Somebody says:

Check this out:

http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/05/made-it-on-new-scientist-apparently.html

“Apparently Michael Le Page over at New Scientist is using this website as a source for his global warming articles. See the web links here. I must say I’m glad to see Coby Becks blog being referenced as well. He has certainly earned the recognition. The only other outside “web links” listed is realclimate.org and the IPCC.”

Truly a star-studded panel of experts, no?

Misanthropic Scott says:

#68 – LL,

You’re really not being specific here. Sorry for the slow reply. I hope you come back. Let’s take one example from your lengthy list. I’d pick media.

Essentially, what he seems to be saying is that consolidation of media is not giving us different viewpoints. If you think about it for a few nanoseconds, what we’re seeing in that consolidation is a near monopoly on media, or actually a very real oligopoly.

So, what he is essentially advocating on the subject is a far less radical solution than actually enforcing the Sherman Anti-trust Act on the few media corps we have left and just breaking them up.

I’m not sure why he’s not advocating use of Sherman for this. It seems like the perfect tool.

Either way though, be specific about one example. What about this is about government takeover of anything? Where is the Government Media Corporation? Where is our version of Pravda?

In short, be specific. What are you talking about?

Misanthropic Scott says:

#75 – LL,

I don’t feel strongly about rural cell phone coverage, other than that I do support it by going with the cell carrier with the best rural coverage because I travel to out of the way areas.

As for oligopolies, you can just break them up without requiring a specific program. But, as for who would write the laws, we already had them. They worked fine.

For media, simply reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

For banking regulations, I would start by reinstating Glass-Steagal.

And, for oligopolies and monopolies, I would break them up using the existing Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

These are legislative regulations that served us well for one to three generations, depending on which one we’re discussing. Why do you have a problem with them?

But, yes, I do think Liberals and Libertarians have more in common than we have differences. We should work to identify our common goals and at least work together on them.

Mainstream media killed both of our presidential candidates. We had the potential of an election between a real classic libertarian/old school republican and a real classic liberal. Neither was bought by corporate America. So, mainstream media which is absolutely corporate America could not possibly let either have a chance. So we had a choice between two corporate whores, one of which chose a blithering idiot for a running mate.

Imagine an alternate universe where Ron Paul ran against Dennis Kucinich. There were two candidates I could at least respect, even though I had some significant disagreement with one of them.

Of course, today’s teabaggers are really muddying the waters. They are not even thinking about what they are really advocating, no government at all. When they get rid of the taxes, watch what happens to basic infrastructure. Police and firefighters need pay. Roads need repair. Water needs monitoring and usually filtration. Sewage requires treatment.

LibertyLover says:

#76, I am opposed to the Fairness Doctrine mainly because it is a mandate by the federal government to do business a certain way.

Although I agree the airwaves do constitute a need for “regulating interstate commerce,” as they don’t know where state lines are, the licensing of said airwaves is the best possible solution to overlapping stations.

IMO, however, any rules should stop there.

As for oligopolies, you can just break them up without requiring a specific program. But, as for who would write the laws, we already had them. They worked fine.

You have to go further back than that. WHY did these big companies form to start with? It was the regulations written by corporations that were used to weed out competition. Anti-trust laws are band-aids on an existing wound.

Glass-Steagal

I have mixed emotions on this. On one hand, it was a travesty it was repealed. On the other hand, you have to look at why it was needed. Fractional Reserve Banking. Get rid of that and you no longer have to worry about the problems we have now.

Every problem that requires more regulation or government intervention can be solved by removing the protections of the larger entities.

Misanthropic Scott says:

#79 – LibertyLover,

But we’ve seen just the opposite. At the turn of 20th century, big corporations were losing income to small upstarts. They donated to many a campaign coffer to get favorable regulations passed. That is not conspiracy — it is in the history books. It’s gotten out of hand!

I’m not doubting this, well maybe somewhat, but have never heard it before. Do you have a link for that?

An example of that exact scenario is my particular industry. It is not regulated. I am constantly out-competing the national and international firms because they are nowhere near as maneuverable as we are. If the government were to step in and force me to follow mounds of paperwork, I would not be able to compete with them.

You really do have to name the industry if you’re going to make that claim.

Regarding FRB, they didn’t cause the Panic of 1907.

http://tinyurl.com/34kc43

There is no difference. What truly is the difference between owning the company and regulating it. If you own it, you make all the big decisions. If you regulate, you are forcing them to make the decisions you want. Same thing.

No. You can’t really be that lame. Think a bit before you type. You can do better than that. Regulations create the rules by which companies may operate. The profits still stay in the private sector creating incentive to work hard for a profit.

Sorry to be hostile about this one. I really don’t mean to be. But, knowing people who lived in and left the Soviet Union, the difference is enormous. That you don’t see it means you have blinders on to the real issue.

Think about “from each according to his ability to each according to his need” for a moment. It means everyone works as hard as they can for as long as they can. Each according to his need then means that he (or she) gets only what someone determines they need, no matter how hard they work.

Even in theory this can’t be a good thing. It means no retirement, no rest for the weary, and all the profits to whoever gets to decide what your ability is and what your need are, thus keeping the difference. Come now. You must see that there is an enormous difference between companies playing by rules and the government deciding how hard you can work and how little you can live on.

re: big government mantra number 137:

Define big.

Should the government or corporations provide water? Ask anyone from Atlanta … or Bolivia.

Should the government or corporations provide police services? What happens when corporations do? What happens when they compete by showing how much crime is in the other corp’s neighborhood, by creating it? What about lowering costs by buying Malaysian guns and reducing staff or hiring straight out of high school or people on 401Bs?

Should the government or corporations provide firefighting services? Ditto.

Should corporations be responsible for the roads? Think about the toll increases and huge potholes that would result as profits were maximized.

You live in an ideal world. Where I live, I can trust some neighbors, but don’t even know most.

skeptic2 says:

#37 made me lol.

Misanthropic Scott says:

#84 – LibertyLover,

From your limk:

A pure market entrepreneur, or capitalist, succeeds financially by selling a newer, better, or less expensive product on the free market without any government subsidies, direct or indirect.

This does not now exist nor has it ever existed.

You’re living in a dream world. Here in the real world there are always externalities. A small company ships its goods by truck. The truck drives on roads. The roads were built and are maintained by the government, either local, state, or federal.

The company also uses water, at least for its employees to drink and flush toilets. But, most manufacturing also requires water. The water, if it must be drinking quality, is monitored and supplied by the government. Even if not, it is a natural resource that is public property not belonging to the company.

The company also produces waste byproducts such as solid waste, sewage, hopefully recyclable waste, carbon dioxide, and other pollution. All of these must either be cleaned up or the health costs of not cleaning them must be borne by the government.

Ditto for a wide variety of services the business uses even including the police who keep the town safe enough for people to want to live there, the firefighters, and dozens of other services the government provides to keep the country running smoothly.

Regarding FRB, they didn’t cause the Panic of 1907.

And it was resolved without the need for government intervention. The Fed was supposed to stop this sort of thing from happening. It hasn’t. They haven’t done one thing they were supposed to do. They have managed to cause two depressions and untold recessions. Why do we have them again?

Now you’re not making any sense at all. The panic of 1907 could not possibly have had anything to do with the Federal Reserve Bank created in 1913. I agree that the Fed has not done their job. In fact, they are doing exactly what their job isn’t today. They are actively creating the next great bank depression. But, the point is, the banks had problems without the Fed. So, to say that we would be fine without them is a complete and utter lie. We were not fine without them. We are also not fine with them. But, that’s a different issue.

You must see that there is an enormous difference between companies playing by rules and the government deciding how hard you can work and how little you can live on.

Why didn’t people’s SS check go up last year? Because they changed the way the CPI was calculated to show it didn’t go up.

Don’t be ridiculous please. Think before you type. There are no rules about when you can retire, how hard you must work, how small a house you must live in, etc. etc. etc.

Please read up on the Soviet Union and look at what true government ownership of business means. You are completely missing the point.

In communism, there is no profit incentive at all. And, you may not choose not to work. If you attempt to avoid work, the police will come to your door and drive you to your new job. Literally.

As for federal versus state, so you would be fine with a big state government and a small federal government but not the other way around? This is just a difference in degree in my mind. Government is government. Local vs. state vs. federal … yes, I see no fundamental difference.

Exactly how local must government be to satisfy you. I live in a building with over 200 apartments. It’s probably larger than some small towns. Perhaps we should have our own local government just for the building and oppose all government above that. Perhaps a city block would be the right size.

Misanthropic Scott says:

#86 – LibertyLover,

#85, This does not now exist nor has it ever existed.

Did you even read the rest of the article? Many examples of this.

I confess to skimming the article. I didn’t see any examples where there were zero externalities. Nor can I imagine such an occurrence.

If you are trying to say that because the workers use publicly funded services that that constitutes a government subsidy and thus part of that business belongs to the government, then you are saying because I was taught in a public school part of my mind belongs to the public.

I think it is you who needs to think before they type.

I’m saying it for the reasons I cited. Not only do the workers on company time use government services, but the business itself does. Further, the pollution created by the business is never ever accounted for.

As for federal versus state, so you would be fine with a big state government and a small federal government but not the other way around?

Irrelevant. The U.S. Constitution lays down what the federal government can do. It can do nothing else. Period. That is my gripe.

OK. I can understand that. I just wonder what the fundamental difference really is between which level of government is right for which task. A lot has changed since the founders’ time. Would you still allow each state to decide on whether slavery is a good idea? Women’s suffrage?

How do you pick and choose in a modern world exactly what should be federal and what should be state? The constitution does not talk about interstate highways. The constitution does not talk about air traffic control. These things must be managed above the level of the state even though they may not have anything to do with interstate commerce per se. People drive personal vehicles on interstates. People fly their own planes. What about airport security? That is certainly not an interstate commerce issue.

How would you (or would you) fund organizations like NASA and NOAA?

Misanthropic Scott says:

#88 – LibertyLover,

#87, I confess to skimming the article. I didn’t see any examples where there were zero externalities. Nor can I imagine such an occurrence.

I suggest you read the whole thing then. Very good examples.

OK. I reread it and even forwarded it to a friend who’s more of a history buff than I am. Neither of us found an example of a corporation that turned a profit without any externalities. So, tell me what you think is an example of this and remember the costs of environmental degradation of public property.

Just because a company is using a road, doesn’t mean the company owes anything beyond the taxes already paid. And again, this is a State issue, not a federal issue.

Incorrect. You must prove that they pay an adequate amount for the damage. In general, this has not been the case. Can you show that it ever was for any company?

Regarding your choice of federal vs. state, I won’t really bother to address the issue because to me there is no fundamental difference between government at one level and government at another. I am more interested in getting representative government, something we don’t have at any level.

Why look at human welfare vs. corporate welfare, a much bigger piece of the pie, and one that it virtually unreported? We probably agree on that one though, so perhaps there’s no need to address that. I just question your 50% when the federal government has given on the order of tens of trillions of dollars worth of low cost loans, outright bailouts, and guarantees on bad financial instruments in very recent times.

Misanthropic Scott says:

#90 – LibertyLover,

You must prove that they pay an adequate amount for the damage.

Actually, I don’t. The onus on you to prove “why” you think you need more money and/or regulation. Innocent before proven guilty?

Well, pick a specific example that you think did not require government subsidies or trashing of public property, which is a public resource to be cherished or squandered. I can’t be expected to make this proof when I have not found an example from which to start, can I?

And that is the root cause of a lot of issues today. Large, monolithic institutions, like a large federal government, are inherently inefficient and corrupt. This is not supposed to be an empire. It is supposed to be a Republic of States. At one time people referred to the US as “These United States.” You hardly hear that today. You do hear “The United States” as if “United States” were a single noun and not a plural noun.

Again, you must define large. Where I live, even the localities are large enough to be inherently inefficient and corrupt. So are the corporations. How do you expect to get around that?

I live in New York City. This local municipality has a greater population than 39 of the states in the Union. Do you propose to break up large states to make them smaller? Personally, I’d be happy if New York City seceded, not only from New York State but from the United States as well. I’d be happy with NYC as a city state like Singapore.

So, what’s your solution to large localities and large states? Do we set an upper bound on them?

I think you are being A) unrealistic and B) too extremist in not recognizing that some things are best done at the federal or even the planetary level and C) just plain pedantic about something that is virtually irrelevant.

Show me the state with the non-corrupt efficient government. Then show a correlation between the corruption of state governments and the population of the state or budget of the state government. I think you’ll see that corruption is higher in New Jersey than it is almost anywhere else in the nation. And, the state population is smaller than the population of New York City.

Misanthropic Scott says:

#92 – LibertyLover,

I gave you one. Actually, a few if you read the whole article. If you can’t see that, I can’t help you any further.

No. You told me there are some in there. I disagree. So, tell me one or more that you think meet the criteria. Then we can discuss it/them.

I’m looking for an example of a corporation that turned a profit without externalities. Pollution that is not cleaned up does count as an externality as there is a real cost to this both in human health and in the cost of the cleanup.

So, pick an example and let me know.

So, what’s your solution to large localities and large states? Do we set an upper bound on them?

Again, irrelevant. How large a State allows a municipality to become is a State issue, not a federal issue.

So, you’re pedantic without reason. You have given absolutely no real benefit of state over federal government and refuse to really discuss it. You merely fall back on the constitution, a worthy document, and assume it should be followed blindly. If that is the case, then remind the census takers on how to count “indians” and slaves.

“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.”
– Barry Goldwater

Agreed. But, blind extremism as an indefensible position is a vice. Try defending your position on its merits.

And, my point was that if large government is inherently corrupt, then you must support breaking up the states into smaller units now that some are enormous. Probably even some municipalities are too large to be states. So, defend your position. Don’t just blindly rely on federal versus state.

Tell me what size jurisdiction you feel to be correct. We did not have 300,000,000 people in the country when the founders set up the rules. We probably have states that are larger than the entire federation was at the time of its founding.

Again, irrelevant. It is a State issue as to whether it is corrupt or not, and for its citizens to deal with.

Why why why???!!!? You have not defended this position. You have merely stated and restated and rerestated it, which may be appropriate since you believe all power belongs in the state. But, state and re-state and re-re-state will not win this argument.

You must first prove that representation at the state level is better than at the federal level. Further, you must show this regardless of whether we’re talking about California’s 36,961,664 people or Wyoming’s 544,270 since you claim that it’s about size of government and then keep falling back on it being a state issue without regard to size.

Think. Persuade me. I’m willing to listen on this point. But, assertions without logic will never do it.

Misanthropic Scott says:

#94 – LibertyLover,

Then we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. My take on this is if people are paid for doing work, and getting benefit from it, then any of your externalities are irrelevant.

So you don’t agree with the crux of the whole argument in the link you posted. This was the major point of the whole article.

A pure market entrepreneur, or capitalist, succeeds financially by selling a newer, better, or less expensive product on the free market without any government subsidies, direct or indirect.

Natural resources are public property when they are given to corporations free of charge, even as a dumping ground, that is an externality. They did not buy the land and water that they are polluting.

So, I think you’re deluding yourself on the subject of subsidies. When Exxon fails to cleanup or pay for the cleanup of Valdez, we pay a price for that corporation. The area is still dead, still smells like a gas station if one turns over a rock, and still has dramatically decreased fishing and other industry due to the pollution.

We pay for that.

Correct. The discussion, as I understood it, was the encroachment of the federal government on State and Personal liberties. I refuse to be drawn into a “sympathetic magic” argument — “Well, if it’s corrupt here, what’s the difference?”

Well, perhaps that was the discussion you were having all by yourself. I was trying to figure out why you thought state government was better than federal government. Since you consider the federal government to be guilty of something that the state governments are not, I would like you to explain why you think so. Why give benefit of the doubt to one but not the other?

You must first prove that representation at the state level is better than at the federal level.

No, I do not. The onus on you to prove it is not. Innocent before proven guilty?

Bullshit in the extreme. This is not guilt or innocence, firstly. And secondly, if it were, you are not applying your standards equally to all levels of government.

Since you advocate very strongly in favor of state government over federal government, I think you should at least know why you do so for yourself and be able to explain it to others. Do not expect us to take it on faith.

Why is the U.S. Constitution wrong? Explain to me why we should throw out the Constitution.

I didn’t say that the constitution was wrong. I stated that there are many things not specified by the constitution and gave some examples where it has been reinterpreted over the years. We need not be constitutional fundamentalists. The constitution, unlike the bible, is a living document.

It is also a very brief one.

Many aspects of the modern world are simply not in there, but guidelines may be. So, we must interpret the constitution daily. Our supreme court may currently be doing quite a bad job of it. But, that’s a different issue.

But, blind extremism as an indefensible position is a vice.

Or do you mean by refusing to compromise on what is right and what is wrong?

Neither. I mean that you should explain why you believe as you do that state governments are better than the federal government. You expect everyone to take that as a self-evident truth. It isn’t. You must present a case or be considered a blind extremist.

BTW, I agree that extremism is not necessarily bad. I’m pretty damn extreme myself. I just think you should be able to explain the points you feel strongly about or stop going on about them.

You’re not going to convince me with assertions. Try logic. Try reason. Try to explain why you feel the way you do. If it’s blind constitutional fundamentalism, I will treat you as I do all fundamentalists, by ignoring you when possible and being contemptuous when not.

I hope you can explain your point. It’s why I bother to read your posts. As yet, you are belligerently avoiding doing so. Why?

Misanthropic Scott says:

#96 – LibertyLover, – Part 2

It was a voluntary exchange between Hill and everybody around him.

OK. Finally, you specify the case to which you refer, albeit obliquely.

Well, it certainly sounds like Hill took less from the government than most. Though, a 2 million acre land grant is quite significant. And, somehow, he managed to get a law changed allowing him to build his railroad through an Indian reservation.

http://tinyurl.com/ybzfc3y
http://tinyurl.com/yb82h8e

And, of course, there’s the pollution that really is a factor that you should not discount.

BTW, this case certainly makes the case that business tends toward monopolies and oligopolies in the absence of regulation as Hill had monopolies in both coal and steamboats. He also squeezed his workers on pay so tightly he caused them to organize and successfully sue for their former wages. I wonder if he’s an ancestor of Sam Walton.

Misanthropic Scott says:

#96 – LibertyLover, – Part 4 of 4

It would be much easier to let you read these then to copy and paste them.

I’m not going to the source and reading 170 papers on the subject of federalism or not. I’m not that much of a history buff and don’t really care about state vs. federal government as much as you do. I do not see on these wikipedia pages brief summaries of the arguments in the content, only the organization of the content.

How about if we try a new tack? I really am trying to understand and appreciate (and possibly even be swayed by) your arguments on the subject. Else, I would have gone away a long time ago. Why don’t you try this?

1) Give me a brief summary of the major advantages the founders saw in giving more power to the states and less to the federal government.

2) Give me your personal reasons for thinking that either these arguments still apply or there are new reasons you see for keeping power at the state level.

If your answer to 2 is the tautology that the founders wanted it that way, I will likely remain unconvinced.

Until you give a specific example where you think we should change things, I am not sure what more I can do for you.

Here is something that is desperately in need of change in the constitution. I would strongly cite that the electoral college should be abolished in favor of the popular vote for president. I see no reason why a Wyomingite gets to vote 4 times when a Texan only votes once. It amazes me that Texas is not revolting against this. Should a murderer in Wyoming be charged with 4 counts of murder for each victim? In what other way is a Wyoming life worth 4 times that of a Texan? That would be my first and strongest reason.

My second would be to have all elections publicly financed and to outlaw any use of personal money in a campaign, regardless of how it is obtained, including the Bloomberg way. If a candidate gets the required number of signatures, they get the pot of money associated with the particular office’s campaign. If they burn through it too quickly, too bad. We might even want to set a time before which they cannot campaign and (for incumbents) actually do the job for which they were elected.

LibertyLover says:

#100,
electoral college

I used to think that same exact thing. But upon reading the reasons behind it, I changed my mind.

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.

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?

elections publicly financed

I have mixed emotions.

Hand 1: 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.

Hand 2: 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.

I am leaning toward Hand 2.