Students at Cambridge are objecting to the hiring of American Aron Wall, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California-Santa Barbara who studies “quantum gravity and black hole thermodynamics.” It is not Wall’s academic credentials or theories that are controversial. Rather, three years ago, Wall wrote a blog post critical of Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, the decision protecting the right to same-sex marriage. Wall’s criticism was of non-monogamous relations in the gay and lesbian communities. One can easily see the objections to such arguments but critics have gone further to object that Wall’s personal views create a hostile or threatening environment.
In his blog, Wall advocated a relationships for gay couples steeped in faith and monogamy:
Like anyone else, what gay people need is to turn to Christ and learn to live in freedom from the harmful fleshly desires which are indeed part of the human condition for everyone. But if they cannot accept this, it is far better that they should live in a committed exclusive relationship, than that they should live the notoriously promiscuous, reckless, and obscene lifestyle characteristic of the cultural venues of the gay community. (Note: I do not identify all gay individuals or couples as being members of this “gay community”; those are different things.)
The reference to “promiscuous, reckless and obscene” was isolated by critics and discussed in an article in The Cambridge News as being “homophobic.”
However, Wall’s posting speaks of the tension felt by many people of faith and his hope that his homosexual friends will still embrace monogamous relations founded in the teachings of Christ:
“To be clear, a conservative Christian like myself cannot actually endorse any relationship which is forbidden by God. But we can hope and pray that Gay Marriage is at least a step towards a more wholesome life for our friends who are gay, as compared to the likely alternatives. It is a relationship which requires work, sacrifice, and commitment to another person. Perhaps some diluted reflection of God’s holiness can shine through a little.”
The hiring of a person with such Christian views has been denounced at the university and critics question whether a gay student could feel comfortable being taught by such an individual. There is a call for assurances of protection or safety around Wall.
There is no consideration of the inverse implications of whether a professor critical of Christian values should also be deemed a threat for students of opposing faiths or values. Nevertheless some student activists are reportedly calling for assurances that “there are safe spaces for LGBT+ students, and there were plans in place to deal with any discrimination.”
In a statement to Inside Higher Ed, the university did not strongly defend the right of Wall and others to hold and publish such views, but rather noted that all employees are expected to adhere to university policies.
Don’t see how a postdoc in physics who has publicly recorded discomfort with the gay lifestyle in a personal blog can threaten a colleague or student who presumably he identifies as gay or bisexual. As the article states, he’s expected to comply with university policy, which means “no dinging a student’s work for their sexuality, no comments about their sexuality”. Abuse of one’s position for any reason seems easy enough to identify. That blog doesn’t rise to that level of misconduct.
Postdocs don’t teach students. They lecture and conduct research. Hence, there is no reason for a student to worry about the effects of prejudice. Therefore, there this doesn’t rise to the level of anything that should be penalized.
BTW, you’re an ignorant cretin for alleging that all gays have the same lifestyle. I expect a little more from coonasses.
BTW, you’re an ignorant cretin for alleging that all gays have the same lifestyle. I expect a little more from coonasses.
You’re an attitudinizing jack-wagon for insulting him for not giving a sociological treaties on subcultural dynamics in a blog comment.
treatise
” I expect a little more from coonasses.”
This is the type of response we expect from those at the bottom of a dung heap. I don’t think intellect is part of Radio Free’s vocabulary.
Dear Ingoramus,..
“Coonass” is a dialectical slang for resident of Louisiana, especially an Acadian resident of Louisiana. As a Louisiana native, I can assure you that anyone choosing Jean Lafitte as a pseudonym is more than likely from Louisiana or has ancestry there. My comment was a backhanded compliment to Acadians, of which, I believe “Jean Lafitte” (named after heroic french pirate military strategist of the Battle of New Orleans) is one.
Radio Free, outside of the use to one another coonass is a racial slur. You don’t know whether you or Lafitte are Cajun which seems to be the only way the word would be used in a semi-decent manner.
Also calling him an “ignorant cretin” doesn’t seem to be “a backhanded compliment”. Fortunately, I have been to Louisiana so I know that most of the people there aren’t at the bottom of the dung heap so maybe you can ask a few Cajun’s to help you climb out.
Dear Ignoramus,
I’m glad you visited Louisiana. It doesn’t make you an authority on the local culture. I was born there and lived there until I was 30, having attended primary school on the battle ground where General Packenham was defeated in the Battle of New Orleans. I expect Acadians as Catholics of a particularly tolerant kind who were resistant to prejudice, particularly racism. “Coonass” is also a term of affection, and as a native, of Acadian and Creole country, I can use it as such.
Saying all gay people live the same lifestyle is libelous. This assumption denies that gay people can and do avoid sex when they need to as I did because of the AIDS crisis. It forces them to be penalized for behavior they haven’t engaged in. Louisiana provides no legal protection for gays in private or government employment or housing or providing public services. So, Jean Lafitte’s libel does real harm to innocent people. Therefore, my initial insult to Jean Lafitte was warranted.
Louisiana is a bigot’s paradise, which contested every form of protection proposed by governors and legislatures. As a grad student at Tulane, I had to endure a Provost who destroyed the careers of gay and lesbian faculty as a matter of course and who rejected refused to employ a grad student as an intern stating bluntly “I can’t have that faggot working here.” I endured AIDS jokes from my advisor, who was schtupping his female grad students and giving the best research assignments to his sexual favorites.
Moreover, the state has appointed hate group leader Tony Perkins as a government official.
The same Tony Perkins who protested a Congressional denunciation of the Ugandan Kill the Gays law.
Radio Free Rome – it was nice you went celibate during the AIDS crisis, but a lot of gays didn’t, And a lot were infected before they knew there was a crisis The gay community made it worse by fighting it as a public health issue. And then they were the idiots who, because their partner had AIDS, wanted to have AIDS, too. They felt left out. So, they had unprotected sex with their AIDS infected partner hoping to catch AIDS.
Tell me there isn’t a little psychopathy in the gay community? 😉
“Dear Ignoramus,
I’m glad you visited Louisiana. It doesn’t make you an authority on the local culture. I was born there and lived there until I was 30,”
Radio Free, thanks for a partial history of Lousiana and your life. That you don’t recognize the word coonass can be considered an insult and a slur is just a sign of your low upbringing.
@Radio Free Rome: If you correctly identified me as Acadian, hence a “coonass” (a term I don’t find offensive), you were also capable of reading my post correctly, and inferring when I said
I was referring to his judgment on the matter, not endorsing it.
It’s politically correct twits like you who ruin intellectual discourse in the English-speaking world by insisting we parse our comments to your satisfaction. You are the ignorant cretin. And you showed it by saying:
Outside Bizarro World, delivering a lecture is teaching.
RadioFree — I suspect that he has been hired as a lecture, not just another postdoc position. Not only will he give lectures but also “tutor” undergraduate students. I gather that “tutor” now means advising the students upon which courses to take.
But since this will be for physics students the questions being raised won’t actually occur. It will be up to the dons of the colleges to molify the emotions of the few rainbow students somehow upset by this appointment.
Not directly relevant, but this is a big step up for this young man. His black hole research must be of the foremost quality.
Have someone with a better command of the English language read what I wrote to you. I made no such allegation. The post-doc was uncomfortable with ‘the gay lifestyle”. His word, not mine. And delivering a lecture is teaching. I’m done with you, you’re a supercilious twit. Go to Hell.
dhilli i reject the objectivist liberterian moralizing about freedom a long time ago. i appreciate your kind tone but that ship sailed for me long ago. it seems to me now that we can see from contemporary china that in fact an authoritarian regime can progress technology and material improvement just fine by allowing economic freedoms with limited political participation. pinochet proved that too pretty well.
i am not saying i want a system like china or pinochet’s chile, I am just saying that the notion that social repression necessarily means a lack of technological or material progress is demonstrably incorrect.
at some point right wingers will have to dispense with moralizing and meet disorder with order and order means organized force. it can happen by the ballot box or otherwise but it will happen. just look at the the emerging responses to the migration invasion. it will happen.
Kurtz: From a technology standpoint the U.S. is currently being hamstrung by Republicans. Trump actually wants to use emergency powers to keep aging coal-fired power plants online. Even though the electrical power industry has told Trump they don’t need those plants. That’s old technology!
The U.S. could also use massive infrastructure upgrades. But the Koch Bros have said ‘no’ to that. They feel that tax cuts should take priority over infrastructure; especially tax cuts for their benefit. And since almost every Republican is in the Koch Bros pocket, we won’t get those upgrades unless we have a blue wave in November.
That statement’s almost entirely fact-free. To the extent infrastructure upgrades are funded by taxes, they’re funded by user fees like motor fuel taxes not impacted by tax cuts. And the one case I’m aware of in which the White House may intervene to keep a coal-fired power plant open was in which that plant was built due to an arrangement between a local native American tribe and a federally-funded water management project (in which the project wants to get out of a contract with the tribe to use the coal-fired plant into the 2040s).
It is not the business of govenrment – right or left whether “aging coal plants stay online”.
There is no need for emergency powers – by either side.
In fact the likely fate of “aging coal plants” and the story of coal and energy generally is a perfect demonstration that government is not necescary.
The use of coal to generate electricity is declining entirely on its own. One of the consquences of Fracking and the increased low costs supplies of energy – particularly natural gas is that the economic advantage of coal has diminished sufficiently that we are moving away from it.
Do you honestly doubt that if both the left and the right stayed entirely out of energy that coal would be a significant source of electricity in a few decades ?
Nor is this the first time this has occured.
Humans used to burn dung and peat and wood for energy, We shifted to coal – even though it cost more because coal is superior – primarily it is cleaner.
In the 1st quarter of the 20th century we switched from coal to oil for heating – even though oil was more expensive – because oil is cleaner.
In the last 50 years we have been slowly switching from oil to NG and electricity even though they are more expensive – because they are cleaner.
Almost no one in the US heats their home with wood, dung, or peat, not many use coal, not many more use oil.
Our rising standard of living has allowed us to choose gas and electricity not because they are cheaper, but because WE have deemed them superior despite cost,
among other reasons because they are cleaner.
We are in the midst of the same transition with coal for industrial energy and coal for power generation.
Regulation is an inconsequential factor. The biggest factor is that coal plants have many issues – they have a long supply tail of coal, that can not be disrupted without negative consequences, A coal plant takes days to fire up and days to shut down, an NG plant can come on like and drop off in minutes. No one wants to live near a coal plant, while you can scale NG generation to any size – put an NG generator in your home, or business or factory, or community. NG plants allow a far more decentralized grid that is more reliable and ….. cleaner.
I do not care about your rants regarding republicans and coal. Whatever they do, coal will diminish naturally.
Nor do I care about your penchant to regulate the crap out of everything.
Regulation is a minor factor in the shift away from coal.
In 2009 the Obama administration with GOP help passed ARRA with massive infrastructe improvements.
Purportedly shovel ready project werent.
ARRA actually disrupted the economy rather than helping – there are only so many people with the skills needed to build highways and bridges.
Increasing demand does not increase supply, at most it results in disruption fo other parts of the economy as they are pilfered for the skilled labor needed for “infrastucture improvement”
If you have been alive for more than a few decades you have personal experience with infrastucture – you encounter it every day.
Contra those who want to sick at the govenrment teat, our infrastructure is superior to any time in the past.
In the unlikely event that either republicans or democrats push infrastructure improvements we will get the same mess we did with ARRA.
You will not get very much in the way of actual improvement, you will radically increase its cost, you will disrupt other segments of the economy,
BTW this is typical of ALL top down problem solving. There are damning studies by soviet economists during the USSR that demonstrated that planning and economy is impossible.
Or you could just read Bastiat – or if you can not read –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG3AKoL0vEs
Whenever government does for us what we can do for ourselves, whenever government does what does nor require force to accomplish, we are worse off not better.
Every dollar of taxes is not just something but many many things that do not happen, because government took money out of the economy,
No matter what good government accomplishes by spending taxes, we are still NET poorer, At the very least we are significantly less efficient and productive.
In the event you are unconvinced, you can check out the data on the economic efficiency of government spending that Robert Barro has compiled over decades and throughtout the world.
For every $1 that government spends we typically get $0.25-.35 in actual value – in otherwords with lose 0.65-.75 for every $1 spent.
And that does not count the inefficiency of collecting the money.
If you leave money with people – we will produce what we want and need based on our own individual assessment of our wants and needs.
If you remove money to govenrment – we will produce what those with power and influence want us to have, not what we chose for ourselves.
We will always be less well off.
Dhlii, though I agree wholeheartedly with Bastiat and think the broken windows effect is real and of great importance, it is not exactly how things work in our distorted economy.
In times of high unemployment government expenditures on infrastructure projects that will need attention in the future can reduce the number of unemployed. That means fewer tax dollars going to welfare, unemployment insurance, food stamps etc. That money would be spent in the future so it should be a neutral expenditure except for the savings on benefits. It also helps to preserve the skills of our human capital.
“In times of high unemployment government expenditures on infrastructure projects that will need attention in the future can reduce the number of unemployed. ”
Check the data – it does not work that way.
Infrastructure requires very little unskilled labor – the biggest losers when unemployment is high.
It requires skilled labor that can not be created overnight.
Bubbles in infrastructure spending result in stealing labor from those other areas where similarly skilled labor exists.
That is net harmful not helpful.
Fundimentally government can not stimulate the economy because there are no big targeted actions that will not cause as much harm as good.
Recovery nearly always starts at the bottom – one of the reasons the Obama recovery was so weak is that it did not.
It is those at the bottom – small businesses that are best capable of seeing the pool of available labor their skills and the means to profitably engage them.
Better still this is not done in a single sweeping process, but by myriads of different aproaches.
Most of the analysis I have read of ARRA is that it damaged the rest of the economy, and protracted the recovery.
It also increased substantially the cost of infrastructure improvement.
I would note that FDR and the WPA took a mostly different approach.
They took the available labor and they put them to work doing things that did not require skills.
The WPA was also a failure – the projects were for the most part not needed and therefore had multi-decade paybacks,
the WPA took labor from their families and relocated them. We would not tolerate that today.
The current process of funding infrastructure through gasoline taxes – though still problematic is actually pretty close to libertarian.
We should work to purge the politics, and assure that those taxes do not get directed elsewhere.
In a purist world I would seek private roads and infrastucture,
but the model of paying for roads through gas taxes is pretty good as govenrment approaches go.
Dhlii, a lot of construction workers were out of work in the last recession. We had a lot of infrastructure that had to be rebuilt or repaired such as bridges that were already approved for construction that occurred within several years. The labor existed at the time and wasn’t utilized for that purpose yet we paid unemployment, welfare etc. for those that could have built these projects a couple of years earlier.
You say: “Check the data – it does not work that way.” You are absolutely wrong!
Just to be clear Allan – though I MOSTLY work in embedded software, prior to 2003 I was a principle in a 55 person architectural firm.
I am still a registered architect and I do a small amount of architectural consulting every year, so I am reasonably well informed. in that area.
That would be alot of people unemployed in home construction.
Commercial construction did fine.
To the extent that those involved in building a home are skilled, SOME of those skills translate to commercial construction.
Almost NONE translate to infrastucture.
There are three major areas of overlap – civil engineering SOME civil engineering is common to commecial and infrastructure, a bit less is common between home construction and infrastructure – unemployment among engineers never was high.
Unskilled labor is relatively portable across all forms of construction, but infrastructure is very low in its needs for unskilled labor.
There is some overlap in concrete forms work particularly between commercial construction and infrastructure,
There is very little concrete work in residential construction and most of it is not even close to infrastructure work. There is no translatedable skill set.
Heavy equiment operation is the other area of overlap, again the overlap is small, the top end equipment in residential construction is the bottom end of infrastructure.
Again there is stronger overlap with commercial construction, but commercial construction had a relatively short recession.
Finally – residential construction remains fairly labor intensive.
Infrastructure DOES NOT. Road construction is done using very heavy equipment and very small high skill crews.
That said there was actual damage done, because there was an shortage of engineers at the time – unemployment in engineering peaked at 2%.
Those “shovel Ready projects were NOT shovel ready and required an enormous amount of engineering.
All engineers are do not have the skills and experience to move to infrastructure – but SOME did,
The result was a shortage of engineers for commerical projects and problems in commercial construction – not because there was not work – but because projects could not get designed due to a shortage of engineers.
NEXT, People need to live somewhere – if we do not build new homes, we build apartments.
Fairly quickly after 2009, apartment construction boomed.
The bursting of the housing bubble also drove rents up.
Labor can migrate from one area to the other, and there was some migration from residential home construction to commercial and to infrastructure.
People can learn knew skills.
But the process is not so simple, and the fluidity not nearly as large as you posit.
And there is a reason that infrastructure has become highly automated – as it depends on the whims of government, it is a highly on again off again industry.
Once you have paid off a earth mover you can let it sit in a field until there is more work and lay off all your employees.
The major infrastructure companies have few permanent employees.
Those in residential home construction who shifted to infrastructure were left unemployed again quite quickly.
While I now alot about this particular market – most labor markets are similar.
It is a bad idea for govenrment to intervene.
Entrepeneurs – particularly those at the bottom, will look at the available labor pool and will figure out how to take the people available and use them to produce something that people will buy.
That is what typically happens in recessions – though it requires the cost of that surplus labor to drop.
This has occurred in nearly every recession.
When it does NOT occur the recession is protracted.
The recession/depression of 1921 was severe and rapid – Harding/Coolidge cut taxes, cut govenrment spending and staid out of the economy otherwise and the recovery was rapid and strong. Employement returned to norms in less than 18 months. Wages recovered about a year later.
In 1929 Hoover lobbied businesses HARD not to reduce wages. the result was unemployment was much WORSE, and recovery was near non-existant.
We discussed Amity Schlaes “the forgotten man” previously, if covers Hoovers and FDR;s policies and their effects,
I do nto think it has much of the 1921 depression, but it did start with Coolidge.
Dhlii, we think differently. If we thought in the fashion you describe during WW2 we would have just started to build planes and armaments at the end of the war. Of course, those circumstances were different, but every circumstance is different. There is virtually always slack in the workforce that can be tightened up to increase a bit more production and that is all that was needed to shift construction projects forward. I am not saying that is the only thing that should have been done. That is merely a part that spends X dollars immediately when needed instead of X dollars in the near future.
Whatever slack we could have found would have reduced unemployment by that factor without spending more money than originally planned. This is what successful businesses do and that is an argument for a smaller government but not an argument against the government functioning in a more efficient fashion. In this case, this was not the cureall since it was a housing bubble that caused the recession. In the hardest hit areas, well-set and prudent owners lost their homes due to other management difficulties that could also have been addressed preventing their losses.
I believe Florida was one of the worst states hit and New Jersey wasn’t as badly affected. Compare the fiscal management of those two states to see a difference. Florida came out without a substantial change in debt or taxes. NJ, not as badly hit, remains in trouble.
Again, the relationship between public spending and tax cuts on the one hand and production levels in the short term on the other is one that is empirically demonstrated. Econometric studies differ on the dimensions of the multiplier, not the reality of it. (As a rule, studies find fiscal policy has a weak effect on the business cycle). Monetary policy, however, can be tremendously important in influencing the course of the business cycle.
I would differ only slightly.
Good monetary policy does not direct the market. It provides a firm foundation for business to do what they think is best.
Bad monetary policiy – as in that preceding the housing bubble is catastrophic.
Monetary policy should be strongly rule based and predictable. It should not attempt to direct the market.
Fiscal policy is just a bad idea.
DSS, I don’t think many should disagree that monetary policy is tremendously important. However, short-term stimuli of the type and situation I mentioned IMO should be helpful. Human capital that ceases to be productive can be a big drain.
I have no idea what your WWII argument is.
Nor do I grasp the basis for your claim that prudent owners lost their homes as a result of the housing bubble bursting.
I bought a property for way too much in the summer of 2008. It collapsed in value by 30% shortly after I bought it.
While I failed to foresee the market changes, I was “prudent” about cashflow and the property has been running in the black since 2008.
My only negative impact was that the drop in price precluded my selling
I have done imprudent things in my life. They have been costly. No one has bailed me out and I did not expect to be.
Unemployment among engineers in 2009 was less than 2%.
There was not sufficient “slack” to accomidate ARRA.
Greater efficiency in government is an entirely separate debate. One where it is not clear that government should be more efficient.
ONE of the many reasons for limited government is that not only is inefficient, but should be inneffecient.
Nazi Germany is an example of efficient government.
“I have no idea what your WWII argument is.”
Dhlii, one can bring a horse to water but one can’t make the horse drink. You stated we didn’t have the trained manpower to do what I suggested. During WW2 along with sending men off to war along with a good number of women, we were able to reconfigure manufacturing to create planes and other armaments. If that was impossible as you suggest we couldn’t have done that.
“I bought a property for way too much in the summer of 2008. It collapsed in value by 30% shortly after I bought it.”
You don’t understand the market for housing. Many retirees in Florida were prudent with their money but as one after another lost their ability to pay the expenses in their condo environment the maintenance fees rose to bring more and more people down. Additionally, the capital markets in the housing industry wait for the bottom but many things in the finance industry delayed the bottom. That helped destroy neighborhoods and brought a lot of prudent people down.
“Nazi Germany is an example of efficient government.”
I have read that they weren’t as efficient as people presumed.
Thank you – i was curious what your WWII argument was.
War is somewhat different.
It is one time when it is relatively easy to get the entire country to come together.
It is also one instane in which top down control works less badly.
There is one single organizing principle to everything – win the war,
and nearly all decisions can be made by referencing how they effect that single objective.
That is also why the war metaphor is so attractive for things that are not wars.
The war on poverty, the war on drugs.
Those pushing them are under the illusion that if they can make their prefered objective have the same importance as the survival of the state,
that they can structure everything in the same way as during war.
Dhlii, thank you. War is different, but my suggestion doesn’t amount to a long-term program and when things like that last recession happen people also have a tendency to stick together. War, however, demonstrated that what is perceived by some to be impossible can be possible.
The actual evidence is to the contrary.
There is pretty solid data that government intervention in economic downturns makes them last longer.
Anecdotally the two great instances of intervention in US history are:
The great depression
The great recession.
Myriad’s of instances where govenrment did little were short with rapid and steep recoveries.
You are correct regarding war.
But the conditions of war are not reproducable without war.
“There is pretty solid data that government intervention in economic downturns makes them last longer.”
Dhlii, your problem is you wish to conflate FDR’s economic policies with the one’s I have mentioned. They are completely different. Therefore, the proof you think you have is wrong.
Allan, I told you there is data. You have presumed it is all of FDR – some is. Most is not.
There are specifically studies regarding ARRA – it failed. It was closer to what you propose.
Keynes and Hayek debated the efficacy of Grovernment stimulus. Hayek eventually persuaded Keynes that government would never react quickly enough and that stimulus could actualy cause more harm than good. Even modern Keynessian for the most part oppose stimulus. Ceeding that it is unlikely that stimulus concocted by political bodies will match the needs of the economy.
As with many many debates over government managing the economy it is self evident that it is theoretically possible for government to come very close to matching that results that a free market delivers – or in fact any other model. If there is a perfect or best way, it is self evident that government COULD make that choice.
The failure of government to deliver in the economy, is inherently the same failure as that of communism. It does not work, because it depends on human perfection. Communism/Socialism could work – with the right leaders. With the right people.
Government stimulus, or other management of the economy could work – if those managing the economy made the right choices.
Essentially – communism/socialism could work – if power did not corrupt people – ever.
Government management of the economy could work – if government could quickly make and communicate all the correct economic decisions and adjust them as needed dynamically.
But those things do not happen. Government does not work that way. Politics doesn’t work that way.
The winning economic rebuttal to socialism was the ‘economic calculation problem’. Which essentially argues that government does nto and can not have the knowledge necescary to make the decisions to manage the economy.
That is one of the significant reasons socialism fails.
It is also one of the reasons ALL government efforts to manage even part of the economy fail.
In a recent post I noted that the total number of hiway construction workers is about 1/10th the total number of residential carpenters in the US.
Doubling hiway construction can not absorb those displaced from residential construction.
You have one argument that has some merit – that providing employment rather than unemployment compensation or welfare atleast productively utilizes otherwise unproductive labor. But even that argument presumes that it is possible for government to productively engaged slack labor without disrupting production elsewhere.
I have noted that – the ARRA projects were NOT shovel ready – that concept is ludicrous, it presumes that the federal and state governments take myriads of projects up to the point of bidding them and then shelve them for later. The ARRA projects diverted significant engineering resources from productive existing productive uses to ARRA projects.
Fiverting the engineers meant somethings did NOT happen because of ARRA. Those things that were delayed or stopped not merely engaged engineers, but ultimately the used other labor eating any gains from ARRA.
Some of the data I have is from FDR. But not all, not most. Alot of it is specifically from ARRA.
government management of the economy in any form does not work.
Government does not and can not have the vast knowledge necescary to do so, nor can it dynamically alter choices reflecting the dynamic changes in information as the economy shifts.
I beleive you previously noted familiarity with Bastiat. Government economic management is just a permutation of the Broken Windows fallacy.
That which is seen and that which is not seen.
“Keynes and Hayek debated the efficacy of Grovernment stimulus.”
Dhlii, you are talking about discussions that took place 3/4 of a century ago. You are thinking in terms of cash stimuli or something quite similar to it. I am dealing with something completely different. The idea of moving projects up in time where the money will be spent while people are out of work and not spent at a later date. You forget that during the recession a lot of skilled people retired early because of the lack of jobs. You forget that human capital that is specialized loses its skill and its desire to work with time. One of the reasons women that wish to have children don’t find careers in certain areas is because if they stay home with their children they lose knowledge and advancement so they stick to other fields. In part that happened to working men during that recession.
The arguments made by Hayek and Keyness have ZERO difference today.
Government has no more knowledge and the economy is far more complex making it even less top down manageable.
And NO I am not thinking of cash stimulus – which BTW is FAR superior to anything else.
Cash – directly to the people allows the people to assess individually what their wants and needs are and to use the stimulus accordingly.
People will not use it the same – and that is a VERY GOOD THING.
ARRA proved that projects can not just magically be moved up in time.
Job losses in a recession are incredibly heavily weighted AGAINST skilled jobs.
As I noted before unemployment among engineers peaked at something over 2%.
Young black males with no high school education and a criminal record we completely unemployable.
The effects of recession on skilled workers is quite small and dimmishes with skill level.
The greatest damage by the last recession was due to its duration.
The problems you note are ALL much more significant the longer the recession goes on and the weaker recovery is.
Weak recoveries STRONGLY correlate to stimulus – it does not work.
It is more likely to make things WORSE.
“The arguments made by Hayek and Keyness have ZERO difference today.”
Then Dhlii, why in argument did you obscure things by bringing those arguments up?
Please reread the comment you quoted. You do not seem to understand it.
With respect to your WWII argument.
As our prosperity increases our specialization increases and for many of us our ability to adapt decreases.
4 centuries ago, people made their own candles, and most everything else they needed.
There was little specialization and labor was labor.
Today even unskilled labor is quickly expected to be fairly skilled,
We do not live in “little house on the prarie” Few of us build our own homes.
Nor do we easily go from residential carpentry to commercial, to that of rads and bridges.
The US did do the impossible fairly quickly during WWII.
And under similar circumstances could probably do it again.
But the housing bubble the financial crisis and the ARRA are not similar circumstances.
One of the most fundimental factors in WWII was a rapid major attitude change.
The US went from a decade of stagnation and depression, and despondency and complete lack of faith in ourselves,
to the unquestioned faith that we could take on both Germany and Japan concurrently in a world war and win quickly.
And despite bumps and blips and setbacks we did not lose faith in that.
And that transformation is what ended the depression – not the war itself.
Dhilii, we do specialize more but that doesn’t mean that all projects require specialization and many projects are designed and ready long before their construction is started. I am not suggesting everything be done only that some things are started sooner and that we have the technical manpower to do it rather than having companies that do that type of work retire people early. A lot of projects require a lot of people to do simple tasks. More to the point many of the people laid off and on all sorts of government assistance have the skills required.
Modern infrastructure projects are highly specialized.
If you want to shift back to labor intensive road construction with large amounts of unskilled labor,
it will cost you more and will pay crap.
The claim that projects were designed and ready in 2009 proved crap.
It takes a longer to get a public construction project through design and approvals than to build it.
We do not retire people early from infrastucture projects.
We pay them well when the project is active.
When we do not have work we lay them off.
Road construction is highly cyclic.
that is one of the reasons it is highly automated.
That reduces labor pushback from constant layoffs.
In 2017 there were 147,000 highway TOTAL construction workers in the US.
There are 1.2M carpenters alone.
This is just not going to work.
“The claim that projects were designed and ready in 2009 proved crap.”
The medium sized bridge being replaced right near me was designed and ready to build before the crash. It was only waiting for funding as it had already reached the number of points for replacement. It was built when the recession was already over.
I have no doubt that there were SOME projects ready for construction – and they likely would have been constructed.
I do not know about the bridge near you – and I suspect you do not either.
