Newsgroups: alt.politics, talk.politics.misc, alt.politics.obama, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 15:08:15 -0500
Local: Sat, Nov 3 2012 4:08 pm
Subject: Re: 11 Days Till Obama Reelection
In article <XnsA0FF85A651D55FREOinva...@18.104.22.168>,
"Enraged Apostate, World Citizen"
<Finding.Rea...@Every.Opportunity.invalid> wrote:No, no one should automatically resent being called extreme. Why should
> Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote on Fri 02 Nov 2012 07:52:46a
> >> Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote on Thu 01 Nov 2012 05:11:02a
> >> >> Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote on Wed 31 Oct 2012
> >> >> [....]
> >> >> >> The United States has always had the deserved reputation of
> >> >> > I'll assume you're not joking, which automatically begs the
> >> >> > When has the United States ever fixed anything?
> >> >> I am guessing it's been you who's never lived in the United States,
> >> >> FDR...LBJ...they were presidents, and under them, many things got
> >> > Governments can't fix things. In every instance, the most a
> >> I would not expect someone as extreme as someone calling himself a
> > Extreme is an adjective. It can be a noun, but it still needs a
> Oh, you can be sure it was no mistake of mine to qualify it further. This
> You see, most Usenet participants would (and should) resent being labeled in
they? Especially if it is true?
You're assuming that society has mechanisms in play that should make me
That's how societies protect themselves.
Yes. What /are/ you referring to? Extreme beauty? Extreme ugliness?
> Instead, you want me to ensure correctness here by saying you are on the
Extreme ability? Extreme ineptitude?
> My guess is that I had characterized you onYour labels can't affect me either way. You might guess right about me,
> the extreme left, your response would have been obstreperous and cutting.
> You might have not been wholly satisfied with being labeled on the extreme
> right as well: if so, again, you would have given a response where you
> dispassionately work to dispel the idea that you largely, if not wholly, take
> positions that are entirely extreme.
you might guess wrong.
If you guess right, what's there to react to? The truth?
If you guess wrong, then you guessed wrong.
> The modern libertarian, generally said to be the one true and sincere
Neolibertaranism, while not a complete doctrine, nor an actual movement
A neolibertarian, for instance, might well agree that Madison was
The Constitution would solve that lack once and for all.
A neolibertarian understands the need for a strong, powerful state. Such
But a neolibertarian also understands that strong safeguards and limits
A dam provides great good to the community that lives below it. It can
When they get lax, or desert their posts, the whole circus is in danger.
None of those issue positions reflect my views.
> Anyway the modern libertarian is an extremist...and JUST that! His positions
> Getting rid of sensible weapons control laws? Decidely to the extreme right!
But the knowledge IS certain, of course.
> Staying out of a woman's pregnancy? Should be a libertarian cause in the
Religion is mostly silent on that issue, which may be why you aren't
Science provides the most compelling evidence that abortion is murder.
> >> > I'm afraid the record is exceedingly clear on this point.Of course.
> >> Again, I would not expect someone as extreme as...
> > Well, you seem determined to turn this into an extremely epic
> > I'll play along while I have the time. If I drop out, don't take it
> > At any rate, Government "fixing" things is worthy of a little
> > Whether or not a government can fix things, or if it can only provide
> > If it's going to fix things, we should examine its tools for doing so,
> > And what are those tools?
> > Law, obviously. And that's about everything in the toolkit.
> > Law. There are many instrumentalities behind the law, but law is the
> > But just what are laws?
> > Well, they're many things, of course, but laws are violence and force
> > Fred Hoyle, the late great Cambridge astronomer, once wrote of his
> > When you seek to force people, especially proactively, you're not
> > Us monkeys are ALL Aesop's dog with a bone in our mouth, looking down at
> > And every time, there we are jumping in the water, and the other dog
> > Read any history book about us monkeys, and that's pretty much the story
> > "There ought to be a law..."
> > Violence, force and threats of violence are the tools with which we'll
> > Hunh?
> > Yes, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin and Mao all believed that very thing.
> > All who took up the task failed miserably, as we're too painfully aware.
> > Data that's hard to ignore.
> > You're telling me that the only thing standing in the way are the
> > Well, whaddaya gonna do about it?
> > You must sweep aside the bourgeoisie and the duped proletariat
> > You must, because the damned duped proletariate will keep voting in the
> > So, you need to follow the method of Lenin, Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
> Oh now really?? Was it necessary to assert this nonsense?
No one but you (and your progressive colleagues) are trying to perfect
> We PROGRESSIVES are quite content to work within the existing framework---
the Constitution with amendments.
The rest of us understand that perfecting it would tip the delicate
No utopians among us neolibertarians, and that's fer sure.
> instead ofBut look what a mess your ClowardPiven strategy has wrought!
> outright declaring that "if we only had the tools and methods and power" of
> the left- and right-wing dictators you have named.
Putting your toe in the cold water doesn't help you get used to it, does
No, it just gives you goosebumps and makes you fear jumping in all the
You're actually making the discomfort worse. You're assuring a perpetual
Not to me. In my view, the evil is found entirely in the goal, not the
> I realize it's a favorite, completely unjustified bogeyman you in the
Look, I /prefer/ you use the ClowardPiven strategy. It makes your goals
I'm merely pointing out that it's you who should be frustrated with the
> SoThere is a much larger list of favorite dictators.
