By Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger
“We pledge ourselves to use all lawful means to bring about a reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation.
-The Southern Manifesto, Cong. Rec., 84th Cong. 2d Session, Vol. 102, part 4 (March 12, 1956)
‘This was an activist court that you saw today. Anytime the Supreme Court renders something constitutional that is clearly unconstitutional, that undermines the credibility of the Supreme Court. I do believe the court’s credibility was undermined severely today.”
-Michele Bachmann (R. Minn.), June 26 2012
Most people are familiar with the opinion in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al., 349 U.S. 483 (1954), in which a unanimous Supreme Court summarily outlawed public school segregation by tersely declaring, “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” 349 U.S. at 495. But many people do not know that Brown involved a consolidation of cases from four states. The “et al.” in the style refers to decisions on similar facts in Delaware, South Carolina and Virginia. And the response of Virginia to the ruling in Brown provides an interesting comparison with the actions leading to the current government shutdown.
In 1951 the population of Prince Edward County, Virginia was approximately 15,000, more than half of whom were African-American. The county maintained two high schools to accommodate 386 black students and 346 white students. Robert R. Moton High School lacked adequate science facilities and offered a more restricted curriculum than the high school reserved for white students. It had no gym, showers or dressing rooms, no cafeteria and no restrooms for teachers. Students at Moton High were even required to ride in older school buses.
Suit was filed in federal district court challenging the Virginia constitutional and statutory provisions mandating segregated public schools. Although the trial court agreed that the school board had failed to provide a substantially equal education for African-American students, it declined to invalidate the Virginia laws, concluding that segregation was not based “upon prejudice, on caprice, nor upon any other measureless foundation,” but reflected “ways of life in Virginia” which “has for generations been a part of the mores of the people.” Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 103 F. Supp. 337, 339 (E.D. Va. 1952). Instead, the court ordered the school board to proceed with the completion of existing plans to upgrade the curriculum, physical plant and buses at Moton High School. When the plaintiffs took an appeal from the decision, the Democratic machine that had for many years controlled Virginia politics under the firm hand of Sen. Harry Byrd had little reason to believe that “ways of life” that had prevailed since the end of the Reconstruction era would soon be declared illegal.
When the Brown decision was announced, the reaction in Virginia was shock, disbelief and anger. Reflecting the prevailing attitudes, the Richmond News Leader railed against “the encroachment of the Federal government, through judicial legislation, upon the reserved powers of the States.” The Virginia legislature adopted a resolution of “interposition” asserting its right to “interpose” between unconstitutional federal mandates and local authorities under principles of state sovereignty. And Sen. Byrd organized a campaign of opposition that came to be known as “Massive Resistance.”
In August of 1954 a commission was appointed to formulate a plan to preserve segregated schools. Late in 1955, it presented its recommendations, including eliminating mandatory school attendance, empowering local school boards to assign students to schools and creating special tuition grants to enable white students to attend private schools. Enabling legislation was quickly adopted and “segregation academies” began forming around the state. Subsequent legislation went even further by prohibiting state funding of schools that chose to integrate.
In March of 1956, 19 senators and 77 house members from 11 southern states signed what is popularly known as “The Southern Manifesto,” in which they declared, “Even though we constitute a minority in the present Congress, we have full faith that a majority of the American people believe in the dual system of government which has enabled us to achieve our greatness and will in time demand that the reserved rights of the States and of the people be made secure against judicial usurpation.”
Throughout this period the Prince Edward County schools remained segregated, but when various court rulings invalidated Virginia’s various attempts to avoid integration, the school board took its final stand. It refused to authorize funds to operate any schools in the district, and all public schools in the county were simply closed, and remained closed from 1959 to 1964.
There are striking similarities between Sen. Byrd’s failed plan of Massive Resistance and Republican efforts to prevent implementation of the Affordable Care Act. There was widespread confidence among conservatives that the Supreme Court would declare the Act unconstitutional. When that did not occur, legislators such as Michele Bachmann, quoted above, attempted to deny the legitimacy of the Court’s ruling. Brent Bozell went further, denouncing Chief Justice Roberts as “a traitor to his own philosophy,” hearkening back to the days when southern roadsides were replete with billboards demanding the impeachment of Chief Justice Earl Warren.