Engineers typically assess infrastructure for repair and replacement. and determine their priorities.
They do NOT typically design the repairs and replacement well ahead of construction.
From the determination of need AND the committment to go forward residential construction typically takes a few months to get through design and approvals.
commercial construction typically takes about 3 times that. Infrastructure typically takes double that of commerical. Further across all of those increasing the scale of the projects significantly increases the time to design and approve. Really major infrastructure projects – totally new highways, new pipelines, new power plants, often take decades.
ARRA did not work. Most of the data indicates it made things slightly worse.
“I do not know about the bridge near you – and I suspect you do not either.”
Actually, I know a bit more than you think.
The point is you are conflating a lot of things together and letting your ideology get in the way of common sense. That the “ARRA did not work” is what I believe as well but that program conflates a lot of ideas together so that it proves nothing in particular.
“They do NOT typically design the repairs and replacement well ahead of construction.”
Oh yes they do, maybe not all the time but some of the time and it is the some of the time that I am dealing with. Bridges are rated every year and when they reach a certain numerical rating they start planning for replacement because once the number drops below a certain number the bridge has to be closed. They don’t wait for that final number to draw up plans and get the properties needed after the bridge has to be closed. They do that beforehand and then wait for funding. They then decide upon road closings and sometimes the communities are even given some choices that affect the construction and even the look of the bridge.
I’m not going to comment on your statements about residential construction because your statements are mostly wrong.
Lets get real – you seem to agree that ARRA did not work.
Nor did what the Japanese tried.
Nor Greece,
no country has ever stimulated itself to prosperity.
Look there is no debate that if government were able to do – and continue to do exactly the right things stimulus would work.
But in the real world IT CANT
Absolutely There will be SOME possitive effects of stumulus.
But the negatives will greatly out strip the positives.
Yes, this is about ideology and theory, but it is also ABSOLUTELY about reality
This has never worked. IT has never come close to working.
You are betting hugely against the odds to try.
And history and the odds say you will make things worse not better.
“Lets get real – you seem to agree that ARRA did not work.”
Yes, but ARRA did many many things and had too many unintended consequences which should have been expected. I am not suggesting anything like ARRA.
“Yes, but ARRA did many many things and had too many unintended consequences which should have been expected. I am not suggesting anything like ARRA.”
and aftr 100 more years of trying we MIGHT get something that does nto make things worse.
“I’m not going to comment on your statements about residential construction because your statements are mostly wrong.”
You can look me up in the PA database of registered architects.
For 22 years I was a principle in a 55 person A/E/S firm we did a mix of public/private work running from homes, to 80M schools.
While my primary responsibilities were management, not construction – although I was primarily responsible for code and approvals and regulatory facets.
More importantly I was the lead troubleshooter. Any project of any kind that developed problems in any area became my problem.
I am intimately familiar with the process of taking a project – from the size of an outhouse, through to an 80M HS from a wish on the part of a client through to completion of construction.
The larger the project, the longer it takes,
Public projects take atleast double the time private ones do.
Nothing in creation will speed up government projects. That has been my experience. That was the experience with ARRA.
“You can look me up in the PA database of registered architects.”
I have no doubt that you do what you say you do, but in the present argument you went too far onto the limb and it broke.
There is not magic wand that makes government processes work faster (except maybe bribery).
People have been looking for a long time.
Obama’s wish for “shovel ready” projects did not make that happen.
“People have been looking for a long time.”
As I said: “in the present argument you went too far onto the limb and it broke.”
As I said: “in the present argument you went too far onto the limb and it broke.”
Because you say so ?
My entire ideology is thoroughly grounded in facts and pragmatism.
Your pretense that I am out on a limb unsupported by facts – is just that – pretense.
The data exists, the trunk is strong, and the limbs well supported.
“As I said: “in the present argument you went too far onto the limb and it broke.”
Because you say so ?”
Yes, logic and fact say so.
“”Because you say so ?”
Yes, logic and fact say so.”
Then you can show the logic and fact.
So far all you have done is made an assertion.
Your going to have to do a better job explaining what you claim as the problems in the FL housing market.
Absolutely housing speculators and investors got caught and massacred.
But look at history, the massacre of speculators and investors does not tank the economy.
The dotcom bust was enormous in terms of money, but it was a blip in the overall economy.
The housing bust was disasterous for two reasons,
The value of a long term durable asset that was used as a security tanked badly.
If you want to understand the value of assets as security read Hernado De Soto’s
https://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-Triumphs-Everywhere/dp/0465016154
The book purports to be about why the west is different,
but it is an overview of the evolution of western – particularly US capitalism, what was unique and why it worked.
And one of the key features was that in the west – particularly the US we could use our land, and our homes to finance
investment. That is difficult to impossible in most of the world.
But it points out how incredibly important those assets that act as securities are to a functioning free market.
Speculators did not create the financial crisis.
Retiries did not.
The one thing the left gets SORT OF right, is that it was the fact that housing was used as a security – that we mortgage homes, that we took those mortgages and essentially convert them into a form of money.
If you think of houses as gold and mortgages – or mortgage backed securities as gold(housing) backed money,
If you tank the value of homes, you wipe out 1/3 of the value of all housing secured money.
And that is what happened. Abruptly approx. 11T in our buying power vaporized.
“Your going to have to do a better job explaining what you claim as the problems in the FL housing market.”
I’m not sure where you are going with the rest of your comments, but I will provide one example of many that the housing market in Florida faced. I think it was clear the first time and I didn’t blame any specific entity for the crash.
A lot of people figure out prudent budgets and buy accordingly. Take a condominium where the individual owner expects his maintenance costs to remain rather stable with expected increases. He loses his full-time job, part-time job or is simply dependent on his social security and some interest from savings that suddenly disappears or is substantially diminished. He might still be able to pay the maintenance fees but what happens when other owners go under. The remaining owners have to pay their fees as well or go under. It can become a type of death spiral and it did in many instances. The same happened to neighborhoods. It happened to massive buildings under construction.
The key is to get to the bottom of the market quickly and noticeably so the capital investors invest knowing that the properties are undervalued and hit their lower limits.
Your death spiral requires near 100% unemployment.
It also requires all homes to be constructed in gated communities with maintanence fees.
I have never owned a building that required fees to some organization (aside from taxes).
The colapse of housing prices NEVER hit the rest of the building stock, nor commerical construction.
Thought there were some aprehensions in commerical construction it did not just dry up the way residential home construction did.
In fact within a short period of time apartment construction boomed and still is.
“The key is to get to the bottom of the market quickly”
Absolutely and government efforts mask that.
“Your death spiral requires near 100% unemployment.”
Dhlii, you don’t understand the condo marketplace though you talk about your home and PUD’s that are not necessarily the same as condos.
As I said earlier there were many causes. My condo example was only one of them and you started talking about different types of real estate.
You are correct – I do not understand every single subsegment of the marketplace – no one does.
That is my point not yours.
Both in terms of stimulus – no one, nor any group knows everything necescary, and in terms of the causes of failure – no single subsegment has sufficient scale to cause systemic failure.
I am sure there are anecdotes where precisely what you describe regarding FL Condo’s occurred.
But the Housing bust was an 11T collapse in values. None of the offered anecdotes such as yours have 0.1% or the scale needed to result in an 11T collapse in values.
“You are correct – I do not understand”
You don’t. In fact, Dhlii, you talk about an 11T collapse where only a small portion of that was an actual loss of value. Due to a lot of government action and poor investments, a bubble was created so the value of properties exceeded their real value. Of course, that extra value had to disappear. Once it disappeared the market was at an approximate normal value but people lost jobs and capital investments were devalued causing loss of principle and in many cases a total loss of the investment. Where things were hit the worst the homes went upside down devaluing neighborhoods causing more homes to go upside down. Had the fall been contained so people didn’t lose their jobs or ended up having values so distorted that they lost their homes there would never have been an 11T loss.
Allan,
Arguments over whether the 11T was “real” or not are irrelevant.
I strongly suggested
https://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-Triumphs-Everywhere/dp/0465016154
Because the importance of asset backed securities in this is absolutely critical.
Destroying 11T in home values – real or not, concurrently destroyed 11T in securities.
Securities – Mortgages, MBS’s stocks, insurance all forms of financial papers are all a form of non-government MONEY.
The destruction of housing values destroyed 11T in the non-government money supply.
This is why the sudden seizure of capital markets and loss of liquidity.
And why as much as I am offended by that the Fed quickly flooding the market with money likely prevented a depression.
This is also the reason why despite sustaining QE we have not had massive inflation.
Home prices remain weak. That means that we remain short a substantial portion of that 11T.
“Arguments over whether the 11T was “real” or not are irrelevant.”
Then why make the 11T part of your argument?
“Home prices remain weak. That means that we remain short a substantial portion of that 11T.”
Dhlii, I don’t know what you consider weak or strong. Since there was a bubble which meant expectations were far greater than reality one has to expect that if everything went back to “normal” the return of inflated prices to normal prices would be short of 11T.
When you say home prices are weak can you define the locations where such prices are weak and can you define the price category? I think statements, whether made by you or some super talking head, saying “Home prices remain weak.” is silly.
You complain that my posts are too long and have too many tangents and then complain when I gloss over some unimportant facets.
The destruction of 11T in home values resulted in the destruction of 11T in securities – private money.
The impact of the former was weatherable. The later was not.
The 11T in housing values destroy was inarguably unreal – except to those people whose homes lost value.
The 11T in private money was ABSOLUTELY real.
“You complain that my posts are too long and have too many tangents and then complain when I gloss over some unimportant facets.”
You do all and you gloss over important points and facts.
It is rare that I “gloss over things” where details matter.
11T is home value was destroyed. I have no problem with your counter that it was “mythical value”. It pretty much was.
But that 11T in home value secured 11T in securities. Their value too proved “mythical”.
But there is one huge difference – those homes, continued to function as homes regardless of the decline in their value.
There value – as a home was unchanged. The values as a store of wealth was dramatially impaired.
That “wealth value” is reflected in the securities derived from homes.
The collapse in one meant the collapse of the other – the rapid destruction of about 11T is what is essentially private money.
That is the “cause” of the financial crisis.
Those on the left are right to focus on CDO’s and CDS’s and MBS’s those securities lost enormous value and that lost of value removed 11T of liquidity from the market.
What the left failed to get is that it is not the CDO’s …. that were the problem – but the homes that secured them.
Better ratings agencies, more regulation of the financial industry would have done NOTHING to change things.
The only cause that is truly independent is the Fed pushing credit which created the housing boom.
All the things I gloss over would not have significantly changed anything had they been different.
“11T is home value was destroyed. I have no problem with your counter that it was “mythical value”. It pretty much was.”
That alone upsets your argument.
““11T is home value was destroyed. I have no problem with your counter that it was “mythical value”. It pretty much was.”
That alone upsets your argument.”
If you beleive that you have not read my argument.
If you buy a home for 200K and the price of the home drops 25% you still have the same home. Unless you must sell it your only harm is in the future when you sell it and can not buy as much of other things with the proceeds.
If you loan someone 200K for a home, and the price of that home drops 25% – you have lo9st something real – your mortgage is only worth 150K.
The real value of a home is as a home. That is uneffected by the change in the price of the home. The fundimental change is to your ability to exchange the home for other wealth.
The real value of a mortgage is as a security – a form of money. The loss in the value of the home is a REAL loss in the value of the mortgage, and a REAL loss in its value us money.
This is why the housing bubble bursting was followed by a financial crisis.
The collapse in the value of Mortgages or MBS’s or CDS’s or CDO’s did not occur immediately – housing prices peaked in 2005 and dropped rapidly thereafter.
But the collapse of MBS’s did not occur until mid 2008 – though trouble began in early 2008.
Forbes beleives the Mark to Market change in accounting rules that occurred in late 2007 was the trigger, and I think he is correct, without that we would have had a recession but it would have been less abrupt. Forbes also beleives that Paulson reigning in short selling in the summer of 2008 made things worlse – and he is almost certainly correct about that too.
But both of those just made a problem more volatile, They did not create the problem.
The problem was that 11T of non-government money supply vaporized.
And whether you like it or not THAT value was REAL.
“If you buy a home for 200K and the price of the home drops 25% you still have the same home. Unless you must sell it your only harm is in the future when you sell it and can not buy as much of other things with the proceeds.”
Dhlii, you are a generalist and in one post provide a whole list of generalities that cannot be answered in a short response so I will take this one statement alone.
Homes are forms of equity. If the home is not being sold or used for loans and is not mortgaged then the value of that home remains the same to the individual even as its price fluctuates. If the upkeep of the home (ie. condo) is shared then the costs of upkeep can greatly increase causing the homeowner to lose the home even though the home is entirely paid off. If there is a loan against the home then the loan can be called and the market price at the time will determine the homeowner’s losses. If the homeowner notes that the mortgage is greater than the value of the home the homeowner is incentivized to walk away. That further decreases the value of homes in that area. These things cause a rapid downward spiral and extend outward to the financial markets especially those involved with homeowner loans and mortgages.
Aside from the fact that your observations improperly generalize from some scenarious to all, there is little I disagree with in your response.
All home’s are not condo’s. Changes in condo fees are a factor completely independent of home value. The primary impetus for walking away is not the ration of the mortgage to home value, it is the owner’s equity. As I noted and you agreed the homes value as a home is unchanged. Its market value is totally irrelevant unless you either wish to sell or must sell.
Finally absolutely none of your remark addresses the fact that the owner of the mortgage, MBS, CDO, CDS or other financial paper secured by the home has lost REAL value based on the declining sale price of the home.
The security holders PRIMARY value, in the security is its value as a form of money, and that value has declined – in the financial crisis as a consequence of market panic it declined much more than the actual decline in home prices. While that decline was short lived its effect on market liquidity was gargantuan.
“All home’s are not condo’s.”
I provided you with just one of many concrete examples to make things clear.
” MBS, CDO, CDS or other financial paper secured by the home has lost REAL value based on the declining sale price of the home.”
Not value, perceived value.
” it declined much more than the actual decline in home prices. While that decline was short lived ”
I don’t know that either of these statements is correct. The statement is simplistic and seems to miss the complexity of what was actually happening in the marketplace.
““All home’s are not condo’s.”
I provided you with just one of many concrete examples to make things clear.”
You demonstrated that condo owners MIGHT be slightly more vulnerable than others.
You did not demonstrate that all or most of the market has similar vulnerablities.
Regardless, Condo Onwers know about fees and the potential for increases going in.
“You did not demonstrate that all or most of the market has similar vulnerablities.”
Loss of jobs makes everyone vulnerable and a market where home values fall way below the mortgage price makes people walk out of their homes.
While you are again off on a tangent. I will follow.
“Loss of jobs makes everyone vulnerable”
A huge over generalization that is only true in the very narrowest sense
“a market where home values fall way below the mortgage price makes people walk out of their homes.”
The market does not make people do anything
people make the market do things.
I would further note that your claim does not match reality.
People did not walk out of their homes.
Outside of a few speculators, they staid.
The clearly wanted to keep their homes.
They valued their homes.
They just did not pay their mortgage.
“Not value, perceived value.”
All value is subjective.
there is no difference between perceived value and value.
The difference with respect to houses and home secured money, is that the subjective value of the home – is as a place to live.
That value cares little about changes in price.
While the value of a security guarranteed by a home varies with the price of the home. and there is no separate value of a security as a home to mitigate changes in price.
“All value is subjective.”
You are learning.
“I don’t know that either of these statements is correct. The statement is simplistic and seems to miss the complexity of what was actually happening in the marketplace.”
Both statements are easy to verify. Rather than speculate.
By summer of 2008 MBS’s were trading at .25 or face value.
By 2010 banks had recovered and were thriving.
The government tracks house prices for each region and nationwide – as does case-shiller.
They are weak. As a whole the country is back to the 2005/6 peak. That is pretty bad for an asset.
Hot markets – seattle and AC, are significantly above 2005/6 but those markets are rare.
Many parts of the country remain below 2005/6
“They are weak. As a whole the country is back to the 2005/6 peak. That is pretty bad for an asset.”
One has to look back over a long time period to draw the conclusions I think you are drawing. Obama had a definite drag over the economy and I am not sure that the housing market today is the same as it used to be in terms of buying or renting. We also have to look at the demographics and the particular lifestyle of the various groups. Additionally, we have to look at the incentives involved in purchasing a home and the mindset of the population that would be purchasing those homes. Are they saving more, investing more, spending less?
I’m not sure what you are trying to get at.
You seem constitutionally unable to draw a conclusion.
I do not think there is anything in your list that is unworthy of attention.
But there is nothing in your list that will significantly effect my conclusion.
Absolutely Obama diminished the rate of improvement.
But neither you nor I knew that – would the housing market be stronger ?
The current housing market remains weak.
The conclusion is unchanged by evaluating the various causes of that weakness.
If a Tree falls in your driveway – you can conclude the tree fell.
It might have fallen because heavy rain weakend its roots,
It might have fallen because of winds.
It might have fallen because disease weakened it.
All of the above might be true.
But the tree is still on the ground in your driveway regardless of the cause.
“You seem constitutionally unable to draw a conclusion.”
No, I just don’t draw conclusions when too many facts are missing. I listen to the experts telling me about housing prices in NYC and how they have increased. I have my doubts. Why? Because one has to do an intense study and not just look at a price from 20 years ago to today. In between there are ups and downs so everything depends upon where your point starts and ends when you look at short term, or long term without looking at the intervening years.
You jump to absolute conclusions absolutely too fast.
Allan – I get a report from Zillow each month on each of my houses and the zip code I live in. My home is up to 2005 levels, however, a lot of homes are going on the market because they have topped out again. We do have a housing shortage and our unemployment is at 4.9, It is always a mixed bag.
Paul, it’s very difficult to assess these things. I am used to investing and find the advisors don’t know that much more than they are told by their superiors. For instance, the stock market is mostly controlled by large investors and they hire the best from Harvard and MIT. Thus very frequently it is an MIT guy selling to a Harvard guy. Which guy is right about the investment? Both, but they are right for themselves as they profit on the sell or the buy, on the win or the loss.
All sorts of tricks are used. For instance years ago AOL was a hot name but a lot of mutual funds didn’t hold it. People would ask if they had AOL and pick one that had it. That led to the fund buying AOL before their prospectus was printed up and selling afterward. One could privately profit by buying before they bought and selling before they sold.
NYC real estate example. The Chinese were buying and so were some from other countries. That pushed the real estate higher. When the Chinese government started to block those investments the real estate market was pushed lower. There are countless of combinations and permutations that affect prices.
Investing is much like gambling – except that with most games of chance the odds are against you.
With investing the odds are usually in your favor.
The average ROI for all investments, is going to be the same as the economic growth over the same time frame.
That does not speak to individual investments.
Separately from that just like with gambling – knowlege and experince can improve your odds.
Paul C. Schulte,…
As you know, the Phoenix area real estate market has bee n extremely volatile over the decades.
The same thing is true for Las Vegas, Florida, and some other areas; a speculative bubble forms, peaks, and then the “bust” cycle can drop prices 40-50% as it plays out for several years.
Phoenix, Vegas etc .are exceptionally volatile in price movements, both in up cycles and down cycles.
In most of the country, the nationwide up and down cycles are less extreme. But few areas escape price declines in a major downturn, and most benefit to some degree in a major “boom” cycle.
I’m not a real estate investor, but those cycles are not that difficult to predict.
And to some degree, time. i was “off the mark” in my Phoenix -area estimates in that I was expecting a c.30-35% drop in the last downturn, but the drop was, on average, about 45% peak to trough.
You know the backdrop to all of this, and the slow, steady recovery over the past 5 years that has brought prices back,close to, or at, the 2005-2006 peaks.
A 20 year review probably shows average prices up, nationwide, c.65%.
Without going into the extraordinary factors involved in the last major boom/ bust cycle, it’s been pointed out that (very generally) prices are “only” back to the 2005-2006 peak prices.
( Some areas, of course, peaked and crashed later than 2005-2006).
But a recovery to peak prices of 10-12 years ago is a substantial rise, since prices were greatly overinflated at the peaks of the last real estate boom.
I saw back-to-back years of 30-35% housing price inflation in the early part of this century.
Prices can only “stretch” so far for so long, then the down cycle started.
The main thing I take away from the “prices are only back to 2005-2006 levels” situation is that the recovery is substantial and far healthier than the last major up cycle.
Keeping in mind that prices were grossly over-inflated at the peak c. 10-12 years ago, and that the price recovery took 5-7 years ( after the trough) to climb back, I think the recovery prices are much less vulnerable to a catatrophic crash, as in the last bust.
I know that you weren’t saying this, but I think it’s a mistake for those who downplay the significance, and I would say relative sustainability, of this last recovery cycle.
I do think we’re in the later stages of that recovery, but I’m anticipating a longer plateau, a leveling off period, before the next down cycle.
And I don’t think that down cycle will be a dramatic “crash”, like the last one.
Zillow’s numbers are proving more accurate than those of professional appraisers – by a significant degree.
Home appraisal’s may be a dying industry.
I would be careful with Zillow’s numbers.
I have seen specific Zillow examples that are horrible.
But their overall record is an order of magnitude better than professional appraisers.
“I listen to the experts telling me about housing prices in NYC and how they have increased. I have my doubts. Why? Because one has to do an intense study and not just look at a price from 20 years ago to today. In between there are ups and downs so everything depends upon where your point starts and ends when you look at short term, or long term without looking at the intervening years.”
Again: You seem constitutionally unable to draw a conclusion.
If I am planning on investing in NYC real estate – then I MIGHT want to do some of the work you want to see – maybe more.
But if I am looking for trend data for NYC housing I am pretty sure that you can get weekly rolling averages of the current NYC trends that are very accurate.
OFHEO provides data for every MSA in the country.
Case-Shiller have an excellent record and they are an alternate source to government.
Zillow and most online realestate sites, now track prices accross the country and locally and can estimate with an order of magnitude greater accuracy the price of most homes than trained appraisers can.
We live in the google era. The data available to you is incredible.
“Again: You seem constitutionally unable to draw a conclusion.”
Dhlii, apparently you don’t know what a conclusion means. I have to eventually jump to a conclusion when I invest, but I take the best bet. Nothing is certain. You generalize so much that any conclusion you make becomes near worthless.
“But if I am looking for trend data for NYC housing I am pretty sure that you can get weekly rolling averages of the current NYC trends that are very accurate.”
Absolutely, but with a superficial understanding, you can lose a lot of money in that fashion. I don’t like to lose so I am quite careful and am looking for things that differentiate my investment from the masses of people that follow the trends that so happen to go up and then suddenly fall before anyone notices it.
I so happen to have done some planning a year or so before the crash I told my expert I didn’t like his numbers because I thought the values he used were overinflated. After the crash, I noted that my total value was about what I had predicted earlier.
Your response goes out of its way to miss every single point.
You tell me that short term trend information is unavailable and I demonstrate that it is, and your reaction is that it is not long term trend data – that too is available.
Your a conservative investor – and have in your own view done well. Congradulations.
I made similar investments stupidly misjudged the market and still have ultimately done well.
The fact is that with rare exceptions long term investors in almost all markets are going to get a return approximately equal to long term economic growth.
“Your response goes out of its way to miss every single point.”
Dhlii, you always have loads of points and loads of words so I try and limit my responses to a point or two. I did that in the post you are responding to.
“You tell me that short term trend information is unavailable and I demonstrate that it is, ”
I don’t think that is true. When you said: ““But if I am looking for trend data for NYC housing I am pretty sure that you can get weekly rolling averages of the current NYC trends that are very accurate.”
I responded, “absolutely” with a necessary qualifier.
I am relatively conservative compared to the “hotshots”, but I have invested in things that would not be considered conservative so you have to be careful about the classification. I am more than happy with my results and blame some of the good results on luck. Many of my best investments were based on simple observations.
Missing every single point. means not countering even one.
“Missing every single point. means not countering even one.”
You need a sharper pencil.
Allan,
I am not trying to tell you how to invest.
I have addressed two things – there is not one single right way.
The other is that the value of a security follows the value of the asset it is secured by.
“The other is that the value of a security follows the value of the asset it is secured by.”
That doesn’t help when the insurer runs out of funds.
“That doesn’t help when the insurer runs out of funds.”
Think about it, you just made my point.
“You jump to absolute conclusions absolutely too fast.”
Give me any house for sale that is listed on line.
I will bet you that 9 times our of 10 I can determine the selling price more accurately than an appraiser can.
And I can do so without knowing what I am doing, because the data is readily available.
To be clear – I am not tooting my own horn.
I am just noting we live in the age of google and the information available is phenomenal.
The only skill needed is separating wheat from chaffe.
“I will bet you that 9 times our of 10 I can determine the selling price more accurately than an appraiser can.”
Shortly before the crash, my neighbor’s house was appraised because they were selling. Our homes were approximately equal so I had a good understanding of its value. They refused an offer that they felt was too far below their asking price. Since they had reason to sell they should have considered why their house was valued so high. It was far beyond the expected rate because things were overheating. They ended up not selling it and when they did sometime after the recovery they sold it at a price much lower than what they were offered a few years earlier. If they desired to hold until the next peak they would not have been hurt. They didn’t take that bit of information into account and it cost them dearly. They were looking only at the selling price and not the timing risk.
Rather than argue with mean about my assement of home prices – just check them out and form your own assessment.
“Rather than argue with mean about my assement of home prices – just check them out and form your own assessment.”
What part of the housing market are you trying to assess? There are too many parts to discuss on such a site and too many rationals for owning.
What conclusion are you trying to come up with? We both know from personal experience that our houses fell in value in 2008 but in my own case I can trace a dramatic surge in prices starting a few years before I purchased my home. Some considered it too expensive and overvalued but I thought the value low compared to the surrounding areas within a 40-mile distance. The value continued to skyrocket till 2008 and then fell tremendously. To date, its value hasn’t reached anywhere near its former peak.
Dhlii, was the investment good or bad?
In your eyes, the investment was bad because as you say earlier: “That is pretty bad for an asset.”
It was a good investment that will even get better (certain price ranges sell better at certain times). Not only that, but the investment has a rather firm bottom because some land values are better than others. Can you now see why I view your statement about home values too simplistic?
“What part of the housing market are you trying to assess? There are too many parts to discuss on such a site and too many rationals for owning.”
Again you seem unable to draw an obvious well supported conclusion. without examining lots of details that whether important or not do not alter the facts right now.
“Again you seem unable to draw an obvious well supported conclusion. without examining lots of details that whether important or not do not alter the facts right now.”
I can go into details if you wish, but you are dealing with generalities.
“I can go into details if you wish, but you are dealing with generalities.”
The change in US home prices is a generality. But it is one that we have good reason to rely on. The change in price of the house at the end of the block is not a generality, further knowing that detail does not tell you much about the change in US home prices.
“Again you seem unable to draw an obvious well supported conclusion. without examining lots of details that whether important or not do not alter the facts right now.”
“Dhlii, was the investment good or bad?”
If the investment – whatever it was underperformed similar risk/return investments over the same time period – then it was bad.
If it over performed it was good.
The answer is math.
“Dhlii, was the investment good or bad?”
Again you jump to conclusions. “whatever it was underperformed similar risk/return investments over the same time period – then it was bad. If it over performed it was good.”
Since one frequently cannot be sure of what is or is not a good investment one spreads their risk both in what they invest in and the risk involved. Too much risk is dangerous and too little risk is dangerous.
That is why people cover their bets. I am always investing, but when the downturn came I had my bets adequately covered, others didn’t and went under. That is what makes a difference.
The house was an excellent investment. Likely it will yield highly when sold, but that is not its strong point. It helped to spread the risk, upgraded my lifestyle and had little risk of falling in value. Therefore, if it underperforms other investments it was still a good investment. Don’t be so superficial.
Allan – I spread the risk in my pension and my AZ retirement does a great job of spreading the risk. I should get a raise in my checks in both next year.
Paul, the markets have been good so if you don’t get a good return then the investments weren’t well made.
You were a teacher. Years ago https://www.tiaa.org/ used to do a good job. I don’t know about today. That company was mostly for teachers.
“Since one frequently cannot be sure of what is or is not a good investment one spreads their risk both in what they invest in and the risk involved. Too much risk is dangerous and too little risk is dangerous.
That is why people cover their bets. I am always investing, but when the downturn came I had my bets adequately covered, others didn’t and went under. That is what makes a difference.”
Those are choices – each of us is free to make them as we wish. Reducing your risk means reducing your likely return.
I am not trying to tell you what to do.
I am telling you there is NOT a right answer.
I can not make sense out of your house remarks. Nor do I care. You invested in a house, and seem to be happy.
As I told you I invested in an apartment building – at pretty much the wrong time. If I sold today I will have converted a 45K investment into a 90K return, that is about what my IRA did over the same period. But I had to do alot of work on the apartment building. At the same time I collected rents. and got to keep some of that. And I sheltered alot of income from Taxes. Overall, it probably worked out about the same as the IRA.
” Reducing your risk means reducing your likely return.”
That is the name of the game, but economic trends are cyclical and relatively unpredictable.
