Sure you can- - - - -just join the United Auto Workers! A bunch of Chrysler employees were caught on camera smoking dope and drinking on a lunch break, and after they got fired, they were rehired, and even got back pay! Of course, Chrysler spent our tax dollars for that little fiasco because it was after the bailout!
Jerry
Well, that explains the pitiful quality of the last Chrysler Corp. car I bought...which was, of course, the last Chrysler car I will ever own. They should have gone out of business, except with its SECOND government bailout (which prompted Fiat to also step in for some U.S. gov freebies), they're still around turning out the same old crap. My Dodge was scary to drive at 93,000 miles. OTOH, my Subaru, also made in U.S.A., is doing fine thank you, at 200,000 miles, without a bailout of Subaru in Indiana, building cars in the middle of a wildlife refuge. The free market system can work. In some cases it works even with an unfair advantage handed out to the most incompetent (GM, Chrysler).
UAW, the Detroit chapter of the American Communist Party, and Obama's biggest supporter.
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history." - Ayn Rand
A third party has a hard time in national elections, because the system was designed to prevent 3rd parties of getting the presidency. The Electoral College system was originally intended to prevent fast talking salesmen from getting into the White House. Now, its only remaining function is to prevent a third party candidate from getting into the White House--fast talking or not. Ross Perot could have been elected, except that too many people were afraid that voting for Perot would put Clinton in the White House. As it turned out, they were right...but some say that's only because they didn't vote for Perot.
A number of alternatives to the Electoral College have been suggested. The obvious, but expensive, alternative is to have a general election and then a runoff between the two highest popular vote winners. A cheaper alternative is called the Automatic Runoff. With that, in the general election, you vote your first and second choices. That way the "runoff" is accomplished in one election. You can vote Libertarian, but then you say, if the Libertarian candidate is third, then you want the Republican. It could work, but it would undermine the control that the two major parties have over this country, so the people in control will not allow it.
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history." - Ayn Rand
Where I tend to depart from Libertarians is on economic issues. While in many cases regulation can be reduced or made more efficient, the god of the free market isn't nearly as powerful in reality as it is in myth.
I've used this analogy before, but the proper role of government in the economy is as the referee. Democrats often also want the government to be the coach. Socialists want the govt to be a player or all of the players. It seems many libertarians and conservatives want to play street ball where the players set the rules.
Pure libertarianism like communism will not work. There will always be the people who will take advantage of others. That is why we need laws and enforcement of them. We only need basic laws. Not 10,000s of them. I guess I am a "Constitutionalist". I consider it enough basic laws. The other laws prohibiting robbery, assault, murder, are the common sense laws. All of the thousands of laws could be reduced to some form of violation of these simple laws. The violators could then be punished according to the severity.
Well, this thread has become split two ways... a cogent discussion about the various aspects of the libertarian view, and some nitpicking (mostly at Cali) about specific government sponsored bureaus or programs.
About Cali and yes I've been one of the nitpickers... the idea relating to the value of restaurant inspectors came up because Cali specifically mentioned this item. And I'm proud for him that he grows and hunts and preps all his food and even bear fat rendering and such. Keen. But frankly most of us don't have the land, the property scope, the time, nor even the interest to do all that on our own. Many of us live in suburban or urban settings, too.
To equate "restaurants" with Subway belies the point. I'm talking here about "real" restaurants. Not cheap and not an indication of the pioneer spirit, to be sure, and rendering my own "bar fat" at the table might be a little offputting, like when Mr. Creosote arrives (per Monty Python Meaning of Life). But hey, it's a TREAT to actually go to these newfangled resstants and sit muh missus and meself down at this there table what has white cloth on the table would you believe and ClaraSue didn't even need to wash them dishes after we et, them guys tol us they'd do it fer us! Golly jee what them city folk have dreamed up!
Truthfully, it's a treat to eat at a real restaurant, fine food, good service, spending a bit of dough for sure but enjoying the night out on the town. Girlfriend and I can't afford this often but I'll say "Saturday we'll go for seafood" or she'll tell me "Italian tonight, my treat" and we splurge and have a nice sit-down meal, fresh crab or tuna steaks or a thick sirloin or beautifully made fusion cuisine.
I'm kind of thinking, c'mon, Cali, treat the little lady to a nice fancy dinner sometime where neither you or she has to do the cooking or cleaning up, enjoy some nifty well-prepared French or Italian or Mexican or whatever food. It's exactly like going to a live concert to see a good rock, jazz, or CW group perform or enjoy a major league sports event or some other paid-for attraction.
Let's face it, MOST of us here DO eat in "real" restaurants (not MickeyD or Subway) but a gen-u-wine place with waiters and a nice cold pale ale or margarita or glass of wine on the side. I'd figure, oh, 85-90% of the members here go to restaurants, at least occasionally.
So having reasonable public services such as restaurant inspectors or building code inspectors (unless ya wanna avoid them-there devil's own newfangled "eeellleeevaterz" what lift ya up outer thet soil and pulls yer inter thet hifalutin 4th floor! Preacher tolt me it were the debil's own plannin' to lift yer up thet high!)