> you attempt to lump us in with your favorite list of dictators who thought
> more could be accomplished efficiently and quickly first by the use of the
> iron fist, and then once the people were pacified and re-educated, we could
> proceed to the kindler, gentler version of government.
The ones I mentioned are the exemplar socialists; rigid in following
They understood dragging out the revolution for a century is
The old order must be deposed. Dragging it out over a century merely
> Take a breath, and then walk baby steps away from that group of paranoids andHeh.
> conspiracy theorists with whom you have been drinking tea and eating biscuits
> for far too long. Yes, we are FROM the for/by/of-the-people government, and
> we REALLY are here to help you.
Aristotle once wrote, "All men do, in fact, aim at what they think good."
> > But, they failed, didn't they?
> > Not /some/ of them failed, friend...they /all/ failed. Even the ones who
> > They didn't fail because they were fighting the wrong enemy. Oh no. They
> At this point, the only goddam thing you have accomplished is to completely
You know the proverb about good intentions, it's just that you think
Well, he was also an unapologetic murderer, wasn't he?
> > They were our age's superheroes,
> If you stopped at Lenin--who thought himself a philosopher and not so much an
> your prose flowing out here---don't worry, I have boots on---I'm prone to do that.
> might not have lost the reader here. But we don't get to Chapter 1 here
> because, as your publisher/editor warned you, you fucked up the Preface.
Mother Teresa wasn't a State.
> > Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe
> > All the kingdom cheered, and they lived happily ever after.
> > Now good night kiddies, and sweet dreams...
> > Social justice not only can't be defined so that it actually means
> If you send me your address, I can send you a ream of papers with life-sized
> You see, Mother Teresa and other social justice advocates like her do not see
Charity doesn't come from bureaucrats, and can't be dispensed by
You completely misunderstand if you believe that I believe "government
> Where you err deeply is this persistent ludicrous thought among your class of
Is a chainsaw "bad?" Is a hammer "bad?" Is an arc welder "bad?"
Of course not. They're neither good nor bad. They're tools. But all can
> But for the meantime, the rest of us are going to proceed with the
You're referring to the duped proletariat. Why not just say so?
> > You see the problem, don't you? You need to take the limits off the
> We will "let"??? We will "let"?
> Of course we do: shit happens in the ebb and flow of the democratic state.
> Some day, even the most monumentally stupid will one day realize that they
See what I mean? It's just not working.
> In 2008 they did, but EITHER (1) their memories are just too short (< 4
I was there and paying attention. I can enumerate what he accomplished,
> > But if you do that, if you release the limits on your government, you're
> Not if you have a benevolent "dictator" the likes of FDR, and you don't had a
and what he didn't accomplish; where he succeeded and where he failed.
His "massive spending" wasn't actually his, was it? He pushed through
You need a better scapegoat for the spending. Someone on whom the blame
Let's look it up in the Constitution and see if we can find out who was
We the People.
> >> > Each of the entitlements would be take up their own threads, so let'sUmm, I hesitate to break this to you, but the above links (those which
> >> > don't go there, other than to summarize.
> >> > All were passed amid lies and knowingly false claims. None were ever
> >> You know what the life expectancy was at the time SocSec was passed,
> > Social Security is only one of the problems, but actuaries or no, it was
> > Back where I come from, they call that fraud.
> > However, they knew that by the time you discovered the fraud, Social
> > They were right.
> You would not be expected to deviate otherwise from your consistently cynical
> >> > All are still with us today, and now threaten to
> >> Time and again SocSec has been shown to be okay.
> > Social Security Trust Fund, by itself, holds more than twice as much of
> Hating SocSec and everything it stands for---helping your We The People---is
> Telling the truth about SocSec seems to be FAR MORE difficult.
> Why Social Security Cannot Go Bankrupt
> Half truth/exaggeration:
> Media Jump On Idea That Social Security Is Going Bankrupt, Ignore Easy Way To
> Social Security Is Not Bankrupt. Not Even Close.
aren't broken) all refer to the surplus.
It's the surplus which keeps the Social Security Trust Fund solvent.
Schwew! Social Security has a surplus! And for a minute there, I was
What no one wants to explain to you, is this surplus is entirely
Guess who's on the hook for all those IOUs?
Let's look it up in the Constitution and see if we can find out who's on
We the People.
That's because there wasn't nearly as much involved in treatments for
> >> As for Medicare, it is
> > Medicare was also sold with lies. But that's no surprise to anyone, much
> > Almost right away it was apparent that Medicare would never be
> Bullshit. Health care was affordable then when Medicare was birthed
cancer and heart disease, for instance.
> whenTed Kennedy's pet project was the HMO. Then, once they were established,
> the health care "market" was not the for-profit oligopoly (actually regional
> monopolies) monster it has become. The HMO concept of health care
he was their harshest critic.
This is why I have to point out the Fabian approach to socialism causes
> whereChicken and the egg is pretty plain in this instance.
> virtually someone had a $10 co-pay for open-heart surgery and thus no real
> stake in preventative health care and exercising to maintain fitness----has
> now transformed into a system where if I go to get a tetanus shot for a cut
> finger, I first need to take a second mortgage. Libertarian principles have
> essentially created the hideous thing called health care today. Those
> Willard voters hating Obamacare for gawd-only-knows-why who can be found at
> an all-you-can-for-down-your-gullet-chow-down and having body mass indices
> exceeding an artery-clogging value = 40 have NO incentive whatsoever to
> moderate their behavior and believe that one day modern medicine will take 40
> years and 80 kilos out of their waist, hips and thighs one day---and won't
> you please put the bill on the guy in New York City (that's PRE-Obamacare!)