I cannot guarantee that I will earn the most but I can nearly guarantee I won’t end up broke. All too many end up poorer than need be because they took the gamble on the trend.
I assume your $45K was what you put down and the rest was mortgaged. Based on the structure of the mortgage you could have been liable for more than the $45K. If so you had a high risk.
Allan – the loss of value was 11T.
Total value of housing stock in the US was approx 30T at peak in 2006.
It declinecd by about 1/3 by 2009 according to case schiller or about 11T.
There is no such thing as real value.
Value is subjective.
Many things influence value – including monetary policy.
Bad monetary policy causes bubbles. If it is convenient for you to think of that as an increase in value beyond some “real value”
you can go with that fiction. But in 2005 the subjective value of houses – and that IS the real value of anything peaked,
in 2006 it started collapsing. It collapsed because peoples perception of the value of houses changed.
There were myriads of factors in that changed perception – but nearly all are common to monetary induced bubbles.
ONE of the significant issues was a simple supply and demand cycle.
when supply and demand move lockstep and smoothly – prices are pretty stable – absent central banks they tend to decline slowly.
With a central bank you can have a sustained long term price increase.
but if you increase demand – which is the consequence of changes in monetary policy,
prices rise which causes supply to rise but at some point the increased demand will either weaken or disappear – because it is driven by changes in monetary policy NOT be actual changes in consumer desire for housing.
Regardless when supply finally catches up to (and exceeds) demand – prices are going to collapse.
This happens all the time in all kinds of commodities. It usually happens for natural reasons related to supply.demand factors rather than monetary policy.
When the price of oil or copper or some other commodity collapses – the entire economy does not collapse.
The housing bubble triggered a financial crisis because several things were different.
Housing is a long term durable asset.
Housing is a major asset for people in the bottom 2/3 of the economy, who can not easily afford to ride out price volatility in what may be their most valuable asset.
Housing is an asset that “secures” money – mortgages, MBS’s, CDO’s CDS’s, ….
Whatever collapse in the value of housing the same collapse occurs in all “securities” whose values are set by housing.
So you get a double whammy.
The collapse of value in homes hit alot of people hard, but if that was the extent of things – it would have been endurable.
The destruction of 11T in non-government money in a very short period wreaked havoc on the financial markets.
That created a severe liquidity crisis and it is oddly why the very same actions that caused the crisis – easy money, also mitigated it.
Government money filled in as a substitute for non-government money.
The “cause” of the housing bubble, was several years of poor monetary policy – “too low for too long”.
Anything that systemically effects credit is incredibly dangerous economically. And only government, and only through monetary policy can cause systemic effects to credit.
Other govenrment fiscal policies such as CRA determined that the bubble would be in housing rather than somewhere else.
Once a bubble of sufficient size formed, the recession was inevitable.
All the rest is details.
The entire left memes of evil bankers forcing people into mortgages they could not afford, and other claims of malfeasance are mostly wrong and all irrelevant.
The economy did not have the capacity to absorb an 11T collapse in values without a recession.
Every meme of the left – even if true, was not a CAUSE, nor would its absence have precluded the recession.
In fact if the post collapse regulation actually made the financial system stronger – which is near certainly false, all that would do is increase the scale of the next collapse.
As I argued in a prior post – top down solutions – even when they “work” are inherently fragile – because they are top down.
Using your EMP weapon as an example.
The effects of a single fixed EMP blast are going to vary based on:
The diversity of systems inside the effected area.
A blast that takes out everything electronic/electrical, or everything of a specific type that proves critical
will have an order of magnitude greater effect and far longer recovery than something that takes out 90%.
The recovery will follow a half sine wave – it will take much longer to complete the first 10% and the last 10%,
than to complete the middle 50%.
The larger and more diverse the proportion of things that survive – even of things that survive damaged but usable for some a bit,
the more rapid recovery.
The greater the diversity of things the larger the proportion that is likely to survive.
“The “cause” of the housing bubble, was several years of poor monetary policy – “too low for too long”.”
It was a lot more than that and government was behind a lot of poor policy. That doesn’t mean the government can never have a good policy which is the way you seem to look at things.
As far as EMP is concerned diversity may be good, but the system’s structure today leaves the American public in danger tomorrow. You don’t like the politics that created the grid over the decades so you wish to leave America in danger instead of permitting a relatively inexpensive fix to harden the grid the cost of which will end up being paid for by the American public one way or the other. Your way is to increase the risk with time and then spend the money. My way is to spend it now for the common portions of the grid and say to hell with theory, protect national security.
“It was a lot more than that and government was behind a lot of poor policy. ”
Poor monetary policy is the SOLE cause of the bubble and the recession.
Other government mistakes determined WHERE the bubble occured and the mechanisms of failure
They had nothing to do with the size of the bubble, or the magnitude of the damage. Just the specifics of what was damanged.
“That doesn’t mean the government can never have a good policy which is the way you seem to look at things.”
I have argued this for more than a decade.
I have no doubt you can come up with some government policies that have positive effects.
I doubt you can come up with any that have NET positive effects.
Again refer to Barro’s data on govenrment spending.
No government spending of anykind ever in his data ever reached unity – break even.
Can the government in theory have a good policy ? Certainly.
In theory unicorns could exist.
They don’t.
But lets say 5% of all government policies were not positive – in some hypothetical world.
Unless we were actually able to predict which would be net positive – 5% is STILL an argument for government to never do anything.
In fact if 50% of government policies were not positive – that STILL would be an argument for government to never do anything.
For reasons such as the ethical use of force, it is not sufficient that government polices work to justify them.
You would need an over 80% success right merely to get to the question of whether the use is moral.
The ends do not justify the means.
In a decade of dealing with this I have found two examples of “successful” government policies.
The one was tiny due to facts.
The other was small and failed miserably when scaled larger.
Which is an entirely separate argument. Even those few govenrment policies that can be demonstrated to work – do not scale.
This BTW is true outside of government. Gates has had many small scale successful charitable programs – in education and in development aide.
But he has failed most every time he has tried to scale them up.
Even successful small businesses do not automatically scale.
“Poor monetary policy is the SOLE cause of the bubble and the recession.”
I try and stay away from such purity you use with such frequency. In your mind does monetary policy extend outside the central bank and setting the cost of borrowing or is it expansive extending to other goals (employment, exchange rates, etc.)
Do derivatives count as monetary policy? Setting reserves for banks? Setting rules for federally insured banks? Rules for mortgages? etc.
“In your mind does monetary policy extend outside the central bank”
What I (and most economists) call monetary policy is limited to government – mostly but not exclusively central banks.
Similar activities can occur in a system where money is a market commodity(or in non-government money such as securities) – but they are not centrally planned so they are not policy.
“and setting the cost of borrowing or is it expansive extending to other goals (employment, exchange rates, etc.)”
The goals are a tangent to the question of whether something is monetary policy.
“Do derivatives count as monetary policy?”
Are derivatives centrally planned ?
“Setting reserves for banks?”
Yes.
“Setting rules for federally insured banks?”
The insurance should be private.
Insurance can be a type of security – though I want to be careful, because I do not think all forms of insurance are a security – a type of money.
We are aso touching on the distinction between fiat money and non-fiat money.
Securties are non- fiat private money – they are paper than can be used in exhange like money, they value based on that of something else.
I think there are markets where insurance is used like money – but I think it is closer to fiat money – though that depends on the form of insurance.
Whole life insurance is probably non-fiat money, term life is closer to fiat money.
I would further note that just because insurance can be used as money does nto mean it frequently is.
Most securities are quite litterally used as money. When Apple buys a company – no government money is exchanged.
Gargantuan amounts of non-government money are.
“Rules for mortgages? etc.”
Again – I think you are asking multiple questions – or you are conflating things.
Government should not set rules for mortgages. They should be up to the market.
And there is plenty of evidence that absent government rules the banks would have had more conservative rules.
Regardless, Government rules for mortgages are monetary policy – they are policy – central planning, and they are monetary.
I am not sure what you are after trying to delinate what is “monetary policy”.
But I will try to define the term.
Monetary – having to do with money – that is money in any form – dollars, bitcoin, you can find the attributes of money at places like wikipedia.
Medium of exchange, store of value, ….
Policy – basically central planning. Central planning – policy is almost always govenrment – but does not have to be.
My point re germany was not that they were hyper efficient.
But that we do not want the use of force to be done efficiently.
We deliberately hamstring the use of force.
Because the unconstrained use of force is incredibly dangerous.
Dhlii, regarding Germany, I was not suggesting that many believed that they were super efficient, only efficient, and I believe they may have fallen below that standard.
I am not looking to split hairs over Nazi Germany.
My findimental point is we do not want the efficient use of force.
It is a bad thing.
“I am not looking to split hairs over Nazi Germany.”
Dhlii, if that weren’t the case you wouldn’t have promoted more discussion on it by adding superlatives to your argument.
Come on Allan!
Even Goodwin’s law excepts real nazi’s.
We can quibble about many other facets – but the “death camps” were highly efficient means of exterminating people.
The Nazi’s are a well known, reasonably well understood example of the efficient use of force. Particularly for their time.
“We can quibble about many other facets – but the “death camps” were highly efficient means of exterminating people.”
True, but not an efficient way of engaging in a war when death camp train traffic interfered with troop movements. Not an efficient way of trying to develop a nuclear weapon by forcing the greatest scientists to leave the country because they were Jewish. Some people wish to strip away all the bad things the NAZI’s brought so perhaps a myth is created to find a redeeming characteristic, the myth of super efficiency. Do you think the NAZI bureaucracy was super efficient? Is blind adherence to rules and regulations super efficient?
It was a very efficient way of killing jews, which made it perfectly clear which was more important to the Nazi government – killing the jews or surviving the war.
“It was a very efficient way of killing jews, which made it perfectly clear which was more important to the Nazi government – killing the jews or surviving the war.”
Yes, but as I stated earlier that doesn’t bolster the myth that the NAZI’s were super efficient.
“Yes, but as I stated earlier that doesn’t bolster the myth that the NAZI’s were super efficient.”
You can debate whether the Nazi’s were super efficient or merely efficient with yourself.
I do not care.
They Nazi’s are still and effective demonstration of the dangerous of efficiency in government.
Government is force. The use of force is dangerous and should be undertaken with great care.
The efficient use of force is more dangerous still.
“They Nazi’s are still and effective demonstration of the dangerous of efficiency in government.”
You are not demonstrating that at all. What you are demonstrating is the result of consolidated power which perhaps you assume to believe is the equivalent of efficiency.
“You are not demonstrating that at all. What you are demonstrating is the result of consolidated power which perhaps you assume to believe is the equivalent of efficiency.”
You do not seem to grasp that some things tend to go together.
If I said hockey was a demonstration of effective use of hockey sticks to control hockey puck’s
you would say NO!! It is a demonstration of ice skating.
Yes, the Nazi’s are a demonstration of consolidated power.
They are also a demonstration of relatively efficient (for the time) government.
Consolidated power is dangerous.
Efficient use of power is dangerous
Both is very dangerous.
“Consolidated power is dangerous.
Efficient use of power is dangerous
Both is very dangerous.”
Dhlii, that might be true. But regarding the specific issue under discussion, you did not demonstrate that at all. What you demonstrated is the result of consolidated power which perhaps you assume to believe is the equivalent of efficiency.
“Dhlii, that might be true. But regarding the specific issue under discussion, you did not demonstrate that at all. ”
Nope
“What you demonstrated is the result of consolidated power”
That is one explanation.
It is not the only possible explanation.
It is not a sufficient explanation.
It does not preclude other explanations.
“which perhaps you assume to believe is the equivalent of efficiency.”
Nope.
They frequently occur together, but they are not intrinsically connected.
Further you are confusing attacking the example, with attacking the argument.
The efficient use of force is a dangerous thing. That should be self-evident.
Myriads of facets of the Nazi’s are examples. They are not the only example.
Nor is every evil thing done by the Nazi’s the exclusive effect of efficiency.
Your picayune debate over the Nazi’s does not refute the argument.
It does not even refute the example.
“Your picayune debate over the Nazi’s”
Yes, Dhlii, your discussion has devolved into a picayune debate. That is the problem with your tangents and generalities.
“That is the problem with your tangents and generalities.”
Nope, it is what happens when you fixate on irrelevant details.
Following where you take me, Dhlii.
I am arguing efficient government is a BAD thing, and using the Nazi’s as an example/
I am arguing that I do not WANT efficient government.
I want limited highly inefficient government.
Force should not be used efficiently.
“I am arguing that I do not WANT efficient government.
I want limited highly inefficient government.”
I prefer a government that is efficient but restricts what it does. During WW2 you did not “WANT efficient government” to run the war? You don’t want an efficient border control?
Our government was set up so that change wasn’t so easy in order to provide time to consider the change. That is not inefficient or efficient. That is prudent.
“Yes, but as I stated earlier that doesn’t bolster the myth that the NAZI’s were super efficient.”
That is prudent.
That is also efficient.
“Yes, but as I stated earlier that doesn’t bolster the myth that the NAZI’s were super efficient.”
That is prudent.
That is also efficient.
—–
Would you like to restate what you are saying so I can fully understand it?
I think I have been bitten by a spell checker.
Regardless. Your argument is that every vile action of the Nazi’s that I provide to demonstrate that we do not what efficiency in the use of power, you correctly note is also an example of something else. As an example the consolidation of power.
Ignoring the obvious counter that consolidation of power is itself a form of efficiency. I agree that every single example I can ever find that demonstrates some thing A will also demonstrate other things. That does not alter that it demonstrates A.
You complain about tangents and irrelevancies – a significant portion of your rebutals are of the form “Oh, But B”.
B may well be true. The truth of B has no bearing on the Truth of A.
“Ignoring the obvious counter that consolidation of power is itself a form of efficiency. ”
We can pat ourselves on the back with that semantic argument.
You do know what semantic means ?
Your response strongly implies you do not.
“You do know what semantic means ?
Your response strongly implies you do not.”
Don’t play the part of Mark M.
Do you have an argument ?
You have degenerated to Ad Hominem.
That is not argument.
Your remarks indicated that you do not know what semantics means.
“Do you have an argument ?”
Dhlii, you are playing Mark better than Mark plays Mark.
I do not recall MMM making an argument.
His pattern is adhominem.
“His pattern is adhominem.’
That is true.
the odious Kroch brothers don’t like Trump dude. They backed other guys.
Trump campaigned on infrastructure updates to roads and bridges etc.
He also campaigned on a less interventionist foreign policy that would save money on defense spending. see the current news about nato, trump delivers.
he would i believe if allowed by the craven Congressmen, divert savings from de-escalating with Russia into fixing our crumbling roads and bridges.
The war haws in both parties hate Trump. You can blame them not Trump.
I remember one good thing that obnoxious black guy Sharpton said that I totally agreed with: if we can build new bridges in Iraq why cant we fix bridges in Brooklyn?
The only thing with need with respect to infrastructure is for congress to stay out of it and quit raiding gas taxes for other purposes.
Anyone with more than a few decades of life experience knows we have no consequential infrastructure problem.
Our infrastructure is less than perfect – and it never will be perfect, making it a magnet for politicians.
But if your eyes and memory work, you know it is nearly all better than ever.
Trumps rants regarding infrastucture are one to the places his is full of crap.
And where he can likely get bipartisan support to do something stupid.
Infrastucture is a crappy jobs program. It did not work for Obama, it will not work better for trump.
Defense spending has gone up substantially under Trump. We do not need to spend what we do on the military.
Absolutely I support reducing our committments to NATO, or ending it.
Absolutely I support reducing our endless role as policemen for the world.
Fracking has radically reduced our national interest in the mideast.
It is time to mostly back away. Let them kill each other if them want.
Russia is neither a friend nor an enemy and frankly we should take GW’s advice and for the most part be neither friends nor enemies with the world.
You must not live anywhere near Chicago or Detroit. The roads suck all over the midwest and railroads are a mess. Airports suck too. Have you been abroad my friend? The Chicoms can’t believe how crappy the roads are when they come, it’s a big joke to a lot of foreigners. Yes we have an infrastructure problem.
“You must not live anywhere near Chicago or Detroit. The roads suck all over the midwest and railroads are a mess. Airports suck too. Have you been abroad my friend? The Chicoms can’t believe how crappy the roads are when they come, it’s a big joke to a lot of foreigners. Yes we have an infrastructure problem.”
Are they worse than they were a decade ago ? Or three ?
Pick some place you think the roads are crap. I am certain I can find a several decades old picture of the same location proving things were worse in the past.
I have not been abroad in a few decades. I was in Ireland in the 80’s.
I was completely shocked when I found about 7m of 2 lane divided highway leading out of dublin. That was the only limited access highway in the entire country at the time.
Major roads required driving with one tire in the shoulder if someone came from the other direction.
Regardless, Americans drive more than twice what Europeans do.
Yet we have less fatalities per mile than any other nation.
We must be doing something right.
“Infrastucture”
Dhilli, infrastructure includes the grid subject to EMP, cyber security, security along the borders etc. I think we require improvement of our infrastructure.
“infrastructure includes the grid subject to EMP, cyber security”
All not the business of govenrment.
“security along the borders etc.”
Atleast in the domain fo government.
I have no strong oppinion on border security.
I will happily give Trump and co their wall, which I do not think will be as effective as the right hopes or as ineffective as the left beleives.
Regardless, build the wall. I am not in your way.
““infrastructure includes the grid subject to EMP, cyber security”
All not the business of govenrment.”
Dhlii, maybe not your government but the rationale for our Republic and the Constitution provides for security concerns. An EMP attack could wipe out the grid or part of the grid and that could devastate our population. Ever try living without any electronics and electricity? There have been natural occurrences from the sun that have caused failure. In 1859 a geomagnetic solar storm hit earth knocking out telegraph systems around the world. The appropriate bomb exploded at the appropriate height can do the same ( we learned this during our atomic testing). A point to note, the North Koreans have two satellites each of which goes over the US several times a day.
Despite my libertarian leanings (classical liberalism), I recognize that we are a country that needs to secure itself from foreign invasion. Cyberwar can destroy portions of the grid and we saw that years ago when a power failure in one part of the nation caused a major portion of the grid to collapse so we are not independent of other areas of the country. Cyberwarfare can affect the water supply and everything else.
The same is true for other parts of our infrastructure. The Articles of Confederation didn’t work and couldn’t have protected our security so we have to constrain some of our libertarian beliefs.
A biologial attack could wipe out all life.
While national defense is the legitimate domain of government – that does nto make agriculture the domain of government because we can not defend the country if we can not feed ourselves.
Using national defense as a justification for things beyond those directly involved in national defense ultimately leads to socialism, by a different route.
The “solution” to “hardening our grid” is to get government out of it, nearly every segment of an actual free market is highly diversified, it is made of small and large and everything in the middle, and that is where resilience comes in. I would suggest Nassim Taleeb’s book on anti-fragility.
If you want a system that can handle and EMP attack – you can not design it from the top down. all top down schemes are inherently fragile. They must always have exploitable vulnerabilities. Anything that is the product of a single mind or even an orginazed system of priorites. will have expliotable flaws.
Put simply government can never create an infrastructure that is secure.
I could and would like to argue that we can make the grid less vulnerable by making it more local, more dispursed – like the internet was sort of designed to be.
But even that is not true. Any arrangement that is “designed:” and homogenous will be fragile in some way.
What you want is a mix of big medium and small, and an organic as opposed to planned mix.
Why ? Because while there are vulnerabilities all over there are no universal vulnerabilites.
No one ever would have conceived of an EMP weapon but for the top down fragile design we imposed on our “infrastucture”.
What good is a weapon that does no harm to humans, that destroys no machinery, no buildings.
Regardless, in most instances “national security” is a reason government should NOT be part of the market.
Government makes us more vulnertable not less.
Dhlii, it is true, a biological attack could do tremendous damage and we are preparing for that as well. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t prepare for other eventualities such as EMP. Is that what you are suggesting? Let’s stick to one subject, the grid, and EMP. Some say we are due for another electromagnetic solar event since they seem to occur at certain intervals and if it is strong enough it could do a great amount of damage. Our enemies focus on our grid and some of the problems that have been seen might very well be our enemies testing it.
Our grid is essentially a common good and is something that should have been hardened years ago. Unfortunately not every problem is readily solved by the market especially those that are common goods. Would you prefer to bet on tens of millions of lives or consider the grid a common good where the federal government spends about $2 Billion? If you wish to deregulate the entire industry fine, but harden the common good portions. One needs to be a bit pragmatic at times.
The sun is currently extremely inactive. It has been at a very low level of activity for several years, and it is unlikely we have reached the bottom.
There is very good reason for this.
The 11 year solar cycle is because the center of mass of the sun and the center of mass of the solar are not at exactly the same place.
Most of the time the center of mass of the solar system is outside the sun. And the result is the sun has “tides” and these cause sun spots, solar flares. ….
The more separated the center of gravity of the solar system and that of the sun the the more active the sun is.
Aside from the 11 year cycle there are atleast 6 other solar cycles – driven by the orbits of the planets – particularly the larger ones.
Right now we are in the middle of an unusual event that occurs about every 200+ years where the center of mass of the solar system is inside the body of the sun.
This event corresponded to the muander and dalton minimum in the past.
Anything is possible, but we are likely 20-30 years away from a serious solar event that damages infrastucture.
These same cycles also effect seismic and volcanic activity. For reasons I have never looked into, low solar activity corresponds to high seismic and volcanic activity.
Obviously it has to do with gravity. but I am not sure why diminishing gravitational cycles would make earthquakes more likely.
“The sun is currently extremely inactive. It has been at a very low level of activity for several years, and it is unlikely we have reached the bottom.”
Despite your discussion of the suns activity in creating geomagnetic phenomenon there is no certainty as to when another episode could occur. Add to that the nuclear threat of EMP to the grid and one has a very good reason to harden the grid.
EMP is real, proven and has occurred both from natural phenomenon and man made nuclear weapons. It could take years to repair and that would leave a lot of dead. The worst estimates from a nuclear EMP attack at the exact right spot are 90% of the population dead.
Answer the question. Is the grid a common good? Yes or no? Should the grid be hardened now no matter who hardens it? If the grid will not be hardened privately should the states or federal government do the job? Estimated cost $2Billion.
Certainty – no. Calculable probability – yes.
With respect to “hardening the grid” – AGAIN – I would suggest reading Nasim Taleeb’s Anti-Fragile.
You do not have to completely agree with him.
But he does and excellent job of analyzing how systems that can endure multiple different kinds of body blows and survive and thrive come about.
Government solutions DO NOT result in anti-fragility. A top down approach to EMP hardening – even if it works will result in a different fragilty elswhere.
anti-fragile systems do not arrise from top down design.
Though the primary cause of the recession was poor monetary policy
“With respect to “hardening the grid” – AGAIN – I would suggest reading Nasim Taleeb’s Anti-Fragile.”
Dhlii, Nasim Taleeb probably doesn’t know much about the grid and you don’t know what he would say about this question. You are throwing names into the mix because I don’t think you know much about the grid either. There is no P (for pragmatism) in your libertarian dogma.
Taleeb probably knows little about “the grid”.
But he knows a great deal about the patterns and principles that make things durable, and those that lead to failure.
One of the things I “know” about “the grid” that you do not seem to, is that it is just one of myriads of single points of failure in an EMP attack.
You could make the grid completely impervious to EMP – and still have the same death and destruction in an EMP attack.
This is part of why I am pointing you to Taleeb. BTW he is pretty arrogant, and I do not agree with him on everything.
But he is very good on fragility/anti-fragility.
One of the things he would likely point out that you miss is that anti-fragile arrangements that evolve organically, solve your problems regarding the grid – without even thinking of EMP attacks. Systems that are organically anti-fragile are not resistent to a specific threat, they are resistant to all threats./
As to my knowledge of ‘the grid”.
I can tell you how about a dozen people with materials they can get from WalMart can take out the entire north east.
It has actually been done on a smaller scale by accident.
“Taleeb probably knows little about “the grid”.
But he knows a great deal about the patterns and principles that make things durable, and those that lead to failure.”
Then ask him about the grid. Don’t put words in his mouth.
I agree with organic development. However, we have what we have and we have the need to protect ourselves even if it is only partial protection.
” can tell you how about a dozen people with materials they can get from WalMart can take out the entire north east.”
That is another reason to harden the grid.
Get government out of it and fairly quickly and changes will occur – some will make it less susceptible to EMP, some may make it more.
Regardless,. it will change in ways that overall make it LESS fragile.
All systems face myriads of threats.emp is only one.
One of the many problems with top down solutions is that even when they succeed at reducing one risk they create or amplify another.
Diverse systems do not have single points of failure.
Top down planned systems do.
I have made the argument that the great recession was caused by poor monetary policy.
There are several aspects of that – one is that artificially inflating credit causes credit to be under priced and the moral hazard that is always associated with credit to rise.
Another facet is that monetary policy deviating from what is natural budges the entire market in the same direction.
During the early 2000’s most everyone was cheering the housing boom – more houses for more people is a good thing isn’t it ?
Getting large portions of the economy moving in the same direction – even a GOOD direction is ultimately bad.
I am not really debating EMP protection with you, provide a free market for energy and you can raise your voice to demand EMP protection – and I may join you.
I am debating government control of any portion of the market – even control for an allegedly good purpose.
Government efforts to increase housing – something we all agree is a good thing, worked out very badly.
Everyone moving in the same direction – particularly because of an outside force, tends to ultimately have bad outcomes, even when the purpose is clearly good.
“Get government out of it and fairly quickly and changes will occur – some will make it less susceptible to EMP, some may make it more.
Regardless,. it will change in ways that overall make it LESS fragile.”
I don’t disagree with that point of view. Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening quickly enough. Therefore protect the nation and spend the money hardening the grid for national security. While securing the nation, I will join you in that quest.
Take note, I am trying to protect the grid, not what spins off from the grid.
It is highly unlikely the NK has an EMP weapon now, or will have one that they can trust works for several years.
They have progressed farther and faster than we expected, but they are still short of what is needed for an EMP weapon.
At the moment they appear to be able to produce advanced fission bombs – I know they claim to have produced a hydrogen bomb but the evidence suggests otherwise.
But they do have high yeild Fission bombs – i.e. they are ahead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and they likely have them to weight low enough for an ICBM.
They have ICBM’s that can reach Guam Possibly hawaii. It is questionable at this time whether they can actually hit what they aim for. So guidance is an issue.
They also do not yet have the range to reach the continental US – but that is not a large hurdle give where they are at.
Developing Hydrogen bombs or EMP weapons without being able to test them is very very hard.
They are likely several years away from guidance, range and EMP.
The big problem is that if they continue, they will get there with absolute certainty.
Conversely we have two ABM systems – THAAD – which is basically advanced versions of Patriot using Aegis Cruisers.
THAAD against an ICBM is always a tail chase scenario. That means we have a short time window from launch before we will be unable to intercept.
We also have a land based system that works much like Partiot did against Iragi SCUDS – i.e. in a head to head intercept mode, rather than tail chase.
Those systems have a short time window too as they much reach the warhead and destroy it midflight. That is a pretty difficult task and our success rate is about 50%.
We probably do not want to bet 100,000+ lives on 50:50.
What we need is a space based system. That would typically intercept on the ascent or shortly after reaching space. But it has more time to make a decison, uses much smaller rockets, does nto need the same velocities, because the flight is shorter, and is not in a tail chase mode where the time window is small.
All three systems together have a near certainty of intercepting small numbers of ICBM’s. This will not defend us against Russia, and probably not china. but it would effectively neutralize NK and Iraq for a long time.
That is a far more useful idea than hardening against EMP.
I would further note there is no special reason to beleive that NK will use an EMP weapon rather than a conventional nuke.
A hiroshima sized weapon to Manhattan would result in atleast 500K lives lost, probably more, and the economic damage could be much higher than an EMP weapon.
An EMP weapon will kill few people directly. The overall casualties will depend on how quickly we can recover – at each of several layers.
It the US response resembles that of TX to huricanes recovery will be quick and the loss of life small.
If it matches that of PR it will be slow with lots of lives lost.
“It is highly unlikely the NK has an EMP weapon now”
Unlikely means you don’t know.
“What we need is a space based system. … That is a far more useful idea than hardening against EMP.”
We probably need both because the war can begin with the EMP attack and then the space based system goes into action if the failure of our communication system permits it. That is not good military planning. Better to discourage an attack on the grid or have a grid more likely to withstand such an attack and perhaps have the space based system as well.
“We probably need both because the war can begin with the EMP attack and then the space based system goes into action if the failure of our communication system permits it. ”
The purpose of a space based ABM system is to radically decrease the probability that an EMP or any other such attack will be successfull.
They are a FIRST line of defense, not a last.
“That is not good military planning.”
Actually it is excellent “planning” the “message” and the “effect” are clear.
If you launch an ICBM at the US – not only will you dace massive retaliation, but there is a near certainty your attack will fail.
“Better to discourage an attack on the grid”
That is what ABM’s do.
