The Vatican has reportedly rejected at least three of President Obama’s candidates for the position of U.S. ambassador to the Holy See because they support abortion. It appears that the representatives of the United States must agree with the policies of Pope Benedict XVI.
I am not aware of this particular requirement for other nations like China, Russia, or countries with which we have major disputes. However, it creates a particularly difficult position for the White House since ambassadors are supposed to reflect the views of the President, who happens to be extremely pro-choice.
This could be particularly awkward when Mr. Obama attends a summit of the Group of Eight industrialized nations in Italy in July if there is no ambassador. However, does this mean that other nations like Saudi Arabia could bar an ambassador who opposes Sharia law? Conversely, does our ambassador to Israel have to support the position of that country on Jerusalem or Gaza? The general assumption is that our ambassadors are meant to represent the views of the American (and not the host) nation.
The story leaked by an Italian journalist will now put Obama in a position of (1) leaving the post ope, (2) conspicuously selecting someone without a stated position on the subject, or (3) using a pro-life litmus test for the selection of our next ambassador.
For the full story, click here.
I don’t see the problem with the g8 summit, given how Italy and The Vatican are two different countries. Surely they have separate ambassadors?
Obama should just tell the Pope to stop his hypocrisy. This is a religious leader who assisted in the abuse of children by his priests and stood by and did nothing and may have actually violated the laws by not disclosing the names of the priests to the authorities, but instead participated in the shell game of transferring them to other parishes or areas. This is a Pope who refuses to seat a pro-choice ambassador, but has no problem with seating ambassadors who were for the death penalty. This is a pope who will sit an ambassador who was in favor of Bush’s attack and occupation of Iraq that killed over 1000,000 civilians and displaced millions and that has tortured its detainees and prisoners, but Obama’s pro-choice ambassador couldn’t possibly be seated. Pres. Obama should just ignore the Pope because the Vatican is a state in name alone and has no influence on the world. If we do not have an ambassador to the Vatican, I will still sleep at night.
I think Obama should just leave the post open. Our president makes these choices not the Pope. Hypocrisy is correct.
Hans
Yes, they are seperate ambassadors.
Gene:
I’m with you on your suggestion the post remain open. I suppose, however, the President might have wanted to call on the pope as many US Presidents have.
I did some checking about previous US Ambassadors to the Holy See (official title). We can safely assume GWB’s selections would have been anti-women’s rights, so I focussed on Bill Clinton’s appointments.
Apparently this has not been an issue before. From 1993-97, the ambassador was former Boston Mayor, Ray Flynn. Flynn was not Pro-Choice, acknowledged it during the campaign yet worked hard for Clinton’s election. From 1997-2001, the ambassador was Liddy Boggs. Ms Boggs is Roamn Catholic, but I didn’t finad any direct reference to her stance on abortion rights.
Like my blog buddy rafflaw, I suggest we appoint someone acceptable to the Pope when he dismisses someone objectionable to us (hint: Cardinal Law).
What I cannot for the life of me figure out is most of the people opposed to abortion are staunch proponents of the Death Penalty.
I guess I can play g-d and say I determine that you are not worth living and so you shall die.
rafflaw,
Well said! And wouldn’t that be a shock to that old farts’ system to be ignored!!! An excellent idea if you ask me.
raff,
Nice job and a great idea. Personally I think the Vatican should have all the access to our government they can get by calling the WH switchboard and ask to talk to someone.
Why do we need an Ambassador to the Vatican at all? Our sending one really benefits the Vatican alone and if they want to be picky, let’s not extend the benefit.
I am glad that there is a lot of agreement that the Pope can go scratch if he doesn’t like our ambassadors. I did have another idea since my earlier post. I think Pres. Obama should appoint an ex-priest to the post and watch the Pope’s head explode! I think those black jelly beans have gone to my head!
rafflaw,
Good comments. I must stay that I *never* could acquire a taste for those black jelly beans.
Former Fed,
Thanks. I have always loved the black jelly beans and any black licorice candy. One of my old favorites was a candy called “Black Crows” which was the black licorice version of “Dots”. I am showing my age, but I have seen Black Crows still available at Walgreens. I just can’t afford to eat too many of them anymore or I will turn into the Pillbury Dough Boy!
Let’s just leave the post open until the Pope appoints a pro-choice ambassador to the U.S.
