“During that period of Nazism and fascism’s growth — a real danger to the United States and democratic countries around the world — there were people in this country and in the British parliament who said ‘don’t worry! Hitler’s not real! It’ll disappear!” – Bernie Sanders, the only self-proclaimed socialist in Congress.
0
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
#101 – LibertyLover,
Sorry. I’d need more than that to make me care. You’d have to show me that doing it 54 different inefficient ways (including Puerto Rico, The Virgin Islands, Guam, and DC) is better. Or, you could try to show that the 54 different ways would be, on average, more efficient. Otherwise, I just don’t care who’s doing it badly. I just want to improve the way it’s done. And, it’s easier to fix it once than 54 times. That’s why I write subroutines in my code … to not have to debug the same thing all over the place.
I’m also not as convinced as you that anything not explicitly stated in the constitution necessarily equates to stating that it must be done at the state level. Lots of the modern world was not in existence in 1789. To assume that everything that happened since must be done by states, especially in an ever shrinking world, is illogical.
At least now I think we understand each other though, much as we disagree.
BTW, check out the Coffee Party. They seem to be a group that just wants the government to start doing their jobs instead of deliberately blocking anything from happening. They might be good to join or at least keep an eye on regardless of left-right slant.
http://coffeepartyusa.com/
#103, You’d have to show me that doing it 54 different inefficient ways (including Puerto Rico, The Virgin Islands, Guam, and DC) is better.
Now(!) we come to where you don’t understand me. You want a single monolithic system with proven inefficiencies that are not repairable while I don’t. And you still don’t understand that it is you who has to prove to us that a you can clean up the current mess if you wish to change it — not the other way around. We’ve tried it that way for the last 100 years. It hasn’t worked. Time to go back to what it was before the Fed.
This country grew to be the economic powerhouse it was at the turn of the 20th century without big government. Look where it got us since we’ve changed — the dollar is worth about 3% of what it was, 75% of the world hates us and we have to give up 50% of our pay for those privileges.
That’s why I write subroutines in my code … to not have to debug the same thing all over the place.
Interesting analogy. Why do you care how we do things here in Texas? It’s none of your business, thank you very much.
(And you’ll have to excuse me if there are long pauses between my messages. I’m swamped at work today.)
#102 – LibertyLover,
So, I have to disagree. If everything were popular vote, then you would have presidents running on a popularity contest. They would set policy based on the whims of the populace. The reasoning behind the electoral college was to prevent large states from sending their man to D.C. every four years.
Instead, we get highly unpopular presidents picked by smaller states every 4 years. And when did people in small states become more important than people in large states. Shouldn’t the president represent a majority of the people rather than not? You worry about states as if they are human beings. They are not. The people in them are human beings. There is no reason to give disproportionate representation to the human beings in the nation.
Besides, do you really think that big state folk are so different than small state folk? Texas has the least representation in the union. Are the people there that different from the people in Wyoming, with the greatest representation in the nation?
Could you imagine the top nine most populous states in the union, CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA, OH, MI, GA, holding over 50% of the population, getting most of the favors?
No. The favors to which you refer come largely from the senate and the house. Representation there will not change as a result of a national election.
It eliminates Freedom to Associate. Granted, there is a fine line between associating and bribery, but I don’t think we need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I don’t see how it eliminates the ability to associate. People can still lobby their politicians by talking to them. They just can’t hand them money.
I agree that too much money has ruined the process. But you have to ask yourself, why bribe a politician unless you plan to seek special treatment? Perhaps we should take some of the power away from the federal government so there isn’t any incentive to bribe them.
What does this mean? Does this mean the government cannot do anything so there’s no reason to bribe them? Does this mean that the government will do everything internally rather than giving out contracts so that there is no reason to bribe them? Does this mean that the government will not make any purchases of any goods and services, so there is no reason to influence them? Does this mean that the government will not enact laws regarding commerce so that there is no benefit to bribing them? Does this mean that the government cannot regulate pollution, taxes, land use, etc., etc., etc., so that there is no reason to bribe them?
What can a government not worth bribing do?
#104 – LibertyLover,
You want a single monolithic system with proven inefficiencies that are not repairable while I don’t.
Don’t put words in my mouth. First, I said I don’t care whether it’s state or federal. Then I said you have not convinced me that state is better. Then I said I wanted to fix the problem. You assert that the problem is irreparable while I do not.
And you still don’t understand that it is you who has to prove to us that a you can clean up the current mess if you wish to change it — not the other way around. We’ve tried it that way for the last 100 years. It hasn’t worked. Time to go back to what it was before the Fed.
There is no burden on me to prove why I don’t care whether things are done at the state or federal level. Some things make sense one way or the other. For example, the 11 states that are trying to regulate greenhouse gases can’t possibly do enough.
The burden is on you to show me why you do care that nearly everything be at the state level.