“The purpose of a space based ABM system is to radically decrease the probability that an EMP or any other such attack will be successfull.”
I’m not against ABM systems, but I would like to know how that prevents an attack? Assume a satellite is launched and travels over the US, how do you know it doesn’t contain a nuclear weapon that explodes on demand?
“Assume a satellite is launched and travels over the US, how do you know it doesn’t contain a nuclear weapon that explodes on demand?”
I worked on a project to detect nuclear material far less than a Bomb at US ports of entry in heavily sheilded containers.
If someone puts a nuke in space – we will know it.
BTW you can not just explode it in space.
“I worked on a project to detect nuclear material far less than a Bomb at US ports of entry in heavily sheilded containers.”
To date, I know of nothing we have that can fully detect a nuclear weapon in a satellite. We might have that ability but if we do it is kept secret.
“BTW you can not just explode it in space.”
Do you know how far from earth these satellites are? Let’s play your fantasy game. One satellite explodes to knock out the AMB and the next heads to the detonation point.
“To date, I know of nothing we have that can fully detect a nuclear weapon in a satellite. We might have that ability but if we do it is kept secret.”
Based on what I know that we can do, I would be shocked if we can not detect a nuke in space.
“Do you know how far from earth these satellites are?”
LEO is about 2000Km anything lower will not remain in orbit.
“Let’s play your fantasy game. One satellite explodes to knock out the AMB”
Presumably you mean ABM.
In your fantasy – why do they need to do that ?
“and the next heads to the detonation point.”
KMS-4 weighs about 200Kg – KMS-3 is 100Kg.
Both are configured for earth observation – i.e. they are spy satelites.
KMS-4 appears to be under NK control, but despite claims to the contrary it it not communicating.
It is unlikely to be fully functional.
““Let’s play your fantasy game.”
You have not advanced the discussion and are far behind. I’ll wait for your horse and buggy. I hope your ride is not too bumpy.
The ability to passively detect a nuke is a function of the sheilding, Sheilding EMP weapons is counter productive.
Apararnetly the technology exists today to detect weapons grade material at distances of 1000K
If the NK satellites have EMP weapons we know.
The grid is of little use if what is connected to it is destroyed.
“The grid is of little use if what is connected to it is destroyed.”
Total destruction of everything is unlikely. Destroy the grid and factories can’t produce the needed replacements. I won’t even deal with our financial system which would be a total mess.
“Total destruction of everything is unlikely.”
Correct – that includes “the grid”
“Destroy the grid and factories can’t produce the needed replacements.”
As has been repeated endlessly – the destruction is not total, not uniform and declines with the square of the distance.
That is true of the Grid, it is true of “factories”
“I won’t even deal with our financial system which would be a total mess.”
The effect would be less than a Nuke in Manhattan.
You are looking to mitigate one threat.
You can easier elminate many.
““I won’t even deal with our financial system which would be a total mess.”
The effect would be less than a Nuke in Manhattan.”
In Manhattan denotes a dirty bomb exploded at street level. I think you should look at the studies.
“In Manhattan denotes a dirty bomb exploded at street level.”
Nope. We are mostly talking about NK as a threat.
They will be able to hit Manhattan with a Nagasaki capacity weapon before they will have an EMP weapon.
And there are studies of the effect of a 10KT Nuke in Manahattan.
My recollection is 500K-1M casualties, and 3T of economic damage.
Probably much greater than a dirty bomb or a EMP weapon.
And easier for most of our enemies to accomplish
“They will be able to hit Manhattan with a Nagasaki capacity weapon before they will have an EMP weapon.’
This is foolishness. A Nagasaki type attack is both a bomb and a delivery system. We know N. Korea has the bomb and we know that they can send up a satellite since two of them go around the US man times every day.
“A Nagasaki type attack is both a bomb and a delivery system. We know N. Korea has the bomb and we know that they can send up a satellite since two of them go around the US man times every day.”
If you can get a bomb into orbit, you can deliver it anywhere in the world.
Further the US already has the ability to take out satellites. If we beleive that NK has lofted a Nuke, it will be taken out.
Do you honestly beleive that NK can secretly put a nuke in orbit ?
“Do you honestly beleive that NK can secretly put a nuke in orbit ?”
I don’t think so YET, however, I am unwilling to prepare for the last war something that you seem to be doing. We need to prepare for the next war or your airforce will be the equivalent of balloons in the sky.
ABM’s are the defense against the most likely next war.
They are a near absolute deterent to any enemy except Russia and possibly China.
“ABM’s are the defense against the most likely next war.”
That very well may be true, but for the next war trade in your horse and buggy.
The method of taking out the grid with a dozen people and materials you can find in Walmart is incredibly low tech and nothing you did about EMP hardening would effect it.
I do have a friend who works for a major public utility on their computerized monitoring and control systems, who notes that all you need to do is disrupt a few geographically diverse links to trigger a cascade failure that will take out very large sections of the grid. The “grid” portion of the “grid” is quite fragile – not because of EMP issues,
but because it operates much like the U2 spy plane – the separation between the top speed – the speed at which the wings get ripped off, and the stall speed – the speed at which there is not sufficient lift to support the plane is incredibly narrow at 50,000ft – modern airliners traveling at 50,000 have similar problems.
Regardless the tiny distance between two different forms of failure means that certain disruptions – which are highly unlikely naturally. but can be deliberately caused with primative tools will move the grid quickly into a state it can not recover from.
And the fixes for this inherently make the grid LESS efficient. The trigger is insufficient excess capacity – not merely in generation but in transmission at every link.
We deliberately operate the grid very near maximum capacity.
There is not much concern for this particular failure mode because it can not happen by accident and it can not be caused externally.
And because ultimately it is not really preventable. increasing the specific margins that are the problem would only increase the effort needed to trigger the cascade failure.
“The method of taking out the grid with a dozen people and materials you can find in Walmart is incredibly low tech and nothing you did about EMP hardening would effect it.
I do have a friend who works for a major public utility on their computerized monitoring and control systems, who notes that all you need to do is disrupt a few geographically diverse links to trigger a cascade failure that will take out very large sections of the grid.”
There is a difference in the damage done and the ability to speedily correct the damage. Part of hardening the grid is also to strengthen I think 8 specific areas and part of that would be cyber-security and physical security of those areas.
EMP is different than the homemade Walmart devices you talk about. take note our grid has already been affected without a decent reason being provided. They could actually be tests on the grid for future sabotage.
My actual profession is an embedded software engineer.
For several years I had a TS/SCI, I also was one of a dozen founders to a startup that developed hardware/software to affordable decrypt encryted emails. We provided this capability to every FBI field office in the country.
I am not an “expert” in cyber security, but I know alot about it, and I know alot of black hats and white hats.
Our government sucks at cyber security. The black hats are way ahead. Private cyber security is ahead of government cyber security and is improving all the time.
Russian hackers are taking US companies for about 30B a year, that is a tremendous incentive to get good at cyber security.
Despite the nonsense sprayed about the 2016 election – while Russia, China, NK are probably the best Nation states interms of cyber attack capabilities, they are NOt in the league with black hats.
Several years ago the FBI had a secret internal conference call discusing the hacking group Anonymous. Anoymous found out about the call, hacked the FBI and their phone system and recorded the conference call and published it.
I am highly skeptical of all the Russian hacking claims. For the most part Russia uses Black Hats to do its hacking, and then turns a blind eye to their criminal activities.
Anyway the NSA has a massive global data gathering capability – that they do not really know how to use – I have also worked indirectly for the NSA – as well as on AEGIS, JTTRS, on Predator, on some projects I was not allowed to know what they were, for JPL, for LANL, and for IAEC.
I had a close friend who did cyber security at the NSA for several decades. He is unfortunately now dead.
Anyway, Cyber security is a constant battle, but most private businesses are better at it than most of government.
dhlii – maybe the federal govt should contract out to CrowdStrike for its cyber-security.
CrowdStrike is just about the worst.
They have had numerous major fails.
Their major marketing hook is the claim that they can determine who hacked you.
Absent a confession that is not possible today. everyone has everyone else’s hacking tools. Sophistacated hackers work through unsophisticated hackers, or sometime hack unsophiticated hackers to create a false impression.
We know as an example that APT28 and APT29 were used on the DNC. Contra Crowdstrike and the US IC that tells us nothing.
We do not actually know that the emails were removed using APT28 and APT29. Nor do we know that the hackers using APT28 and APT29 were russians.
APT28 and APT29 have been used by many other nations and hackers.
Nor can we tell if we are able to “trace” There is no way to tell if what we think is an endpoint is, or if it is just a way point.
We can not even tell if we are being deliberately mislead.
I need to look at the Mueller indictment. He purportedly has GRU emails – probably from NSA intercepts.
If he really and truly has those, he MIGHT have something.
Another issue is that Russia in particular does not typically work through its government GRU would not do the actual hacking.
Russia turns a blind eye to russian hacking groups engaged in essentially organized global financial crime, in return for the hackers doing work for Russia.
Finally, the FBI, CIA, NSA have not gotten a single major thing like this right since …… ?
They were blindsided by the fall of the Soviet Union. There assessments of its strength were garbage,
They missed Sadam’s attack on Iran, and then on Kuwait. The missed 9/11. They botched Antrax, they botched Richard Jewel, they were wrong about Iraq and nukes.
Why are we supposed to beleive them about Russian Hacking ?
White Hats and Black Hats outside of government are far better at this than government.
And nearly all of those say – it is not possible to forensically be sure who hacked you.
dhlii – did you see that Putin will let Mueller talk to the GRU guys if his people can talk to Browder to gave Hillary $400 million for her campaign and didn’t pay taxes, either in the US or Russia. Liberal meltdowns are abounding 😉
“Our government sucks at cyber security.”
I agree.
I do not beleive anything is a “common good”.
I do not beleive that decisions regarding the grid should be made by government or in any organized collective sense – i.e. it is NOT a “common good”.
The “grid” will serve us best if government gets out of it entirely and it is allowed to develop organically.
In that instance some parts of it will be “hardened” and others will not. Basically different portions will have different attributes as different “owners” seek their own best advantage, The end result will be that the grid will not be systemically vulnerable, because there is no “systemic” to it.
No the Government should not spend $2B or even $2 “incentivizing” any part of the economy to any government determined conception of what is best.
If you beleive that a “hardened grid” is a value – then communicate that to your power company. If enough people do, they will respond.
I would suggest reading Nobel Winner Elenor Olstrom’s work on common’s.
Data driven research demonstrates “commons” do not work the way we have been told for centuries.
The tragedy of the commons is a fallacy.
I am not entirely sure I beleive in commons.
I would also refer you to the Coases law.
Frictionless transactions, Strong property rights, free markets and the rule of law will outperform any other arrangement.
Put simply Coase’s law suggests there should be no “commons”
“I would suggest reading… ”
Dhlii, I don’t see how any of your comments were responsive to the questions asked:
“Answer the question. Is the grid a common good? Yes or no? Should the grid be hardened now no matter who hardens it? If the grid will not be hardened privately should the states or federal government do the job? Estimated cost $2Billion.”
Asked and answered.
“Answer the question. Is the grid a common good? Yes or no? ”
No.
“Should the grid be hardened now no matter who hardens it?”
Exactly as asked – NO!. “who” is quite relevant.
“If the grid will not be hardened privately should the states or federal government do the job?”
No.
“Estimated cost $2Billion.”
Do not care.
“Asked and answered.
“Answer the question. Is the grid a common good? Yes or no? ”
No.”
This is the first time you directly answered the question. You also answered that you would not spend $2 on the grid which is a national security issue.
OK. Now we have a better understanding of how your libertarian thinking works. National security, one of the main reasons for our government to exist, is secondary to libertarian dogma. I can accept that. You can believe what you wish. I, however, somewhat libertarian completely disagree.
Please do not misrepresent me.
My answer was that I would not use force at any price a priori specifically to protect “the grid”.
If my power company came to me and said “will you voluntarily pay $2/year to “protect the grid” from EMP” I would likely say yes.
The actual question matters,
The ends do not justify the means.
Lets put your question in a different context,
Would you spend $2B to to have the government forcibly remove high demand kidneys to have them available in the even some unlikely event required them ?
Alternately
Would you give $2 to the red cross to persuade people to give blood to be stocked for emergencies ?
The form of each question is nearly the same.
The answers are radically different.
If your question is structured as
Would you use force to accomplish the following good ?
My answer will almost always be no.
“Please do not misrepresent me.”
Protection of the grid is a national security issue. It is not being done your way. That doesn’t mean that national security should be sacrificed.
“Protection of the grid is a national security issue. It is not being done your way. That doesn’t mean that national security should be sacrificed.”
Allan, I can make a national security argument for anything.
I can make a national security argument for banning abortions.
You will note the constitution has no “national security” provisions.
In fact our founders feared standing armies. Put simply they understood that as a nation we face external threats – even if EMP was not one of those.
but that those threats did not justify a priori infringement on rights.
While we are addressing “national security” ANYTHING that most of us would agree is a compelling societal interest, can be used to justify a priori sacrificing all our rights.
Further I am not seeking a system “hardened against EMP”. I am seeking a system that is actually anti-fragile. Top down increases fragility.
Even solving one problem (from the top) – like EMP, typicaly introdices new vulnerabilities that is an immutable characteristic of top down approaches.
“You will note the constitution has no “national security” provisions.”
Then you must note the history of the US and all the provisions made to protect our security. We even build bases in the US that I don’t think is specifically mentioned in the Constitution and these bases are able to communicate with one another also not mentioned in the Constitution. There is even a hotline to Moscow that is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
The Constitution does state:
“The Congress shall have Power … To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
And in the Preamble along with section 8 mentions “the common defense” along with various mentions of what can be done. By extension since the Constitution was written, there have been various things that have been approved and various Supreme Court decisions affirming the right of the federal government to protect our national security even though the specific items in question were not specifically written into the Constitution.
The constitution is not an inventory of US assets.
It is an inventory of the powers and authority of the US government.
While foreign relations and national defense are in there – national security in the way you imagine it is not.
Nor would it be. Your version of national security is the road to socialism through fear of foreign aggressors,
rather than class struggle. While You may not personally be willing to give infinite scope to national security you have let the camel’s nose into the tent, the camel will follow.
“The constitution is not an inventory of US assets.”
I have yet to hear anyone say that it is.
The necessary and proper clause is NOT a black check – neither is the “general welfare clause”.
All that the Necessary and Proper clause means is that if the constitution grants the federal govenrment a specific power, then it also grants it those things that are required to give effect to that power.
Yes, the supreme court has fairly consistently misinterpreted the constitution as granting the federal govenrment to much and to broad a powers.
All law and constitution must be construed narrowly.
In the constitution Congress is given specific authority to
declare war
raise and support armies
provide for a navy
establish the rules for the operation of American military forces
organize and arm the militias of the states
and specify the conditions for converting the militias into national service.
“United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.”
The constitution is very specific about “national defense”.
It is the only Mandatory function of the federal govenrment – but it is still defined narrowly.
No rational reading of the constitution would permit the federal government to require “hardening the grid”.
But it would easily cover ABM’s.
“The necessary and proper clause is NOT a black check – neither is the “general welfare clause”.”
Few if any intelligent people will say otherwise. However, some intelligent people might use those clauses to push for what they want.
I have no idea what “national security” is. It is a term that can be bent to mean whatever is wanted.
I can use “national security” as a justification for socialism.
Actual defence against an attack – that we can talk about.
As I said, I will give you $2B to build the space based ABM system to take out your hypothetical EMP weapon before it can do damage.
“As I said, I will give you $2B to build the space based ABM system to take out your hypothetical EMP weapon before it can do damage.”
We might need that as well, but the $2Billion will be well spent if we protect the grid. We have to stop fighting the last war and think about what a future war would look like.
“I have no idea what “national security” is”
That is true.
The “your idealistic not pragmatic” argument is incredibly thin.
My unwillingness to take action that will not work and will likely make things worse, where there is lots of real world data to underpin that conclusion, does nto make my idealistic and anti-progamatice.
Idealistic and pragmatic are not inherently at odds.
When they ACTUALLY are – your ideals are wrong.
The primary appeal of libertarianism is that principle and practice do not conflict.
Demonstrate a real instance where they actually do, and I will change my principles.
“The “your idealistic not pragmatic” argument is incredibly thin.”
Thin, but strong.
Semantic games are not arguments.
You are actually on the wrong side of “pragmatic”. While accusing my arguments as theoretical and not pragmatic, you are ignoring the fact that the real world data strongly supports them – and not yours.
That is because classical liberalism as an ideology is the iterative refinement of theory and practice. It has developed in the same way as physics and other hard sciences.
Observe, hypothesize, test, repeat.
Other “ideolgies” have also been tried – they tend to fail at “observe” and “test”. It is other ideologies that are not pragmatic.
“Semantic games are not arguments.”
That is why I try to limit the scope of discussion. Just look at the relative size of the posts and count the number of tangents.
““Semantic games are not arguments.”
That is why I try to limit the scope of discussion. Just look at the relative size of the posts and count the number of tangents.”
Your response is a Tangent.
Scope and semantics are unrelated.
“Scope and semantics are unrelated.”
Actually, they are related in your discussions. By promoting the former you can play with the latter.
“Scope and semantics are unrelated.”
Actually, they are related in your discussions.
Nope.
Have it your way Dhlii and say what you wish. Scope and semantics are related in your discussions to which you could add generalities.
” Scope and semantics are related in your discussions to which you could add generalities.”
Unless related means no more than are present viewed accross mulitple posts, then NO.
I do not beleive that any top down approach to “the grid” whatever the cost will prove invulnarable.
Worse any “designed” solution will inherently have some single point of failure.
Our vulnerability to EMP is the result of top down design.
Truly anti-fragile systems are organic, bottom up.
government can not and does not do that.
Put differently – it is you betting both money and lives – not me.
BTW I think the economic devestation of a significant US EMP attack would be enormous. (and short lived)
But the loss of life would actually be small.
The absolutely devestating EMP attack would be from Russia not NK.
Kim can not follow up with a know out blow.
Russia can.
Very quickly after and EMP attack the entire world would gear up to repair the damage,
that is how markets respond to those kinds of problems.
The effects would be similar to Pearl Harbor. They would bring people together and
atleast temporarily be strongly positive.
I would suggest comparing the way Texas recovered from the Recent Huricanes to the way Puerto Rico did.
There are fundimental differences between cultures and societes that take centuries to change.
Africa has a problem with water.
Aide groups have gone through africa drilling wells. That proves temporary.
The wells as not maintained and fail.
Lower tech well drilling approaches are somewhat more successful, but still fail.
The only means that works is getting those in Africa to solve their own problems.
Parts of Texas were devasted by Huricanes.
But those people living in those areas had a different culture. They basically knew what needed to be done, knew how to go about doing it, and knew what the benefits would be when they did,
Put simply most of our science fiction about high tech societies being wiped out by the destruction of technology and the inability of people to cope without it are fallacious.
If all technology was wiped out tomorow – we would replace or recreate it quite quickly.
Even if the technology of the entire advanced woeld was instantly wiped out and all libraries and information necescary to recreate it disappeared.
We would still do so fairly quickly. You can not destroy human knowledge and more importantly you can not destroy the fact that we know what is possible.
Texas recovered quickly because they knew what they wanted and knew they could accomplish it.
“I do not beleive that any top down approach to “the grid” whatever the cost will prove invulnarable.”
Hardening the grid doesn’t make anything invulnerable but it permits the grid to function after an attack. You seem to prefer to restart caveman and wait a year or more until the grid can be adequately repaired. Farmers will survive. If you are not one your likelihood of survival will be markedly reduced.
“Our vulnerability to EMP is the result of top down design.”
A simple statement made to encompass all arguments but is words and doesn’t solve the present problem. That is the problem with too much principle and not enough pragmatism.
“BTW I think the economic devestation of a significant US EMP attack would be enormous. (and short lived)
But the loss of life would actually be small.”
If the grid were totally knocked out which is a possibility, our lives, for the most part, would be unsustainable.
“The absolutely devestating EMP attack would be from Russia not NK.”
How do you know? They have the satellite technology with two of them each crossing the US multiple times every day. They have the nuclear capability and might even have the size problem down pat. The physics behind the height of an EMP attack along with locations is known.
If you want my support on something – the government should start (or finish) a reliable space based ABM system to suppliment the two systems we already have.
That is the legitimate realm of government.
Do we really want a long debate about who will survive a hypothetical attack ?
You say farmers will survive. Frankly I think everyone will.
The economic damage will be larger than 9/11, but the deaths will likely be less.
I would also note this is far more than a “grid” problem, and may cost far more than $2B.
An EMP weapon will threaten everything that is electrical.
That is the grid, phones, cars, radio, the internet, Refriderators -all appliances.
The size of he weapon, the proximity to the release, and the nature of the specific device wil determine the probability of an specific device surviving.
The grid surviving will be meaningless if every car, truck, cellphone, refridgerator and appliance is dead.
Conversely if 30% of the above survives recovery will be rapid.
If as an example every single computer in a factory is oblitarated, that factory will recover 100%, as soon as sufficient transportation is restored and all higher priotrity deliveries above replacing those computers occur.
My point is that within moments of the end of the attack, recovery begins.
NK gets to do this ONCE – maybe, if our ABM system fails.
Russia can do this AND potentially while we are still weak nuke the crap out of us (assuming they can survive MASD)
One of your problems is that you presume we will be knocked back to cave men AND STAY THERE.
The destruction of trillions of dollars of equipment is just that. Nothing more. Equipment can be replaced.
And it will be. The primary harm will be economic.
“I would also note this is far more than a “grid” problem, and may cost far more than $2B.”
You are as usual expanding the question. I am solely talking about the grid-connecting the major power sources to each other. It doesn’t go further than that. Your electronics are your problem.
An EMP attack on the grid is a major national security issue.
Of course I am expanding the problem – again why I keep pointing you at Taleeb.
If you wish to mitigate the harm of an EMP attack “hardening” the grid is a tiny part of the problem.
As society organically evolves – with reducing fragility being one facet of that bottom up evolution.
Changes will occur that will not merely reduce the effects of an EMP attack but make us less fragile in many other ways.
“If you wish to mitigate the harm of an EMP attack “hardening” the grid is a tiny part of the problem.”
It’s a large part of the problem and the least expensive part to harden. Dollar for dollar it provides more benefit than what the individual can do.
We have already addressed this. “The Grid” is a small port of the damage that an EMP weapon would cause.
A project I had several years ago required going to a facility where they tested the axles for farm equipment.
They would destructively test each different axle to failure.
Most people would thing the goal should be to then strengthen the point of failure, repeat and strengthen the next point of failure.
That is wrong. All that does is slowly migrates every axle to be the same as the largest axle for the heaviest peice of equipment.
The objective is to assure that all failures occur outside the margin of safety and that no particular par of the axle is significantly stronger than the rest.
Hardening the grid against EMP without hardening everything else is just wasteful.
If NK EMP’s the US and the grid survives, but nothing connected to it does, that is just waste.
The objective is not for one part to survive unharmed. It is to maximize the survival of a portion of everything necescary.
If the grid survives unscathed, but 100% of all refridgeration, 100% of all transportation, 100% of all production is destroyed – we are in deep shit.
But if 90% of the grid is destroyed and 90% of refridgeration, and 90% of transportation, and 90% of production are destroyed,.
we will be able to bootstrap recovery, and the process will be exponential. We will have 20% one day, and 40% the next, and …
This is all separately complcated by the fact that whatever damage there is will be proprtionate to the distance from the origen.
There is no amount of hardening that you can do that will save anything electrical close enough to the origin.
In fact anything that can carry a current – even if it is not intended to, will self destruct close to the origin.
Conversely far enough away and your car will survive unscathed, but your car navigation system may be damaged.
Transportation as an example is likely to be far more “critical path” than the grid – as the uneven destruction means the outer rings initially bootstrap the inner ones.
“If NK EMP’s the US and the grid survives, but nothing connected to it does, that is just waste.”
There is no such a thing as perfect security but the largest risk is the risk of losing the grid itself which would be the target of a hostile nation. Unless the attack is massive and successful a hardened grid would be more likely to permit the US to function than a soft grid that is wiped out.
It is like the human body. First, protect the brain and the heart along with other vital organs. The body can survive without a leg but not without the heart to pump blood to the rest of the body.
“There is no such a thing as perfect security”
Correct.
” but the largest risk is the risk of losing the grid itself”
Nope
” which would be the target of a hostile nation.”
What a hostile nation would “target” and what an EMP weapon would take out are different overlapping sets.
“Unless the attack is massive and successful a hardened grid would be more likely to permit the US to function than a soft grid that is wiped out.”
If the grid survives and nothing connected to it does – and we do not recover critical functions quickly – we are dead.
“It is like the human body. First, protect the brain and the heart along with other vital organs. The body can survive without a leg but not without the heart to pump blood to the rest of the body.”
The human body does not have a government – it is not top down centrally planned. The brain controls alot of things but not everything.
Evern the “central nervous system has substantial amounts of autonomous functionality that is completely independent of the brain.
Humans would be better protected against many types of blows, if we had scales like dinosaurs.
But we do not. We are not designed to counter a specific set of threats. we are designed to be anti-fragile.
You note how important the heart is – yet you can hit someone hard enough to stop their heart – less force than it takes to break their leg.
The human body is a poor example for your argument – it does little in the why of “hardening” against very specific threats.
To the extent there is “hardening” it is against general threats, and more important it is designed to recover from damage.
“” but the largest risk is the risk of losing the grid itself”
Nope”
—–
Try having factories replace what is lost if there is no electricity to those areas.
“Try having factories replace what is lost if there is no electricity to those areas.”
A fully functional grid with nothing to use it is equally useless.
Shortly after an attack repairs will begin.
We will not devote all resources to factories.
We will not devote them to the grid.
BTW hardening does not make the grid invulnerable, it just decreases the net damage to the grid
““Try having factories replace what is lost if there is no electricity to those areas.”
A fully functional grid with nothing to use it is equally useless.
Shortly after an attack repairs will begin.
We will not devote all resources to factories.
We will not devote them to the grid.”
————
Take note, how quickly you change directions. If the grid were totally knocked out by an EMP attack we are dead. AT other times you talk about a partial breakdown because it is more convenient for you.
After such an attack we would be in chaos unable to get food to people while they sit in the dark. Communications will be down, the financial sector destroyed, our military compromised, hospitals unusable, and factories closed. Our electric generators would not function, our bridges would not function, our dams would not function, our water supply would become contaminated.
Vital parts for the grid will be unavailable and the workers will be unable to even get to many of the sites.
“Take note …”
We are dealing with a hypothetical.
One that is nearly completely calculable given a complete set of facts, which we do not have.
One that can be addressed reasonably accurately with a reasonable set of assumptions – which I can not get you to provide.
Consequently my arguments have to be relavtively non-specific.
All kinds of things are “possible”.
But we are dealing with an improbable event and you want to deal with the most improbable permutations of that event, and then presume that all occur concurrently.
“After such an attack we would be in chaos”
Breifly.
“unable to get food to people while they sit in the dark”
Briefly, First the entire “effected area” is not going to be effected exactly the same.
Your assumptions are only for a small part of the entire effected area.
The entire effected area will contain the exact same about of food as it did immediately prior to the attack.
That requiring refridgeration will have to be consumed quickly.
What does not require refridgeration will be available for some time.
Regardless, starvation will not be a problem for most for weeks.
“Communications will be down”
Briefly.
“the financial sector destroyed”
Not unless they target Manhattan in which case most of the rest of the country will be unscathed.
“our military compromised”
Military imparement will be quite small.
“hospitals unusable”
Every hospital and most medical facilities in the country has generation equipment.
If the damage to the hospital is so great that it still unusable – then a functioning grid would change nothing.
“and factories closed.”
Many of those have generating capabilities.
“Our electric generators would not function”
Because you say so ?
“our bridges would not function”
Why ?
“our dams would not function”
I am not sure what that means – if you mean that some hydro-electric generation might be impaired – SOME.
If you means dams would burst – no.
“our water supply would become contaminated.”
Because ?
“Vital parts for the grid will be unavailable and the workers will be unable to even get to many of the sites.”
All assumptions. Worse still you seem to think that spending $2B to “harden the grid” will fix any of this.
You have posited damage so great that no vehicles work, no generators work, and are at the same time presuming that if only the grid worked
factories and hospitals would work and people would be able to get to work.
In any scenario as bad as you claim, a 100% functional grid would change NOTHING.
In fact the grid would not continue to function very long – because all transportation would be out regardless and no one would be able to replace those operating the grid, no one would be able to feed them. and the entire grid would collapse shortly as a result of hungry exhausted operators.
You can expect that saving 100% of a tiny part of a modern world while destroying 100% of everything else will result in a meaningful difference between complete 100% destruction.
If the grid survives 100% unless a substaintial portion of the rest of our infrustructure also survives, there is no meaningful benefit to the grid.
In fact transportation is far more important than the grid.