Anonymously yours,
Supporters of the death penalty believe that taking an innocent life is wrong and should result in the forfeiture of the guilty partie’s life. Abortion is believed to be the taking of an innocent life. Makes perfect sense to me.
Minor caution – licorice, in excess, can raise one’s blood pressure…
“Makes perfect sense to me.”
Anyone who calls himself john Galt shouldn’t be taken seriously and anyway we’re only on page 207, you don’t show up until about page 740. Wait for your cues Johnny before being a buffoon on stage.
roflmao
Wow Mike,
It is impressive that you feel comfortable putting your name on a response that is all personal attack and no substance. I won’t stoop to your level. Address my argument like an intelligent person endowed with reason or shut the hell up.
The Church recognizes no moral distinction between abortion and execution. When one is convicted of a crime, it means only that within the context of a particular formalized structure, the state has brought forward a sufficient quantity of what we define as evidence to permit a group of people to conclude that the defendant has done what we have likewise defined as a criminal act. One may be legally guilty and morally innocent just as one may be legally innocent and morally guilty. The opposition to capital punishment is predicated on the belief, rightly or wrongly, that only God can be the judge of moral blameworthiness. Therefore, proponents of capital punishment are assuming unto themselves a moral authority they do not possess. That is why Mr. galt’s distinction, although it tracks the legislative justification for the death penalty, is bad theology from the Church’s standpoint. With regard to the subject of the thread, it is the right of a country to submit the names of whomever it wishes for ambassadorships. It is the right of the host country to reject any appointment it finds offensive for any reason. If the Vatican wishes to play the “who blinks first” game, it is indicative of the current Pope’s disconnectedness from reality, something we all recently observed with his embrace of Archbishop Lefebvre and the anti-semitic and schismatic Society of St. Pius X.
The church has acknowledged that there is room within the faith for divergent opinions on the death penalty. It is also emphatic in its condemnation of abortion. That’s why there is talk of withholding communion for pro-choice politicians and not for pro-death penalty politicians.
I’d just like to point out how funny it is to see someone with the pseudonym “John Galt” defending a religious institution. SOMEBODY didn’t read their “cliff’s notes”
I don’t need cliffnotes. I’m not a mindless sheep following the cult of Ayn Rand. I just adopted the moniker b/c I believe A LOT of her stuff is insightful and should be heeded. I am also a practicing Catholic. I’m sorry if I can’t fit into a neat label for your derision.
John,
Then allow me to amend:
I’d just like to point out how funny it is that the only positions we’ve heard from with the pseudonym “John Galt” are things that Ayn Rand wrote strongly against (religion, placing society above the individual, etc.). SOMEBODY didn’t read their “cliff’s notes.”
Mr. Galt, the distinction recognized by the Church deals only with situations involving self-defense or the necessity of stopping imminent aggressive actions. In that sense it is related to the just war doctrine and moral choices in the face of alternative evils. It does not recognize the death penalty as a moral act of retribution for particularly heinous crimes or as a morally acceptable instrument for deterrence. Retribution and deterrence are the values espoused by pro-death politicians. It wasn’t that long ago, after all, that politicians could justify the occasional lynching as necessary to prevent riots and preserve social order. I find it regretful, but true, that the position of the American bishops on withholding communion is laced through with hypocrisy on many levels. I find it additionally distressing because I believe that the bishops have allowed themselves to be influenced by false allies in the pro-life wars, conservative evangelicals who are fundamentally anti-Catholic and anti-intellectual.
Perhaps not a “Rand worshiper”, but the mask a man chooses says much about the man. Yours says “me, me, me” as do most of your comments. Just because you think torturing to save “your” life is acceptable when it most clearly is illegal, unethical and ineffective neither makes it right nor desirable. But I can tell you’re a “company man” by your defense of organizations over individuals and your proud Catholicism when your God of Choice is questioned. When one is willing to hurt another out of fear, one is hurting themselves by reducing their own humanity for a false sense of security. 1) Torture is crap for information gathering. 2) Security is an illusion as any man can be killed by a determined enough attacker. The fact is that you have a greater chance of being struck by lightening than being killed by a terrorist. So why is it okay to torture again? To “save lives”? To “defend the institutions”? Not only is that the same argument used by your beloved RCC’s Tomas de Torquemada, it’s pure bullshit. In addition to a total disregard for the lives of your fellow man that anyone elitist enough to pick that nick would naturally have to display, your stances on torture in other threads show you to be little more than a sadistic ego worshiping fool. You can put “rational” in front of the word “selfishness” but it does not change that in the end it is just selfish. That’s why Rand fails and why the RCC is becoming a joke – it’s outmoded and useless. It’s ego worship and out of control self-love and self-laudatory nonsense about your superiority. Sorry to break it to you John, but you’re not special, Rand isn’t special and the RCC isn’t special. Except in your own mind. Do you know what the easiest to replace segment of an ecosystem is? Apex predators. So why don’t all you Atlas wannabes all go shrug and see how well it works out for you. Everyone else will be just fine. Your lot however, the elitists, will be screwed.