The House of Representatives has taken over 40 votes to repeal the ACA, quixotic efforts pursued for reasons known only to John Boehner and his colleagues. And in accordance with the Virginia legislative model, the House has attempted to starve the ACA by eliminating it from funding bills. Following the failure of these efforts, Republicans have elected to pursue the path ultimately taken by the school board of Prince Edward County and have shut down the government.
Even the strategy followed by Republicans is largely a southern effort. Approximately 60% of the Tea Party Caucus is from the South. Nineteen of the 32 Republican members of the House who have been instrumental in orchestrating the shutdown are from southern states. It is hardly surprising therefore, that the current impasse is characterized by the time-honored southern belief in nullification theory as a proper antidote to disfavored decisions by a congressional majority.
In reflecting upon the experience of Virginia many years later, former Gov. Linwood Holton noted, “Massive resistance … served mostly to exacerbate emotions arrayed in a lost cause.” Republicans would do well to ponder the wisdom in that observation.
@Tony C. you stated “I think those acts are criminal, and we can devise a means to eliminate them (along with different measures to minimize fraud and political corruption by business) and make a far more fair system that invests in people to help them reach their potential.”
Has not government been doing this for the last 40 years by employing the democratic socialist model? Are you writing a book on this and when will it be finished? Can’t wait to read it.
Substance abuse is a mitigating factor. I don’t consider the desperation for a fix to be the desperation of which you speak.
Desperation is way down the list of reasons people commit crime. Greed is number 1, 2 and 3.
David: Don’t you work? If all you were interested in is survival, say a modest apartment, cheap food to eat, health care and average safety, how much work would you have to do to accomplish that and no more? Whatever motivates you to do more than survive may well be unique to you and your interests and your beliefs, but the generality of having something motivating us to do more than survive, once our survival is no longer overtly threatened, is an almost universal human trait.
For the vast majority of us (I think probably near 90%) the prospect of just surviving under such circumstances is about one rung above prison. And it seems illogical to me that full ride subsistence with no work requirement is exactly what we provide prisoners that have done us real harm and cost us dearly, but we won’t provide the same to innocents that have done nothing to harm us — And if we DID, many of the criminals that harmed us would not have been so existentially desperate that they committed crimes.
David: As I said, Norway’s unemployment rate is 3.5%. They have five million people, not 350 million, but 5 million is a pretty hefty sample.
I think the vast majority of people want a better life and are willing to work for it. There are hard-core unemployed that are perfectly healthy and could work, I just don’t think they are enough to worry about.
Very few want to live in a minimal apartment without entertainment eating potatoes and eggs or baloney sandwiches every day (or whatever; what I mean is subsistence level food). People want radios and TV, cool phones and gadgets, cars, clothes, restaurant food and candy. They want to go to concerts, or plays, or the movies, or the symphony. They want to shop. They don’t want to just survive another day, they want to live life and be entertained.
You know they do, that is why stuff sells, people want it!
So why would you think that they would shut down and hibernate in a hole if their basic needs were addressed? What makes you think they wouldn’t still strive for something more entertaining and fulfilling than mere survival?
DavidM: According to Kelley Blue Book, the private sale value of my car is about $2000. The same is true for my wife’s car; and those are the only two we own.
I don’t earn my contract rate all the time, David. What I have learned to do, however, is to scale my fees to capture what I consider a fair “partner’s share” of the profit I generate. Partially by taking partnership risk, in the last case an all-or-nothing risk, I would have been paid nothing if I had not solved their problem. In truth hours did not matter, if I could have solved it in one hour instead of over a hundred I would have been paid the same, it it had taken me a thousand hours I would have been paid the same (but they probably would have canceled by then and paid nothing, which was their right after a certain amount of time).
For the most part I am content to earn the median wage of a professor.
You will cease calling me a liar.
“You will cease calling me a liar.”
Who died and left you in charge Nick? You haven’t stopped stalking me for how long now? The problem is that you do it like the sneak and liar you are. Just as in the example I gave above. Now if you stop your little games and act like a reasonable commenter, perhaps then I won’t have to tell the truth about you over and again. Guess what you can still express any opinions you want on any topic. However, you want to continue to “bust balls” (as you quaintly put it) and I will make sure everyone understands what childish bully you are.
DavidM: I have been explicit about my philosophy on this blog before. My philosophy is my own; built from the ground up. I do not subscribe to any philosopher, ancient or recent. Although some are better than others, none espouse precisely what I believe.