“After such an attack we would be in chaos unable to get food to people while they sit in the dark. Communications will be down, the financial sector destroyed, our military compromised, hospitals unusable, and factories closed. Our electric generators would not function, our bridges would not function, our dams would not function, our water supply would become contaminated.
Dhlii responds: “Breifly.”
To such a reply there is no reason to answer because reason has ceased to exist unless Dhlii time frame looks at hours as seconds and lifespans that last centuries.
You asert many things most of which are demonstrably false and you claim challenging those that are likely false is unreasonable ?
“You asert many things most of which are demonstrably false and you claim challenging those that are likely false is unreasonable ?”
No, though I like you sometimes you are full of BS. That bathroom is down the hall just past the Sun People.
“An EMP attack on the grid is a major national security issue.”
So spend your $2B on a space based ABM system.
That will have far more benefit. And have far less negative impacts.
Absent the ability to weather retaliation AND to further retaliate yourself.
An EMP attack is an act of suicide.
In the event our two existing ABM systems fail, further threats from NK will be over in a few minutes.
Russia is more dangerous specifically because that is not true.
China has far greater nuclear capability than NK. but it is not sufficiently well developed for a plausible EMP attack absent a desparate situation.
an EMP weapon is a specific type of nuclear bomb. It is not a satellite.
“If the grid were totally knocked out which is a possibility, our lives, for the most part, would be unsustainable.”
The most relevant issue is how quickly can critical systems be restored. Very very little must be restored in minutes.
Everything else falls into groups of hours, days, weeks, months – each of exponentially increasing size.
One of the most important things is to restore transportation.
That can be done quickley – because it can be done from outside the effected area.
One of the problems with an EMP attack on the US, is you can not take out the entire country. You probably can not take out an entire coast.
The effect will diminish exponentially with the distance from the origen.
You will have a giant series of rings, with less and less impact in each successive ring. Trucks and trains from just beyond the fartherst ring to impact planes trucks and trains will be able to come in. Roads and rails will be cleared quickly. Control systems will be replaced – or manual systems implimented and the flow of things necescary to recover will start nearly immediately.
Repairing the grid does little good – it the things that require the grid – like refriderators are all also dead.
“Absent the ability to weather retaliation AND to further retaliate yourself.
An EMP attack is an act of suicide.”
In 1859 telegraph lines were taken out by an EMP caused by the sun. Telegraphs are much more hardened than most things are today. We have had other occurrences through the years and though none were due to a known attack against us they have occurred because of the explosion of nuclear weapons.
You say an EMP event would be “an act of suicide.”. The sun is inanimate so it doesn’t commit acts of suicide. Today, the right EMP could dismantle our military so retribution might be a difficult feat. Can the source of an EMP attack be hidden? Maybe, maybe not.
“an EMP weapon is a specific type of nuclear bomb. It is not a satellite.”
A satellite can hold the nuclear weapon that can explode at the right time over the right location. NK has two satellites in orbit around the US at this time.
“Repairing the grid does little good – it the things that require the grid – like refriderators are all also dead.”
It is unlikely an EMP attack will destroy everything. It can destroy the electronics in a car so you can’t drive and if your car is old or withstands the EMP the gas pumps might not work because they too are based on electronics. That goes for the majority of things we use. Without the grid, there is no electricity and it is electricity that will run all the things we use. A strong nation doesn’t need to use its military to defend itself because other countries don’t want to attack strength. A weak grid demonstrates a military vulnerability which could make an attack more likely.
You keep magnifying this EMP weapon.
From my understanding under optimal circumstances, if absolutely everything wnet right – with no ability to test it first,
NK could produce and EMP weapon that could MAYBE take out about 1/2 the country.
Even that is actually wrong.
It could completely take out 10% of the country and 80% take out 25% of the country and …..
The effects of an EMP weapon diminish with the square of the distance.
If NK successfully targetted BOSWASH, the vast majority of the country and most of our grid would be uneffected.
If the tried to take out the entire “grid” that is about all they would get. Electrical generation is primarily in less populated regions.
Further if you want to take out the grid you do not need an EMP weapon.
Presumably you have heard of the “nuclear Triad”. You know better – attack up and we will retaliate, it is certain and there is nothing that can be done short of anihilating the planet that would stop it.
The NK satellites are not EMP weapons. NK does not at this time have the capability to put a nuclear weapon into orbit.
The most liberal assessments have them reaching NYC.
If you can put a weapon into orbit you can hit ANYWHERE. They can not yet do that. The US can, Russia Can, China can.
Thought most nuclear weapons are sub orbital. there are physics based reasons for that. The resources needed for an orbital weapon are greater than 5 suborbital ICBMs.
An EMP weapon inside of NK’s capacity would do much more economic damage than a traditional atomic weapon.
But in the US it would result in far less loss of life than nuking NYC – with current NK capabilities would likely kill about 500,000 people
Taking the entire grid out would likely kill about the same numbers as the WTC. but with far greater economic damage.
“You keep magnifying this EMP weapon.”
No, I don’t. I actually limit it to the grid that interconnects. It is both a weapon and a natural occurrence. Both are good reasons to harden the grid.
The Solar events you refer to are rare, global is scope and far weaker in strength than an EMP weapon.
Further they are sufficiently predictable that it is the business of the private economy to protect against them – as we do fires.
The primary damage of solar flares has been to satellites not “the grid” and our satellites are mostly “hardened”.
You still keep making this argument that “a good reason” is a justification for the use of force.
No it is not.
A “good reason” – is a basis to expect that most private actors will do what is needed on their own proportionate to costs and risks.
Govenrment must justify the use of force – ALWAYS.
A good reason is not enough.
Dhlii, the solar events we talk about are not that predictable. If they were we are overdue for a solar event that can cause a lot of damage. That is only one reason to protect the grid. The grid IMO is part of our national security. The next attack against the US might very well be an EMP attack. I guess according to you we don’t need an airforce. It isn’t mentioned in the Constitution.
The solar events you are talking about ARE within constraints predictable.
They are unlikely to impossible right now and likely for many more years.
The center of gravity of the solar system is as nears as it comes to the center of gravity of the sun in any 200+ year period, the sun is remarkably quiet.
The Peak of Solar Cycle 24 was 100 sunspots, the normal peak is over 200, the 20th century peak was 250. Further we are at the leading edge of a minumum,
and the trailing edge of SC24. SC25 will likely be weaker than SC24.
We do not know yet if we are looking at a relatively normal minimum like the 1800 Dalton Minimum or something more like the Maunder Minimum which precipitated the little ice age.
But we do know that for sometime – probably 20-30 years Solar flares are likely to be rare and weak.
dhlii – just to confuse your discussion. 🙂
https://www.space.com/39622-magnetic-cages-could-limit-dangerous-solar-flare-power.html
“The solar events you are talking about ARE within constraints predictable.
They are unlikely to impossible right now and likely for many more years.”
I guess that is why 3-4 months ago a solar hole developed and there was a question as to whether or not we could be hit by a solar electromagnetic event. So much for your “unlikely to impossible” theory. I think you are too sure about your libertarian theories and that rubs off on your science.
Solar Flares continue to happen even now.
They are far smaller than normal and can not effect the Earth.
There is always someone speculating that the unlikely or impossible will happen.
I am not saying that a massive solar flare is impossible.
I am saying the odds are greatly against it.
“I think you are too sure about your libertarian theories and that rubs off on your science.”
I am not the one converting something I am afraid might happen into fact.
““I think you are too sure about your libertarian theories and that rubs off on your science.”
I am not the one converting something I am afraid might happen into fact.”
Since we have seen the results to a lesser degree we have a good idea of what is possible. Early on you sought of admitted that but were against hardening the grid by the federal government though it seemed that you thought organically hardening the grid was OK. I think everything in this sphere should be hardened if possible and I am not unwilling to spend the $2B to move the process faster. Your libertarian ideas seem to have made your ideas conflict with one another. Why harden the grid organically if it is so unnecessary?
Please quit telling me what I think.
I am not opposed to free people making non-violent choices on their own – regardless of whether I think those are good choices.
When I say that “hardening the grid Organically” is OK that is what I mean.
You are free to persuade your power company that EMP hardening is important to you.
Government has no role in this at all – except stopping an EMP weapon.
You can wish to harden everything.
You can try to persuade others to do so.
But not through government.
If you have $2B – then spend it.
You may not spend $1 or my or anyone else’s money.
The only conflict is in your head.
Libertain means being free.
Free to want the grid hardened.
Free to not want it hardened.
Free to harden it myself or seek it harden – so long as I do not use force – AKA government to do so.
Free to oppose hardening it – so long as I do not use force to preclude others from doing so.
Much of our debate has been utilitarian – i.e. is this even a good idea,
and the answer is not likely.
If what you want to do can not overcome a utilitarian hurdle then it is never appropriate for government.
But that alone is not sufficient.
If you are asking what I would like (and expect) to see.
Most of what you are calling hardening, is useful for reasons other than an EMP attack.
When our value of all uses reaches sufficient level – this will occur, on its own , without government.
And that is what should be allowed to happen.
Of course – we may never hold it in that high a value – and that is OK too.
“Please quit telling me what I think.”
I’m telling you what I think.
“Please quit telling me what I think.”
“I’m telling you what I think.”
You are going beyond that.
You keep badly explaining my own arguments to me.
You constantly expand my assertion that government may not do something,
into no one may or that it is a bad idea, and then pretending that there is a conflict with that and something else I have said.
That is telling me what I think.
Just because something MIGHT be a good idea, does not make government doing it good.
You are buying into a stupid leftwing nut game.
The constitution specifies the powers of government.
Changes in technology have no effect on that.
But in the event you beleive that the constitution does not empower us to have an airforce – then amend the constituion.
The constitution is not some sacred text. Its is not immutable.
It is however a requirement that expanding the powers of government requires changing the constitution.
The power to defend the nation for foreign attack is in the constitution.
The power to restructure the economy out of fear of some mythical future attack is not.
“You are buying into a stupid leftwing nut game.”\
National security is not a stupid left or right wing game. In fact, the one’s calling strongest to repair the grid are from the right.
“But in the event you beleive that the constitution does not empower us to have an airforce – then amend the constituion.”
I believe the Constitution permits what is needed to protect the security of the US from foreign attack. I suppose that is why we have an air force. I don’t know how you permitted our air force to be built. It wasn’t in the Constitution.
“National security is not a stupid left or right wing game. ”
Yes, it is.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security.”
― Benjamin Franklin
It is always possible to use fear to justify greater govenrment power.
“In fact, the one’s calling strongest to repair the grid are from the right”
Yes, the right is prone to the national security state form of socialism.
“I believe the Constitution permits what is needed to protect the security of the US from foreign attack. I suppose that is why we have an air force. I don’t know how you permitted our air force to be built. It wasn’t in the Constitution.”
Again the constitution is not a list of assets, it is a list of powers.
The constitution does not prohibit governement from buying light bulbs.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security.”
― Benjamin Franklin
Dhlii, I don’t think at Bunker Hill (Breed Hill) Benjamin Franklin would have been against fortifying it against the British to provide a bit more security.
National defense is not National security.
Nor was the purpose of holding Breeds and Bunker Hill security.
It was to deny the British the ability to hold Boston Harbor, and it nearly succeeded.
Regardless even if it had been purely defensive it was a military defense against a military attack.
The colonists were not looking to have the government compell them into growing red coat resistant wheat.
“National defense is not National security.”
Here we go with semantics again. Security can be a form of defense.
Not semantics. Words have meaning.
This is not even a close call.
Defence is the use of force in response to force.
Security is broad enough to include anything.
We can play – this will work, that will not for days..
Many things will, some will not. It is likely that an EMP attack anywhere will take out almost the entire grid – for perhaps a few hours – due to cascade failures.
But quite quickly most of the grid will be back up.
Very close to the point of explosion everything vaguely electrical will be totally destroyed and people will die directly from the explosive effects. Even though they are less.
A few rings over older electrical devices or newer ones that are better designed will survive.
Further and only really fragile things will fail.
No matter what many many things all over the country will be left working or partly working and very quickly we will begin the task of rebuilding.
Every day more of the grid will be back. Some parts of the grid will take months. But most will recover quickly.
“But quite quickly most of the grid will be back up.”
No. Many pieces of the grid will be destroyed and have to be replaced. We will not have adequate replacements and have to construct new ones where the companies may have had their equipment damaged as well. You are minimizing the potential problem.
You are magically sure you know exactly what the effects will be.
AS I keep noting – and you keep ignoring, fundimental physics tells us that the effects will diminish exponentially with distance.
Close enough to the point of origen things that are not ordinarily considered conductors will conduct and self destruct.
Far enough away there will be ZERO effect.
With increasing distance the effects will diminsh – exponentially. In most of the effected area (do the math) the damage will be small,
You keep argument that pretty much everywhere EMP will destroy pretty much everything electrical.
If that is true – you will not be able to “harden” the Grid, or anything else.
As an example outside of extremely close proximity to the point of origen the phycisal grid – the wires etc will be mostly undamaged,
Damage will be primarily to switching gear – which can be replaced. Further away it will be primarily to control systems – which can be replaced.
Further still the damage will be close to non existant.
This is true not only of the grid but everything else.
And finally, AGAIN if after an EMP strike the grid survives undamaged, and nothing else is “hardened” the effect on the rate of recovery will be miniscule.
The fundimental issue is NOT the protection of things close to the point of origen – you can not protect anything there.
It is to reduce overall damage at distance. It is to increase the proportion of things that survive from X% to X+10%.
IF at some distance 40% of the grid survives and 30% of everything else does, you are no better off than if 30% of the grid survived.
“AS I keep noting – and you keep ignoring, fundimental physics tells us that the effects will diminish exponentially with distance.”
A lot of experts agree about the distance but also believe that it is possible for widespread damage to the grid with a singular EMP in the right position.
I suggest you read Foster et al., “Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from EMP Attack,” page 14 in particular (by third party). Estimates of 70% grid damage from a moderate EMP.
“A lot of experts agree about the distance ”
I would hope so, it is high school physics.
“but also believe that it is possible for widespread damage to the grid with a singular EMP in the right position.”
I do not disagree, I suspect 70% of the grid is conservative. I see no problem with an EMP attack taking out nearly 100% of the grid
As I told you a dozen men with things you can find in Walmart can take out the entire north east.
For a few hours, or maybe a day.
The same with an EMP weapon.
A damage projection without an assessment of the extent of the damage and the time to recover, repair is a poor projection.
That said you can still “do the math” even from that. The math tells us that of that 70% 1/4 will have about 4 times as much damage as 3/4.
Put simply of the area damaged the largest portion of the area damaged will have the least damage – and that pattern will repeat as you zero in on the origen.
If 70% of the grid was taken out by an EMP weapon – I would expect than 75% of that would recover quickly – hours or a day or so.
I do not know what the NK intelligence assessement is, but I doubt NK is working on EMP weapons. A hydrogen bomb is likely as easy for them to acheive
does not require accuracy and almost anywhere in the BOSWASH corridor will do as much or more damage.
Hardening the grid will not protect against Abomb’s or Hbombs.
A space based ABM will protect against all NK threats as well as future threats from any other small rogue nuclear power.
“If 70% of the grid was taken out by an EMP weapon – I would expect than 75% of that would recover quickly – hours or a day or so.”
Nonsense. There are many ways of knocking out at least a portion of the grid but what you fail to see is that EMP can knock out the grid so that many or all of the interconnections and relays become damaged and cannot transmit until replaced. Your experience seems to be with the former and that can involve lightening, Walmart products etc., but the real problem is that an EMP can injure all the little and big interconnecting circuits and equlipment that have to be replaced and replacements are not readily available nor can the factories make those replacements without electricity.
You worry about enough engineers to have accelerated shovel-ready projects during the recent financial crisis, but you have no such worry about the recreation of the grid that involves an extraordinary amount of high tech knowledge by extraordinary numbers where replacements have to be built while the country is in turmoil.
Your arguments conflict with one another whenever their is a change in circumstances.
EMP is not magical. It obeys the laws of physics.
Do we really need to dig deeply into the laws of physics, and the behavior of circuits and conductors ?
Though you have rejected it the lightning strike analogy is near perfect.
The difference is that a lightning strike is very localized.
But the behavior is the same – just at much larger scale.
I had lightning strike about 20′ from my home a couple of months ago.
My cable modem died, My router died.
Throughout my house I lost 3 ports on ethernet switched.
The other 200+ were fine.
An EMP ;strike – where my distance from the origen translated to the same field strength would have produced exactly the same damage.
Closer would have been more, farther less.
Close to the point of origen – wires will melt.
Far enough – nothing.
Most of the places inbetween – some fuses will blow, damage past the fuses if any at all will only occur close to the point of origen.
Yes some relays and interconnects will fry. Most will not. AGAIN damage will decrease exponentially from the point of origen from 100% to zero exponentially.
And you can mathematically calculate with relatively high accuraccy the percent of damage in each distance ring.
What you can not know ahead of time is the point of origen.
“EMP is not magical. It obeys the laws of physics.”
Absolutely, but a nuclear EMP, solar EMP, and lightning strike have different features. EMP has 3 different waveforms. Lightning generally is E2 though it can create the electronic fields of EMP local and small.
I don’t know what you are arguing about. For the most part, the grid is protected from lightning strikes and they are local. The grid is not protected from an EMP attack or a solar event. The EMP attack could be catastrophic.
So you can read Wikipedia.
The E1/E2/E3 distinction is not as significant as you are making it.
They are all EMP
The primary means of causing damage is by inducing a voltage and current into a conductor.
E3 has very limited range, and is almost inconsequential.
Anything protected against lighting is protected against E2 – with the caveat that there is no perfect protection from either.
The distinguishing feature of E1 is rise time. Anything that can sustain a direct hit by lightning is immune to E1.
Modern ESD protection of semiconductors will protect most modern semiconductors from E1.
Regardless there are two fundimental flaws in your concern,
Anything that damages the grid damages everything else, and a Grid without anything else working is useless.
Communications and transportation are far more important to recovery than the grid.
Preventing an attack – i.e. an ABM system is far far most effective than surviving one.
“So you can read Wikipedia.”
I prefer the commission report that is based on scientific review.
E1 opens the gate for E2 so the comment you made was wrong.
“Anything that damages the grid damages ***everything*** else”
Wrong.(*** are mine)
“I prefer the commission report that is based on scientific review.”
It is ? There is an actual scientific method. I do not recall “commission” being one of the steps.
Experimentation was.
“E1 opens the gate for E2 so the comment you made was wrong.”
E1 closes more gates than it opens. What is destroyed is destroyed.
For E2 to use the effects of E1 to increase damage the conductor would have to have endured the E1 intact.
It the conductor is shorted or open, you will actually have more but shorted conductors subject to E2 – most of which are not connected to anything
E2 will inarguably cause more damage if it is not preceded by E1.
““Anything that damages the grid damages ***everything*** else”
Wrong.(*** are mine)”
Wrong – see physics. The probability of a conductor being damaged is proportionate to the current induced in the conductor.
To be clear I am using conductor in the broadest sense. Wires, steel beams, anything that is not a complete insulator. That includes components – generators, motors, ….
““I prefer the commission report that is based on scientific review.”
Dhilli responds: It is ? ”
Yes, and if you are still unsure ask the Sun People.
Your getting childish.
You bitch about tangents – to the point you are now blaming me for your own.
What is and is not science has meaning.
The sole purpose of scientific review is to confirm that results are reproducible.
The scientific method is not about feelings or opinion. it is about verifiable facts.
I would further note the science of all of this is pretty trivial and old, we have covered much of it,
and some keeps tripping you up.
Most of the technical portion of this debate is engineering not science.
Allan; Aside from scale there is no fundimental difference between EMP and lightning.
In fact Lightning is EMP.
EMP can “injure” anything – so can lightening. The damage is STILL proportionate to the distance from the point of origen.
Further you talk about EMP effecting little circuits – at any given distance the damage to small circuits will be many many orders of magnitude less than large.
The induced current is proportionate to the volume of the conductor perpendicular to the electromagnetic field.
I would further note that outside of near proximity to the point of origen most modern electronics is already EMP protected. Though not exactly the same – most modern electronics has circuitry to absorb ESD. that circuitry will work the same against EMP.
“Allan; Aside from scale there is no fundimental difference between EMP and lightning.
In fact Lightning is EMP.”
Lightning is generally E2. The distance stated for an EMP attack is 40 to 400 km and that can cover a lot more area than a simple lightning strike E1,E2 and E3.
If the protection of the grid and thus society was the same as the protection for a lightning strike there would be no problem. If the lightning strike hits and creates an EMP in a specific area there is redundancy in the grid to cover the damage. That is not so 400 km out with a nuclear weapon. That is not so when it is a solar EMP.
You are the one getting caught up in details.
If I say there is a burst of light and you start taking about the effects of pure red, green and blue light – how useful is that?
The fact is that the conductor is going to respond based on the same physics. If the induced current significantly exceeds the capacity of the conductor for sufficient time the conductor overheats and melts – that is the problem with what you call E3 – it last long enough to destroy the conductor, but it has very limited range.
E3 is actually most similar to a direct hit by lightning.
E2 is most similar to an indirect hit.
The purported problem with E1 is that it has a rise time faster than old gas surge supressors
It is not faster than Semiconductor transient supression.
After that we still drop back to the same physics as E2 and E3,
damage occurs when the current conducted exceeds the capacity of the conductor for sufficient time.
Anything sufficient to take out the grid is also taking out the things that use the grid.
And many things like vehicle that do not.
“If I say there is a burst of light and you start taking about the effects of pure red, green and blue light – how useful is that?”
No such discussion occurred. What I have pointed to was from the federal commission on EMP and my discussions with a variety of folks, one who may have been one of the scientists on the commission along with information written by the commission.
“What I have pointed to was from the federal commission on EMP and my discussions with a variety of folks, one who may have been one of the scientists on the commission along with information written by the commission.”
The federal commission on cheese usually suggests we product more cheese.
“The federal commission on cheese usually suggests we product more cheese.”
But they generally know what cheese is.
Allan – after the Warren Report, I do not believe in government commission reports.
“Allan – after the Warren Report, I do not believe in government commission reports.”
Paul, you don’t have to but I would believe the physics the physicists discussed. The ultimate conclusion rests with the individual. In my case, I think the $2Billion is worth it. Dhlii disagrees, but I am not basing my belief on ideology.
“Paul, you don’t have to but I would believe the physics the physicists discussed.”
There is little debate on the physics, nor is the report about physics.
It is fundamentally about engineering.
“The ultimate conclusion rests with the individual.”
Which is why it is not the business of government.
“In my case, I think the $2Billion is worth it. Dhlii disagrees”
Not true. I have not taken a firm view on whether it is worth it.
Value is subjective, it is determined in the market.
With respect to my own views:
If government stays out of it,
“EMP hardening” will near certainly take place on its own.
It will near certainly cost much more than $2B,
and it will go far beyond “the grid”.
Further it is entirely probablistic.
There is no absolute protection from EMP.
Semi conductors added ESD protection starting in the 80’s.
That protection has slowly grown better over time.
ESD protection essentially adds TSD’s to all inputs and outputs.
Over time devices with poorer protection will be replaced by those with better protection.
The process will continue iteratively.
Devices that are less susceptable to ESD are less susceptable to EMP.
from the perspective of an input on a chip they are indistiguishable.
The same processes that are occuring in semiconductors, are occurring elsewhere.
Long ago the grid was highly vulnerable to lightning. The problems that lightning has cause have resulted in improvements that allow susbstnatial portions of the grid to cope with a direct hit by lightning.
Whether you like it or not Lightning is EMP, Improved resiliance to lightning is improved resistance to EMP weapons.
We are likely to never be able to protect devices close to the point of origin.
But our protection will improve over time.
Contra your commission report – the existing devices that protect against lightning will also protect against EMP weapons.
Just not as well as some alternatives. We already replace or supliment the older protection with newer protection.
And not specifically because of EMP, but because TSD’s are MOSTLY superior to other forms of lightning protection.
Further they have one characteristic that is radically different that is either an asset or a liability depending.
They fail SHORT. Most protection fails open – after the protection device is no longer able to protect the circuit continues to work,
but it is no longer protected. While TSD’s fail short – when they fail, they short circuit, breakers trip and you con not continue to use the circuit until you repair the protection.
We are also tending to combine TSD’s and other devices – TSD;s are faster and they do not “wear out”. But they will die (and fail short) if subject to a surge beyond their limits.
Other protection is slower, can most cost effectively handle larger surges, but they degrade over time and fail open.
“but I am not basing my belief on ideology.”
You are prepared to use force aka government to get your way.
What could be more ideological ?
Presumably you mean the Warren report on the Kennedy assassination ? Not Elizabeth Warren’s study of bankruptcies ?
dhlii – okay, now I have two Warren Reports I don’t believe. 😉
You should read Elizabeth Warren’s bankruptcy study – it is not bad.
But it says something radically different from media reports and her own hyping.
“But they generally know what cheese is.”
Yup, whatever those who call themselves cheese producers identify as cheese.
Regardless, if you are going to engage in a naked appeal to authority – you are obligated to explain why you do not endow two near identical commissions with the same authority.
Any factory without electricity after a day, is also likely to be a factory sufficiently damaged that it would not work if it had power.
“Any factory without electricity after a day, is also likely to be a factory sufficiently damaged that it would not work if it had power..”
You make a lot of assumptions. But it is true that we need to not only harden the grid but harden all our electronics. The starting point can be anywhere but the grid should be the government’s main issue. I don’t care who pays.I think if we started focusing on hardening the grid the others would follow. Some electrical companies have already done some hardening and some things are hardened but not enough.
“You make a lot of assumptions.”
The only assumption I am making is that the laws of physics are not violated.
That if induced currents damage the grid, that they also damage other unprotected things that our similar.
“But it is true that we need to not only harden the grid but harden all our electronics. ”
For any given EMP all conductors will be effected.
“The starting point can be anywhere but the grid should be the government’s main issue.”
Why is this a government issue at all – as I said, the government should deal with ABM’s.
“I don’t care who pays.I think if we started focusing on hardening the grid the others would follow. Some electrical companies have already done some hardening and some things are hardened but not enough.”
No what you want is a top down planned approach. That is why you talk about government.
As you are forcing me to get deeper into this I am confirming what I already suspected.
Most new electronics are “hardened” – not because of fear of EMP, but to protect against ESD.
All interconnects on modern chips have the TSD diodes that Wikipedia talks about.
But absolutely no protection is perfect. Nothing will work close enough to the origen.
Semi-conductor ESD protection has the flaw that if a single interconnect – because of longer leads is destroyed it is likely the whole chip is,
and if one chip in a device is not functional – probably the whole device is.
We can go through every device from refridgerator motors to grid relays and estimate the scale of induced current necescary to damage them.
But fundimentally that is going to be the scale of the blast diminished by the square of the distance.
And it is going to be a probability.
“The only assumption I am making is that the laws of physics are not violated.”
Yes, you might be doing that but what you are really doing is equating dropping a penny on the Statue of Liberty and a large meteor hit at the Statue of Liberty. In essence, both follow the law of gravity but the results are a lot different.
The difference is more like that between one large meteor every million or so years and a constant hail of tiny meteors all capable of doing damage.
“The difference is more like that between one large meteor every million or so years and a constant hail of tiny meteors all capable of doing damage.”
I guess you wish to go down another tangent.
I am following YOU down YOUR tangent.
Don’t blame me for introducing your tangent.
There are 20M lightning strikes in the US each year, there is one every 2S.
Outside of a small distance very near the origen of an EMP weapon each of these has the same effect on conductors near them as an EMP strike.
It has the same effect on electronics, It has the same effect on the grid.
The vast majority of the existing Grid is designed to take a direct strike by lighting.
Again outside of a small area near the origen the effect will be the same as a nearby lightning strike.
There are only a few differences – as noted Lightnening is local. Only those things very nearby are effected.
If lightning strikes a transmission line, relay, or interconnect – any effects will be local.
An EMP weapon would subject much of the grid to overload, not some of it.
The local effects will be the same – but they will be widespread.
AGAIN outside of a small area near the origin – this means the entire grid is faulting – that means it is going down.
That does nto mean it is damaged. It just means it can not handle the massive surge AND continue to operate.
Fuses and breakers will trip all over the place. Some will reset automatically, some will have to be replaced.
That will be a massive job, but it is not “new” engineering.
In fact – outside side of some jerry rigging, and corner cutting, there is no knew engineering involved in recovery.
It is mostly tradesmen that will be short – the people who replace fuses etc.
And the shortage merely means some delay in getting some parts of the grid back up.
BTW for the most part “hardening” is not going to do much.
Near enough to the point of origin, the EMP will destroy the hardening.
As noted most of the grid can already take a lightening strike.
“There are 20M lightning strikes in the US each year, there is one every 2S.”
That may be true and you can believe what you wish, but anyone who looks at what an EMP can do with one blast will tell you your comparison to lightning strikes is bizarre at best. EMP is line of sight so place a spot 400km above the earth and see what it can hit if large enough. Most lightning strikes even close to a building will generally not do much damage. Surge protectors add a layer of protection but not from E1 which opens the gateway for E2 and E3. I have a commercial surge protector where my electric comes in supplementing the surge protector in the breaker system and still individual protectors for equipment.