> And this bullshit about Medicare: you know why patients on Medicare get
> If anything has remained SANE in this health care snakepit that is Auntie
A massive new entitlement preceded the skyrocketing prices--along with
Years ago, my cat had a bladder infection. Took her to the vet, he
Sometime later, my wife had a bladder infection. Took her to the doctor,
What's different about veterinary medicine? What makes the same
There's no health insurance for pets yet--so the customer isn't removed
And there's no government entitlement program underpaying the vets, is
Before 1965, it just wasn't that unusual for most people to pay their
Doctors would make house calls. People paid the bill he would send.
What changed after 1965?
> > A portion of FICA would be used to pay for the Federal half of theUnderpayments push up costs.
> > funding responsibilities, and the states would have to figure out how to
> > raise money for the rest.
> > Fine and dandy, as far as it went.
> > Except that even this shared funding arrangement could not makes ends
> > So, the federal government made healthcare providers, themselves, cover
> > Under federal law, healthcare providers must accept whatever
> Ah! You now seem to be properly believing that health care costs---whose
There ain't no secha thing as a free lunch, chum.
No one "votes with" their "wallet" anymore. They vote with the other
> You should be APPLAUDING the effort, rather than condemning it. It's called
That's why they drop it all the time.
> No health care provider is truly obligated to work with Medicare.
On the other hand, lots of doctors are altruistic enough they're willing
Do I really need to?
> You really want to prove to me the worthless of Medicare?
I call. Show me your cards.
> Peform a study of individuals who rely entirely on Medicare for prevention
> I will bet your dime to my dollar that parameters on fitness show that
> If that report shows justLook, I realize the monkeys don't believe in their ability to take care
> that one benefit of Medicare, it is well worth whatever we are paying to prop
> up whatever you ludicrously believe to be a shaky system.
of themselves. I get it.
The grasshopper doesn't get upset at the universe until the first frost,
Okay, the ants can share the extra. They have plenty. Who has a problem
It's just that the grasshopper is going through the stores so fast that
> > For instance, Mom just hasn't been herself since Dad died. She fallsThat's not how it works.
> > down again and really hurts herself this time. She goes to the hospital
> > to get a hip replacement. We worried and worried, but finally Mom's good
> > as new, and the hospital ends up billing her $92,500. Medicare cuts a
> > check for $53,200. The surgeons, anesthesiologists and the hospital have
> > to accept that as "payment in full."
> Medicare accounts no doubt calculated a REASONABLE profit in a system where
A government bureaucrat hasn't the wherewithal to determine "reasonable"
He can only determine how much money there is for his bureau to spend,
> > Pretty soon, we all started noticing that a single Tylenol is costing
> This is not COST transferance. It is PROFIT transferance. The 30 pieces of
When you go to work for the man at $7.25 per hour, you're working for
You trade off having to sweat paying the vendors, worrying about meeting
You trade off all those things so that you can live a stable, carefree
It's your boss who stays late at work, who gets calls at hone in the
Both are in it for the profit. One's not more the angel nor the devil in
Even if you want to make the health care providers employees of the
> Please tell me why health care costs have FAR OUTPACED inflation and anythingYeah...and?
> else for the past two generations???
> > A gauze bandage that sells
> PROFIT transferance.
Heart transplant recipients actually do a lot of recovery in the
> > No one can afford to spend a week in a hospital anymore, not even open
> And who is to say that is NOT an adequate place anyway?? The advances in
hospital. They stay for weeks. Even longer.
Only if allowed to.
> > Average cost per
> That does not reflect the hospital's costs...rather supply and demand. More
> This will sort itself out slowly, as it always does.
Quit trying to frighten us.
> 1) the Baby Boom generation will die out in good numbers (lowered demand on
> 2) "low-cost hospitals" will be built---essentially neighboord clinics heavy
Also, remember it when your mom's in pain, her iv has been empty for
> > Hell, it only costs $329 a
> I'll remember that when I need a tumor biopsy.
over and hour, and you wander around the floor looking for a nurse who
will/can actually look in on her.
> > Evil, twisted capitalist monsters raising all those rates?Envy isn't very becoming.
> > Well, not really. The hospitals are just attempting to recover what they
> > Let's recap, shall we?
> Really? The facts that health care outpace inflation for dozens of years,
> What, that health insurance executive had a chateau remodeling in his fifth
If you want what the silverbacks have, then you have to become a
Sorry, I didn't create the universe, and I didn't make up its rules.
Capitalism wasn't involved, I'm afraid.
> > So we pay into FICA from our paychecks, we pay higher state taxes, and
> > Who the hell authorized that?
> The twisted capitalist monster...?
Look, we all know there's some overpaid Quarterbacks in the league.
> > After all those things occur, you happen to see where a health insurance
> > "Those greedy bastards!" you exclaim.
> > "But they happen to be a not for profit insurance company," someone
> Well, those funds went to build new health care facilities so as to balance
> Google "health care insurance executive salaries" If you want try adding the
They may not be putting points on the scoreboard, but there's more to
Besides, the silverbacks can be fired overnight. Lee Iacocca came into
Until you become a silverback, I'm afraid you'll never be able to see
How can you agree with laws against suicide, yet support abortion?