This country grew to be the economic powerhouse it was at the turn of the 20th century without big government. Look where it got us since we’ve changed — the dollar is worth about 3% of what it was, 75% of the world hates us and we have to give up 50% of our pay for those privileges.
Really? We had small government in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s? Then why did we need a top tax bracket in excess of 90% for all of those years? How did we build a military capable of becoming a superpower with a small government?
That’s why I write subroutines in my code … to not have to debug the same thing all over the place.
Interesting analogy. Why do you care how we do things here in Texas? It’s none of your business, thank you very much.
Sorry. I’ve been harping on Texas because Texans have the worst representation in the nation. I didn’t remember that you actually live there.
As for why I care whether, for example, you decide to reinstate slavery, it’s because I find the idea morally unconscionable and would like it outlawed globally. As for why I care whether your greenhouse gas emissions are reduced, because I’m feeling the effects of them. As for why I care whether you continue to burn coal, because the breast milk of Inuit women in the far north of Canada is so high in mercury (and PCBs) that it can literally be classified as hazardous waste. Also, the sulfur dioxide from coal is still a problem despite being dramatically reduced. Acid rain is still an important environmental issue.
We live on a finite planet. Things you do affect a much wider area than you expect.
And, as for why I care that, for example, Virginia has incredibly lax gun laws, perhaps it’s because Virginia is the source of the vast majority of New York City’s handguns. We don’t have interstate border crossings as we would between nations. Much of what happens in one state spills into the surrounding states.
(And you’ll have to excuse me if there are long pauses between my messages. I’m swamped at work today.)
Not a problem. I’m glad you keep coming back. I hope you’re enjoying this exchange as much as I am.
#105, electoral college
As I said, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
It eliminates Freedom to Associate. Granted, there is a fine line between associating and bribery, but I don’t think we need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I don’t see how it eliminates the ability to associate. People can still lobby their politicians by talking to them. They just can’t hand them money.
Perhaps eliminate was too strong a word.
Restricts should serve nicely, though.
What can a government not worth bribing do?
BINGO!!!
Perhaps we should go back to what it was supposed to do in the beginning and not everything it is doing now. As long as the government has its hands in so many pies, there is money to be had. Get their hands out of the pies and the money will be cut down.
When a corporation gives $50,000,000 to get a $500,000,000 in contracts, who pays the $500,000,000? You and I do. This doesn’t get your goat?
Perhaps the government shouldn’t have the responsbiities that have been ceded it by the uninformed if they can’t ethically manage their duties.
#106, You want a single monolithic system with proven inefficiencies that are not repairable while I don’t.
Don’t put words in my mouth. First, I said I don’t care whether it’s state or federal. Then I said you have not convinced me that state is better. Then I said I wanted to fix the problem. You assert that the problem is irreparable while I do not.
You are living in fantasy land, Scott. It will NEVER be fixed as long as they control the cash and how it is handed out. People have been trying for 100 years to fix it. And each fix makes it worse.
The burden is on you to show me why you do care that nearly everything be at the state level.
I’ve already shown you — The federal government has proven it can’t. That one fact alone should be enough to convince anybody. The founders knew this. This why they set things up the way they did.
Now, your turn — How do you think you can clean up the mess? Practically, not theoretically.
Really? We had small government in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s? Then why did we need a top tax bracket in excess of 90% for all of those years? How did we build a military capable of becoming a superpower with a small government?
Um — I said the turn of 20th century — not the 21st century.
Sorry. I’ve been harping on Texas because Texans have the worst representation in the nation. I didn’t remember that you actually live there.
No offense taken.
As for why I care whether, for example, you decide to reinstate slavery, it’s because I find the idea morally unconscionable and would like it outlawed globally.
And that is taken care of in the Constitution. It would be violating someone’s rights.
As for why I care whether your greenhouse gas emissions are reduced, because I’m feeling the effects of them. As for why I care whether you continue to burn coal, because the breast milk of Inuit women in the far north of Canada is so high in mercury (and PCBs) that it can literally be classified as hazardous waste. Also, the sulfur dioxide from coal is still a problem despite being dramatically reduced. Acid rain is still an important environmental issue.
And where in the Constitution does it give permission to the federal government to do that? Just because something needs to be done about something, it doesn’t fall automatically to the federal government to do it.
There are other ways to handle it. If the government would enforce property rights instead of the BS way they handle it now, it would work.
And, as for why I care that, for example, Virginia has incredibly lax gun laws, perhaps it’s because Virginia is the source of the vast majority of New York City’s handguns.
You’ve been listening to Bloomberg too much. It’s been shown he was skewing the numbers to support his agenda of full disarmament.
(And you’ll have to excuse me if there are long pauses between my messages. I’m swamped at work today.)
Not a problem. I’m glad you keep coming back. I hope you’re enjoying this exchange as much as I am.
I am. Typically, the rest of the crew would have resorted to name calling by now 🙂
And I have volunteer work most of the weekend so it may be Monday before I get back to you on anything else.
#107 – LibertyLover,
When a corporation gives $50,000,000 to get a $500,000,000 in contracts, who pays the $500,000,000? You and I do. This doesn’t get your goat?
Of course it does! And the numbers are likely worse than that by a large factor. We’re both trying to solve the problem. I just don’t see how pushing it down to the states changes anything. The work must still be done. The corporations can just switch to bribing state officials.
If the states instead of the federal government begin maintaining interstate highways, will there not still be corruption in how the contracts are awarded? At least, from what I’ve seen, the interstates get enough pavement to remain smooth for a while. State and especially city roads often get about a third of the amount of asphalt to make a road that will last for a few months let alone years.
And, what will you do about the military industrial complex? Surely, you don’t want each state to maintain its own army, navy, air force, and marines, correct? I mean, what would we do when Alabama gets the bomb?
http://tinyurl.com/ch38tn
How about the prison industrial complex? That’s already at the state level. How will we fix that?
http://tinyurl.com/5vw72j
So, really, you and I just see the solutions differently. I think if the problem is in one place, we can correct it once. In the case of the prison industrial complex, we must correct it in at least 50 places. Why is that better?
#108 – LibertyLover,
You are living in fantasy land, Scott. It will NEVER be fixed as long as they control the cash and how it is handed out. People have been trying for 100 years to fix it. And each fix makes it worse.
Then there’s not much to talk about, is there? If it can’t be fixed, all we can do is emigrate.
The burden is on you to show me why you do care that nearly everything be at the state level.
I’ve already shown you — The federal government has proven it can’t. That one fact alone should be enough to convince anybody. The founders knew this. This why they set things up the way they did.
No. We agree that the federal government is screwed up. What we don’t agree on is that so are the states. And, some states are even more screwed than the federal government. New York is moderately corrupt. New Jersey, right next door, may be the most corrupt government in the nation, beating out the federal government pretty dramatically. Your state wants to outlaw teaching of evolution and begin teaching that we are a Christian nation … theocracy starts there. So, what state would you hold up as a model for others to follow? Which ones are run better than the federal government?
Now, your turn — How do you think you can clean up the mess? Practically, not theoretically.
Honestly, I gave some of my suggestions. How can we get rid of the electoral college? How can we make campaign finance public? Hmm… I don’t know that we can. Frankly, I’m not optimistic that our species will survive for very much longer. I’m mostly hoping like hell that the Great Human Die-Off does not begin during my lifetime while doing what I can to prevent it from happening at all. At least it won’t be my kids dealing with either our government or the state in which we leave the planet.
I do believe there are solutions. But, since even those with whom I agree about what the problems are can’t agree on the solution, what hope do we really have?
Actually, if we don’t do something radical to reduce global human population, pretty much everything else we are discussing becomes moot.
Um — I said the turn of 20th century — not the 21st century.
Oh crap!! I missed which century. It didn’t occur to me that you could be calling the U.S. a powerhouse at the turn of the 20th century. We weren’t. What makes you think we were? Our global market penetration? Our global military might? We were barely noticed on a world scale in 1900. The powerhouses were the European countries.
And that is taken care of in the Constitution. It would be violating someone’s rights.
Perhaps. And yet, you found it interesting to point out that Utah was trying to pass a law that they know to be unconstitutional. Many others have done the same in passing laws in direct contradiction to Roe v. Wade. So, not much of a guarantee, is it?
And where in the Constitution does it give permission to the federal government to do that? Just because something needs to be done about something, it doesn’t fall automatically to the federal government to do it.
First, it doesn’t say in the constitution that the federal government cannot do that. So why do you assume that to be the default position?
Second, if something must be done for the survival of the species, does that not carry any weight with you? Would you be happier knowing that all the people in the world died happily in their little fiefdoms with whatever you consider to be the appropriate level of government?
There are other ways to handle it. If the government would enforce property rights instead of the BS way they handle it now, it would work.
Exactly what do you think property rights would solve here and how?
You’ve been listening to Bloomberg too much. It’s been shown he was skewing the numbers to support his agenda of full disarmament.
New York City has been trying to reduce the number of guns in the city for at least a generation longer than Bloomberg has been in power. This is not his agenda. It’s probably not even Giuiliani’s. Want to show me the statistics you have if you disagree?
http://tinyurl.com/2gcezo
This one’s from the right wing Fox York Post and says the same thing, NYC’s guns are from VA.
http://tinyurl.com/n2yq5g
I am. Typically, the rest of the crew would have resorted to name calling by now 🙂
I’ve said for a while that libertarian and liberal have a lot more in common than the first five letters of our labels. We need to work together for what we both know is right, even when we disagree on exactly how to get there.
And I have volunteer work most of the weekend so it may be Monday before I get back to you on anything else.
No problem. I’ll check back occasionally.