I had a lightning strike hit a tree right at the front door and was close to a Nutone system which was fried (and smoking) and while doing so fried the stereo system wired throughout the house and a few of the phones. Other things unconnected to those two systems weren’t affected. It went directly to the wires.
“There are 20M lightning strikes in the US each year, there is one every 2S.”
“That may be true and you can believe what you wish, but anyone who looks at what an EMP can do with one blast will tell you your comparison to lightning strikes is bizarre at best. EMP is line of sight so place a spot 400km above the earth and see what it can hit if large enough.”
The electrical Grid is a gigantial lightning rod. It attracts lightning strikes.
A near strike is the equivalent of what you are calling E2.
OF a tiny fraction of lightning strikes destroyed the grid element they were closest to – the grid would collapse daily.
A direct hit by lighting is more like what you are calling E3. The “grid” endures local direct hits many times a day.
Again even one or two causing a failure would take out the grid.
“Most lightning strikes even close to a building will generally not do much damage.”
Again it is physics. From the perpective of what is in the building there is no difference between a close strike and an EMP weapon.
I would note that even though a single lightning strike is a low probability event at a specific location, and an EMP blast is a 100% probability at all locations in sight.
The probability of an EMP event is much lower over time than the probability of a near lightning strike.
“Surge protectors add a layer of protection but not from E1”
Bzzt wrong – you are confused by Wkipedia. The “E1” issue is the slow response time of fuses and gas discharge surge supressors.
Outside the grid Gas Discharge surge suppressors are almost non-existant. Most local protection is either TSD or MOV. The problem with MOV is that it eventually wheres out and fails open – meaning after a number of lightning strikes it no longer protects.
TSD protection can take infinite surges up to its breakdown voltage after that it fails short – which means you will know the protection has failed.
All in chip protection is TSD and modern chips have substantial TSD protection.
Further outside of devices and plug strips – in the grid, at buildings and in other infrastructure TSD and gas discharge are frequently combined.
TSD provided instant response, fail safe, and gas discharge provided significantly greater capacity.
“which opens the gateway for E2 and E3.”
Just false.
“I have a commercial surge protector where my electric comes in supplementing the surge protector in the breaker system and still individual protectors for equipment.
I had a lightning strike hit a tree right at the front door and was close to a Nutone system which was fried (and smoking) and while doing so fried the stereo system wired throughout the house and a few of the phones. Other things unconnected to those two systems weren’t affected. It went directly to the wires.”
It is highly unlikely that you had a strike “go directly” to anything. While that happens to the grid all the time.
As I have said repeatedly EMP – induced currents, are a function of the magnitude of the wave, distance, and the area of the conductor exposed to the wave.
There is almost nothing that a house or small commercial facility can do to protect against a direct hit.
Even a very close strike will kill something regardless of protection.
I was responsible for the electronic infrastruction of a medium commercial operation in a building that was just about the worst possible choice for protection.
Before the protection of electronics improved, I had a rule for that the threat of lighting required disconnecting everything with a cable greater than 9ft.
Most damage to electronics comes through cables – not power. But most modern electronics is better protected.
In the 80’s I actually stocked large supplies of RS232 interface chips. Every RS232 interface in the facility had socketed chips and we just routinely replaced them all after lighting. It is extremely rare that the surge got past the first chip. We basically used RS232 interface chips as fuses.
““Surge protectors add a layer of protection but not from E1”
Bzzt wrong – you are confused by Wkipedia.”
I didn’t read Wikipedia.
“The most significant risk is synergistic, because the E2 component follows a small fraction of a second after the first component’s insult, which has the ability to impair or destroy many protective and control features.”
Yes if you hit your hand with a hammer and leave it busted and bleeding – and then hit it again, it will hurt even more.
If you broke something – its broke.
BTW the logic is backward. E1 will blow fuses, destroy insulators and short conductors to ground.
Open or shorted it does nto matter – a subsequent surge is going to ground or to nowhere.
“BTW the logic is backward”
Check with the federal commission report.
Fallacious appeal to authority.
Regardless, no authority corrects a logic error.
“The electrical Grid is a gigantial lightning rod. It attracts lightning strikes.
A near strike is the equivalent of what you are calling E2.”
This is the one item you have said that I will confirm.
“SECOND EMP COMPONENT (E2
The middle-time component covers roughly the same geographic area as the first component and is similar to lightning in its time-dependence, but is far more geographically widespread in its character”
You want to get into way to much detail that is unimportant.
I have started – reluctantly using your/Wikipedia’s E1/E2/E3 distinctions mostly as a means of confronting your arguments.
But those distinctions are useful fictions. That is all
“I have started – reluctantly using your/Wikipedia’s E1/E2/E3 distinctions ”
Better to skip Wikipedia and listen to the federal commission report.
No conflict. Not worried about a shortage of engineers.
Hardening is an engineering problem, repair and recovery is not.
Regardless, a shortage does nto mean something does nto get fixed – it just means it takes longer.
Some parts of recovery will take years.
Hardening will not change that.
Lightening takes thing – like the grid, out in much the same way as EMP (in exactly the same way except more localized).
Any part of the grid today – or the telegraph system in 1859 that can endure a near hit by lightening can endure an EMP burst from the sun.
A solar EMP event will likely effect 1/2 the planet, but it will be orders of magnitude smaller than an EMP weapon.
If the sun ever kicks of an EMP burst equivalent to an EMP weapon but effecting half the earth – we are dead.
But you are talking many orders of magnitude higher than we have ever seen.
“Lightening takes thing ”
Lightning causes damage, but it is not the same damage as an EMP. EMP has three components each of which acting in a different fashion and extending different distances.
You do understand that lighting is EMP ?
We are just talking about strength and scale. That is it.
An EMP is a eletro-magnetic wave. Every current flow in existance creates an electro magnetic field.
An EMP – including a lightening strike causes damage by inducing a current in anything even remotely conductive that it passes through.
This is basic physics Faraday’s law.
The strength of the current will be proprtionate to:
The length of the conductor paralell to the wave, the resistance of the conductor, and the magnitude of the wave.
Things we do not think of as conductors will have sufficient induced power to self destruct close to the point of origen.
Far enough away a 1000 mile conductor parallel to the wave will have a miniscule current induced.
In between the effects will be proportionate to the factors above – with the strength of the field declining with the square root of the distance.
I actually have a great deal of experience with EMP – protecting early computer systems with long serial lines from lightening strikes 40 years ago
Much has changed – meaning that electronics is much more resilient today,
but many things are unchangeable. Faraday’s law is immutable.
An electromagnetic field moving through a conductor will generate a current.
Actual hardening consists of two things:
Sheilding from the field – again see faraday.
and finding a nondestructive way to ground the induced current.
Both methods will fail facing a large enough wave.
All electroncs over the past 40 years has become ever more protected.
Most parts are speced for the reverse current they can endure.
In the vast majority of the effected region (again this is pure math) the induced currents will be small.
Again varying with distance – close enough to the point of origen and a steel I-Beam will melt,
Far enough away and an IC made in the early 80’s will not be harmed.
Your “hardening” mostly applies to electronics because you really can not protect much else.
A high tension wire will either survive or it will not. There is not much you can do.
Even switching gear – will either survive or not, without much you can do.
You can not protect a 10sq inch bar of aluminum from an induced current capable of melting it – certainly not for a few billion.
Again – at close enough proximity – no hardening of anything will work.
At great enough distance it will not matter.
One of the things that should be obvious too you is that inside the area where control electronics is damaged but the physical grid is not – you will be able to operate the grid manually That will severly restrict capacity, and it will be dangerous, but it can and will be done.
The recovery process is iterative and itself exponential.
In severely effected areas the instant focus will be on critical services.
If a hospital has a diesel generator, and its controls have been obliterated, someone is going to jury rig it to operate.
Remember there was a world before automatic systems.
I would also note – the grid will not be the only system effected and will not be the highest priority for recovery.
Nor is the objective to get everything working, it is to get each priorty level working before moving to the next.
One of the things I was trying to address regarding “anti-fragility” is that quite often that is not being immune to harm.
IT is just being able to rapidly recover.
Anti-fragility is not usually a suit of armor, it is much more the ability to heal.
Again note the difference between the recovery of Texas and Puerto Rico to the spate of huricanes.
Texas was far more developed and far more “fragile” – there was more to damage and more damage done.
But it was also far more able to recover – fragility and anti-fragility are not strict opposites.
The point is you are fixated on the wrong problem.
Minimizing the harm – your hardening, is a small part of anti-fragilty – the ability to quickly recover.
Most things that improve our ability to recover have little effect on the extent that some bad thing harms us.
As such the ability to recover – benefits regardless of what the harm is. While “hardening” protects against one thing – often at cost to others.
Actually a different wave form.
“We are just talking about strength and scale. That is it.”
No.
“Actually a different wave form.”
Really Allan the fundimental difference is strength and scale.
I do not think you will find that the electromagnetic waves from Lightning and solar flares are all that different.
However that is not what matters. The electromagnetic wave passing through a conductor induces a wave in the conductor.
That wave is what does the damage and the characteristics of that wave are based on
The physical properties of the conductor – such as how well it conducts, how well sheilded it is and what is the area of the conductor perpendicular to the wave.
As well as what is the strength of the wave.
“We are just talking about strength and scale. That is it.”
“No.”
Yes, it is physics.
“Yes, it is physics.”
Yes, it is, but apparently, you don’t understand the physics involved. We have been discussing 3 similar but different events, lightning, solar events, and a nuclear EMP attack. All have similarities and all are different. Lightning affects a very localized area. Solar starts at the sun and spreads, nuclear starts somewhere between 40 and 400 km spreading from there.
The nuclear EMP has 3 phases E1, E2, and E3. E1 is too fast for our circuit breakers to react. E2 is not as fast and is most similar to what we see with lightning. E3 is a prolong electromagnetic pulse that can melt transformers.
The pulses occurr one after another so E! can already destroy safeguards that would prevent E2.
A ligtning strike can cause an EMP phenomenon but is quite localized because in general it hits the ground or not that high up. 40- 400 km creates much greater devastation as one can predict the damage based on line of sight.
“We are just talking about strength and scale. That is it.”
Your statement is totally wrong.
You get sicked into unimportant details.
EMP = Lightning = Solar flares.
PERIOD.
The local effects of lightning are the same as the regional effects of a weapon.
Yes, near enough the point of origen Transformers are going to melt.
No amount of hardening will stop that.
SOME hardening will shrink the radius of each concentric ring of damage.
But exactly the same things will happen in each ring.
Just to be clear I am not saying hardening will do nothing.
WE could chose to return to a 19th century life style and EMP will not effect us at all.
The question is not whether hardening has an effect.
But whether it meets risk/cost justification.
An ABM system does.
Government meddling in the grid – to do what mostly has either already happened or will anyway, does not.
Anywhere that transformers will melt – so will every single motor.
All the things that use electricity are MORE vulnerable to EMP than the grid.
A working grid with nothing to use it is meaningless.
“You get sicked into unimportant details.”
I think you should read the EMP commision report. I’ll let you argue with the physicists.
“I think you should read the EMP commision report. I’ll let you argue with the physicists.”
Have you ever asked someone to predict and end of the world scenaria who didn’t ?
We have debated infrastructure.
I beleive every Engineering assessment of the state of US infrastructure in my life has been more and more bleak.
Yet, anyone actually alive for 40 years with a brain and the powers of observation knows that is not so if they think about it.
Regardless, you and they mis my points.
The best way to protect against an EMP attack is to prevent it.
The effects of an actual EMP attack will not be 100% devestation everywhere.
Nor will there be significant difference between damage to the grid and damage to other things.
A fully functional grid with nothing working that is connected to it is useless.
The probability of lightning striking near your house in the next 20 years is greater than the probability of an EMP attack.
The probability of a direct lightning strike on some part of the grid is greater than the probability of EMP.
No An EMP weapon is not the same as a lightning strike – in fact every single EMP scenario is different, and every lightning scenario is different.
But there is substantial overlap, in what is already being done to protect against one and what should be done to protect the other.
Nothing we can do will provide 100% protection.
The objective is not 100% working grid.
It is not 100% working ANYTHING.
It is enough of many things working to bootstrap the rest.
Transportation infrastructure is likely to be far more important in the immediate aftermath than the grid.
“Regardless, you and they mis my points.”
Prevention is good, but how will you prevent the Sun People from attacking the grid. We carry armour on our tanks because we realize that our cannon may destroy the other tank, but not in time.
“The effects of an actual EMP attack will not be 100% devestation everywhere.”
“A fully functional grid with nothing working that is connected to it is useless.”
These two phrases seem to contradict one another. “not be 100%” “with nothing working” when one tries to draw a conclusion.
Try arguing with the physicists that had a hand in writing the report.
We do not typically armour our homes.
“We do not typically armour our homes.”
Semantics again. Our homes are like armour to us.
Allan – we do Armour our cars, though. 😉
“Semantics again. Our homes are like armour to us”
Sorry, Allan, but the semantics are obviously yours.
And your conflating feeling and fact.
Any contradiction is due to your false premises.
The grid and everything else will be damaged in approx. the same ratios in the same regions.
Making either radically stronger than the other is waste.
“Any contradiction is due to your false premises.”
Blame it on the Sun People.
No I am blaming it squarely on you.
The premises are yours.
The constant confusion of what you (and sometimes I) beleive is good, and what can be imposed on others by force is yours.
All the apparent (they are not real) contradictions flow from those.
If we did everything every expert in every report recommended we would be bankrupt 10 times over.
“If we did everything every expert in every report recommended we would be bankrupt 10 times over.”
True. That is why I only chose the grid.
“True. That is why I only chose the grid.”
And that is my point.
On issue after issue – you choose.
Quite often I would chose much the same as you.
But it remains an individual choice.
Neither you nor I are free to impose that choice on others by force.
Acting through government is using force.
There are justifications for government action – the use of force, sometimes even against the will of the majority.
But those justifications are narrow. Even national defense is not alone sufficient,
Your fear is not sufficient justification for the use of force.
You get to choose what you want, what you value, what you do.
You do not get to choose for others but for very narrow circumstances, that must be rigorously justified.
That is not only pretty much the foundational libertarian principle,
it is the much ignored foundation of the west.
“On issue after issue – you choose”
No, Dhlii, I made it quite clear that this specific choice was for national security and needed by the military for operations in case of attack or catastrophe. I separated the grid from your computer because your computer is your own responsibility. With all your rhetoric you seem to forget what was said before and you lose context.
With all your talk of science, you got back to your libertarian argument against the government protecting the grid.
“Neither you nor I are free to impose that choice on others by force.
Acting through government is using force.”
The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation for security concerns since sometimes governments have to impose force to protect the nation. The founders tried to limit that force as best as they could but they couldn’t predict the need for an air force but we have one. They also couldn’t predict the need to protect the grid, a very minimal interference with individual liberty since virtually all require the grid and use it on a daily basis.
I decided not to respond to the other posts all of which have lost context and have sounded silly for a while. If perhaps you wish that those other discussions contact the Sun People. They are generally available during daytime,
You can argue anything is a national security issue – which is why national security is NOT in the constitution.
Actual defense is.
Dhlii, if you keep using this foolish generalized logic that specifically means nothing then the Sun People are going to come out to get you. Place yourself inside of a Faraday Cage.
Allan – what is this thing with the Sun People and who cares?
Its just his new insult when he does nto have an argument.
dhlii – ah, thank you. I was beginning to think they were real I was going to have to learn about them. 😉
Allan and I are debarting EMP weapons and Grid protection.
Allan is sharp and knowledgeable, but in this argument he has run out of ammunition.
Even smart people end up on the wrong side of an argument some times.
I am guessing Allan has little experience with formal debate. That he has never had to argue what he thought was the wrong side of an argument and
does not know how to do the best he can and accept the natural flaws.
dhlii and Allan – I have been following your discussion about EMPs and the grid. I read a book about it and my take was that you could take part of the grid down but not all of it. However, I do enjoy watching the two of you go in circles. 😉 I will pray for the Sun People.
Paul, pray to the Sun People Paul. They too can control our destiny. You can probably read the federal commission on EMP on the Internet. I think there is an executive summary available as well.
The important take away is that we face a risk that can be partially reduced. That is what the entire discussion was about though there were some arguments about the physical nature of the various things discussed. Regarding that physics, I rely on the physicists that helped write the commissions report.
With time I found the Sun People far more entertaining than a continuous repetition of disputed facts. I thought that since you were involved in theater and suffered through this debate you might want to tell us what the Sun People are saying. No one expects the Sun People to be experts in physics since more of the time they spend their time reclining and getting a suntan.
Allan – don’t forget the Egyptians built the pyramids. Their grasp of physics was excellent considering the times.
“Allan – don’t forget the Egyptians built the pyramids. Their grasp of physics was excellent considering the times.”
Paul, of course. The ancient Egyptians. Their most important God was Ra the Sun God. That is probably who is tanning Dhlii right now. Do you think the Sun People might be the ancient Egyptians whose knowledge of physics was strong for the times?
Allan – yes, Aten or Aton the Sun Disk.
Levity is not argument either.
You are the one who brought solar flares into the discussion.
If you are oblivious to the facts about them then you should not have brought them up.
You jumped into solar factors without being well informed and without bothering to learn.
Now you are poking fun at others for pointing out how uninformed you are.
No one expects that you will know everything about everything.
But if you raise an issue – you can expect that others either know something about it, or know how to look things up.
The probability of a grid threatening solar flare in the rest out our lifetimes is near zero.
“You are the one who brought solar flares into the discussion.”
I’m not sure how it was brought into the discussion but the 1859 event would probably cover whatever I said.
Ask the Sun People to help you with your research. Don’t be afraid to ask. They have very sunny personalities.
The 1959 event disrupted telegraphs all over the world it caused sparks and fires.
but it actually damaged very few tellegraphs and telegraph lines – which are far less protected than “the grid”.
and most everything worked again in a few days after the storm abated.
It is likely the magnitude of this even was LARGER than an EMP weapon.
“The 1959 event disrupted telegraphs all over the world it caused sparks and fires.
but it actually damaged very few tellegraphs and telegraph lines”
In the present, we have become more reliant on a grid that services all of us and the equipment was different. Major pieces of equipment are far more fragile today and more interlinked. However, all these comments you make are meaningless because we don’t agree on the basic point. Whatever the physics is and whether there is more or less possibility of damage doesn’t matter.
“Major pieces of equipment are far more fragile today and more interlinked”
That is an assumption – and is mostly false.
A modern electric power line is far MORE resiliant than a telegraph line in 1859.
You continue to argue the world will end. Well if a solar flare or EMP weapon can do the harm you claim, then $2B or protection will do nothing to stop it.
The interconnections are a plus not a minus. It is likely that a very large solar flare or an EMP weapon would – atleast temporarily take out all or nearly all the grid. as soon as the EMP subsided the grid would start recovering. Some parts would take a great deal of time. Some would be back working within a few hours of the end of the EMP.
You keep pretending the issue is binary – everything is destroyed or everything survives. It is not.
““Major pieces of equipment are far more fragile today and more interlinked”
—–
That is an assumption – and is mostly false”
Dhlii, compare today’s electronically controlled digging machines to a shovel.
“Dhlii, compare today’s electronically controlled digging machines to a shovel.”
Thwack backhoe with shovel.
Thwack shovel with digging machine
which do you think will survive ?
BTW a modern backhoe is hydraulic not electronic. The electronic systems are for safety, and monitoring.
This is another issue with your argument – thought it does go to future design.
Short the starter solenoid with a battery and the backhoe will start.
Most heavy equipment is diesel.
Cars for several decades have electronic control systems – damage those and it will be difficult to make the car function.
But for now trucks and heavy equipment do not.
We should be looking to make more and more of our electronic infrastructure “fail safe”.
Both that it will fail as to cause no harm and that we can still make things work even if the electronics fail.
“We should be looking to make more and more of our electronic infrastructure “fail safe”.”
I’m not interested in discussing the physics of EMP because your knowledge is generalized and not specific. Hardening the grid will alert the public to the need of buying products that are likewise hardened to reduce the impact of any EMP event whether natural or planned. We have seen what small failures can do. We should constantly improve the security of the grid and all devices from any type of natural occurrence or attack.
My knowledged is quite specific.
But your arguments fail at the general level there is no reason to get into specifics.
Do you know what a Zener Diode is ? A MOV ? A Shotky Diode ? A gas discharge tube ?
“My knowledged is quite specific.”
Your knowledge of specific definitions cannot be extended to specific knowledge of the subject at hand.
Do I need to explain this referencing the wave/particle duality ?
Modern electronics are increasingly “hardened” because manufacturers do not leak eating the cost of returned products damaged by ESD.
Electronics have had protection since the 80’s.
The capability of that protection has increased over time.
Consumers are nearly ignorant about ESD, knowing only that sometimes things fail unexpainably.
And yet manufacturers continue to improve protection.
You continue to avoid the distinction between your own choices and chosing for others.
You may do as you please in your own life – with few constraints.
When you say “we should” particularly when you mean government you are talking about force.
There is very little constraint on your actions as an individual, or your actions as part of a voluntary group..
What is done by force must be highly constrained.
It is almost outside of your consciousness that there is a difference between your individual choices and what you impose by force.
It is sufficient for you to think something is a good idea to do it yourself – in fact you need no justification to do something yourself.
But it is not sufficient that you think something is a good idea to compel others to do it.
I am not arguing with you over whether it is a good idea to “harden the grid” – I do not disagree on that. Though I might debate specifics.
The issue is what can be done by force.
One of many reasons for not using government, is that things get done differently, nearly always better, and more flexibly if government does not do them.
“You continue to avoid the distinction between your own choices and chosing for others.”
You forget the purpose behind the Constitution and find it difficult to separate your brand of libertarianism from the Constitution.
“You forget the purpose behind the Constitution”
Our founders said this
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,”
“Our founders said this
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,”
…And then they wrote and signed the Constitution.
“…And then they wrote and signed the Constitution.”
Which specifies the rules of govenrment not its purpose – and please do not spray the preamble at me.
No court has ever considered the preamble to be meaningful.
It is an introduction to the constitution, aspirations. It does NOT define the purpose of government.
The declaration is the legal justification for independence. It is a formal legal claim that Britian has failed to properly govern the colonies and asserts to the world the purpose of government.
“please do not spray the preamble at me.”
This is the second time I am telling you: “I didn’t copy the Preamble. I copied section 8 of the Constitution.” That is a direct quote from what I told you before. The courts take section 8 into account referring to the enumerated powers. You are getting too emotional and are too willing to place your ideology in front of the Constitution.
Let’s get sequence straight. You copied words from the Declaration of Independence to which I answered “…And then they wrote and signed the Constitution.” The Constitution, Dhilli, is the primary document considered by the courts. You may not like that because it doesn’t deal with natural rights but the Constitution was a compromise so I don’t expect you to like everything in it.
The sequence is irrelevant – both our sequence and that of the declaration and constitution.
The declaration speaks of the purpose of government. It does not establish it, it just expresses it.
The purpose is established by facts and our rights.
The constitution is a framework for a government that attempts to conform to that purpose.
“The sequence is irrelevant”
Get some legal advice.
This is not a legal issue.
Not a single thing we are debating is a legal issue.
Your sequencing argument is a trivial logic error.
Things that are truly independent – are independent. Timing is irrelevant.
The constitution and its interpretation are first an issue of logic, and second an issue or morality.
“This is not a legal issue.”
I repeat. Get some legal advice.
You botched McCullough Vs. Maryland and you are advising me to get legal advice ?
And apparently your idea of law is like your idea of common defence and national security – it includes everything.
“Whatever the physics is and whether there is more or less possibility of damage doesn’t matter.”
It has been obvious you BELEIVE that for some time.
The discussion has less to do with physics and more to do with what a national security interest is along with your very rigid libertarianism.
That you may not use force without justification is a core principle to all western (and most eastern) thought.
It is so core, that too many such as yourself have forgotten it.
“That you may not use force without justification is a core principle”
The justification exists. You even admit it when you advocated an ABM system. The only question is the degree of justification and that is decided by Congress.
“The justification exists.”
Nope.
Justification is something you must lay out.
It is also specific.
There are few if any blanket justifications.
As an example – you can use force in self defence.
But an individual may not use a nuclear weapon to defend themselves.
“You even admit it when you advocated an ABM system.”
Nope. The fact that one use of force is justifiable, does not make all others justifiable.
You can demand specific justification of an ABM system. We have no actually addressed that.
You are confusing justification with reason or purpose.
That something serves a purpose or has a reason for being done is a requirement for justification.
IT is not alone sufficient.
“The only question is the degree of justification and that is decided by Congress.”
Nope.
If congress decided to kill all jews – would that be OK ?
Congress is not free to do whatever it pleases.
We have gotten this lunatic system we have because too many like you beleive that it can.
You tend to argue “conservative” positions, but your principles are indistinguishable from progressives, communists, socialists, …..
Governments are not free to do whatever they wish.
A right is inherently something that the government may not easily infringe on – even when the overwhelmng majority of people feel otherwise.
Allan,
PC Schulte in the Phoenix area will see 115 degree heat next week.
Given the hot, blazing sun in his area, does he qualify as one of the “Sun People”?
I can provide you with myriads of “presidential commission reports”, I am not sure why you think these are credible when they favor your arguments and not when they do not.
I recently tripped over a study suggesting that more than 50% of government reports – including scientific research is just complete and total crap.
Similar problems exist with private work but the incentives are different and the scale of error is smaller.
Regardless, everyone involved in government errors heavily on the side of caution.
So your study says we face a risk – flash news at 11!!!.
All life is risk.
And that we can reduce it. Again what is surprising about this.
Regarding physics – particularly relatively normal physics – I rely on the physics itself.
While I do not think your commission got anything “wrong” – you are really the one spinning their results to be more than they are.
You are pretending that E1, E2 and E3 are very distinct things and that using that reference Lightning is just E2.
They are not distinct things They are just convenient labels to apply to a wide variety of different things.
You are allowing convenient labels to change your perception of reality. We are dealing with Electro Magnetic radiation.
Not digital switches.
“I can provide you with myriads of “presidential commission reports”,
I’m not concerned with all those other government reports just this one. They bring up plenty of science and had physicists involved in the report. If you wish to dispute the physicist’s versions of physics do so, but the issue is whether or not the grid is or should be a national security concern.
***During the production of the federal commission on EMP no Sun People were killed or injured.
There is no magical reason one random Federal report is more reliable than others.
I have addressed the physics already.
This is not a question of “disputing” theirs. There is only one physics.
I have used it. If they have too, there results are substantially the same.
The more I get into the physics the less concerned I am about EMP.
As I noted before the TOTAL energy of an EMP weapon is about 10^5-6 greater than a lightning strike.
But the energy release from an EMP weapon is approx 400,000M from the conductor it is inducing a current in.
That means the energy when it arrives will be 400,000^2 weaker than at its point of origen.
That makes it weaker than a lightning strike 100M away.
That 10^5-6 of energy is distributed over 0.75*9.5×10^7 km^2
Your use of “sun people” as levity significantly muddies communications.
There are people who study the sun – if you are calling them “sun people” – then their work is at odds with your claims.
Solar flares occur all the time – even now while the sun is quite.
But the magnitude of those flares is directly tied – cause and effect, to the frequency of sunspots, which are just an indicator of the turbulence that is going on inside the sun.
We are currently in the midst of a sequence of solar cycles that is going to last for a long time, that is less active than any time in the past 200 years.
This is a normal cycle, that is determined by the orbits of the sun and the planets.
Again it is all physics. Gravity, the laws of motion.
We have large solar flares that significantly impact the earth during periods of high solar activity, and we don’t during period so low activity.
This is all fact. The “sun people” not only do not disagree – they are the source.
https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Zurich_Color_Small.jpg
Absolutely!.
No matter what an EMP weapon will take PART of the grid down but not likely all of it.
It will also take part of everything else electrical or electronic out but not all of it.
Further even those things that fail will be distributed on a spectrum from obliterated to fuses blown.
Immediately after we will go to work rebuilding. We will get the least damaged things back quickly and the most may take a very long time.
The most important thing will be transportation – as we can not get to anything to fix it if we can not move about.
But the real question is should the government subsidize hardening the grid.
To be clear the question is NOT should the grid (or anything else) be hardened.
It is should we trust people to do what is overall best for us, or govenrment to impose by force a partial fix for part of the problem.
Allan wants to use “national security” to justify government doing this.
If national security is that broad, then anything can be justified by national security.
We should give up and accept socialism.
There is also the secondary question of how much should we put into protection from a bad but highly improbable event that we have the means to significantly decrease the probability of it occuring.
Do we stop the EMP weapon ? Or do we try to ride it out ?
“Allan wants to use “national security” to justify government doing this.”
I believe the grid is a national security issue. I don’t ask you to believe the same but in argument, you travel down all sorts of tangents when that alone is the issue and then you multiply one post with many others. That makes it near impossible to discuss the question at hand.