> > "So what? There're still greedy bastards! They're too big for their
> > "I know, I know" says Nancy and Barack waving their hands in the air,
> NOW THERE YOU AND I AGREE!!
> That is DEFINITELY a WTF moment!
> Forcing more customers into the hands of regional monopolists at gun point
> You and I will sit and drink from a cold can of beer in complete agreement on
> You believe something will come true with 100% probability and I am believing
> health care prices we pay will stay the same or go up (what you believe and
> You share with the extreme left the belief of what you on the extreme right
> > "Damned straight," you snort.
> > Hunh? Who authorized any of that?
> Barack and Nancy have admitted---and by this admission---have indicated a
> No, YOU DON'T.
> We have laws against suicide (have you ever protested those??).
> And there isPost to the center of the notch. If your hand's reasonably steady you
> good reason. If you are at your wit's end (long-term unemployment?) or have
> occasional bouts with depression, committing suicide is an irrevocable
> therapy toward the day you might actually be happy about breathing.
> This idea that you should be completely free as an individual to abuse
If you're referring to the OPEC oil embargo of 1973, you've missed all
> >> > The "ideal social reforms" didn't work out so well on a great many
> >> Yes, they did not. And if you want to blame liberals for something, we
> > Amen.
> >> This failure of the educational system led to:
> >> * the election of Ronald Reagan
> > Followed by, cause and effect aside, a rapid end to the neo-Keynsian
> > 1981 +2.5
> > Inflation was more or less "whipped now" in the first two years, which
> You seem to forget that what caused that period of inflation was the decision
the essential elements of the crisis.
First of all, you have to understand the formula:
Inflation = Money Supply x Velocity.
The US had been engaging in reckless monetary policy even before Nixon
Inflation shows up in commodities first. This is one reason why gold is
Oil is a commodity.
The problem for oil producers is the Petro Dollar. US inflation was
The Arab Oil Producers had the added incentive of the failures of the
The oil embargo, and the OPEC under-production the 1970's, was self
Of course the populist bureaucrats never explained it that way to you.
Can you guess why the populist bureaucrats sold it to you the way they
The duped proletariat enjoyed a great deal of wealth and prosperity back
> Jimmy Carter fully realized that energy dependence of this sort was
> Of course he was dismissed derisively by those with a vested interest in
> But all you need to do is play the newsreel today and see that Carter was
Heh. Your anticipation of others' reaction to "Wall Street" is the
> > and the GDP was on a roller coaster. What growth
> > It's not like the US economy is centrally planned, but the Reagan
> > Kinda like today.
> It's odd that you and I go to the same film ("Wall Street") and you walk out
essence of why Oliver Stone created the movie in the first place.
You're obviously supposed to view Gekko as a monster, and you're
"Greed is good."
The whole exercise was rather laughable to me. As one dimensional and
Frank Capra was ever so much more effective at it. /His/ movies always
"Greed is good."
> Inin that passing strange?
First and foremost, the tax code should be honest.
> >> * the exaltation of the principles advanced by Reagan
> > Foremost among which were the 25% tax cuts, not for the rich, but for
> Uh, I thought you are Willard wanted everyone to have skin in the game, if
That will keep the spending honest.
I'm willing to have as much government as We the People are willing to
> > When Reagan was done, there were only two rates--the closest America hadReagan's economics were based on Hayek. Reagan never claimed that
> > come to a flat income tax rate since the income tax was revived in 1913.
> Yes, and look what it did to make us unprosperous before the income tax and
expansion wouldn't be followed by recession.
Taxes were only a small part of his agenda; the program for returning
If you're claiming that under the Dubya, taxes became the whole agenda,
> > Generally, those who made less than $17.5k paid 15%, and those who madeFlat tax is flat tax.
> > over $17.5k paid 28%.
> Actually they paid 28% of every dollar made over that limit, just as the
> Reagan also thought it was criminal for secretaries to pay a higher rate than
Overnight movie stars and hit rock bands sometimes got caught. Sometimes
> > Of course, in all the history of the modern income tax code, no one, not
> That 91% rate kicked when???? At $50 million---when not even God made more
THEY had to pay those rates.
On April 16th, they hired competent accounts and tax lawyers.
He wasn't superman. He eliminated quite a bit.
> > Now, with only 2 tax rates, and the elimination of most of that shameful
> Wait? Are you saying that Reagan reduced the 50-pound paperweight that is
And, let's face it, if you eliminated it ALL, then why on earth would
Tax preparation and tax law; that's all a pretty big industry anymore,
Even they will turn against you if you go too far.
Wealth disparity isn't really something you want to get into with me.
> > An honest, non-pandering tax code. Whoda thunk it in this lifetime?
> Flat taxes have been PROVEN to lead to wealth and income disparity,
You won't like what I have to say.
US manufactured good exports have nearly tripled the levels they were at
> > Revenues to the treasury would double during Reagan's administration. By
> Your world would be true if but for ONE thing: there was NO such thing as
> If you impose workplace health and safety laws on China and Indonesia and
the signing of NAFTA and GATT.
You knew that, right?
The point is, there's no such thing as "fair."