I (like Gene) am a Democratic socialist, which means I believe in socialism for some things and capitalism (Regulated to protect workers, investors, customers and the environment) for the rest. That is not regulation to pick “winners and losers,” as Bron claims, it is ground rules for business operations that prevent oppression and endangerment and exploitation.
I think the right to life includes, inherently, the right to those things that sustain life; including adequate food, shelter, clothing, heat, safety, and both emergency and long term health care (and mental health care).
I think the right to liberty includes, inherently, the right to be free from coercion to work in order to survive.
I think the right to pursue happiness means we have the right to tools we collectively agree are necessary to do that, primarily in my view this is education in any trade or discipline one wishes to pursue.
————
So I believe in a strong social safety net.
I think our country can run as follows.
1) Employment is voluntary. If you don’t work you get a subsistence allowance, similar to unemployment but not based on previous pay. Enough for basic food, basic shelter and sanitation, and can only be spent on that. Even though something similar is true in Norway, their unemployment rate is lower than ours (about 3.5%), because if you want more than subsistence you have to earn money. This also changes the dynamic for employers; people that do not have to work to live don’t have to put up with crap from a boss for very long.
2) Education is free, at all points in life and for as far as you wish to go (and are capable). If you dream of being a neurosurgeon, do that. If you dream of being a truck driver, learn that. If you dream of both, do both. This is also true in Norway; even if you get into Harvard the state pays almost all the expenses of school and living (in a foreign country, no less).
3) If you want more than subsistence, get a job, go to school, learn a trade, or use your time to develop a skill you can sell. Music, writing, arts of any kind, research of some sort, invention of a product or service, even investing of some sort.
4) All finances are open and free, you have the right to see anybody’s tax returns. (Norway does this too; all tax returns are a matter of public record at all times and available online.)
5) Legal representation for both defense and prosecution are available free. We already have publicly funded defense in the USA, I think both legal advice and certain kinds of lawsuit against exploitation should be publicly funded as well. For example, suing a property insurance agency that denies a claim that is covered, suing for breach of contract, or suing the government for false arrest or imprisonment or rights violation or (like your case) an unfair interpretation of the law. If a public attorney is used to file suit punitive damages should be limited, and the government should collect (from punitive damages only) court costs and the salary of the attorney’s involved.
Contracts are meaningless if you cannot afford to prosecute breaches, particularly if the breach is the reason you cannot afford to prosecute!
Similarly, I have seen people harmed by medical malpractice that could not find a lawyer to take their case because the harm wasn’t considered severe enough or easy enough to prove to provide the lawyers with enough profit out of filing a contingency suit.
I have seen numerous people with their civil rights violated that could not afford to do a damn thing about it, they could not afford the time, or an attorney.
In many ways our legal system has become affordable only by the rich, and that results in a tilted playing field that oppresses the poor on the downhill slope to the benefit of the rich. I think that in turn results in the violent oppression (and sometimes death) of the non-rich by cops that know their victims will not risk everything they own to respond with legal action.
People should not have to risk their savings or house or livelihood to respond to oppression (by government or otherwise), and they should not have to rely on charity or benevolence that may be denied, justice should be equally available to all, and sometimes justice demands being the plaintiff bringing a civil suit.
6) Government and taxes are not “big” or “small,” they are the size they need to be to perform the functions demanded by the majority. Enforcement is rigorous for rich and poor. There is no limit on earnings; this is socialism not communism. Norway is socialist but has many multi-millionaires, including some inventors, entrepreneurial business people (e.g. construction, a very large chain of beauty salons with a sole owner), bands (musicians), actors, and so on.
7) Government should be publicly transparent; and accounting should be detailed to the level of the median annual wage in the country. There is more to say here, but too lengthy and technical, about restrictions on Secrecy, Black budgets, etc. I think some are actually necessary, but most are not and I think (with eyes-on experience) cover up corrupt practices.
I mentioned Norway a few times, it provides input as one working socialist / capitalist system. Frequently when I mention them, people dismiss their model as being funded by their oil. But it isn’t; their socialism was in place and working many decades before Norway discovered oil. When it was discovered they set up a system to prevent them from becoming financially dependent upon the sale of oil, that system is part of Norwegian law.
The way that works is smart, all the profits from the oil go into a Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF). No more than 5% of the Norwegian national budget can be financed by the earnings of the SWF; any excess earnings increase the capital in the fund.
That is a prudent and sustainable investment; if the oil money stopped tomorrow the SWF capital would not decrease at all; and as long as the billions in SWF capital can earn (on average) 5% of the budget or more (which they handily do now) their budget would be unaffected.