I mean, we accept the need in modern society to have safety inspectors on things like highrises (unless you personally either have the structural engineering skills or plan to hire private consultants to inspect each high-rise you enter?) or personally inspect the jetliner or car or truck you ride in, you personally hire special consultants to check the qualification of the surgeon who fixes your busted arm or performs open heart surgery on a loved one?
This is a modern interwoven society and MOST of us realize the need for shared safety and inspection standards and routine government enforcement of this. Not everyone has a private self-sufficient estate and grows, hunts, or otherwise produces his livelihood independently. And if so, whom do you then rely upon to do that naggy ol' cardiac bypass (I dunno, maybe jes gib 'em a leather strap to bite on?) or to create the penicillin you take? Or explore, drill for, and refine the fuel you put in your truck?
What I think we mostly dislike is the excesses of government, not the ideals of reasonable government regulation or control. We fear the overboring, the misuse, and often the actual corruption of this otherwise perfectly reasonable process.
I think that many libertarian (small-l) ideas are perfectly fine and coincide with general conservative principles.
The greatest concern I have, as other may also have, is the "large-L" Libertarian views that often, to some of us, seem far too anarchistic. Things like total abrogation of all governmental regulatory functions, legalizing all drugs, and the foreign policy aspects of being a "fortress America" and ignoring our international obligations (isolationism has already been tried and it didn't work in the 40s and sure as hell won't work today -- I wish it were that simple but it's not).
Having been on the receiving end of some of those health department inspections while growing up around the restaurant business, I can definitely attest to the fact that money talks where an inspector is concerned, but a bottle of whiskey that finds its way into his car during a visit will usually assure a good rating. Ditto for barbershops and other businesses that must undergo periodic licensing checks.
Jerry
Ironically I missed most of this highly entertaining thread because I was hanging out with the finest Vietnamese immigrant you'll ever meet and his lovely Polish wife. Both speak great English btw and were exercising their 2A rights.
A few years ago I was on a bus in England. What turned out to be tourists from Germany were behind me. While I was not eavesdropping, I couldn't help but notice that they were speaking English only, although I could tell from their accent they were not native English speakers. I asked where they were from, and we exchanged home location info, and then I commented that I had noticed their use of English only while speaking with one another. The man replied that it would have been rude to speak German in an English speaking environment.
The Vietnamese that I encounter always speak Vietnamese. In a crowd, on the phone, wherever. One Vietnamese lady joined a photo club where I am a member. She is married but joined as an individual only. On a recent wildlife photo field trip, she brought along 25 people from the Vietnamese photo club, creating enormous crowding, disruption, and scaring away the wildlife we were there to photograph. BTW, anyone can join the Vietnamese photo club, but they speak only Vietnamese in their meetings.
Vietnamese fishermen, in the 1980's nearly wiped out the shrimping industry on the Texas Gulf Coast by crowding and over-fishing to the point that shrimp almost became an endangered species here. In the Houston area they have demanded government forms, including ballots, be available in Vietnamese, and the bleeding liberals that run Houston have been most compliant. According to one local study, Vietnamese are represented disproportionately in receipt of Texas Lone Star cards and section 8 housing assistance. Yes, Vietnamese immigrants are good at getting all their U.S. Constitutional rights, 2nd Amendment and all, and certainly all their social program rights.
My grandparents came from Poland and Ukraine. When I was a kid growing up in Philadelphia, I never heard conversation in other than English. They never asked for or received a penny of government assistance, and they marked voting ballots that were printed in English. They lost their home during the Great Depression, and my father and his two brothers worked and saved enough money to buy them a new home. They all spoke only English. I have no sympathy for any foreigners who immigrate to America and expect to by catered to in their native language.
I'm glad your friend is the finest Vietnamese immigrant I'll ever meet, even though I'll never meet him. Those I know I wouldn't want to introduce.
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history." - Ayn Rand
As usual Sam, condescending, pretentious, and obtuse suits you well.
Have you gone dense? What part of "privately funded" do you not understand?
It's a pretty simple concept, if people won't eat at restaurants that don't have ratings, restauranteurs will get their own inspection. Out of the 100+ "real Sam restaurants" local to me, I eat at about 6 or them a year. Why should my money go to all of the other ones as well?
Cali- thanks for representing the Libertarian side so well. It is amazing how many people are so solidly welded to the idea of an intrusive federal Government being involved in every waking moment of their lives.
Using the restaurant inspection model, I would like people to consider two options:
1) What we have now. Overpaid, impossible to fire, Unionized, easy to bribe Govt employees that may only rubber stamp an inspection... or close a restaurant due to political pressure or flat out bribery. Here in Austin, we recently had code enforcement officers that went bowling for 6 hours on the clock...