The derision will get worse and more complicated the harder you fight to defend ethically untenable positions. You’re a B grade troll at best.
“Supporters of the death penalty believe that taking an innocent life is wrong and should result in the forfeiture of the guilty partie’s life. Abortion is believed to be the taking of an innocent life. Makes perfect sense to me.”
Johnny,
Here’s the short version. My religion doesn’t believe that life begins until God’s breath animates the lungs. Other Christian faiths either believe the same, or at least don’t believe that life begins until birth. I neither mind nor care what your religion believes as long as it doesn’t impinge on my beliefs. Catholics have the free choice not to turn to abortion, end of story. They do not have the right to define it for others who don’t believe. Also the Catholic Church does not have a history of taking the high moral ground on most matters and there is little reason to accept their teachings for non-Catholics.
Catholics believe that taking communion is eating the blood and flesh of Jesus. To me eating blood and flesh is cannibalism. Catholics believe that their Gospel has abrogated the Jews position as “chosen.” Jews disagree and further feel impinged upon by the attempted theft and mis-translation of our Torah. Also a little thing like the Inquisition causes hard feelings, not to mention an entire history of persecution.
That’s all fine though because the past is past, however, you do not have the right to impose your beliefs on me, or anyone else. Remember God sees eating pork as an abomination.
If the Jewish view is adopted goodbye Easter and Christmas ham. As a supposed objectivist devotee doesn’t that make sense to you?
As you well know Ayn Rand was an atheist. Perhaps then your religiosity is subsumed by you greed, which is why given your muddled beliefs you have little right to lay strictures on others while you so imperfectly follow the path. Somehow I don’t remember Jesus believing greed was good, but then obviously your philosophy and piety are bendable in your own self interest.
Now to respond to your implications about my not answering you seriously, it was because you didn’t posit a serious point and you’re arrogant enough to appropriate a pseudonym that you have little right to. When you figure out just what you do believe, in a logical manner, than perhaps I’d take you seriously. Ron Paul, interesting man same problem, with a hint of insanity around the eyes.
John Galt:
“Abortion is believed to be the taking of an innocent life. Makes perfect sense to me.”
you believe in abortion, dont you?
John Galt:
interesting, I knew a girl in college that was catholic and wanted to reconcile objectivism with religion. I was always fascinated by her desire.
There are certain similarities. How has it worked out? I personally dont think a belief in a creator is necessarily exclusionary if one’s philosophical outlook leans toward objectivism. I have started to notice that there are “some” “objectivists” that seem to have faith or at least are agnostic.
quite interesting.
Johnny,
You death penalty stance is yet another reason why you can’t be taken seriously. How can someone who doesn’t believe in government for most things trust it to get executions right? Could it be that you’re a lynching proponent? Perhaps though you’re just one of those smug people who believe that the crap they peddle can blow up in their own faces.
Johnny,
Your death penalty stance is yet another reason why you can’t be taken seriously. How can someone who doesn’t believe in government for most things trust it to get executions right? Could it be that you’re a lynching proponent? Perhaps though you’re just one of those smug people who believe that the crap they peddle can’t blow up in their own faces.
Oops
I can’t cook dinner and remember to proofread at the same time. sort of like Johnny’s logical processes.
Actually if you think about it the death penalty does reduce crime, one criminal at a time. At some point in the future assuming no other criminals are born or made, we will have violent crime licked.
I think someone on this blog said it takes about $7,000,000 to try a death penalty case vs. about $25,000/year assuming they spend 40 years in prison thats about $1,000,000 over the life of a prisoner vs. $7,000,000 over maybe 10 years. If we include the time value of money that $7,000,000 will be a staggering sum. Even if the sum to house and feed a prisoner were $50,000 it would still be a huge savings.