Norwegian socialism, when instituted, was dependent solely upon taxes and income from their collective wealth being invested. That is still true, their socialist programs are still not dependent upon selling oil, and never will be. The oil is gradually being converted to investments worldwide in profitable businesses and public enterprises. When it runs out, it runs out, that will not stop the profit flow from the SWF.
There is no reason the USA cannot implement a similar economic scheme. Let capitalism and competition reign for non-critical services (with regulation on worker safety, investor protection, environmental protection, etc).
We don’t require a minimum wage to sustain life if we just sustain life directly, and by providing subsistence directly we remove the ability of employers to coerce or exploit workers by (essentially) threatening their survival, and we don’t let workers fall into homeless poverty because they got sick for a month, or are mentally ill and unsuitable for responsible work and cannot afford treatment to get to that point.
I think profits earned by harming people or creating misery or shortening lives are criminal. I also think it diminishes us all if education is reserved only to the those that can afford it (which is a shrinking population as tuitions explode), plus the 1% that are smart enough to power through it or win scholarships. Many of the people I grew up with should have been graduates and professionals but their potential was wasted, and the added value to society that could have contributed was discarded, because of their lack of funds for education (and keeping life and limb together while being educated).
They represent nurses, grade school teachers, physical therapists, engineers, programmers and even medical doctors and dentists that we have relegated to stocking shelves and tending bar and driving trucks, because they were boxed in, forced to abandon school to make a living, support a family (sometimes including disabled parents or siblings or unexpected children), and could not afford the time or money to attend college (or for some, like my parents, to even finish high school).
I think we can provide, as a society, subsistence, health care, education and legal representation at cost, without conscription of any professionals to provide those services: We can pay the market rate for whatever staffing we need (doctors, nursing, orderlies, janitors, teachers, builders, lawyers and so on).
That will not be exorbitant, the model for that is our existing volunteer military: It fills slots for all of those professions without resorting to conscription, people voluntarily seek out and accept the jobs as military surgeons or lawyers. It pays well enough and not everybody is focused on personal greed as their driving motivation, some people take pride in saving the lives of others, or preventing or alleviating pain and suffering and disability. Some of us think people are more important than money.
Competition and profit are great tools for creating efficiency and innovation, but only so long as both buyers and sellers can walk away from the deal without harm. The alternative to agreement cannot be life threatening or catastrophic (as measured by the majority opinion, not the individual opinion). When the alternative to agreement is death, disability, bankruptcy, homelessness, disease, dismemberment, hunger, pain or other such grief and suffering, it seems obvious to me we have left the realm of a fair negotiation and “market forces” do not apply, it has become coercion and blackmail and exploitation of dire circumstances.
I think those acts are criminal, and we can devise a means to eliminate them (along with different measures to minimize fraud and political corruption by business) and make a far more fair system that invests in people to help them reach their potential.
I fully understand that money is not infinite, and the amount of aid we can provide is limited, but when it comes to existential matters of life and death I think profits are an inherent conflict of interest; if profit increases because pain and suffering increases (as is the case for an insurance company denying a valid claim), it acts against the good of society. Also, it can create a situation in which insufficient pain and suffering may not be profitable enough to bother, for a profit-motivated agent, even if the complaint is valid and a judgment in favor of the plaintiff might serve as a deterrent to government overreach or unfair business practice.
When we remove the profit motivation, we are left with the proper motivation for such actions; doing the greatest good for people with the funds available. That motive can serve exactly the same purpose as the profit motive, in reducing costs, increasing efficiency, and promoting innovation, it just has to be measured and reported, and the employees have to be self-selected as those that value that measurement of good accomplished.
It also eliminates conflicts of interest: Any instance of aid denied is always in service of a greater good by providing another form of aid; it is not denied in service of selfish gain (as it is in a for-profit company). It is a prioritizing of devoting funds to achieve the overall maximum benefit to society, like triage prioritizes medical treatment to save the most people.
In fact that measurement can be far more powerful than a profit margin; employees of for-profit businesses become disillusioned at earning profit for the owners, particularly when owner profits routinely demand lower salaries for employees, and as employees come to understand the top of the pyramid is 1% and even that is far more than their chance of ever getting there — most people come to realize the top is out of their reach, and in a for-profit organization the profits of their work will always be “for” somebody else’s pocket.