Yes, I do so as well but to a very limited extent trying to close down areas that need not be traveled. There were so many long posts I had to ask the Sun People to help me.
Allan, I do not care what you beleive.
You do not get to impose beleifs on others by force.
The issue is impossible to discus – because you are not interested in facts, or physics or math or probability or cost
It is impossible to discuss because you have placed your beleif about reason.
I have wasted too many words on he physics – they are not the most important issue.
The fact is that we can better protect the country an entirely different way that IS national defence, serves multiple functions and will have a larger impact.
But you are so off on the physics that I keep getting sucked back into it.
“Allan, I do not care what you beleive.”
Dhilli, I believe the federal commission report on EMP as far as the physics goes and the history. The rest comes from Ra and the Sun People who do not ask you to believe what I believe. You are all over the map. The real issue is whether or not one considers the grid a national security issue and one that the government might intervene in to protect. You disagree and add pages and pages of duplicate meaningless stuff some of which disagrees with the physics stated in that report. If one is traveling from a to z and at a (Is the grid a national security issue where one would opt for government intervention?) there is absolute disagreement there is no need to travel down b,c,d,e,f,g…z
Physics is not a matter of beleif.
“Physics is not a matter of beleif.”
Diplomacy and preventing catastrophe is.
“Diplomacy and preventing catastrophe is.”
Diplomacy – yes.
Preventing catasptrophe – no.
“Diplomacy – yes.
Preventing catasptrophe – no.”
Your specific item of approval by you “ABM ” is to prevent catastrophe.
Preventing catastrophe is not a question of opinion. It is a question of fact and probabilities.
Diplomacy is.
“Preventing catastrophe is not a question of opinion”
“Preventing catastrophe” is an evaluation and evaluations are questions of opinion.
“Preventing catastrophe” is an evaluation and evaluations are questions of opinion.
Is E=Mc^2 a matter of oppionion ? F = Ma ?
If I wish to evaluate the energy of 10g of matter is that a matter of oppinion
Just to be clear I am not taking an absolutist position (though you are).
Some judgement is involved in most everything. but the presence of a small amount of judgement does not turn everythng into an oppinion.
And AGAIN you are making a ludicrously stupid left wing nut argument that is beneath you.
Converting everything into an issue of oppion is fundimental to post-modern thought.
Is that really what you want to argue ?
“Consequently, common targets of postmodern critique include universalist notions of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, language, and social progress.Postmodern thinkers frequently call attention to the contingent or socially-conditioned nature of knowledge claims and value systems, situating them as products of particular political, historical, or cultural discourses and hierarchies. Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to self-referentiality, epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, subjectivism, and irreverence.”
“You are all over the map.”
No I am discrediting your claims multiple different ways.
“The real issue is whether or not one considers the grid a national security issue and one that the government might intervene in to protect.”
If that is the issue – this is over.
“You disagree”
And that is sufficient to preclude your using force without sufficient justification.
“and add pages and pages of duplicate meaningless stuff some of which disagrees with the physics stated in that report. ”
Physics is physics. There is not “report physics”. There is just physics.
YOU claim there is a disagreement. I suspect there is not. There is just the typical use of fear as a tool to get what you want, and the pretence that science actually supports that.
How many times do you have to get burned by bad malthusianism masquerading as science before you get a clue ?
“Is the grid a national security issue where one would opt for government intervention?”
No!, and there is not sufficient justification to do so. Which is the end of it.
“If one is traveling from a to z and at a there is absolute disagreement there is no need to travel down b,c,d,e,f,g…z”
I have no idea what you think you are saying.
You are free to do whatever you wish respecting the equal freedom of others. You are not free to use force without justification – because that violates the freedom of others.
It does so when you use for, or when government uses force.
““If one is traveling from a to z and at a there is absolute disagreement there is no need to travel down b,c,d,e,f,g…z”
—
“I have no idea what you think you are saying.”
If the area of disagreement starts at a (national security) then there is no reason to go all the way to z.
“If the area of disagreement starts at a (national security) then there is no reason to go all the way to z.”
MOSTLY true.
The point of the physics debate is that even if I accept your premise – that national security justifies action.
that the grid must already protect itself from lightning and lightning protection will also protect against solar flares and EMP weapons.
So even in your own beleifs your justification fails.
we also could be struck by a giant meteor. Are you going to spend what it would take to thwart a one every 100M year event ?
“So even in your own beleifs your justification fails”
You are wrong. You are presently not arguing in defense of a rigid libertarian position rather arguing as to whether or not what has already been done is sufficient. That is not a political argument and contrasts your arguments against protection due to a rigid libertarian
Allan,
I have made multiple difference arguments, using multiple different basis.
All of those have merit.
Regardless, to justify the use of force you must overcome all, as well as others I have not made and may not have thought of.
You can pretend that some of my arguments reflect some “rigid libertarianism” – though that is actually irrelevant.
They do not all.
Further whether something is “rigid libertarianism” or not is not a counter argument.
As an example communism is not evil by definition. It is evil because it violates peoples rights, and it does not work.
It is irrelevant whether something is “”rigid libertarianism” – or socialism, or progressivism or …
What matters is whether it justifiable, moral, and effective.
Paul, Dhlii is very rigid and though smart makes a lot of errors when he associates different thoughts such as lightning is the equivalent of a nuclear EMP and is the equivalent of CME. They have similarities though the physics might be identical. One can’t argue forever and CME (coronal mass ejection …sun) is not the same as lightning so I thought I would let the Sun People take up the argument with him. After awhile between the tangents and multiple responses to one post, it becomes a task something that requires a little levity. Thus the Sun People enter the picture and since invariably I will get several separate postings to this one posting and since you are into theater you can respond to Dhlii using the Sun People as your actors while you write the script. 🙂
EMP – Elector Magnetic Pulse – Lightning, Electro-magnetic pulse.
All forms of EMP are not identical – just as all humans are not identical. But they are all humans, and they all have all the characteristics of humans.
Each human has far far far more in common then they are different.
I have addressed the physics with you repeatedly, and you want to pretend there are magical differences – when there are not.
In fact if you do the math for any given conductor atleast 400Km away from the point of origen of the EMP weapon, the induced energy will be equivalent of the enduced energy of a lightning strike 500m away.
Will we survive and EMP weapon unscathed ? Absolutely not. Just as we do not survive 20M lightning strikes a year with no damage.
Separately you do not seem to grasp that if everything is destroyed by EMP – then everything is destroyed.
If the grid survives 100% and nothing else does. it does not matter that the grid survived.
In fact if the grid is unscathed and even 30% of everything else is severely damaged – the grid will not be able to opperate.
It will be shorted out.
“All forms of EMP are not identical ”
It took a long time for the Sun People to get that through your head. Let’s give a round of applause to the Sun People. The physics will be the same but the results we see from each form will be different. It is the results, outcomes etc. that we ordinary people look at, discuss and care about. That is why solutions are often different for forms that are different. I walk outside with nothing on my head despite the water in the air. I use a rainhat when the water starts raining and a hard hat when the water becomes hail. All are different forms of the same thing but require a different approach to prevent harm.
The Sun People will try and get those last points across to you. They have been successful once so my guess is they can be successful again.
God! help us.
If the physics are the same – the results are the same. That remark was just plain stupid on your part.
To the extent the results are different it is because some attribute in the domain of the physics is different
Having actually bothered to do the math. It is now clear to me that while EMP is obviously more widespread, that the magnitude of the induced currents is SMALLER than near lightning strikes.
BTW the effects are the effects. They are the same regardless of who discusses them or what they say.
The measure of the effects is not what people say or how many say it, but what happened.
No the FORMs are not different. Further the mechanism for EMP related damage has a level of indirection that erases differences.
The damage cause by all EMP is through induced currents. When a 100m tsunami is headed to shore – is the damage different if the Tsunami is caused by an earthquake or asteroid ?-
“God! help us.”
Dhlii, praying to God is good when you have run your ship to the ground. Pray to Ra and maybe the Sun People will come to help you.
I was imploring god to save us from your illogic.
There is no other adequate response to a claim that physics is not reproducible
If the physics are the same – the results are the same.
“I was imploring god to save us from your illogic.”
Ra and the Sun People are the right place to start because you missed the only issue that counts in this discussion. Your libertarianism and your absolute certainty despite other credible opinions on the subject. You are too certain of yourself so when you fall it is hard and deep.
Allan, you have substituted levity for argument. That is not the same as spicing argument with levity.
Further as is obvious from the response by others – no one has any idea what you are talking about.
The largest CME was the solar storm of 1859 – this occured in a period of very high solar activity.
Such an event might well occur again – in 150 years.
Less severe events have occured in 1921, 1960, and 1989 – all also in periods of high solar activity.
The magnitude of CME directly corresponds to solar activity which is reasonably measured by sun spots.
At the moment we are in a period of solar activity that is lower than anytime since the dalton minimum and possibly the maunder minumum.
It is unbeleiveably improbable that we will have a serious CME event in the remainder of my life.
It is certain that we will have a very very large one – sometime after that.
“Allan, you have substituted levity for argument. ”
Sometimes only levity can get simple points across and it seems to have succeeded on one point. It’s hard to discuss things when you make wild statements like you did in your last post: “Separately you do not seem to grasp that if everything is destroyed by EMP – then everything is destroyed.” I addressed that over and over again. In fact, I even said that if everything was destroyed we were dead since more than the majority of Americans would die. I think you listen better to the Sun People than to me.
No Allan – you have gotten no points across. You have proclaimed that something I said means what you want it to, and stupidly declared victory.
A BMW is not an Audi – both are cars – they are different, they are not fundimentally different.
The differences between “forms” of EMP are the same as the differences between cars.
You are arguing that lightning and the EMP from a nuclear weapon are different in far larger ways than they are.
The math and physics demonstrate that the damage from and EMP weapon will be LESS than 100,000 lightning strikes spread accross the country occurring simultaneously.
In otherwords a fraction of the damage done by lightning in a year.
The induced energy from an EMP weapon is about the same as the induced energy from a lightning strike a few hundred meters away.
“No Allan – you have gotten no points across. … A BMW is not an Audi – both are cars”
Dhilli, I didn’t propose that I got the points across. The Sun People did and I don’t think the Sun People drive Audi’s or BMW’s. I don’t think they have dealerships on the sun.
Allan,
I am not much interested in what you claim some “sun people” have said.
I expect you to speak for yourself and be responsible for what you say.
I would expect you to hold me to the same standard.
Dhlii, despite what you believe I have a bit more knowledge of the grid and the components necessary for the grid to function than you might want to believe. I understand all your protestations about lightning including how lightning actually strikes and how the magnetic fields can travel underground quite far. I believe you made a few errors and too many assumptions. That, however, is not the underlying dispute or even the important issue. The dispute is over what creates a national security interest where the federal government should be involved.
What you seem to fail to understand is weakness is dangerous for a superpower and perceived weakness can create war or havoc. That is a political difference of opinion. I believe that strength prevents wars and havoc. You appear to believe something different.
I assume that what you know is what you say you know.
Regardless, I weigh your arguments based on the actual arguments. Not assumptions regarding what you know.
If you have not noticed, I rarely make appeals to authority and rarely take them seriously.
Recent efforts to validate scientific studies have found that more than 50% are just false. Earlier efforts found 1/3 false and an additional 1/3 with no statistical significance.
Only 1/3 had statistically meaningful results. And that is scientific papers. Government commission reports are near certain far worse.
We have numerous studies at the moment saying our infrastructure is in the worst shape ever – who beleives these ? Does no one check against their own eyes ?
Was no one alive in the 60’s 70’s 80’s …. ?
“Regardless, I weigh your arguments based on the actual arguments.”
Dhlii, there is only one argument. Rigid libertarianism. The rest are all downstream from there and used to prop up a position that doesn’t look or feel right.
“Dhlii, there is only one argument. Rigid libertarianism.”
Nope.
Are you saying that it is a matter of opinion as to whether you may use force indiscriminately ?
If not, this is NOT about “rigid libertarianism” .
It is about that you have not come close to the threshold necessary to justify the use of force.
This is about whether govenrment may do whatever it pleases – or whatever you please.
Whether the actions of government – the use of force requires justification and what justificatin is sufficient
The physics argument is not the primary argument – though we have wasted alot of time on it.
The fundimental argument is that this is not a justifiable use of force.
Your national security counter is wrong, and even if NS was an acceptable justification, it is so broad ANYTHNG can be justified by NS.
I do not want to return to the physics, except to note that there is no consequential difference between the effects of an EMP weapon (or a solar flare) and about 100K lightning strikes. In fact Lightning will do MORE damage because the point of origin is much closer. It appears that the energy level of an EMP weapon at ground level is about the same as a lighting strike at greater than 100M. That is a huge deal – that means the scale of protection needed for a near lightning strike is many orders of magnitude larger than an EMP weapon. The artificial distinctions between E1, E2, E3 are relatively meaningless. The most important issue is the ability to ground the amount of energy that is induced.
You have one quasi legitimate argument regarding older forms of surge supression.
All new electronic components have TSD’s on their inputs to protect from ESD.
The use of TSD’s are also increasingly common elsewhere.
But I do not want to get into the differences in protection devices as there is not one perfect protector.
TSD’s as an example are fast, and they do not wear out, but they will fail if subject to larger than design current.
And they fail short. That is very good for protecting downstream equipment from FUTURE damage.
But it is not so hot for large systems like the grid. If an EMP strike nailed 500K TSD’s they would each have to be replaced (or removed) to get the grid working.
While the older protection fails open – when it fails what it protects continues to function, but now without protection.
“The fundimental argument is that this is not a justifiable use of force.”
The Constitution that was written by those with classical liberal ideas permits the use of force to protect the United States and its citizens. I will quote just one passage.
Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
Your opinion might or might not have merit. The right to impose taxes exists. It is a legitimate expenditure. Protecting the grid can be considered a public good.
You believe it is not a national security risk. That is not for you to decide. We know it is a risk. The only disagreement is whose tabulation of risk we accept. Hardening the electrical grid for security reasons is decided by our elected officials.
You say: “I do not want to return to the physics, except to note that… ” and then you do just that. I will tell you that for protection of certain specialized equipment (having nothing to do with an EMP attack) I use triple protection. The line is protected as it enters the house with a high-end protector. Another is at the circuit breakers and the third is at the site each reducing the maximum peak of a surge.
Please look into the constitutional history of the general welfare clause.
Jees, you are making all the same arguments that left wing nuts do.
The General Welfare clause is NOT a blanket grant of power.
BTW government has powers – not rights. Only individuals have rights.
Government has the power to imposes taxes FOR LEGITMATE PURPOSES.
There is no such thing as a “public good” – if you want the economic refutation, read the work of recent Nobel winner Elenor Olstrom.
Like “general welfare” and “national security” that is another stupid effort to elide the obligation to JUSTIFY THE USE OF FORCE.
Regardless, YOU are playing semantic games. Lets “accept” national security, General Welfare, ….
IS anything that is for the “general welfare” or “national security” a justified use of force ?
The Mayan’s engaged in ritual human sacrifice for “the general welfare” .
The obligation to justify the use of for is not something you get to get arround through semantics.
Those classial liberal founders you refered to did not put the “general welfare” clause in the consitution as a “get out of jail” card for nascient statists.
Actually justify the use of force.
Does this use of force meet utilitarian constraints – i.e. do the benefits exceed the costs ? That is in real concrete terms and must include all losses, unintended consequences, and unseen benefits.
Next are individual liberties infringed on ? If so is there an alternate means of accomplishing the same purpose that does not infringe or infringes less ?
If and only if there is not a lessor infringing alternative, you must still demonstrate that the loss of individual liberty is still exceeded by the reduced losses of liberty elsewhere.
Further the entire analysis must not be based on worst case scenarious – but most be probablistic.
You can not justify the real sacrifice of individual liberty for protection against a low probality high loss hypothetical
“Please look into the constitutional history of the general welfare clause. Jees, you are making all the same arguments that left wing nuts do.”
Dhlii, you totally lose it and go off on an open-ended tangent when things contradict what you would like to believe.
I didn’t copy the Preamble. I copied section 8 of the Constitution. You should reread it. In particular: “The Congress shall have Power To …make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper ***for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers***, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
The statement between *** in this discussion has to do with SPECIFIC powers granted. You are trying to make things up so it suits your ideas of what is appropriate or not while going on another tangent. The Constitution was not limited to you but to the nation and the powers were provided to the three branches of government.
Necescary and proper, General Welfare, several other purported blanket grants of power – they are ALL the same.
Both as a matter of fact and as a matter of supreme court interpretation.
I would further note that the constitution is merely a framework for a government that is fairly libertarian.
It is not the divine word of god.
I will argue that it means certain things – because that is what it says.
But I will also do so – because it will not work and would be immoral otherwise.
The constitution – particularly not overly broadly interpreted is not a magic wand to waive moral problems away.
The requirement to justify the use of force is supra constitutional, it is a fundimental moral issue.
We distinguish between murder and self defense. Nearly every society that has ever existed does.
That distinction is a fundimental moral distinction that is near universally accepted.
The constitution is an effort to frame the fundimental principles that determine when force might be justifiably used and empower a government to protect our rights inside of those constraints.
“I would further note that the constitution is merely a framework for a government that is fairly libertarian.
It is not the divine word of god.”
Look who is suddenly willing to use the ideas of the left in subverting the Constitution to their own ideas.
“Look who is suddenly willing to use the ideas of the left in subverting the Constitution to their own ideas.”
Again ludicrous misrepresentation.
The rule of law does not require religious fair in the law or constitution. It merely requires enforcing the law without discretion, interpretting it narrowly as written, and changing it when it is wrong.
The left seeks to enforce with massive discretion, interpret to suit ideology and effect change by judicial interpretation rather than legislation or amendment.
There is infinite difference between requiring the constitution be followed narrowly, and pretending it is perfect.
I said: “Look who is suddenly willing to use the ideas of the left in subverting the Constitution to their own ideas.”
You take issue with that.
In that response you say referring to the Constitution: “interpretting it narrowly as written”
Where in the Constitution does it dictate how the judges shall interpret the law?
“Where in the Constitution does it dictate how the judges shall interpret the law?”
????
Logic and the rule of law dictate that the constitution and law be interpretted narrowly,
That is actually quite trivial.
Anything beyond a narrow interpretation ultimately makes everyone criminals.
There is no requirement that the constitution (or law) be interpretted as written.
But both the rule of law and the precept that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, require several things:
That constitutional and statutory interpretation are defined to produce a single result – regardless of the ideology or other attributes of the person interpretting.
That however they are interpretted that understanding is available to ordinary people – as they are obligated to follow the law.
That however they are interpretted that the results conform to the least common denominator innate moral understanding of a super majority of people.
Any other arrangement is inherently lawless or self contradictory.
“Logic and the rule of law dictate that the constitution and law be interpretted narrowly,”
Though I firmly believe in the Constitution being narrowly interpreted I notice how before your view was, if it isn’t exactly in the Constitution it doesn’t exist. Suddenly your viewpoint changes. Very convenient Dhlii.
Considering the Declaration of Independence, did that make slavery (in essence approved by the Constitution) logical?
How has my viewpoint changed ?
I do not recall saying that “if it is not in the constitution it does nto exist.”
That is your “overgeneralization” of what I have said. It is LOOSELY speaking correct – as any over generalization is.
Regardless, it is not possible to avoid that anything written by humans must be interpretted.
It is possible to define the rules for interpretation in a specific context – law and constititons sufficiently narrowly to eliminate nearly all ambiguity.
We have not discussed what occurs when you can NOT get the answer from the plain text as understood by ordinary people at the time.
There are lots of issues there. But 99% of the time we can resolve the law and constitution without going further.
I would further note that while I advocate for a specific means of “interpretting” the constitution and law.
Several elements are essential – whether you accept my position or not.
There must be a rigid method.
It must produce near certain results
Those results must not vary over time – given the same inputs.
The process can not be effected by the politics of the judge.
The results must be acceptable to the overwhelming majority of people.
The results must be anticipatable by the overwhelmning majority of people.
The law and constitution must be intuitive to the overwhelming majority of people.
That is what “ignorance of the law is no excuse” really means.
It means the “rules” are intuitive, the fundimental concepts of right and wrong are incredibly broadly shared.
Any system that does nto meet those criteria will substantially underperform one that does.
You keep pretending this is about oppinion.
Is it an “oppinion” that we may not murder our neighbors ?
If not – then discard this nonsense about “my oppinion”.
You MUST justify the use of force.
You can not game your way arround that.
You can not avoid it through semantics.
We can debate what constitutes sufficient justification.
But I actually doubt that we will have all that much disagreement once you quit hiding behind semantics and try to game and elide confronting what you are actually doing.
National security, General Welfare, public good – and all these vague generalizations you offer at best MIGHT make something the business of govenrment.
While I would argue they do not
Ultimately even if they do, they are NOT magic incantations that overcome the need to justify the use of force.
You refuse to do so.
“You MUST justify the use of force.
You can not game your way arround that.
You can not avoid it through semantics.”
These are your rules. The Constitution sets out the rules for the nation. Though libertarian-leaning the Constitution is not as libertarian as you would like it to be.
““You MUST justify the use of force.
You can not game your way arround that.
You can not avoid it through semantics.”
These are your rules.”
Nope, those are the near universal rules of man for atleast the past 10,000 years.
“The Constitution sets out the rules for the nation.”
Nope, it dictates what specific powers the federal govenrment has – and to a lessor extent those of the state governments.
No where in the constitution does it say that government may use force willy nilly as it pleases.
As and example government may only infringe on free speech – even where excercising an otherwise enumerated constitutional power, in very narrow circumstances.
“Though libertarian-leaning the Constitution is not as libertarian as you would like it to be.”
As written the constitution is more libertarian than you give it credit for.
But that is irrelevant.
We are not actually discussing libertarianism.
What we are discussing is fundimental principles which nearly all of us accept, but too many of us elide when convenient.
And you do all this protection without a law or government subsidy.
Do you not think that others do the same ?
Are you permitted to use force to compell others to protect exactly as you do ?
This is not about magnetic fields traveling underground.
When a lighting bolt (or EMP weapon or solar flare) strike – a magnetic wave radiates from the source – through the air, through ground, through a vaccuum, through anything that does not short it to ground. Any conductor that the wave passes through will have a current induced in it. That is the mechanism for damage.
This all follows Faraday’s law.
The wave travels essentially infinitely from the point of origin, but its energy weakens with distance and depending on the material it is traveling through.
Material has ZERO effect in our debate – as lightning, solare flares and EMP weapons all travel through the same stuff.
The field strength of an EMP strike is 10^5-6 greater than lightning AT ITS POINT OF ORIGEN – that is 400KM about the surface.
By the time it gets to the surface it is roughly the equivalent of the energy generated by a lightning strike 100M distant.
That should be very significant to you as the grid must be protected against lightning at 10M and 0M. So the existing grid must already be hardened against EMP in far greater magnitudes than an EMP weapon.
The effects of lightning are local. While an EMP weapon will generate a surge in all conductors in the continent at nearly the same time.
But the local scale of a lightning surge is potentially far greater.
There is also a factor related to the direction of travel of the wave. EMP waves and solar flares are going to radiate down and approximately parallel to the ground.
Those conductors parallel to the wave will have the maximum current induced. Lightning is erratic but losely runs from sky to ground and the waves radiating in rings from the bolt.
Just to be clear I am NOT discussing the direct effects of a lightning strike. If lightning strikes a electrical tower the energies involved are huge – about 10^5-6 GREATER than an EMP weapon. Anything that can withstand a direct or near hit by lighting will laugh at an EMP weapon.
“The dispute is over what creates a national security interest where the federal government should be involved.”
Absolutely! The answer is NOTHING! National Security is meaningless. It is sufficiently amorphous as to justify anything.
9/11 justified the patriot act.
The purpose of government is to protect the rights of individuals.
Not to protect the govenrment or purported collective interests.
Your “superpower” argument is drek. All that is necescary to obliterate than is for the US to follow George Washington’s advice and quit being policemen to the world.
When you choose to act within government – that is much more than an “difference of oppinion”.
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
“The purpose of government is to protect the rights of individuals.
Not to protect the govenrment or purported collective interests.”
Section 8
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal …
To raise and support Armies …
To provide and maintain a Navy…
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces…
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions…
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
—
All of the above implies the protection of individuals and their collective interests for both offensive and defensive reasons. The nature of a militia is collectivist all by itself.
“All of the above implies the protection of individuals and their collective interests for both offensive and defensive reasons. The nature of a militia is collectivist all by itself.”
Are you going to make every stupid left wing argument for an infinite constitution ?
The concept of “implied powers” – comes from the “necescary and proper” clause as well as logic.
You can not give the government a specific power – without also the powers needed to effectuate it.
You can not as an example empower the government to form an army, but not empower it to buy guns.
The constitution does NOT imply other broad powers from the specific powers listed.
That would be illogical. There is no reason to identify specific powers, if govenrment is being given blanket powers.
AGAIN, a grant of power to government is STILL constrained by the rights of individuals. ‘
Does the grant of power to create a navy empower the federal govenrment to enslave us to build that navy ?
All uses of force must ALWAYS be justified.
Even those uses of force within a governments legitimate powers must STILL be justified.
Even an authorized power must still be justified in each SPECIFIC instance.
There is no blanket exception to the requirement that all uses of force be justified.
Allan: ““All of the above implies the protection of individuals and their collective interests for both offensive and defensive reasons. The nature of a militia is collectivist all by itself.”
Dhilli: Are you going to make every stupid left wing argument for an infinite constitution ?”
Why do you fly off the handle? I am making a Constitutional argument and that argument doesn’t lead to an infinite Constitution. Using the preamble might, but this uses Section 8.
“Why do you fly off the handle?”
Not.
You are quite literally making the exact same arguments that left wing nuts make all the time.
You are making arguments that even the best left scholars such as Lawrence Tribe ultimately rejected.
I can understand that I might have to debate the necescary and proper clause or the two general welfare clauses with left wing nuts.
I can not grasp why you who purport not to be a left wing nut are making them.
“I am making a Constitutional argument”
No you are not – the use of the necescary and proper and the general welfare clauses as a broad grant of power have been properly rejected by SCOTUS.
“and that argument doesn’t lead to an infinite Constitution.”
“Res ipsa loquitur” – The thing – your argument itself speaks
you argument is without limits.
“Using the preamble might, but this uses Section 8.”
Semantics.
Wrong on principle, wrong on the historical understanding of the constitution.
““Wrong on principle, wrong on the historical understanding of the constitution.”
Dhhilli, you pretend to know where you don’t and you argue based on generalizations you create out of thin air.
I listed the enumerated powers that proved you wrong. The Framers used necessary and proper to make the granted federal powers effective. You don’t like that because it steps on the toes of your rigid libertarianism and arguments that fly from one place to another without ever landing.
Why don’t you review McCulloch v. Maryland? Then you can fly your arguments and try landing one against Chief Justice Marshall. The reason for the Necessary and Proper Clause is to permit the use of implied power and to assist in the organization of government that was not completely set out in the Constitution. To do otherwise would invalidate the purpose of the government and lead to its downfall. This was heavily argued at the time and continues to be argued today but less seldom in interests directly related to national security and defense.
One can argue that the SC should have constrained the Necessary and Proper Clause a bit more but to go on a rant like you do is plain foolish.”
Can you atleast keep your insults consistent.
First it is too many specifics and tangents, now too much generalization.
“Can you atleast keep your insults consistent.”
I don’t think I insulted you. I did say “One can argue that the SC should have constrained the Necessary and Proper Clause a bit more but to go on a rant like you do is plain foolish.” I think that is the truth and not meant to be an insult. You accused me of quoting the Preamble twice when I showed you what I wrote was from section 8. If you don’t like the word rant substitute an ultra-passionate defense of your ideas.
“First it is too many specifics and tangents, now too much generalization.”
You do all of those things. You have overgeneralized specific discussions while at the same time you engaged in tangents with specifics that were meaningless regarding the discussion at hand. Skip the tangents and use specifics in the primary argument.
Now you will say that you will respond in any fashion you want where I have to figure out what is pertinent to the discussion and what isn’t. That is the risk you take when you go off on tangents while responding to another. That is why comments between you and me are so lengthy and perhaps confusing.
There was one basic question that evolved into equations involving electrical current along with long tangential discussions. Totally unnecessary. The basic question was can the electrical grid be considered a national security interest and if so would it be proper for the government to pass legislation hardening the grid.
I did not accuse you of quoting the preamble, I prememptively informed you it was a bad idea.
You remarks on the necescary and proper clause continue to pretend it is an independent grant of power.
SCOTUS has often found that specific enumerated powers are far broader than written, and interpreted necescary as meaning convenient
but they have never found that the necescary and proper clause (or the general welfare clause) are grants of power.
That is of course distinct from the fact that regardless of what SCOTUS has found – they still arent,
and beyond the constitution, infringements on liberty mist really and truly be necescary to protect liberty, with no other alternative.