2) Competing private inspection companies. They can instantly fire any corrupt employees, and must maintain a squeaky clean record, or get destroyed in the market place. When you walk up to "Chez SamW's Bar and Grill", you would see the logo and rating from the inspection company proudly displayed by the front door. (Or no rating at all...) you could check the rating info on your handheld device or with a quick phone call. You could tell if they were inspected by "CPJ's Fly-By-Nite Inspection Company", or by "CaliFFL's Inspect 'R Us", and make an informed decision. YOU would shoulder your share of paying for the inspection, instead of holding a gun to some poor struggling single Mom's head and FORCING her (with the threat of imprisonment or death) to pay for part of inspecting your choice of 'real' restaurant for a nice night out.
Which one is more efficient, fair, and honest?
That is the Libertarian philosophy. The free market is always a better solution that the Govt. The Govt is inept, and cannot even run a monopoly and break even.
To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
-Mikhail Kalashnikov
First, Cali offered a different idea to using tax payer funded inspectors. Maybe you missed that.
Yeah this.
Not only did he miss it, he clamors for MORE government control over our lives. My idea(s) may not work, but Sam did not give one alternative to gov't reduction. Not one. In fact, he clamored for more gov't control in the name of "safety". Then he goes on his usual condescending rant about Libertarians without offering anything useful.
When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.
A couple things there, ****....
First, Cali offered a different idea to using tax payer funded inspectors. Maybe you missed that.
Second, your example of using "real" restraunts isnt all that bright. Because if you think Sams Ale and Caviar has a more rigid health inspection than Jerrys Grease Burgers and Budweiser, you're nuts.
No I didn't miss that at all, thanks for offering to referee gratis. I'm using the example of restaurant that Cali did --- Subway. Technically yes, it's a restaurant. But I don't get any real pleasure from eating there either. I was talking about a nicer sit-down place with real waiters and where you don't need to bring your own hog drippins.
Cali recommended that only people who go to restaurants need to subsidize the inspections. Well, that would be about 95% of people who occasionally buy either prepared drive-through or restaurant style food.
Problem about only paying for the specific services that you want to use is this: What if you suddenly decide, after 28 years of sitting in the storm cellar and talking to your AR15 like Vincent D'Onofrio in FMJ, you think, "golly, maybe my significant other would like to have a terrific dinner served to her, a lobster or French Provencal cuisine or whatever" and you both drive over to "Phillipe" but since you didn't pay for inspections last year, you've gotta pony up 42 bucks to get in the door?
Talk about dumb? Who the heck doesn't treat his loved one to a fine dinner out on the town occasionally?
Point I'm trying to make is that a "user pays" method might be okay for some specialty things, but for general public access, especially since we don't all live on islands alone, is that part of our taxes go to pay for reasonable regulatory services.
Fraud or inefficiency or corruption are another matter and need to be dealt with, but as I see it, the general case for tax-paid inspectors for public things is fine.
I've not yet got any attention to my own example however, which has conveniently been ignored even though you've leaped eagerly into the fray to diss me as usual: Whom do you think should ensure that the structural steel of a highrise building is properly installed, is the right size, and is correctly bolted or welded? Should government have a means of licensing inspectors for this? And how do you ensure that your vehicle's fuel is of the right formula? Unless of course you also have your own oilwell and refinery on your property.
... holding a gun to some poor struggling single Mom's head and FORCING her (with the threat of imprisonment or death) to pay for part of inspecting your choice of 'real' restaurant for a nice night out.
Now that's exactly something I'd pay to see! Any videos?
Sam, I think the libertarian way of thinking, which I mostly agree with, would be that market forces would insure that good products would be available and that a discerning public would soon thin out most of those who would cut corners, to the detriment of their customers. It would take a while to re-establish that, but it is the way things worked for a long time. The role of government, in that equation, would be to make research information available, much like the county agents used to provide to farmers. The role of the courts would be as a venue for you to sue the restaurant, when you found one too many rat terds in your tuna fish.
Problem about only paying for the specific services that you want to use is this: What if you suddenly decide, after 28 years of sitting in the storm cellar and talking to your AR15 like Vincent D'Onofrio in FMJ, you think, "golly, maybe my significant other would like to have a terrific dinner served to her, a lobster or French Provencal cuisine or whatever" and you both drive over to "Phillipe" but since you didn't pay for inspections last year, you've gotta pony up 42 bucks to get in the door?
Talk about dumb? Who the heck doesn't treat his loved one to a fine dinner out on the town occasionally?
Point I'm trying to make is that a "user pays" method might be okay for some specialty things, but for general public access, especially since we don't all live on islands alone, is that part of our taxes go to pay for reasonable regulatory services.
I don't think you are understanding this. Let us use SAAMI as an example-- they regulate cartridge pressures and ammo specifications for the American firearm industry. The taxpayers do not pay for this service. You and I (firearm owners) do. You aren't stuck paying $2 for every box of ammo you bought, but you are indirectly paying for it by buying the product. I believe that is what they mean in the restaurant scenario.
Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
....but to think that private industry isn't at least as susceptible to corruption as government is a bit naive.
I have to agree with this. I considered this in my restaurant idea. Placing consumer ratings on businesses will reduce some of the corruption. It works for Ebay and Gunbroker.
When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.