But when we measure success in terms of lives saved, children fed, cures found, disasters prevented, natural disasters relieved, violent criminals prosecuted, futures secured, oppression stopped and justice served, and when every dime taken in is spent in service of that success without lining any pockets or making anybody rich: that is the ultimate profit-sharing program, success is shared by everybody that contributed their work effort toward it, in the form of rightful pride in making the world a better place. Success is not measured in dollars received by the few elite at the top, and for the same wage as in the for-profit organization, workers feel better about their work and contribution and take pride in their work.
Firemen may not make much, but they can take pride in their work and saving lives and fighting disaster, and we recognize them for that. The same should be true for all sorts of public servants, the good they do should be both publicized and publicly verifiable.
Tony C – Thanks for the lengthy reply. I think posts like this help in mutual understanding of one another. My initial reaction is a little skepticism about the motive toward work you explain… is it really enough? When I get a chance, I am going to study Norway a little more closely. It won’t be today, but soon enough. I will likely have some questions for you afterward.
David,
I don’t live on the side of tyrants. I pay my taxes willingly. You’re the one crying about the govt taking tax money by force. If your not willing to pay your taxes, your choice is simple: leave or we will extract you owe.
“Those who have more should give to those who have less…”
Now that’s the first time you’ve said that. It’s not however, you’ve completely contradicted yourself.
“…instruction concerning the character flaws that lead them to poverty.”
“…those with better foresight likewise will bless those who lack their wisdom.”
I got a feeling there’s some tyranny going on in the 2575 compound, where you shut out the world and deliver your daughter’s babies yourself. You must know everything in that little magic kingdom of yours, sort of like “Marcus Welby” meets “Father Knows Best”.
Your problem is you would withhold assistance to anyone who didn’t conform to your standards of conduct. Only some mythical person of pure character (virgin until married, sex only to procreate – no masturbation! Or alcohol) are deserving. And in your magic kingdom, such people rarely need help. The people in the real world who need help are of flawed character and need instruction about their guilty behavior. That’s one short of saying the poor are poor because god looked down on them in disfavor. Truth is, anyone who doesn’t dress, act, speak, live, or look like you is morally flawed. Because YOUUUU know what is right(eous).
You’re brainwashed. You’re narrow-minded and judgmental. You resent authority because you think you have all the answers; you know how things should really operate. You can’t countenance other views or culture’s unless they confirm your belief system, like the Chinese cabdriver who complained about the govt.
You’re also a liar. You’ve repeatedly and consistently maintained that you would be fine with giving monetary assistance to someone you could observe, in order to verify they were behaving according to your standards, in other words, acting humble.
I am not about to wade back through your sniveling, myopic, ridiculous, pin-headed fantasies and specious reasoning to find those instances where you said what you now claim you didn’t say. Isn’t the Lord gonna smite you or something for not telling the truth?
RTC wrote: “Your problem is you would withhold assistance to anyone who didn’t conform to your standards of conduct.”
Never. I have stated previously that I have received into my home murderers, rapists, thieves, alcoholics, drug addicts, etc. I am not sectarian in how I offer hospitality. Nevertheless, this does not mean that I approve of harmful life choices. To help a person, you give them aid that will help them both physically and psychologically. It is important to help the whole person.
RTC wrote: “… like the Chinese cabdriver who complained about the govt.”
He did not complain about the gov’t at all. I asked him many questions because I am interested in his culture. He likes what he has, but it is all he knows. While I might have shared with him a little about how our system differs from his, I made no judgments to him about which is better. We were just sharing information. I would tell him what I had read about his culture and ask him if it was true. Sometimes it was, and sometimes it was not. For example, I told him I read that China only allows one child, and he explained it in more detail, telling me the exact amount of tax he would have to pay to have another child, and how that therefore made it so only the rich had more than one child. I asked him if he chose his occupation, or if the gov’t chose it for him. He said the gov’t chose it for him. I asked him when, and how it worked in school there, etc. He never complained, just shared how life was for him. I find such conversations much more enlightening than trusting some elitist article about the way things are in China. This was the reason I traveled there, for education for me and my family, especially for my children who I brought with me.
RTC wrote: “You’re also a liar. You’ve repeatedly and consistently maintained that you would be fine with giving monetary assistance to someone you could observe, in order to verify they were behaving according to your standards, in other words, acting humble.”