“I did not accuse you of quoting the preamble, I prememptively informed you it was a bad idea. You remarks on the necescary and proper clause continue to pretend it is an independent grant of power.”
You are all messed up. You assumed Preamble when the quote was entirely from Section 8. You assumed the discussion related to powers outside of enumerated powers and were wrong. You assume no one but you know the discussions that took place both before and after the signing of the Constitution. You are wrong. You continue to lecture trying to change the fundamental nature of the argument. You are wrong.
You messed up badly from the start and continue to do so in the present. Give it a rest.
No Allan.
I did not presume anything – you have.
I do not care where you pulled the “quote” the FACT is that none of the “sweeping” clauses in the constition no matter where they are found – including some in the amendments, have EVER been found to be an independent grant of limitless power.
Everyone is subordinate to the enumerated powers of the constititon.
Not only is that so. It MUST be so. Anything else devolves to socialism.
Do you beleive that our founders intentially created a socialist state ?
If not, then abandon this nonsense.
“I do not care where you pulled the “quote”
That is quite obvious. Unfortunately for all your arguments, I pulled them from Section 8. When it is convenient you forget the words of the Constitution and substitute your own ideology. When it is convenient you substitute your own words for another because your arguments don’t hold up.
Stop blaming others for what the Constitution says. It was a compromise.
AGAIN: “the FACT is that none of the “sweeping” clauses in the constitution no matter where they are found – including some in the amendments, have EVER been found to be an independent grant of limitless power. ”
“When it is convenient you forget the words of the Constitution and substitute your own ideology. When it is convenient you substitute your own words for another because your arguments don’t hold up.”
Nope.
AGAIN: The constitution and law must be construed NARROWLY. This is not about substitution.
The rule of law requires that the law of rules – not of the opinion of men. We can change the words, but we can not correct broad interpretations.
In the event of an invasion of the US the US military might draft everyone and use pickup trucks as military vehicles int he way the Taliban does in the mideast.
Can the Federal government require “hardening” of pickups in anticipation of that future conflict using “common defense” as the rationale ?
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
“In questions of power let no more be said of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution”
Thomas Jefferson’
I am blaming you for finding in it what is not there – without reading it overly broadly.
Do that and in the end you have no constitution.
You can fix an overly narrow reading – by amending the constitution. You can not fix an overly broad one.
“You messed up badly from the start and continue to do so in the present. Give it a rest.”
Check a mirror.
Allan: “You messed up badly from the start and continue to do so in the present. Give it a rest.”
Dhlii: “Check a mirror.”
No need for smoke and mirrors. Look at what was written. Also take note how I very frequently and carefully copy what you said so it is clear to what I am responding to and so I can’t make things up.
You don’t do that and you make things up.
Allan;
I copy you as much as you do me. Though not for the same reason.
Except rarely I copy you so that you will know what I am responding to.
I do not pretend that what I copy is the entirety of your remarks or provided more context than to refresh your memory.
The ultimate authority for what you have written – is not my quote, but the entitety of what you actually wrote – in context.
I honestly can not make sense of the instances you quote me.
You do it less than you claim. You do it not as a reference to my remarks but in an effort to rebut only the specific words quoted,
and still you fail at that. Even when you quote it is obvious from your own statements that you read things that are not there.
If your claim is that congress could pass a law subsidizing hardening of the grid and SCOTUS would find it constutional – you are likely right about that.
But then they found that congress can bar a farmer from growing wheat for his own use in wickard v. Filburn.
And until Gonzoles NEVER found the commerce clause insufficient to permit the government to do as it pleases.
But all that does is make my point. Congresses power to regulate commerce – which was granted congress in the expectation they would do NOTHING, primarily as a means of denying the power to interfere in interstate commerce to the states, would not under any meaningful interpretation of the constitution give the federal govenrment authority over puddles of water on private property fully inside a state. And yet through the magic of the rule of man not law, so it does.
So you want to convert “common defence” to the next “commerce clause” ?
Regardless, I am tired of arguing the constitution with you.
You thoroughly misunderstood McCulloch v. Maryland, and do not grasp that you can not just make it up as you go.
I am cognizant of the fact that SCOTUS is unlikely to rule as they should on many many issues.
But you are oblivious to the fact that even if they might in some fashion reach your end, they will not do so using your severely flawed logic – not that theirs is so hot.
Nor do you seem to grasp that you can not cite a broad interpretation of the constitution as proof that something you want to do it justified, and moral.
You are treating the constitution like a christian fundimentalist treats the bible – imbuing your own interpretation with the authority of gods voice.
The constitution is not the inerrant word of god. But we are obligated to follow it NARROWLY, until we change it.
SCOTUS interprets the constitution far more broadly than it should – but not nearly as broading as you are doing.
“”You do all of those things. You have overgeneralized specific discussions while at the same time you engaged in tangents with specifics that were meaningless regarding the discussion at hand. Skip the tangents and use specifics in the primary argument.”
Got it. If I must frame arguments as you wish.
While your claims do not litterally conflict – they are incredibly close.
We have been through the “overgeneralize” complaint “ad nasueum” previously. You are wrong, and I do not care to go through it again.
What you call “tangents” are mostly independent counter arguments.
Refuting an argument requires only ONE valid counter argument.
But I often make MANY counter arguments, all valid, but it only requires that one “speak to you” to refute your argument.
“Now you will say ”
I will ?
“The basic question …”
Asked and answered – NO.
The logic you use will allow government to involve itself in ANYTHING.
If you do not accept unlimited government then you can not accept claims of national security as sufficient justification for anything.
“If you do not accept unlimited government then you ”
Dhlii, nothing wrong with what you believe, but I don’t think your libertarian brand of politics would have let you compromise enough to sign the Constitution without which it is questionable that the 13 States could have survived independently into the next century.
Allan – you ratify the Constitution, you sign the Declaration of Independence.
What are you trying to say, Paul?
Allan – you were asking to sign the Constitution. 😉
I understand the direction you are taking Paul, but the Constitution nonetheless is the legal document that determined how our government would function. In the end, it was signed as well by the representatives of the states. The Declaration of Independence was similarly signed in the Second Continental Congress as a statement of intent also by representatives.
What is your point?
Again you keep channeling the left.
You seem certain what I would and would not do.
The constitution as written by out founders has lots of problems.
Ones I would like to see corrected.
It is still superior to anything else that has ever been done.
Further for over 150 years it created a federal government capable of everything we needed without costing more than 5% of what we produced.
So long as the constitution was applied somewhat narrowly – we did not always get good government, but atleast we did not have to pay a fortune for it.
Despite your rantings – I do not expect perfection. I am fully prepared to compromise on implimentation – but not on principles.
It is one thing to say I will tolerate something stupid – such as your Hardening the Grid – either to avoid something worse, or as part of a deal that is otherwise better.
But that is not going to get me to accept that it is either a good idea or constitutional according to the acutual constitution we have rather than the one we have increasingly made up.
Further whether I agree with you or not, there is a proper way to extend (or shrink) the powers of government – by amending the constitution,
NOT by bending its interpretation.
Sometimes the rule of law means the rule of BAD law. It is NEVER supposed to mean whatever someone thinks the law ought to be at the moment.
“Again you keep channeling the left.”
You can say that if you wish but all that means is you disagree with the Constitution. I quoted directly from Section 8. Unfortunately, there has been some overstepping by the judiciary in legislating from the bench but what you are advocating is totalitarianism under the guise of libertarianism.
The primary purpose of the collective agreement by the 13 states was to provide for their common defense. Such provisions have changed over the years so without a constitutional amendment we created an air force. A weak spot to our nation is the grid (you don’t agree) and it can be hardened to offer more protection (you don’t agree). In Section 7 Congress is given the authority to vote on bills and that includes actions that protect the United States of America. The President can sign or veto what Congress has passed. The judiciary can, if questioned, respond to the question of constitutionality.
Dhlii, our Resident Rigid Libertarian, who professes freedom and his belief in the Constitution, says NO, STOP. In my, Dhlii, opinion such an act is stupid and is overreaching. Dhlii further says, therefore, leave the decision regarding Constitutionality in MY, Rigid Libertarian hands… the Constitution doesn’t count in this instance. By the way, says Dhlii, go ahead and pass a bill for an ABM shield for defense. I, Dhlii, the Rigid Libertarian says the ABM shield makes sense and is Constitutional.
If you disagree, meet me at my throne so I can call you stupid.
No Allan we have covered this ground before.
Without the “overgeneralization” you have constantly accused me of you can not find what you are seeking in the constitution.
Further the federalist papers – the arguments made to the people to get the constitution ratified contradict your reading.
I am highly critical of the courts – including SCOTUS reading into the constitution what is not there.
But even the SCOTUS decisions YOU do not mean and have never been taken to mean what you find them too.
The understanding of the necescary and proper clauses is that the constitution does not dictate the precise structure of government – whether there is a department of defense, or a department of war, or whether there is an air force. But it does dictate the power of government.
The defence of the country against attacks is the legitimate role of government.
Though again I would note that even where government has been granted a power – it must STILL respect individual rights, and that means the power must be excercised using the least infringment possible. There is little or no infringement in separating an airforce from the army. that does not change the powers of government, and it does not change the infringement on individual rights.
Nor is there an infringement in the creation of space based ABM’s.
But subsidizing segments of the economy to direct them is a large infringement. Anything can be argued to be necessary for national security.
There is no bright line where increasing subsizies can be distinguished from government control – i.e. socialism.
No subsidizing hardening the grid will not lead immediately to socialism. But any read of the constitution as it is that permitts subsidizing hardening of the grid provides no impediment to socialism.
SCOTUS ran square into that with its first PPACA case.
Roberts punted. IF you take Wickard as it is written – there is nothing govenrment can not do by labeling it regulating interstate commerce.
It unfortunately took a law compelling people to purchase a good for SCOTUS to get slapped in the head with the glaring threat that Wickard introduced.
Roberts was wise enough to say “STOP” but not capable of reversing Wickard – which would have made almost 100 years of federal law unconsititutional – which it is.
I doubt there is a justice on the court today that is prepared to reverse Wickard. No matter what their views, no matter how sure they are of its unconstitutionality the magnitude of the effects would be so large no justice would be willing to trigger such large change. That does not mean that reversing Wickard would not be a very good thing – despite its disruption. But if it happens at all – which is unlikely it will happen incrementally.
Regardless my point is that broad interpretations of the constitution are not even a speed bump to socialism, totalitarianism, nationalism, whatever form of statism you wish.
Your interpretations ultimately mean nothing is prohibited to government and individual rights do not really exist.
And that is why you are channeling the left.
“No Allan we have covered this ground before.”
Yes, we have. First read section 8 again, then read my initial posts on the subject. Finally read section 8 over and over again until you get it.
It sounds like you are engaging in the Gish Gallop.
(Thank you Squeeky) 😀
Yelling me to do over what I have already done multiple times will get you nowhere.
You remain wrong on any narrow reading of the constitution.
Wrong in your reading of McCullough
Not just according to me, but according to Marshal, Jay, the Federalists, and every decision since.
You can get where you want – but not via the N&P clause and not until Wickard 1942 and the commerce clause.
Which is probably the worst SCOTUS decision in history, and essentially justifies any form of statism you want – including socialism.
I do not agree with Marshall but that is irrelevant – he does not agree with you.
You are overgenralizing – that thing you like to accuse me of.
Worse you are doing so in the worst possible way.
Broadly reading government power is inherently dangerous and almost unfixable.
Broadly reading individual rights and or narrowly reading government power is easily correctable if it is error.
“Yelling me to do over what I have already done ”
There was no yelling, not even a peep. You say you have done what I suggested but still can’t seem to manage the problem. Keep doing it until you get things straight. Your Gish Gallop is doing you in.
Insults and invective are not argument.
You have not made your case.
Assuming that you have as a form of argument is fallacy.
I have repeatedly demonstrated that not by my standards – but by those of Marshall and all subsequent SCOTUS’s your understanding of N&P is overly broad.
The same thing you like to accuse me of.
EXCEPT, that it is logically reasonable to broadly define rights of individuals. It is illogical and unsustainable to broadly define government powers.
So you fail as a matter of the actual state of the law – not the law as I would have it. Not the law as it should be. but the even the law as screwed up as the left has made it.
And you fail as a matter of logic – an overly broad interpretation of government powers results in the collapse of the rule of law.
“Insults and invective are not argument.”
First, you accuse me of yelling which I didn’t do and now insults which also did not exist in the posting you are responding to.
More Gish Gallop. My response remains. Section 8 Article 1 along with the division of powers stated in the Constitution.
Bastiat is not the Constitution.
Your back to this nonsense of digging your heels in and getting stubborn when you do not like the arguments being made.
You are too intelligent for this.
Are you saying this “gish gallop” nonsense is not “an insult” – not that it is your only one.
It is not a particularly heinous insult, but it is a fallacious non argument.
I do not think there is any lack of clarity on your A1S8 argument.
There is also no lack of clarity in that it does nto hold up.
It does not hold up as a matter of political philosophy, philosophy of government, practicality, rule of law,
You can pretend those are somehow ideological – though mostly they are not.
Something just plain do not work and we know it.
But outside my theory of government, and theory of law arguments,
Not even the Marshall opinion you cite means what you claim. Try reading it.
The N&P clause does not stand alone. It does not increase the scope of an enumerated power.
It merely allows those things that are necescary to effectuate that power.
It allows congress to not merely fund an army, but to buy them guns.
It does not however allow the government to take over farming – because soldiers must be fed.
Which is pretty much what you want to do.
We have plowed this ground repeatedly. You have made an argument that is not sufficient.
It is not even sufficient by the standards that SCOTUS actually uses which are far broader than what they should use.
The division of powers does NOT create new powers.
“Bastiat is not the Constitution.”
The constitution is the law of government. It is not the law of nature.
Most things are outside the control of government – whether government likes it or not.
“Your back to this nonsense of digging your heels in and getting stubborn when you do not like the arguments being made.”
Absolutely not. I am trying to limit the discussion, Dhlii. I have a point of view regarding national security that you don’t hold and I base my policy suggestions on Article 1 Section 8. What is so difficult for you to recognize a difference of opinion? I’m not interested in debating what Bastiat says, only what the Constitution says and you can’t stop.
Anyhow, the Grid made the news yesterday in the WSJ and elsewhere and this is the other half of the national security issue I suggested in my original comments:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-officials-push-new-penalties-for-hackers-of-electrical-grid-1533492714?mod=hp_lead_pos2
“Just a few years ago, the idea that foreign enemies could knock out electricity through cyberstrikes was the stuff of science fiction. Authors fantasized about lost communication except for battery-powered ham radios; a swift deterioration in the quality of drinking water; runs on grocery stores that sparked violence; and clogged highways as millions tried to flee dark metropolises.
Officials are now discussing how to avert such dire conditions if a grid goes down. “We should be thinking about how we sustain society after a huge power outage,” said Terry Boston, former chief executive of the nation’s largest grid-running organization, PJM Interconnection, and a member of the president’s infrastructure council.”
“Absolutely not.”
First you say no.
“I am trying to limit the discussion, Dhlii.”
Then you say yes.
You can only limit your own discussion.
“I have a point of view regarding national security that you don’t hold ”
And you may not impose it on others by force – and that is the end of it.
We each have the absolute right to hold any opinion we want on anything.
we do not have the right to impose our oppinion on others by force.
It was the oppinion of some – even of the supreme court that negroes could be property.
It was their oppinion that the constitution blessed that.
Allan: I have a point of view regarding national security that you don’t hold ”
Dhlii: And you may not impose it on others by force – and that is the end of it.
Where does it say that in the US Constitution?
No where does the constitution say you may not murder others to get your way.
Yet I would expect that you agree we are not free to do so.
AGAIN: The constitution is not the rules for life.
No where does it specify what is moral and what is not.
No where does it discuss what is stupid and what is not.
No where does it discuss what will work and what will not.
The premis that you may not impose your will on others by force absent very narrow justifications, has many names.
The Catagorical imperative, the Non-Aggression Principle.
Even the social contract.
It is the justification for government.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”
Longer version of same principle.
When you use the power of govenrment to infringe on liberty rather than to secure it, you delegitimize government itself, and utlimately you justify revolution.
“No where does the constitution say you may not murder others to get your way.”
Now you are starting to sound as if you believe the Constitution writes all the laws. It provides a framework for our government and in Section 8 provides enumerated powers for the federal government.
No I am saying conforming with the constitution – whatever we decide that means is NOT the sole requirement for law making – much less for broader life.
The entire purpose of government is to secure rights.
Government that violates that purpose is immoral.
Further I am saying that parts of this are not really about government – they are about you and I, and everyone else.
The left likes to say that government is what we do together. That is false. Government is what we do together by FORCE.
If force is not necessary – government is not.
Government is not sentient. It is not a person. It has not rights and it is not morally accountable in the sense that individuals are.
When we ask government to act – we are personally responsible for what we ask for.
And we may not ask government to do something that would not be moral for us to do ourselves.
The use of force in self defense or defense of other is moral, whether government is acting, or we are as individuals.
Other uses of force that are not justifiable if you or I did them as individuals are not justified if we do them through government.
Morality is commutative over individuals and government – because ultimately morality is individual.
You can not elide moral misconduct by interjecting government.
I would read the constitution more narrowly than you – I think that is a logical, philosophical, ethical and moral requirement – as well as a practical one.
But our major point of conflict is that you think the constitution is both sacred and complete.
It is neither.
The rule of law – which is also a logical, philosophical, ethical and moral matter, requires constraining government NARROWLY to the constitution. It does not permit government to do what the constitution does not allow. Merely because the constitution does not prohibit something does not make that allowable, or moral or ethical or practical.
There is much more to the rule of law, law making and government than the constitution.
Everything that is not prohibited is allowed – is the standard for people. The standard for govenrment is everything that is not allowed is prohibited.
“and I base my policy suggestions on Article 1 Section 8.”
No you are trying to use A1S8 as a justification for using force to impose your oppinions.
A1S8 IS a justification to use force.
It must be construed narrowly – because it is a justification to use force.
And it should never be easy to impose your oppinion on others by force.
And you are seeking to make it easy.
And that is what is wrong with your argument.
“What is so difficult for you to recognize a difference of opinion?”
I do not think there is any question that we have a difference of oppinion.
I have never argued you are not entitled to your oppinion.
I am opposed to your imposing it by force – that is all.
“I’m not interested in debating what Bastiat says”
Actually you are. You have noted that before.
Regardless you are fixating on one argument I have made – that of unintended consequences, that Bastiat makes better than I do.
That argument is sufficient to reject your demand to use force.
But it is not the only argument.
“only what the Constitution says and you can’t stop.”
So absolutely anything that someone can find a broad interpretation of the constitution to support – government should do – without otherwise considering whether that is a goof idea ?
I think using the constitution solely that our government would be permitted to create a nuclear weapon capable of destroying the world – do you think that we should do that ?
While you have not met your constitutional burden – that is NOT enough.
The constitution is not a suicide pact – it is also not a justification for stupid.
Completely separate from whether your opponion – whatever it is, is constitutional, you must also demonstrate that it will not have large uninitended consequnces, that it is effective, that it is the least intrusive means of accomplishing your goal. That it is not “stupid”
You have done none of these.
I am opposed to your imposing it by force – that is all.”
Such an idea is not in the Constitution. Section 8 of Article 1 is in the Constitution.
“”I am opposed to your imposing it by force – that is all.”
Such an idea is not in the Constitution. Section 8 of Article 1 is in the Constitution.”
You are correct – lots of things are not in the constitution – nowhere does the constitution state that I am not free to murder you as I please.
No where in the constitution is there any justification for the existance of government.
As I keep noting and you keep ignoring, the constitution falls quite short of the rules for human existance.
I will thank you for your anti-bastiat rant as that reminded me of that fact.
“The constitution is not a suicide pact – it is also not a justification for stupid.”
Section 8 is in the Constitution.
“whatever it is, is constitutional, you must also demonstrate that it will not have large uninitended consequnces, that it is effective, that it is the least intrusive means of accomplishing your goal.”
Where is that stated in the Constitution?
““The constitution is not a suicide pact – it is also not a justification for stupid.”
Section 8 is in the Constitution.
“whatever it is, is constitutional, you must also demonstrate that it will not have large uninitended consequnces, that it is effective, that it is the least intrusive means of accomplishing your goal.”
Where is that stated in the Constitution?”
The is no provision in the constitution forbidding your murder – not by me, not by government.
You are vesting in the constitution greater scope than it does for itself,
You are converting it into something of biblical reverence.
Honestly you are smarter than this.
“Honestly you are smarter than this.”
You seem to make such a statement everytime your argument fails.
I am not very good at persuasion, and I have failed at that.
I am very goof at logic and reason – there is nothing wrong with my argument.
In fact I suspect with a little effort I can find some close permutation of it made by the greatest thinkers since the enlightenment.
None of this is new. It is all part of the philosophical tradition that informed most of our founders – classical liberalism.
I can quote Mill or Thoreaux or Smith or Hume – or bastiat, or Jefferson or Franklin or Madison, or even Hamilton on occasion.
Not argument I have made would be foreign to them. They would recognize it as if they wrote it – because they likely did.
“I am not very good at persuasion, and I have failed at that.
I am very goof at logic and reason – there is nothing wrong with my argument”
You have it reversed. You are better at persuasion than logic and reason. You played a game of line drawing; Airforce OK, ABM OK, cybersecurity for the Grid OK, but hardening of the Grid NOT OK. Both cybersecurity and hardening directly protect the Grid. This type of line drawing needs to be left to Congress.
I understand your theory perfectly but we do not live in a perfect world so imperfections abound. That is why a legislative body was created.
Nope, allan – my logic is fine.
As I noted you want a constitutional amendment for an airforce – fine.
Regardless, ABM’s and Airplanes are WEAPONS. Weapons as required incidentals for a military.
I find cyber security only slightly less problematic than hardening the grid.
Primarly because real attacks are actually going on, and government is empowered to defend against actual attacks.
At the same time. I would have zero problem finding cyber security unconstitional – as government provided cyber security is stupid.
Ultimately businesses will work it out on their own.
The worst impediment we have to securing the internet is the unwillingness of the government to remove cyrptography from ITAR.
Government is the cause of most of our cyber security problems.
“This type of line drawing needs to be left to Congress.”
Can you name anything were congress has actually made these kind of distinctions well ?
Just off the top of my head the first HUGE problem you have is that these ar opportunities for congressmen to throw money at problems.
Worse they are one that is difficult to oppose – it is like voting against “hot dogs, moms, and chevrolet”
If congress starts funding securing the grid – in any way.
Every year the money will increase the purported threats will increase and the actual security of the grid will likely decline.
But congressmen will have created plenty of lucrative opportunities for contributors.
You know that is how this works.
Leave it alone, the problems will solve themselves far better than if government gets involved,
And NO!!!!!! congress is NOT at all good at this. They are unbeleiveably bad at this.
Here is a link – again wikipedia and I agree not the best reference – but it is a start, and you can learn more from there.
Economist James Buchannon won a nobel prize in economics for this work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice
“As I noted you want a constitutional amendment for an airforce – fine.”
I wanted no such thing. I mentioned we had an air force and that wasn’t mentioned in Section 8.
We have tanks and rifles – they were not mentioned in A1S8 either.
The hacking attempt last year was UNSUCCESSFUL – it was not actually an attack on the grid but on a laptop of a electrical company employee, and it was never penetrated.
That said I am slightly more sympathetic to the constitutionality of protecting the grid from hackers.
I would still leave that to free markets – because no matter how bad private cyber security is – government is worse.
Within the past few years black hats have targeted both NSA and CIA and successfully hacked them and stolen their crown jewels – the tools they use to hack others.
Anonymous hacked the FBI conference call discussing how to deal with anonymous.
Our national security aparatus has botched most everything they have touched.
Or put more simply Bastiat – sorry Allan but you can not get away from the fact that everything that is constitutional is not inherently a good idea.
“That said I am slightly more sympathetic to the constitutionality of protecting the grid from hackers.”
Both IMO need to be done. The Grid is central to almost everything in our modern life.
Where in the Constitution does it say protecting the Grid from hacking is OK and protecting it from EMP is not?
“That said I am slightly more sympathetic to the constitutionality of protecting the grid from hackers.”
“Both IMO need to be done. The Grid is central to almost everything in our modern life.”
An oppinion is not justification of the use of force.
“Where in the Constitution does it say protecting the Grid from hacking is OK and protecting it from EMP is not?”
The one is an actual extant attack – that would be common defence.
The other a hypothetical.
Regardless I said I am SLIGHTLY more sympathetic to one.
In both instances we are better off leaving government out of it.
“An oppinion is not justification of the use of force.”
No, an opinion is generally what our Congresspersons have when they pass specific bills. You are not going to tell us that the US has not used force, are you? I am not a believer in force, but force is a reality in our world. I want it kept to a minimum but I also want to protect the nation and its people.
I have never said that force may never be used.
I have said it may not be used solely based on an oppinion.
The use of force – aka government, must be justified.
Whether that use of force is constitutional is ONE part of justifying it.
Necescary, but not sufficient.
Force is necescary – to secure our natural rights, just as the declaration states.
There are a few other instances in which it is also necescary.
Just to be clear – Necescary is not an oppinion, it is a standard.
I want to protect my children. To a small extent particularly when they are young I can.
But increasingly and ultimately I must let them go, let them take risks, even let them be harmed.
Government is not there to protect us from everything.
It is their to secure our rights against infringement by other people.
Government owes us no protection from nature, or our own poor choices, or even random chance.
Ultimately government can not perfectly secure our rights without totally infringing on them.
That is why law is a posteriori. With few exceptions the role of govenrment is to punish misconduct – not actually prevent it.
The surety of punishment acts as the prevention. A priori prevention requires far greater restrictions on liberty – throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
“I have never said that force may never be used.”
You never said protection for the Grid could never be offered and decided to choose which ones you approved of. That is the job of Congress and the President.
“You never said protection for the Grid could never be offered and decided to choose which ones you approved of. That is the job of Congress and the President.”
Nope, it is a job for people outside of government spending their own resources prioritized according to their own wants.
Congress is inherently abysmal it “deciding” this types of things.
“Nope, it is a job for people outside of government spending their own resources prioritized according to their own wants.”
Consistency Dhlii. If that is the case the air force should not exist.
Perfectly consistent.
“No axiom is more clearly established in law or in reason than wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power for doing it is included.”
If the ends is permitted so are the means.
But the ends must be explicitly permitted and the means must be that which least infringes on liberty.
“least infringes on liberty”
Hayek would later make a similar statement differently than Madison regarding the economy. I have to paraphrase for I don’t remember his exact words. ‘ least effect on the marketplace.’ I say this because IMO external force should always have the least effect on changes that can best occur organically. It’s not special to liberty.
““No axiom is more clearly established…”
We should also not forget Chief Justice Marshal “according to the dictates of reason” implies a “means of execution.” believing I think that the clause created a power subject to less objection thereby strengthening those things entrusted to government. I think he also believed that if a power is entrusted to the government the judicial branch need not be involved in the decision of necessity. That places those things we disagree on into the halls of Congress.
Needless to say there was a lot of discussion by our founders on this clause but in the end it was accepted and interpreted as a means of effectuating the enumerated powers. I say the foregoing not to extend the discussion rather to clearly state my feelings on it recognizing that I am not an attorney and it has been many decades since I looked in depth on this subject.
You continue to misread marshal – and the error is obvious in your own remarks – a “means of execution” or a power is NOT a new power.
For someone from the 19th century Marshall was NOT deferential of the legislature.
“You continue to misread marshal – and the error is obvious in your own remarks – a “means of execution” or a power is NOT a new power.”
You are wrong. I haven’t asked for a new power nor do I want one. I don’t think I am misreading Marshall. I think you saying something neither Marshall said nor I am saying. Your problem seems to stem from an inability to delegate responsibility.
“You are wrong. I haven’t asked for a new power”
If hardening the grid is a necesscity for any A1S8 power – then ANYTHING is and you do not have any limits to government.
The constitution and the law are not the exclusive province of attorney’s.
Most of the people in my life are attorney’s. further I have respectfully debate prominent attorneys like Lawrence Tribe. Lawrence Lessig, Randy Barnett, Rischard Epstein.
I have encountered many attorney’s that are better on their area of law than I am. That said I have found most of the proffession dullards.
In fact I have found most professionals of any kind mediocre. That should not surprise – as Average does mean something.
It is not at all hard to know more about a subject than most professionals in that subject – particularly some narrow area.
It hard to best to top 1%.
Just recently I have had to deal with 5 lawyers and one judge – not a one of which actually knew what the elements of a contract were.
We are talking 1L stuff. We are talking things you can get watching Professor Kingsford in the paper chase.
The concept that the constitution and law are not the exclusive doman of attorney’s is extremely important.
To paraphrase Lincoln – “the law, is of the people, by the people and for the people.”
“Just a few years ago, the idea that foreign enemies could knock out electricity through cyberstrikes was the stuff of science fiction. