere NEAR Ohio, the were to alter their course so they could fly over Ohio and empty the holding tanks. I empathize completely.