I have no idea what you are talking about here. If I am walking down the street and a homeless man asks me for change, my immediate response is to give him a dollar, no questions asked. Then I start talking to him as one neighbor to another. When someone needs more help, I look for ways to make it happen. Nobody has to live up to my standards. I have some rules for the apartment because I have helped people who engaged in drugs or prostitution on my property, causing the police to come out at 2 am to arrest them. So I instruct them that nothing illegal is allowed. I also do not want overnight guests in the apartment because they are not paying for it and it is not suppose to enable them to run a prostitution ring out of my property like Congressman Barney Frank had in his home. But this is just responsible oversight. Nobody has to live by my standards to receive help. And you know what? Thus far nobody objects to any of my rules. Sometimes they laugh at some of them, but when I explain how an experience of the past caused me to have to make the rule, they understand. They are more than happy to observe it for a place from which to have rest and look for a job. In my home, I have a way to lock the door to the guest room from inside my home. I just explain to them that I don’t know them and they don’t know me. With all my daughters in the house, I think it prudent for me to lock the door to the inside of the house at night. They ALWAYS understand and are very agreeable. They have an outside door so they can go outside to smoke or get some fresh air or whatever. When I bring food and clothing to the park to hand out to people, everyone is welcome to it. Does not matter how they live. Will they hear from me a message about how to live or what they might want to consider changing in their life? Of course, but never is it a condition of receiving my help. Why you think I lie is beyond my ability to comprehend. I cannot imagine what I have said that has caused you to misunderstand how I live. I have no interest in giving assistance only to someone that I can observe in order to verify they are living according to my standards. The truth is that people who live according to my standards likely would not need the assistance. They would be self sufficient and on the path to being able to help others the same way that I do.
“…instruction concerning the character flaws that lead them to poverty.”
“…those with better foresight likewise will bless those who lack their wisdom.”
DavidM,
And therefore your good fortune in life is totally deserved and those with ill fortune don not have your sterling qualities.
First the good news: You are a smug, overprivileged person whose charity is a mask for your disdain of those you help and done to cover up the fact that you are bereft of feeling for everyone but yourself.
Now the bad news: You are either sociopathic and/or narcissistic, which are defined as personality disorders. There is little difference between you and convicted felons save that you’re slightly smarter.
RTC:
Do you think you can do the same or are your ideas so abysmal that the only thing you can do is say spiteful things?
And yes, I have done some of that myself. But at least it isnt my go to strategy.
RTC:
If you understand insurance so well, how come we cant have private unemployment insurance? How about take the force out of it. I would not buy it, because my work history tells me I can always find a job, there is something I can do.
So because I would make unemployment insurance and SS private and allow people to buy it or not buy it, I am somehow imposing my authority?
That is how it used to be, people entered into mutual aid societies to help them during bad times. They were private associations, why do you think some insurance companies have Mutual in their titles?
You are like the character in the Shaw Shank Redemption who hanged himself because he was institutionalized and could no longer live on his own. You are free to hang yourself, leave me and others of like mind out of your calculus.
DavidM has had some really bad things said about him, and he has been, as far as i can tell, a gentleman and has addressed the issues and tried to explain his views without calling people names or questioning their knowledge or intelligence.
David,
You are a Fox Snoozer to the core. There’s no question that they serve you favorite flavor of Kool-Aid. Fox has been proven to tell lie after lie after lie, and the strategy is to repeat these lies over and over again until bland, self-interested little thinkers, like you are convinced that govt is some foreign occupational force, taking your stuff. The corporations, claiming that Fox is successful ( a spurious claim) have sought to emulate the messaging – spread the fertilizer, if you know what I mean – to give the lies seem more like universal truths. It’s a race to the bottom. If you some truth, read Naomi Klein.
=========================
Bron,
RE: unemployment insurance. It’s insurance. There’s a fund. People pay into it. It earns interest. It works because not everyone who pays into it uses it. Insurance succeeds because people paying premiums outnumber the claims paid out. You clearly don’t know the first thing about how insurance works. Do you think Exxon purchases an insurance policy dollar for dollar on the cost of a tanker?
RE: your ramble about regulations making it tough to operate a business and lobbying. Many times you sound like a drunken, bar-room pontificate, angry at authority, yet determined to impose your own. You really need to take some classes.
RTC wrote: “Fox has been proven to tell lie after lie after lie…”
I hope you realize that many competitors of Fox News lie about Fox News and erroneously claim they lie when they don’t. Fox News often points out these fallacious claims posted on very biased websites like Huffington Post, Media Matters, Daily Kos, New York Times, etc.