Bron,
I think that was one of my posts. The cost of execution is indeed hugely disproportionate to the cost of lifetime incarceration. So disproportionate as to make me reconsider my stance on the death penalty.
bUDDHA:
what happened to the anti-conservative tailsman?
now that you mention it, I do believe it was you. Apologies for the lack of attribution, you know how us conservatives are, always trying to make a living off the backs of everyone else.
Well I think we here in Virginia are about to elect a W wanabe for governor and here in Fairfax in my state delegate district is some W’ette by the name of Barbara Comstock. Comstock, I think, is some rich young woman from McLean whose daddy or husband is probably well connected and is buying her the seat. Looks like same old same old for the Old Dominion. the Kate Obenshain wing of the party strikes again, Jerry Kilgore was the last disaster. What a load he was, he ran around the state wearing UVA colors. Tim Cain came off as an exemplar of manliness next to him during their time on stage together.
Mespo:
Whats your take on McDonald? Is he a W wannabe or a decent guy. I wrote his campaign asking if he was going to rape us like Bush did in September with TARP but all I got was a form letter in return so I will assume the answer is “yeah baby”.
You guys have ruined me as a republican, I still want low taxes, a strong defense, less regulations, rule of law, individual liberty, etc. but I now think that they have as much interest in those “radical” ideas as pigs have in flying.
EnemyoftheState98:
I think McDonnell dons the mantle of whatever group gets him the most political mileage. He’s a “have ideology, will travel” kind of guy in my estimation, and a pretty mediocre lawyer judging by his work in the AG’s office. He packed it with the Regent crowd and their religion first mentality. I give him about a 45% chance of winning given the clout of the Falwell-Robertson crowd, but obviously I hope he lands hard and goes back to the pulpits that spawned him. I am for those values you espoused too, and I suppose Bob would be for them as well–if it is politically expedient. Don’t count on him to rein in your taxes if the big boys propping him up need some government contract work to tide them over.
I am only going to address arguments relevant to THIS article. First of all, I would like to know how I am placing society above the individual? If you mean my death penalty stance, then I wold argue that I am placing the innocent individual— the victim— above a murderer.
Secondly, I said that the church has acknowledged room for debate on the death penalty NOT that they endorsed it.
Third, just because I believe abortion is wrong doesn’t mean I want to impose my will on anyone. In my view, as long as the fetus is dependent on the mother for viability, it is that woman’s choice to make using her God-given free will. She will have to answer for her choices.
Fourth, just because I am pro death penalty doesn’t mean I’m pro lynching. Are you people even serious????? I actually believe that there should be a higher standard of proof if the death penalty is sought, i.e.eyewitnesses, video recording, a confession supported by the evidence, etc. So, no, I don’t want to lynch people.
Lastly, (Buddha, Mike I’m looking at you), it is useless and immature to attack someone because a personal conception of a label that you think fits them based on a handful of internet posts.Yes, I adopted the John Galt moniker because I see socialism for the evil it is and believe that people who create wealth should benefit.So if you want to criticize me for that go right ahead. I think the world has heard enough Catholic bashing, and the nation has surely heard enough capitalism-bashing. I just think that out of respect our Vatican ambassador should not support what the Vatican regards as a grave moral evil. That would even put myself out of the running b/c of my own opinions.
P.S. Enemy of the State- It’s gone okay. As a former Economics major in college, I think there is a lot of wisdom in what Rand writes about the descent into socialism. I even agree with her view of evil in most circumstances. I just also believe in a God-given moral compass that happens to agree with those particular Randian views. As human beings, we will always be boxed in by scarcity. It is the creators of wealth who, if allowed to create freely, better the lot of the whole of mankind.
john galt:
I’ve followed your comments and while I feel some are not grounded in fact or a tad naive, You have however been respectful of others for the most part. I guess the problem lies in your occasional thin-skin. Knowing the group here as I do, they do not question your intellect with their pithy remarks; they simply want facts to support your views, which seems reasonable to me. We enjoy many eclectic views on this blog and the quality of discourse if very high on most days. If forced to use labels, I would say we have some conservatives, some quasi-conservatives, liberals, and me, the skeptic in residence. Please continue to opine.