Not only did he miss it, he clamors for MORE government control over our lives. My idea(s) may not work, but Sam did not give one alternative to gov't reduction. Not one. In fact, he clamored for more gov't control in the name of "safety". Then he goes on his usual condescending rant about Libertarians without offering anything useful.
Actually I only want more government control over Cali's life, not mine. ha ha
Condescending rant means "not agreeing with Cali" because I simply do NOT see any genuine progress in how the Libertarian party is electing more and more candidates to office. I asked repeatedly for examples of how successful they are, but these are ignored. Maybe I can get Eli to investigate and report -- he seems to have plenty of time to bandwagon and do the "What he said" thing.
I was VERY clear in stating how some libertarian concepts are just fine, and coincide nicely with traditional conservative values --- reduced government, lower taxes, more accountability. Eli and Cali and cp all seem to have conveniently missed these comments. (I'll wait till they catch up --- crickets chirping)
What I DID criticize is the international "hands off" policy that many "card carrying" (Ron Paul et al) Libertarians take, with which I disagree in some part. No we can't be the world's policeforce but we can take sides and intervene if it's justified.
Do you guys REMEMBER my having said these things in previous posts here? Don't go all Press Rep Carney on yourselves, okay?
I know full well how this works... I disagree with a Golden One. I'm therefore wrong by default. If I then try to argue my point, I'm being, mmm, "argumentative" and I'm of course already declared wrong as a point of law, defacto. If I respond, I'm even "wronger" and then can be targeted as dense, stupid, thickheaded, because I dared to say something against THE PERFECT ONES. Sometimes, guys, you sound like the Obama apologists, carefully ignoring the content of my statements, instead simply criticizing them because I dared raise my head during genuflect time. I sometimes understand how ol' Alphasig feels.
I tried very hard to list things about libertarian ideas that I thought were good. Those were ignored. Apparently I'm supposed to sign the Libertarian Doctrine in blood or something, or I'm declared anathema. A real hoot.
By the way, Cali's doing just fine responding to what I've said and I'm happy to gripe back and forth with him all day. By this I mean that he just doesn't need you guys rushing to his defense against evil, corrupt Sam. He's doing fine all on his own. At least he's got his OWN ideas and isn't eagerly posting "Me too! Me too!" Haw.
Problem about only paying for the specific services that you want to use is this: What if you suddenly decide, after 28 years of sitting in the storm cellar and talking to your AR15 like Vincent D'Onofrio in FMJ, you think, "golly, maybe my significant other would like to have a terrific dinner served to her, a lobster or French Provencal cuisine or whatever" and you both drive over to "Phillipe" but since you didn't pay for inspections last year, you've gotta pony up 42 bucks to get in the door?
Talk about dumb? Who the heck doesn't treat his loved one to a fine dinner out on the town occasionally?
We chose to buy rural property instead of wasting money on "fine" dining.
Self sufficiency is a virtue. I will not defend it to an urban apartment dweller.
When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.
Condescending rant means "not agreeing with Cali"....
No it doesn't. Examples of condescending rants:
Exhibit A:
So having reasonable public services such as restaurant inspectors or building code inspectors (unless ya wanna avoid them-there devil's own newfangled "eeellleeevaterz" what lift ya up outer thet soil and pulls yer inter thet hifalutin 4th floor! Preacher tolt me it were the debil's own plannin' to lift yer up thet high!)
Exhibit B:
Problem about only paying for the specific services that you want to use is this: What if you suddenly decide, after 28 years of sitting in the storm cellar and talking to your AR15 like Vincent D'Onofrio in FMJ, you think, "golly, maybe my significant other would like to have a terrific dinner served to her
When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.
Well, this thread has become split two ways...
The greatest concern I have, as other may also have, is the "large-L" Libertarian views that often, to some of us, seem far too anarchistic. Things like total abrogation of all governmental regulatory functions, legalizing all drugs, and the foreign policy aspects of being a "fortress America" and ignoring our international obligations (isolationism has already been tried and it didn't work in the 40s and sure as hell won't work today -- I wish it were that simple but it's not).
You can have trade with all the world...without being the police force for all the world, and certainly without the dubious mission called "Nation Building."
There is quite a bit of room on the continuum of isolationism. to the recent extreme which has become Policing the World. Seal Team Six took out Bin Laden. It didn't take 12 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan to do that.
We armed Iraq when they were fighting with Iran. Then we fought Iraq when they invaded Kuwait, the laziest, fattest nation in the middle east (maybe in the world), sending our planes, tanks, and soldiers to fight and die, while the Kuwaiti royal family vacationed in the Mediterranean. We have 20,000 troops keeping the Saudi Arabia royal family in power.
The U.S. has over 900 military bases (some estimates are over 1,000) in 130-150 countries, not counting Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 175,000 troops along with a similar number of local indigenous employees (again excluding Iraq and Afghanistan), including 100,000 in Europe, where some bases have been in place since WWII, and many others were built just for the cold war. There is also some number of military family members living and spending money in those other countries. I couldn't find totals, but for example, there are 12,000 marines stationed in Okinawa along with 26,000 family members. That's a lot of people spending money that helps the Japanese economy--money that comes from American taxpayers.
$150 billion per year, again not counting Iraq and Afghanistan. 32,000 buildings owned plus another 16,000 leased. 687,000 acres of land owned or leased. In addition, the U.S. spent $450 million last year on NATO--that's about a quarter of the NATO budget. Seems the U.S. share is a bit high, for being only one of 27 nations in NATO. Has no one in D.C. noticed that both WWII and the Cold War are OVER? The Warsaw Pact disbanded twenty years ago. Back home, we can't even secure our borders from invaders.
This is not just being non-isolationist. This is more like being the New Roman Empire (the original Roman Empire at its peak had 37 bases to police its holdings from Britannia to Egypt.) The old Roman Empire collapsed from loss of its border control, language and culture. Sound familiar? This is one of the things Ron Paul and the Libertarians want to avoid.
The isolationist period was, I believe, the 1930's, not the 1940's--which could be better known as the WWII period.
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history." - Ayn Rand
We chose to buy rural property instead of wasting money on "fine" dining.
Self sufficiency is a virtue. I will not defend it to an urban apartment dweller.
One point to Mr CaliFFL. Actually, the way things are going, that one point might turn out to be game, set, and match.
I'm still looking for affordable farmland. Problem is too many gentleman ranchers buying up land with their oil money.
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history." - Ayn Rand
I was VERY clear in stating how some libertarian concepts are just fine, and coincide nicely with traditional conservative values --- reduced government, lower taxes, more accountability. Eli and Cali and cp all seem to have conveniently missed these comments. (I'll wait till they catch up --- crickets chirping)
I'm now caught up. I have re-read your other comments. You SAY libertarian concepts are fine (in an abstract sense...reduced government, lower taxes, more accountability) yet you dismiss every suggestion I make as Libertarian anarchy. Wanting reduced government versus reducing government requires ideas first, then action.
You haven't even given me one idea.
When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.
I'm now caught up. I have re-read your other comments. You SAY libertarian concepts are fine (in an abstract sense...reduced government, lower taxes, more accountability) yet you dismiss every suggestion I make as Libertarian anarchy. Wanting reduced government versus reducing government requires ideas first, then action. You haven't even given me one idea.
I would be happy as a pig in poo-poo just to achieve this much to start, then we could work on the rest of it.
I would be happy as a pig in poo-poo just to achieve this much to start, then we could work on the rest of it.
Me too. I fear there are too many sacred cows to make any progress. Just look at the storm I started by mentioning the mere possibility of ridding ourselves of just one city government bureaucracy. We all know something's gotta give, but few are willing to give up anything.
When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.
Good for you. An interesting thought though is the fact that all that economic activity that you are generating never enters the market so you are actually paying less taxes than the urban dweller who acquires the same meal through market transactions. Rather than spending their time gardening, hunting, and cooking they spend their time working and paying income taxes and then paying sales taxes when they purchase the meal. For the highly libertarian minded there are ultimately personal decisions you can make to minimize how much you have to depend on and pay into the system. The more "off the grid" you live the less you have to depend on the system but also generally the less you end up paying in. Similarly, the more you depend on the market for the provision of goods and services, they more you'll end up paying in. You could almost say the system is kind of beautiful in that way!
I thought you of all people would've mentioned my reduced carbon footprint, not my reduced tax rate.
When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.
So is living in a community, taking advantages of the efficiencies provided by division of labor and supporting small business. They are both personal choices not subject to universal value judgements, only individual value judgements, which I believe is/should be a key libertarian principal- individual choice based upon personal values.
Ah hell, EVERYTHING is a choice. My choices simply place less of a burden on everyone else.
When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.
From a market perspective well enforced standards actually enhance markets. Think of it this way...if there are no standards the only thing you have to go on is reputation. This greatly advantages existing, well established brands to the detriment of newer, smaller businesses that you've never heard of. This levels the playing field and increases competition which is important for efficient markets.
Your devotion to big government causes you to continuously miss the point on free market issues.
No matter how well structured and well intentioned a new government regulatory agency starts out, it quickly becomes corrupt, just like the businesses it assumes regulatory powers over. The difference is that government agencies never go away, get smaller, or just remain the same size. They spawn new sub-agencies that eventually get big and break away into other autonomous agencies and spawn their own sub-agencies. All of your theories or anyone else's about big government assumes that the people in charge will do the 'right thing.' They never do, in the end, and they never accomplish much - usually just enough to justify their existence to politicians who have stacked the deck in their favor, for whatever reasons, to further their own agendas.
We need small government that is tasked with fixing problems and then moving on - not regulators who can enhance their careers by pyramiding underneath themselves to increase their own importance.
Replies
UAW, the Detroit chapter of the American Communist Party, and Obama's biggest supporter.
A number of alternatives to the Electoral College have been suggested. The obvious, but expensive, alternative is to have a general election and then a runoff between the two highest popular vote winners. A cheaper alternative is called the Automatic Runoff. With that, in the general election, you vote your first and second choices. That way the "runoff" is accomplished in one election. You can vote Libertarian, but then you say, if the Libertarian candidate is third, then you want the Republican. It could work, but it would undermine the control that the two major parties have over this country, so the people in control will not allow it.
About Cali and yes I've been one of the nitpickers... the idea relating to the value of restaurant inspectors came up because Cali specifically mentioned this item. And I'm proud for him that he grows and hunts and preps all his food and even bear fat rendering and such. Keen. But frankly most of us don't have the land, the property scope, the time, nor even the interest to do all that on our own. Many of us live in suburban or urban settings, too.
To equate "restaurants" with Subway belies the point. I'm talking here about "real" restaurants. Not cheap and not an indication of the pioneer spirit, to be sure, and rendering my own "bar fat" at the table might be a little offputting, like when Mr. Creosote arrives (per Monty Python Meaning of Life). But hey, it's a TREAT to actually go to these newfangled resstants and sit muh missus and meself down at this there table what has white cloth on the table would you believe and ClaraSue didn't even need to wash them dishes after we et, them guys tol us they'd do it fer us! Golly jee what them city folk have dreamed up!
Truthfully, it's a treat to eat at a real restaurant, fine food, good service, spending a bit of dough for sure but enjoying the night out on the town. Girlfriend and I can't afford this often but I'll say "Saturday we'll go for seafood" or she'll tell me "Italian tonight, my treat" and we splurge and have a nice sit-down meal, fresh crab or tuna steaks or a thick sirloin or beautifully made fusion cuisine.
I'm kind of thinking, c'mon, Cali, treat the little lady to a nice fancy dinner sometime where neither you or she has to do the cooking or cleaning up, enjoy some nifty well-prepared French or Italian or Mexican or whatever food. It's exactly like going to a live concert to see a good rock, jazz, or CW group perform or enjoy a major league sports event or some other paid-for attraction.
Let's face it, MOST of us here DO eat in "real" restaurants (not MickeyD or Subway) but a gen-u-wine place with waiters and a nice cold pale ale or margarita or glass of wine on the side. I'd figure, oh, 85-90% of the members here go to restaurants, at least occasionally.
So having reasonable public services such as restaurant inspectors or building code inspectors (unless ya wanna avoid them-there devil's own newfangled "eeellleeevaterz" what lift ya up outer thet soil and pulls yer inter thet hifalutin 4th floor! Preacher tolt me it were the debil's own plannin' to lift yer up thet high!)
I mean, we accept the need in modern society to have safety inspectors on things like highrises (unless you personally either have the structural engineering skills or plan to hire private consultants to inspect each high-rise you enter?) or personally inspect the jetliner or car or truck you ride in, you personally hire special consultants to check the qualification of the surgeon who fixes your busted arm or performs open heart surgery on a loved one?
This is a modern interwoven society and MOST of us realize the need for shared safety and inspection standards and routine government enforcement of this. Not everyone has a private self-sufficient estate and grows, hunts, or otherwise produces his livelihood independently. And if so, whom do you then rely upon to do that naggy ol' cardiac bypass (I dunno, maybe jes gib 'em a leather strap to bite on?) or to create the penicillin you take? Or explore, drill for, and refine the fuel you put in your truck?
What I think we mostly dislike is the excesses of government, not the ideals of reasonable government regulation or control. We fear the overboring, the misuse, and often the actual corruption of this otherwise perfectly reasonable process.
I think that many libertarian (small-l) ideas are perfectly fine and coincide with general conservative principles.
The greatest concern I have, as other may also have, is the "large-L" Libertarian views that often, to some of us, seem far too anarchistic. Things like total abrogation of all governmental regulatory functions, legalizing all drugs, and the foreign policy aspects of being a "fortress America" and ignoring our international obligations (isolationism has already been tried and it didn't work in the 40s and sure as hell won't work today -- I wish it were that simple but it's not).
Jerry
The Vietnamese that I encounter always speak Vietnamese. In a crowd, on the phone, wherever. One Vietnamese lady joined a photo club where I am a member. She is married but joined as an individual only. On a recent wildlife photo field trip, she brought along 25 people from the Vietnamese photo club, creating enormous crowding, disruption, and scaring away the wildlife we were there to photograph. BTW, anyone can join the Vietnamese photo club, but they speak only Vietnamese in their meetings.
Vietnamese fishermen, in the 1980's nearly wiped out the shrimping industry on the Texas Gulf Coast by crowding and over-fishing to the point that shrimp almost became an endangered species here. In the Houston area they have demanded government forms, including ballots, be available in Vietnamese, and the bleeding liberals that run Houston have been most compliant. According to one local study, Vietnamese are represented disproportionately in receipt of Texas Lone Star cards and section 8 housing assistance. Yes, Vietnamese immigrants are good at getting all their U.S. Constitutional rights, 2nd Amendment and all, and certainly all their social program rights.
My grandparents came from Poland and Ukraine. When I was a kid growing up in Philadelphia, I never heard conversation in other than English. They never asked for or received a penny of government assistance, and they marked voting ballots that were printed in English. They lost their home during the Great Depression, and my father and his two brothers worked and saved enough money to buy them a new home. They all spoke only English. I have no sympathy for any foreigners who immigrate to America and expect to by catered to in their native language.
I'm glad your friend is the finest Vietnamese immigrant I'll ever meet, even though I'll never meet him. Those I know I wouldn't want to introduce.
Have you gone dense? What part of "privately funded" do you not understand?
It's a pretty simple concept, if people won't eat at restaurants that don't have ratings, restauranteurs will get their own inspection. Out of the 100+ "real Sam restaurants" local to me, I eat at about 6 or them a year. Why should my money go to all of the other ones as well?
Your loss. Al (Mythaeus) and his wife Kassia are two really great people.
Using the restaurant inspection model, I would like people to consider two options:
1) What we have now. Overpaid, impossible to fire, Unionized, easy to bribe Govt employees that may only rubber stamp an inspection... or close a restaurant due to political pressure or flat out bribery. Here in Austin, we recently had code enforcement officers that went bowling for 6 hours on the clock...
2) Competing private inspection companies. They can instantly fire any corrupt employees, and must maintain a squeaky clean record, or get destroyed in the market place. When you walk up to "Chez SamW's Bar and Grill", you would see the logo and rating from the inspection company proudly displayed by the front door. (Or no rating at all...) you could check the rating info on your handheld device or with a quick phone call. You could tell if they were inspected by "CPJ's Fly-By-Nite Inspection Company", or by "CaliFFL's Inspect 'R Us", and make an informed decision. YOU would shoulder your share of paying for the inspection, instead of holding a gun to some poor struggling single Mom's head and FORCING her (with the threat of imprisonment or death) to pay for part of inspecting your choice of 'real' restaurant for a nice night out.
Which one is more efficient, fair, and honest?
That is the Libertarian philosophy. The free market is always a better solution that the Govt. The Govt is inept, and cannot even run a monopoly and break even.
-Mikhail Kalashnikov
Yeah this.
Not only did he miss it, he clamors for MORE government control over our lives. My idea(s) may not work, but Sam did not give one alternative to gov't reduction. Not one. In fact, he clamored for more gov't control in the name of "safety". Then he goes on his usual condescending rant about Libertarians without offering anything useful.
Adam J. McCleod
No I didn't miss that at all, thanks for offering to referee gratis. I'm using the example of restaurant that Cali did --- Subway. Technically yes, it's a restaurant. But I don't get any real pleasure from eating there either. I was talking about a nicer sit-down place with real waiters and where you don't need to bring your own hog drippins.
Cali recommended that only people who go to restaurants need to subsidize the inspections. Well, that would be about 95% of people who occasionally buy either prepared drive-through or restaurant style food.
Problem about only paying for the specific services that you want to use is this: What if you suddenly decide, after 28 years of sitting in the storm cellar and talking to your AR15 like Vincent D'Onofrio in FMJ, you think, "golly, maybe my significant other would like to have a terrific dinner served to her, a lobster or French Provencal cuisine or whatever" and you both drive over to "Phillipe" but since you didn't pay for inspections last year, you've gotta pony up 42 bucks to get in the door?
Talk about dumb? Who the heck doesn't treat his loved one to a fine dinner out on the town occasionally?
Point I'm trying to make is that a "user pays" method might be okay for some specialty things, but for general public access, especially since we don't all live on islands alone, is that part of our taxes go to pay for reasonable regulatory services.
Fraud or inefficiency or corruption are another matter and need to be dealt with, but as I see it, the general case for tax-paid inspectors for public things is fine.
I've not yet got any attention to my own example however, which has conveniently been ignored even though you've leaped eagerly into the fray to diss me as usual: Whom do you think should ensure that the structural steel of a highrise building is properly installed, is the right size, and is correctly bolted or welded? Should government have a means of licensing inspectors for this? And how do you ensure that your vehicle's fuel is of the right formula? Unless of course you also have your own oilwell and refinery on your property.
Now that's exactly something I'd pay to see! Any videos?
Wait, is that an F-16 I hear?
I have to agree with this. I considered this in my restaurant idea. Placing consumer ratings on businesses will reduce some of the corruption. It works for Ebay and Gunbroker.
Adam J. McCleod
Actually I only want more government control over Cali's life, not mine. ha ha
Condescending rant means "not agreeing with Cali" because I simply do NOT see any genuine progress in how the Libertarian party is electing more and more candidates to office. I asked repeatedly for examples of how successful they are, but these are ignored. Maybe I can get Eli to investigate and report -- he seems to have plenty of time to bandwagon and do the "What he said" thing.
I was VERY clear in stating how some libertarian concepts are just fine, and coincide nicely with traditional conservative values --- reduced government, lower taxes, more accountability. Eli and Cali and cp all seem to have conveniently missed these comments. (I'll wait till they catch up --- crickets chirping)
What I DID criticize is the international "hands off" policy that many "card carrying" (Ron Paul et al) Libertarians take, with which I disagree in some part. No we can't be the world's policeforce but we can take sides and intervene if it's justified.
Do you guys REMEMBER my having said these things in previous posts here? Don't go all Press Rep Carney on yourselves, okay?
I know full well how this works... I disagree with a Golden One. I'm therefore wrong by default. If I then try to argue my point, I'm being, mmm, "argumentative" and I'm of course already declared wrong as a point of law, defacto. If I respond, I'm even "wronger" and then can be targeted as dense, stupid, thickheaded, because I dared to say something against THE PERFECT ONES. Sometimes, guys, you sound like the Obama apologists, carefully ignoring the content of my statements, instead simply criticizing them because I dared raise my head during genuflect time. I sometimes understand how ol' Alphasig feels.
I tried very hard to list things about libertarian ideas that I thought were good. Those were ignored. Apparently I'm supposed to sign the Libertarian Doctrine in blood or something, or I'm declared anathema. A real hoot.
By the way, Cali's doing just fine responding to what I've said and I'm happy to gripe back and forth with him all day. By this I mean that he just doesn't need you guys rushing to his defense against evil, corrupt Sam. He's doing fine all on his own. At least he's got his OWN ideas and isn't eagerly posting "Me too! Me too!" Haw.
We chose to buy rural property instead of wasting money on "fine" dining.
Self sufficiency is a virtue. I will not defend it to an urban apartment dweller.
Adam J. McCleod
No it doesn't. Examples of condescending rants:
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Adam J. McCleod
There is quite a bit of room on the continuum of isolationism. to the recent extreme which has become Policing the World. Seal Team Six took out Bin Laden. It didn't take 12 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan to do that.
We armed Iraq when they were fighting with Iran. Then we fought Iraq when they invaded Kuwait, the laziest, fattest nation in the middle east (maybe in the world), sending our planes, tanks, and soldiers to fight and die, while the Kuwaiti royal family vacationed in the Mediterranean. We have 20,000 troops keeping the Saudi Arabia royal family in power.
The U.S. has over 900 military bases (some estimates are over 1,000) in 130-150 countries, not counting Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 175,000 troops along with a similar number of local indigenous employees (again excluding Iraq and Afghanistan), including 100,000 in Europe, where some bases have been in place since WWII, and many others were built just for the cold war. There is also some number of military family members living and spending money in those other countries. I couldn't find totals, but for example, there are 12,000 marines stationed in Okinawa along with 26,000 family members. That's a lot of people spending money that helps the Japanese economy--money that comes from American taxpayers.
$150 billion per year, again not counting Iraq and Afghanistan. 32,000 buildings owned plus another 16,000 leased. 687,000 acres of land owned or leased. In addition, the U.S. spent $450 million last year on NATO--that's about a quarter of the NATO budget. Seems the U.S. share is a bit high, for being only one of 27 nations in NATO. Has no one in D.C. noticed that both WWII and the Cold War are OVER? The Warsaw Pact disbanded twenty years ago. Back home, we can't even secure our borders from invaders.
This is not just being non-isolationist. This is more like being the New Roman Empire (the original Roman Empire at its peak had 37 bases to police its holdings from Britannia to Egypt.) The old Roman Empire collapsed from loss of its border control, language and culture. Sound familiar? This is one of the things Ron Paul and the Libertarians want to avoid.
The isolationist period was, I believe, the 1930's, not the 1940's--which could be better known as the WWII period.
I'm still looking for affordable farmland. Problem is too many gentleman ranchers buying up land with their oil money.
I'm now caught up. I have re-read your other comments. You SAY libertarian concepts are fine (in an abstract sense...reduced government, lower taxes, more accountability) yet you dismiss every suggestion I make as Libertarian anarchy. Wanting reduced government versus reducing government requires ideas first, then action.
You haven't even given me one idea.
Adam J. McCleod
I would be happy as a pig in poo-poo just to achieve this much to start, then we could work on the rest of it.
Me too. I fear there are too many sacred cows to make any progress. Just look at the storm I started by mentioning the mere possibility of ridding ourselves of just one city government bureaucracy. We all know something's gotta give, but few are willing to give up anything.
Adam J. McCleod
I thought you of all people would've mentioned my reduced carbon footprint, not my reduced tax rate.
Adam J. McCleod
Ah hell, EVERYTHING is a choice. My choices simply place less of a burden on everyone else.
Adam J. McCleod
Your devotion to big government causes you to continuously miss the point on free market issues.
No matter how well structured and well intentioned a new government regulatory agency starts out, it quickly becomes corrupt, just like the businesses it assumes regulatory powers over. The difference is that government agencies never go away, get smaller, or just remain the same size. They spawn new sub-agencies that eventually get big and break away into other autonomous agencies and spawn their own sub-agencies. All of your theories or anyone else's about big government assumes that the people in charge will do the 'right thing.' They never do, in the end, and they never accomplish much - usually just enough to justify their existence to politicians who have stacked the deck in their favor, for whatever reasons, to further their own agendas.
We need small government that is tasked with fixing problems and then moving on - not regulators who can enhance their careers by pyramiding underneath themselves to increase their own importance.