Please give me one lie that Fox News has promoted. Not a mistake, but a lie. I want to see if you are telling the truth or just repeating false information. Please make it your best case against Fox News.
davidm:
it isnt poor logic, in her world her logic is sound. It is poor epistemology.
She thinks dogs have 3 legs. She holds that belief sincerely, it is what she learned in college from her progressive professors.
I dont know which is worse, thinking she is sincere or that she has some evil motivation. I would almost prefer the idea that she had some evil motivation, that she knew truth and worked against it, at least you have a chance of convincing an evil person of the wrongness of their position. Since she is sincere and holds these views in the face of reality, it is much harder to convince her that she is wrong. Convincing her she is wrong will bring her entire world crumbling around her feet, she will fight hard to keep her corrupted view of life even at the expense of the country.
how is that government run health care working out for you? “I think government should run health care”, “I base my ideas on observation”.
Is the failure of the web site altruism and lack of ego?
Anywhere from 300 million to 600 million and counting.
“Exxon paying to write regulations that regulate them (or their competition) is graft or bribery.”
Lets say for arguments sake I am a small businessman and the local government passes laws which make it much harder to run my business, employ people and make a profit and I lobby the local government, buy them dinner, contribute to their re-election fund and I am guilty of graft?
I am denied my livihood by elected officials who may even write those laws with the expectation of generating free dinners and campaign funds and I am guilty of graft for doing what is legal? And for trying to survive?
As I said above, when the shop keeper pays protection money it is not graft.
A simple amendment that says all laws shall be written by elected officials only would take care of that.
If I could designate just one premise of government that to me is most prevalent, it is; the desire to secure privilege or benefits for oneself or ones social group.
Wealthy = Bad.
David, Pay your share and 25 other folks. Success = Greed. But, as you know, and as Europe is experience, “Sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
“I am merely saying that a government which picks winners and losers in the market is either socialist or fascist.”
And that is operating from a wrong set of definitions, Bron. What you describe is a command economy. Several forms of socialism (all that suggest blended economies) and every form of fascism depend on a certain degree of capitalism. In a blended economy, only critical functions are socialized and all else is left to the free market.
Also, the analogy of a shopkeeper paying for protection is false. That would be extortion – a totally different crime, not bribery or graft. Graft is what we have with both our campaign finance and lobby systems set up as they are currently. Exxon paying to write regulations that regulate them (or their competition) is graft or bribery.
Bron wrote: “I am merely saying that a government which picks winners and losers in the market is either socialist or fascist.”
Gene H wrote: “In a blended economy, only critical functions are socialized and all else is left to the free market.”
Gene, somebody in government decides which are “critical functions” that need to be socialized. The government also must decide how to do it. It seems to me that you should be agreeing with Bron, that when the govt chooses winners and losers in the market, that govt is socialist or fascist. You describe yourself as a democratic socialist. Surely you do not find the socialist label offensive, do you?
In the Obamacare issue, I do not think we need the federal government to pick winners or losers. I especially object to govt picking the insurance companies to be winners. In my view, they are going in the complete opposite direction that they should be. The problem with insurance is that it is already too highly regulated. Now we move to regulate them more? Now we force people to participate in their casino style schemes? It is outrageous. And why should government decide that medical science is the ONLY choice in health care? Why can I not choose to distrust medical science if I so choose? From my perspective, they have a license to kill others with impunity. While I respect that others might have the right to choose them, why should government decide they are the winners? Let the people choose what they want for their own health care.
Prior to Obamacare, some states already mandated coverage for pre-existing conditions, and some states already setup a health care system that covers everybody. Why not just stop the regulation that forces insurance companies only to operate within State lines? Let insurance companies compete more rather than forcing them into State wide monopolies? Why not allow States to create their own single payer systems if that’s what the people want there? Why force them into Obamacare? Why not let people buy insurance products that cover catastrophic events and allow only 3 doctor visits a year? Now Obamacare forces insurance companies to drop those policies. Less choices about insurance products is not a good thing. It is a bad thing.
David complained, “Mike Spindell – you have attributed Bron’s post to me in several of your posts.”
———————————–
It was a natural mistake, David. You guys are both drinking the same flavor Kool-Aid.
======================
David also asserted:
“…government takes money by force. If you don’t pay, they put you in prison. And they spend your money for immoral and for wasteful things… in ways that you would never spend your own money. In this case of the community building the bridge, it is VOLUNTARY.