John Galt:
I also think that capitalism creates the greatest good for the greatest number. I wish the slave masters in DC could get it through their heads that socialism and capitalism are like laws of nature. Like gravity, when you drop a ball off of a roof it falls. The law of socialism is that it doesnt work no matter what time in history, no matter the country it fails. The thing that I cannot fathom though is why dont the politicians understand this? If I were a politician I would have the biggest welfare state around because I would release business from taxes and most regulations. We could take care of everybody that needed help and the others would have jobs. The possibilites are endless. These guys in congress cant figure it out, if you have a raging economy even with a low tax rate you still generate tremendous tax revenue. It seems axiomatic to me. I have read so many articles about different countries reducing tax rates and their economies taking off and tax revenues increasing. One article was about Hong Kong before the Chinese take over, they had reduced marginal tax rates and tax revenue shot through the roof. They looked at it and were seriously thinking about reducing the rate to under 5%, their extrapolations, based on what had just happened, indicated a non-linear relationship-i.e. a slight reduction in rate lead to larger tax revenues.
The other thing I like about true capitalism is that it does not allow wealth to concentrate because of the dynamism of the free market. You either evolve or you “die” and you have competition which lowers the price of everything. Most people dont believe this is what will happen, but take any localized (single industry) market where you have market forces and it works, down goes the price up goes the technology and innovation. I like to use lazik eye suregery as an example.
It is a shame that objectivists can be very dogmatic when it comes to their beliefs almost like Christians I have met, they try and talk themselves into their beliefs and go way overboard.
Mirroring Mespo’s invitation please stay around and post. And he is right you have got to have your facts straight, this crowd will have you for lunch otherwise.
Mespo:
That is a fact VDOT and highway builders have a lot of clout. You would think that building roads and bridges is our only industry.
John,
Allow me to apologize, I figured you for a troll. Your further posts have proven otherwise. My remark however is still accurate, just not aimed exclusively at the Death Penalty discussion. Re-examine your rational for torture and you’ll find a clear case of placing society above the individual.
I get the feeling that like most fans of Rand you’ve read Atlas Shrugged and possible The Fountainhead and base your view of her philosophy on that. While those are two books that everyone should read (if for no other reason than their influence on modern thought), they are not the entirety of her philosophy.
Bron,
What’s the difference between True Capitalism and what we have now?
Gyges:
in my mind, I believe that we have a mixed economy for many reasons, regulations, the tax structure, etc. One major reason is the Federal Reserve, they have artificially created boom and bust periods through their manipulation of the money supply and interest rates.
So those are a few of the differences. As a first step toward getting on the road to long term economic prosperity, I think we have to rein in the Fed and eventually eliminate it.
Economics really comes down to individual action, I want a hamburger or a new car. In a free market system unencombered by government I can get a 1/4 pounder or a 1/2 pounder, I can have cheese or onion, toasted or with seaseme seeds. I can purchase a green machine or an SUV or a pickup or sedan, what ever color and style I want. I am free to choose, government intervention prevents this because they, and we have seen this in action, tailor economic policy to produce social outcomes.
This is what I still dont understand about liberals, most of them are tenacious in their respect for individual freedoms but when it comes to one of the most basic freedoms, control of their wallet they cave like a toddler given chocolate ice cream.
How can these 2 be mutually exclusive in their minds? I actually think you can help more people with capitalism because you will have much more money.
John,
Your initial comments on this thread were brief and basically statements of your belief. All of those statements have a long history of discourse and have achieved the status of faux-conservative memes. Therefore when you say you oppose abortion the prime inference is that you seek to overturn Roe v. Wade, not that it’s a particular moral stance that you do not wish to impose on others. Taken with your pseudonym and given the propensity of pseudo-conservative trolls to merely make statements, it was a more than reasonable assumption to see you as more of the same. Perhaps you are not and perhaps you are someone who thinks for himself and if that is the case welcome aboard.
“If you mean my death penalty stance, then I wold argue that I am placing the innocent individual— the victim— above a murderer.”
My point to you was how do you as a conservative cum objectivist trust the government enough to believe that it will execute the right people? To me that is a dichotomy.
“Secondly, I said that the church has acknowledged room for debate on the death penalty NOT that they endorsed it.”
While this is true the RCC’s position seems hypocritical, since it heaps moral opprobrium on those supporting Roe v. Wade, but has in essence remains neutral on those supporting a death penalty. If one’s moral stance is “murder is murder” and therefore violates the commandment not to kill than this should hold true across the board. You and I know, however, that in the RCC’s history they have encouraged or made war many times. To me, given that, it is difficult for them to assume any moral high ground.
“Third, just because I believe abortion is wrong doesn’t mean I want to impose my will on anyone”
This is very reasonable on your part and really clarifies your position. In that sense, representing your moral stance,
I applaud it. However, you surely are not blind to the battle taking place for more than three decades on Roe v. Wade and a mere statement, as you initially made, must be assumed to be against choice in the matter.
“Fourth, just because I am pro death penalty doesn’t mean I’m pro lynching. Are you people even serious?”
My point, possibly unclear I’ll admit, was that for someone whose pseudonym celebrates Objectivism, therefore distrust of government’s ability to perform properly, how can you believe that prosecutors and police will get it right? The lynching aspect was my being snide towards Objectivist belief in the fallibility of government. However, from a serious standpoint I cannot get how death penalty advocates, generally believers in governmental incompetence, would trust the government to execute the right people. I am personally not against the death penalty per se, but I believe that if even one innocent person is executed then the whole process is invalid. We have seen evidence that definitely more than one person has either been executed, or faced it. Therefore, I cannot support the process and I am loath to believe there is any method that will ensure 100% certainty of guilt.
“Lastly, (Buddha, Mike I’m looking at you), it is useless and immature to attack someone because a personal conception of a label that you think fits them based on a handful of internet posts.”
You are new to this site and have not seen the profusion of trolls who attack incessantly, using the same type of short postings that you did. Coupling that with an iconic pseudonym (to some at least)having specific connotations, would lead any thinking person to believe that here is more of the same. My method for dealing with these types has been ridicule, since I’ve found that engaging them in debate is fruitless. It is fruitless not because they disagree with me, but because their only methodology is to attack and not respond to what is being written. Perhaps my reaction to you was hasty, but all I had to go on was the evidence you gave me.
“I think the world has heard enough Catholic bashing, and the nation has surely heard enough capitalism-bashing.”
I am not an RCC basher per se, but when that Church seeks to interfere with political processes, then I do find room to criticize. I believe fervently in a separation between church and state.
As far as capitalism goes I am for it. However, capitalism
does not mean corporatism and the terms have too long been confused. Secondly, the term socialism is bandied about in this country ignorantly. In my life I have known more true socialists, Marxists and communists than most. For the most part I didn’t like them since they were too driven by ideology and they didn’t like me because ideology bores me. Since I received the information from the source I’ve got a pretty good understanding of what socialism is, that
being total ownership/control of the means of production by the State. Certainly not a good idea. However, the overriding philosophy of the last 30 years that posits a “free market” that is non-existent in reality, presents an irrational alternative. Making the discussion harder is that these words are constantly bandied about as mantras, devoid of meaning.
This site has been a blessing for people of all points of view in that our Ringmaster Jonathan has presented a site where people can actually have in depth discussions and exchange disparate points of view. If that is to your liking welcome aboard again, but understand that one actually needs to put some thought into their postings.
Bron,
How exactly do liberals give over control of their wallet?
Gyges:
Maybe wallet is not exactly what I am trying to say. For example Obama wants to implement a “green” economy. But does it make economic sense? If it did dont you think we would already be green as a country? One thing I know is that my greedy capitalist buddies will always try and make or save money. Obama is going to have to use tax policy to get that going so it really isnt a “free” market it is being manipulated. And it is an artificial allocation of resources, in my mind a misallocation of resources is going to cost the tax payers money and deprive them of the ability to make choices, thereby impacting their wallet.
your thoughts?
Bron,
Now I’m not what you’d probably think of as a Liberal, so any justifications are my own. I’m closer to Libertarian than anything else, but think that some of their stances aren’t really practical, and quite frankly I love the National Park system. I don’t like using taxes and tax breaks as incentives. I think we’re in agreement on that.
However I DO think the government SHOULD fund research and impose regulations on businesses. I’m pretty sure I’ve explained my stance on both of those.
We all accept regulations on driving because we realize that if we drive dangerously we could injure others and destroy their property. Just extend that logic to environmental regulations, we regulate businesses when their actions can injure others or destroy their property.
As for funding research, since most everyone in a society society benefits from an increased knowledge pool, I have no problem taxing money to ensure that the knowledge pool keeps expanding.most new scientific discoveries are too complex\expensive to be funded privately. Now you might say “then leave it to the corporations to do new research” The problem is that scientific research is also a hugely risky investment, there’s no guarantee that any particular theory will be correct, and even if it is that there’s a practical way to apply it to make money. There’s also the potential for HUGE conflicts of interest.
gYGES:
“most new scientific discoveries are too complex\expensive to be funded privately”
Why should I have to pay for this? Why shouldnt private orgs fund research and take the risk and reward? that way we dont get funky science that goes off on tangents at tax payer expense. I can hear the critics already but private orgs are going to put a cost benefit analysis to proposals and will generally not be political (I did say generally).
I look at regulations as I do the building codes, they are the minimum necessary to deliver. If you dont have a building code you get shoddy workmanship right? Probably not, the best contractors and engineers/architects are going to build something that stays up and is well made because it is in their best interest to make a good product, if they dont they go out of business. this same logic applies to all private enterprise. One thing I will admit to though is that this requires consumers to be well informed and responsible for their choices.
Do you actually believe that the FDIC is going to cover the money in your account up to $250 k?
Bron,
Do you like Velcro, The internet, knowing how your medicine interacts with things, less congested traffic, having stable populations of fish\wildlife, all sorts of medical procedures, devices, drugs, etc? Then thank the Gov’t. You should fund research because you ultimately will benefit from it.
As for the funky anecdotal things you hear about all the time, most of that is misunderstood, and even if it wasn’t the good far outweighs the bad. Like I said, there’s little way of telling what research will be useful.
As far as regulation goes, you continually overlook that people will often choose short-term profit over long term success, and that they also can make bad decisions. I’m not saying every business should be regulated so it succeeds, I’m saying that every business should be regulated so that it doesn’t do lasting physical harm to people’s health and property if it makes a bad choice. Think drug testing.
Gyges:
I love velcro! And it was invented by a private individual.
Sure some people/businesses will look to short term profits but they will be out of business pretty quickly. I have work right now and I attribute it to the fact that I am fair to my clients, I did not stick it to them during the housing boom and I could have. I have heard stories of engineers in similar circumstances making twice what I made over the last few years but I still have work. Although they are probably retired in Florida. Well anyway you understand my point and I yours.
Gyges:
velcro link:
http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa091297.htm
Bron,
So I was wrong about the velcro, I’m pretty sure I’m right about the rest though.
Gyges:
I did not put the Velcro link up as a rebuttal of your entire argument. It was for informational purposes only (well a small nudge in the ribs too!).
All I can say is I think what I am saying makes sense and will work in reality. Your way has been tried for the last what, 70 years and it isnt working too well for us.
Current economic system is broke, it does not need to be fixed or tweaked it needs to be replaced.
Bron,
We both agree that there are things wrong with the U.S economy, and I suspect we agree on what a large percent of those things are. However, that’s not really relevant to if Environmental regulations and Scientific research are worth having on a national level. We were discussing the merits of those two things.
If DO you think the tiny percent of the Fed. and State budgets that goes to science research combined with environmental regulations are responsible for this crisis, I’m very interested in that theory.
Bron,
BTW, I took the velcro thing in the spirit it was offered. I just like to admit it when I’m wrong.
“Your way has been tried for the last what, 70 years and it isnt working too well for us.”
Bron,
Our way, as you put it, was in effect between 1932 and 1964 (the Start of Viet Nam escalation) and worked very well. It was our country’s greatest era of economic growth and economic equity. Your way was implemented by Reagan in 1980 and for 3 decades has seen the erosion of the middle class, the rise of the Corporate/MI Complex controlled State and the erosion of our Constitutional rights. That seems to be the point you refuse to see, probably because you allow pre-conceptions to get in your way. There is no such thing as Classic Capitalism or pure capitalism. These are constructs that have little to do with reality and a lot to do with propaganda. The greatest threats to our country have come from those who while seeming to espouse a free market do everything they can to tilt that market in their direction. This has been true throughout American history and World history. The desire of people to make a buck trumps all ethical concerns and certainly leads to mischief like poisoned aquifers, harmful medications and unregulated investment products worth nothing. Government provides the balance and protects us from these predators.
Because you are an ethical businessman does not mean that most are. The fact is the reverse is true. The human ability to rationalize their own corrupt practices is boundless and that is the problem with Libertarian ideals. They sound great but in the end the crookedest and most powerful will rule if unchecked. Sad fact, but historically faultlessly true.
Mike
Gyges:
I was using green technology as an example of government interference in the market and how they would need to apply “incentives” through either tax mechanisms or reduction in regulations if there is no really market interest in green technology.
Bron,
I understand that, but your argument went from sound to circular (with a good bit of straw man thrown in) in about 30 seconds.
Person 1: “I believe A and to prove it here’s example X”
Person 2: “Here’s my feelings of example X”
Person 1: “Yes well that can’t be true because I believe A.”
MikeS:
I know corruption exists, I understand your arguments and I agree that government needs to be a referee through the rule of law, but only through the rule of law. Issues between people who freely engage in commerce should be handled by an impartial legal system.
The system has been broken since the inception of the Federal Reserve Bank. That institution needs to be sent packing and we need to stop funding everything through borrowing. If we dont have the money we shouldnt pay for it. A government should not go into debt at the people’s expense.
I wish Professor Turley would address that on Rachel Maddow some night-The elimination of the Federal Reserve Bank and use Jeffersons thoughts on central banking as the central argument.
Gyges:
what is my circular reasoning? and what straw man did I throw in?
Gyges:
I doubt environmental and scientific research budgets have lead to the current crisis. but I dont think science should be funded by government, it becomes too political. A conservative administration will fund research showing abotion causes cancer, a liberal administration will fund research showing any consumption of beef is bad for you.
Bron,
While I agree that the politicization of science is a bad thing for science, I think you fail to understand the scope of the problems and actual research costs that go into scientific research. Some endeavors, like high energy particle physics, are sciences that require national efforts to build like the Tevatron Collider at our own Fermilab. The Large Hadron Collider at CERN requires multinational cooperation to build the necessary equipment. Particle accelerators are complex, huge in scale and incredibly expensive to build and maintain. Very few, if any, corporations could afford this type of device absent governmental assistance. And high energy physics research affects, oh, just about everything in the modern world from electronics to medicine to space exploration to answering some of the more esoteric questions of quantum mechanics and particle theory. Now this is not to say all good science is expensive science. A lot of good science gets done on remarkably little money, public or otherwise. But the expensive stuff, well, it’s really expensive.
bUDDHA:
I dont necessarily disagree with that, the moon shot was something that was worthwhile as is the space station and as you say the particle accelerators are certaily providing good things.
But generally I think most science should be left to the private sector because of government influence into the process of research.
I am assuming that those were the types of things Gyges had in mind and so I would agree with him. But you have to be careful with state sponsered science, we all know how well that worked out under Hitler. There was some really crazy stuff along with the weapons systems (which we benefited from as did the Soviets although did we really).
“Issues between people who freely engage in commerce should be handled by an impartial legal system.”
Bron,
The impartial legal system is one branch of government.
“The system has been broken since the inception of the Federal Reserve Bank. That institution needs to be sent packing”
You know I agree with you from another thread. What I don’t think you see is that the Fed came about through the machinations of private banks, to get government out of the picture and dependent on a private entity run to benefit the banks.
“If we dont have the money we shouldnt pay for it. A government should not go into debt at the people’s expense.”
The only way that happens is if we raise taxes on the wealthy and assure that our major corporations actually pay taxes. Right now about 40% of major corporations pay no income tax. You might say that the way to do it is to cut government expense, by doing away with things like Social Security and Medicare. I would respond to you by informing you that if it was not for Social Security Disability and Medicare, my wife and I might be out on the street. I am someone who has been self supporting since age 18, have worked two jobs for many years (if you call psychotherapy a job), worked my way through College and Graduate school, my wife also worked throughout our marriage and now at the time of life where I would be getting the real big money positions I am unable to via my disability.
It’s very easy to adopt the viewpoint of every man for himself when there isn’t a name and face for the other guy.
That way lousy actors like Reagan, who marry rich and are supported by GE, get to talk about supposed “Welfare Queens”
that are bilking the system. The ones bilking the system are the major corporations and some of the richest of our citizens. Under the system you propose they would still be bilking people, only with more freedom to get away with it and more power to do it.
Please understand, I believe that a capitalist system works best, but that system needs heavy oversight to ensure it doesn’t go out of control as it has in the last 30 years. The “free market” types of the last 30 years really believe in a kind of “socialism for the rich” that gives power to the very wealthy classes. They long for a return to Feudalism, where you as a small business owner would still be looked at with disdain. They need most of us poor to feel good about how rich and powerful they are.
Mike