> > "We can't have any of that!" cried your progressive colleagues. "How
> You forgot what follows after the word "unfair," but I told you in the
It's a completely meaningless word used by demagogues.
> >> * the election of someone who makes Warren G. Harding presidential byThey aren't.
> >> comparison, and who thrust us in what Nobel Prize-winning economist
> >> Paul Krugman says is still a depression
> > The Dubya?
> > Look, you've got the Republicans skeered of your demagoguery. Okay?
> > The New Third Rail of American politics is Not Spending Money. We all
> Tell me how Willard/Teabagging-style austerity is working fer ya?
> Cameron and George Osborn drank from the Kool-Aid in the punch bowl and
> imposed it and what do they have to show for it? Ed Miliband is a shoo-in
> as the next prime minister, and I know that he gives you the willies.
Cameron is to Thatcher as the Dubya is to Reagan.
Look friend, the Dubya's deficits seemed big, but they're tiny when
> > The only thing they're allowed to argue about is /where/ to spend the
> > The Republicans spend it on their friends, and the Democrats spend it on
> > And look--in order to keep the revenues coming in so that no one has to
> > Both sides of the aisle seemed to understand this.
> So far, everyone is having party that was started by Bush-Cheney, and no one
compared to his successor's. Before the Democrats swept Congress in
2007, the Dubya/Congressional GOPs had even reduced the deficit to about
Remember the good old days of $230 billion deficits? 'Nough to bring
> There are murmurings about unborn generations having to foot the bill,Heh. You'd be asking the sheriff to throw himself in jail.
> and no shame at all about them having to do so, with the trite justifcation
> that the money being spent today is building that future which will be
> enjoyed by those generations. Somehow I don't see how 1% class perpetrating
> frauds like the Shaky Mortgage Fraud and absconding with the taxpayer's
> bailout money is somehow building a future for unborn generations.
> I would have like Dodd-Frank much better if a provision had been put in that
That's never really been my experience.
> >> The American people---a large proportion of them convinced that the
> > Not in the least true, of course. But even so, the American People could
> > After all, all the basic ideas of justice and equality espoused by Marx
> > Deuteronomy 15:7-8 especially; you know, the warning of YHWH to the
> > Such ideas were unthinkable among any but the Jews.
> Oh, you have me all wrong!
> I said that these idiots WANT to have as the only book in the library being
> I never said that they actually wanted to take instruction from it.
> Most people who thump the Bible never read it, let alone understood it.
But reading's not necessarily understanding.
Hunh. Now that's an amazing statement!
> They just think they know what it instructs, but what they really are
> LOL!! There is a difference in what I said.
> Sorry to pop that interesting balloon you inflated with interesting takes on
Does this means you DON'T rely on "The General Theory of Employment,
What horrible path?
> >> are unbelievably and
> > Amen.
> >> > Unless you're judging them from a ClowardPiven perspective.
> >> These "ideal social reforms" were never fully realized mostly because
> > I'm afraid Old Tail Gunner Joe is only a boogie man to the left and the
> Joe McCarthy and other despicable figures like him suitably serve to warn
McCarthy wasn't a successful alcoholic. He didn't accomplish a damned
There's no there there. But McCarthyism is still good for smearing
> > We know today that there were literally hundreds of CCCP informants andMaybe.
> > spies working in the US Government (and even Hollywood) at the time the
> > jackass was trying to tear up my Constitution. While real spies were
> > sending rocket guidance specs to Moscow, Joe was accusing hapless people
> > of having checked out Das Kapital from the library way back in college.
> > Evidently, J. Edgar Hoover had slipped McCarthy, somewhat
> > The FBI is a completely unconstitutional organization, especially since
> > Hoover should have gone down in flames with Tail Gunner Joe. Instead,
> > In color even.
> > Who the hell authorized any of that?
> > Before Reagan, it was Nixon obviously.
> > The Party of Angels have to have their devils.
> Nixon authorized it?
Nixon personally pushed more liberal/progressive legislation through
That's why the progressives couldn't help but demonize him.
The added powers were great, but once established, only the /right kind
A house divided against itself if the only kind I feel safe living in.
> Because we have federal laws, like any law, they need enforcement. They
> Dept of Interior: gun-totin' game wardens/park rangers in national forests
> Yeah, I know you don't like government, and particularly one layered over
> >> >> I know it's hard for you to realize that if you were born in aEcce homo indefensi.
> >> >> generation after an asshole named Ronald Reagan, who "unfixed" many
> >> >> of the things they did, and in which many more things were "unfixed"
> >> >> thanks to Reagan acolytes who followed the the man, the acolytes who
> >> >> told W to just shut up and smile while they committed felonies
> >> >> right, basically setting up a system called "the middle
> >> >> class"---which took about a half century to create---to be
> >> >> annihilated just as fast with attacks on labor unionism and the
> >> >> adjustments to the tax code to make sure the "job creators" paid
> >> >> virtually nothing.
> >> >> I could see how in all this turmoil that came about in about the
> >> > Can't unpack all those straw men, hasty generalizations and post hoc
> >> > I'd really, really like to, but it's just not practical. Alas.
> >> What fallacy is it that attempts to dismiss an opponent's observations
> > Tee hee. Caught me!
> >> >> >> >> Part of that voting integrity is to make sure those who have
> >> >> >> > There isn't such a thing as a "right" to vote.
> >> >> >> As you put "right" in quotes, it really means you are not sure of
> >> >> > Scare quotes.
> >> >> > You're the one who used the word first, you explain.
> >> >> > You stated voting is a right.
> >> >> something to which one has a just claim:
> >> >> Your turn.
> >> > Way back (in the good old days) they used to have a mandatory class
> >> > A long time ago now, they removed High School Civics courses from the
> >> You really do believe that the loss of Latin---a language spoken by no
> > Yes. Very much so.
> >> I can speak two human languages fluently and at a time past could speak
> > Because your words and language are your main weapons in this universe.
> I am willing to risk being caught defenseless without Latin (LMAO!)
It's cool, dude. I'm feeling it. Didn't meant to give you a case of the
> > The better you understand your sword; the more you compare it to other
> > Other contemporary languages are adequate for this. Ich spreche ein
> > But understanding Latin means you understand the dominant parent of your
> > Who couldn't use that to great advantage?
> As one who has given WAY TOO MUCH thought about languages and their utility,
ass. You see the A-Bag, I see the bomb--I'm just sayin' a B's gotta TCB.
I'd rather have a knife, a sword, a pistol and an assault rifle, than
> Do you know what the SAT Question of the Day is? In three days of questions,
> There are 300,000 words in the most ponderous dictionary of English there is,
> Why do I need 5 different words as adjectives to describe what ultimately has
only one from the list.
All get the job done, of course.
Who was it who said "if your only tool is a hammer, all your problems
Those who've read about Winston Smith should understand the dangers in
> I don't suppose we will ever get a radical language reformer to offer us the
> And let's REALLY be radical in reforming that Anglo-Saxon: ONE CHARACTER-to-
> buy -> bought -> bought
> I will let YOU, mr. anarchist libertarian, decide which two letters to use
> Seriously, if they can de novo make something that a Klingon speaks, then
(and purposes to) manipulating the language.
You must stop the sheepshank before anyone thinks of inventing it.
> >> I reside abroad and virtually get by on mostly English. In fact, aIt's the language of Earth not because it has any inherent merits as a
> >> universal human language, just as a one-world (limited) government
> >> guaranteeing a set of human rights, would do more for world peace and
> >> harmony than too many nation-states and too many human languages.
> >> Diversity is overrated, if not dangerous. Noncomformity can come in
> >> different innocuous ways. Just a small digression here...
> > English is already the language of Earth.
> I have not begun even to tear as many assholes into the English language that
> In its basic usage, it is the most illogical, most annoying, most egregious
language. It's the bastard language of unruly and rebellious bastards.
It's the language of Earth because the United States is the First Estate.
The Right to Bear Arms was never, has never, and will never be thought
> >> > The point here is, the basic theme undergirding nearly every civics
> >> > The duties of citizenship.
> >> > "Duties?" I thought we're discussing rights?
> >> > It was understood intuitively back then (well, hell, a majority of
> >> > If it's not earned, then you don't really have it.
> >> > Did you know something like 70% of lottery winners are back to being
> >> > Why is that, do you suppose?
> >> At this point, it's just a matter of semantics. We proceed in the
> >> Since you really do not propose to give examples or explicate in any
> >> I could guess that by "earning" of rights that you mean to say that
> > That's not exactly it.
> > For instance, "everyone has the right to express their thoughts." In
> > Yet you and I have been around Usenet long enough to know that there are
> Yes, but defects in elocution and in learning that what they believe to be
of as extending to babies and children.
> > We might forgive the occasional "there, their and they're" error, etc.Heh. I caught that.
> > We're all guilty, after all. Any such error can sabotage our original
> > intent for a sentence. But this isn't what's being referred to here.
> > Engage them in a conversation, or attempt to, and you find they just
> > Lack of training? Maybe. Lack of earnest effort? Maybe. Lack of coherent
> I usually encourage those who wish to find words in order to communicate
Why not send them to William F. Buckley, instead?
I'm sorry, I was discussing Usenet.
> > They may have the right of free expression bestowed upon them...just
> > Give a man a sword, and all he has is a chunk of sharp metal. Should he
> Well, I don't think a Usenet poster learns just enough of the language to be
> All of us won't easily find the right words in response to a post, but if the
What are you referring to again?
Well, I'm certainly opposed to government lotteries.
> >> Since it is NOT usually the case---frequent---that there are
> > Well, in the case of free speech, there's a flip side to "defending" it.
> > You see, the first thing you must do after exercising your right to free
> > It's not only other people who might kill you for your thoughts, but the
> >> You don't really connect your point about lottery winners to the main
> > Well, the answer to the question put is: they plow through money
> > Money isn't wealth, of course, it's the measurement of wealth.
> > In this sense, we can view money as little diplomas.
> > Sure, you can steal someone's diploma and, with a little white-out, you
> > But that doesn't give you any of the hard won discipline and learning
> > What is a diploma without the knowledge? Nothing but a piece of paper,
> > Same with money.
> > Same with rights.
> As a minor point about lotteries: I have been adamantly opposed them, both
I think you're just illustrating the fact that government schools are
> In 1984 I vociferously opposed California establishing a lottery to pay for
> Metadata and controlled studies using analysis of variance have shown that
> 45% of that variance is teacher quality. THERE we can do something about
> The last 5% is due to lack of support financially (unwillingness to pay for
> Yes, I know I have digressed from rights->lotteries->education and
> ....but have you ever considered that in this half a dozen posts between us
> that if you and I had benefitted from the best public education system
> So it all comes back to what you learned and I learned....and what we didn't
too expensive and too unproductive.
Actually, it may seem counterintuitive, but from what I can gather, back
> >> Let me add something here that you will find pleasing and which
> >> I have lived outside of the US for nearly two decades more or less, in
> >> But, it virtually has no civil liberties or political
> >> It is wrongly believed that a democratic form of state leads to a full
> >> But the existence of the Turkish republic proves that very principle to
> >> The absence of liberties as you would see them are the choice of the
> >> Many Turks do crave those liberties however. The Turkish government
> >> If tomorrow I imposed the conditions of Turkey on the people of the
> >> If they showed in numbers 100 times that value, even 1000 times that,
> > Come now. You're evidently old enough to be so confused by the
> > Most people, perhaps a vast majority, don't want freedom. They don't
> > They want Bread and Circuses.
> > Give them the vote, they'll vote themselves Bread and Circuses every
> > There was no majority behind the American Revolution, for instance.
> If only Adams had the Internet and the blogosphere, I wonder if he would
> > About 1/3 were dead set against seceding from the Crown. About 1/3 were
> Of those who even knew there was a revolution???
> I betcha when you roamed village to village in colonial America, most of
when communication was spotty, scarce, and traveled at the speed of
foot, or hoof, a vast majority of us were actually better informed.
Information was far more valuable and precious, and was universally
> > That's why the only polling provided for in the original ConstitutionWell, to me, everything occurs on the battlefield and involves bloodshed.
> > was set for every ten years. It wasn't to poll a majority. It was to
> > poll /all/.
> My point is that you don't get rights until you demonstrate to me that you
> And you should be in agreement somewhat, considering you have already
> >> >> >> The Constitution indicates an IMPLICIT right to vote and federalWhat right to vote?
> >> >> >> laws (Civil Rights Act) indicate EXPLICIT rights to vote, as I
> >> >> >> define that word "right."
> >> >> > Yes, elections, themselves, are only implied or non-explicit in
> >> >> > In reality, the original Constitution only guaranteed that polling
> >> >> > Certainly there is no human right to vote. As you yourself
> >> >> You and Paul Weyrich, eh? LOL
> >> >> The political systems you would create---well, they would never be
> >> > Too late, I'm afraid. The system I would "create" has already been
> >> > As the poet once said:
> >> > "Nobody inherits civilisation.
> >> > I, like my fathers before me, am merely attempting to refound my
> >> > And pay the heating bill.
> >> My point is that you and Weyrich deny dignity to your fellow man by
> > Don't drag the Heritage Foundation into this. They aren't seriously
> > It's me you're talking to, and you can't make me responsible for what
> > And, yet again, I have to reiterate: there ain't no right to vote.
> Oh, but you and Weyrich and his legacy of misanthropes are in perfect
> >> Worse, Weyrich (and you?) believe it is honorable to deny a fellowThe Constitution doesn't bestow rights. How could it?
> >> citizen his voice, by taking away from that citizen what he has
> >> "earned" in the case that you believe his political agenda is different
> >> from yours. Naturally the despicable Weyrich believes that any
> >> difference from his view is "destructive to the system and the nation."
> > Your overstating his position, and you're not addressing mine.
> It is arguable whether I overstate Weyrich's position: he is a certifiable
> As for you, you have stated there is no right to vote, by which you mean that
> I believe where you and I differ---not on what the Constitution saysLook, neither the Constitution nor the founders can bestow rights.
> or does not say---is that a right to vote is implied in both the wishes of
> the Founders and in their writings and in processes which must be carried out
> in order to implement the Constitution. No one may have talked about the
> horse in the plan to move the cart, but since the plan is to move the cart,
> you're gonna have to get the horse.
It's there to protect rights, and enumerates only a few. In fact the
Let's take a universal human right that few people even feel comfortable
The universal human right of revenge, for instance.
The Constitution neither mentions it, nor does it protect it.
And yet it exists.
Well, then you have to dispute the surveys and methodology.
> >> >> but supposing you managed some kind of implementation
> >> >> Sorry, but them's the facts.
> >> > I don't harbor contempt for democratic institutions...but yes, I
> >> A distinction without a difference. The people elect
> > That didn't matter as long as the wards, locks and safeguards were still
> > The boys in colored shirts running around on the field didn't bother
> > Everyone came together and met for beers together after the game, and no
> > Winning and losing didn't actually impact anything important.
> > After all, all the safeguards against that were still in place.
> > That all began to change when the populist bureaucracy took the field.
> >> > The tyranny of the majority is no better than any other form of
> >> The thing about explicating "rights" is the fiction that it tries to
> > It's worse. It's easier to focus blame on a minority. When it's a
> Right wingers like to claim that a MAJORITY of this country is by disposition
Certainly there's a difference between what one will likely claim, and
For example, there was a survey of journalists a few years ago which
But then, after they were allowed to define themselves, there were a
The journalists mostly identified themselves as moderates, some even
> But given that you claimUgh. You're attempting to overwhelm the thread.
> that a tyranny of the majority is more despicable than a tyranny of the
> minority---which defies both reason and experience---I am willing to find
> your claim supportable if you admit that these "center-right" political
> positions have been the prevailing policies that have damaged this nation
> considerably---economically, socially, naturally, and in every which way.
> You seem to have dug yourself a hole.
Let's go with the short answer: The populist-bureaucracy has created the
No one's accountable for these additional laws and regulations. You
It's the administrative state which is ultimately the cause of "damaging
And there's almost no way to control it.
> >> In fact, a good case can be made that the troubles of the United StatesThere's a third choice.
> >> are today wreaked upon us by a tyranny of the majority. The existence
> >> of the United States Senate, in fact----created by no urgent sense of
> >> reason nor at all by unanimous approbation of the Founders, but rather
> >> by an affront to reason called "The Great
> >> Compromise"---institutionalizes a tyranny of the minority. For the
> >> course of 230 years, many introspective and considerably thoughtful
> >> individuals have not merely wanted to reform that obscenity that is the
> >> United States Senate, but to abolish it. MOST SENSIBLY.
> > The idea was always: to end tyranny.
> Short of running a nation on a unanimity---a practical IMPOSSIBILITY, given
But there's no one final solution, of course.
> > The Senate wasn't the tyranny of anything until you sawed through allMost Senators hold little real specific power.
> > the locks.
> The Senate absolutely represents a tyranny of the minority as constituted.
> >> >> >> NOTE: a right to vote does not indicate a REQUIREMENT TONone came close to Cochise and the Chiricahua Apache. He conducted a
> >> >> >> VOTE---although in countries like Turkey, you can actually be
> >> >> >> fined for not voting----nor the REQUIREMENT that the state offer
> >> >> >> you every opportunity to vote, including being unable to impose a
> >> >> >> deadline by which you must exercise that right, even if you
> >> >> >> choose NOT to do so.
> >> >> > Australia also provides compulsory voting for all majority
> >> >> > Scientists and technicians at the Aussie South Pole Research
> >> >> > I'm not sure what they do about unconscious people in the
> >> >> > Voluntary. Compulsory. What does it matter?
> >> >> > You're still up against the basic math: the sum of zeros is still
> >> >> There really is a cost to the wellness of society when its
> >> > Obviously, as an individual human being, I'm not concerned about the
> >> > How could it be otherwise? I am not society. I can't control society.
> >> If you think like you do above, then there is a MAJOR FAILING here.
> >> The question is whether the failing is yours, of society, or of both.
> >> I think a bit too much selective reading accounts for this failing in
> > Brother, you need protection against your society as much as I do.
> > Society isn't your friend.
> > Selective reading, indeed.
> > Ever wonder why the American Indians were so unprepared for the
> The same way humans wouldn't stand a chance against H.G. Wells' Martians??
> (oh yeah, that being susceptible to microbiological organisms is a nice
> By the way, those Indians surviving learned how to rapidly adapt and fight a
successful guerilla war against the US Army for 10 years. He conducted a
war against the Mexicans for even longer than that.
But then, the Chiricahua were raiders and freebooters. Their stagnant
> > Because of their society, of course. America is the land of plenty. EvenSociety isn't inherently either good or evil.
> > more so back in the day.
> > Everybody had enough. They ate 'till their bellies were full. They
> > The way society protects itself is with mores and taboos. These prevent
> I am waiting for you to get to the society-is-evil part.
> > Let's say you don't think a square knot works for all the purposes theOnly true for the Civil Society.
> > tribe puts it to. Let's say you discover how to tie a sheepshank for
> > instance.
> > Nobody's ever seen this type of knot before. You're not a chief or an
> > You keep tying it because you think they're a bunch of pedestrian fools,
> > So you go back to tying only square knots, of course.
> > It's like that with every little detail of your existence in most
> > The way you escape much of this is by building houses on
> > Now you have some damned privacy. You can experiment around with knots
> > But the knot tying is only an absurd example used to illustrate the
> > Your society will attempt to control everything you do if it can. Mores,
> > Even for someone who fancies himself a sophisticate.
> > Society wants you as a slave (your former example of the CEO), and a
> And new we have come to the end of the post and not at all ironically, we
> At the top of this post we talked about your extremism, and here at the end
> The extremism here is your looking for what little there is that might
> But even you must admit that the BENEFITS of society far outweigh the COSTS
In all other cultures, society is a harsh task master. Society's members
All members of a society are at the mercy of the master's needs wants
Even the silverbacks are slaves, of course.
Come on now, why am I forced to explain this? You've never read a
> That low-on-the-totem-pole warrior in the tribe lived in aActually, some did have the concept, and some didn't.
> society of tens, maybe a few hundreds, in an expanse of land where they never
> if ever butted up against other tribes. It's why they did not have a concept
> of real estate and tracts of land.
You're falling prey to the same fallacy that caused so many tragedies
American Indian culture seemed to be monolithic from the outside.
> (The insidious nature of suburbia withActually that's not really true in the way you're imagining it.
> its fenced-off yards and nuclear families keeping distance between themselves
> has been described, and the virtues of high density populations where
> barriers are few and people function as a community similarly described.)
> Whenever the warrior needed time alone, he could ride out into the wilderness
God is your only hope. Religion is a time tested way for you to know
> But if you want to indulge on the ills of society, take a look at my nym, and
You seem to be mistaking the priests for their religion.
"It's Priest season!"
> If you ask me to go on a hunting trip with ya, and we are to get tags for our
"No, it's bureaucrat season!"
I like the sound of that.
"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.