—————————————-
The govt never had to force me to pay my taxes. But in every group, there’s always some slackers, loafers, and deadbeats. You know what I’m talking about.
You have repeatedly said, on this board and elsewhere, that you have no problem with giving aid to “deserving” people. In other words, the right kind of people. In fact, you’ve said you would help someone out, but it would have to be someone you could keep an eye on, so you could monitor their actions and be assured they remained deserving, not spending on frivolities or behaving immorally.
Consider your magic kingdom, not the one you work in, but the one where everyone acts morally and responsibly once all govt regulation is abolished. Consider your voluntary community in Hawaii. Let’s say there was one or two – no, let’s make it three. Hold it, let’s make three and one fat Italian who don’t want anything to do with the project; won’t help build the bridge; won’t pay for materials; won’t even spring for a couple of six-packs when the work is done. But they fully intend on using the bridge all the same because they live in the same community. They think they could do just fine without the bridge -build it, don’t build it, they’ll make do. Maybe a couple of them think the bridge is immoral, it encourages weakness – you should build yourself up by rowing across the divide. But hey, as long as it’s up and built, they figure they have as much right to it as anyone else does and fully plan on using whenever the need arises.
In your world view, such people wouldn’t deserve to use the bridge because they didn’t contribute to it. Doesn’t matter if they didn’t believe a bridge was needed. Maybe you might think about requiring them to reimburse the group.
Well, Davey, that’s how I feel about you, bucko. Your a parsimonious, judgmental, freeloading, deadbeat, if the govt has to force you to pay your taxes. Your bridge in paradise is my equivalent to alleviating starvation, housing the homeless, ensuring a cleaner environment, a safer workplace, and all the rest of it. The vast majority of Americans have volutarily decided that spanning the voids of despair and exploitation are worthy because it “promotes the general welfare”.
I am dead certain you spend money in ways I would never approve of and vice versa. You think I would ever get a Hannity haircut? But, because no one agrees entirely with everyone else’s lifestyles is precisely why we need govt. To reduce the punitive, judgmental, moralizing.
So that brings around to my original post to Skip; your residence here in this country is voluntary. If you don’t like it, find someplace where you’ll be happy (HA!). In the mean time, quit sniveling and pay your share.
RTC wrote: “You have repeatedly said, on this board and elsewhere, that you have no problem with giving aid to “deserving” people.”
I have NEVER said this. Why do you make up this stuff? I have repeatedly said that we should help the poor whether they deserve it or not. In addition, that help includes not just food, clothing, housing, etc. but also instruction concerning the character flaws that lead them to poverty. If they are dishonest, or steal when they have the chance, we should address those situations head-on and just as forcefully as we would with a rich person who is dishonest. Nobody, whether rich or poor, should be given a pass to act in immoral, unethical, or illegal ways.
RTC wrote: “Consider your magic kingdom… where everyone acts morally and responsibly once all govt regulation is abolished.”
I do not support abolishing all govt regulation. Have you not read any of my posts? I am not an anarchist. I have repeatedly said that we need govt regulation for the cheaters, liars, and thieves in society.
RTC wrote: “In your world view, such people wouldn’t deserve to use the bridge because they didn’t contribute to it. ”
No, that is not my world view. Those who have more should give to those who have less, and those with better foresight likewise will bless those who lack their wisdom. Those people hopefully will learn through the experience that those who provided the bridge were right, and next time perhaps they will pitch in to help. If not, we still move forward in the same way. Eventually, they may come on board. I have seen some people catch the enlightenment of this philosophy within a month or tow, but others sometimes take years before they acknowledge it.
RTC wrote: “…your residence here in this country is voluntary. If you don’t like it, find someplace where you’ll be happy (HA!). In the mean time, quit sniveling and pay your share.”
Sorry, but we do not live in a dictatorship yet. As long as there is democracy, we believe that every citizen has a duty to express his opinion about what the laws and responsibilities of government ought to be. If the tyrants take over, then we will face either an exodus of our citizens or a revolution against the government. This is what history teaches us. It is clear you are on the side of the tyrants, and I think that is dangerous for our country because it represents callous selfishness against your neighbors living here.
Bron, Trying to explain to many folks what it’s like to have your own business, work hard just for the joy of it, the money just comes, is near impossible. “It’s like trying to tell a stranger about rock n’ roll.”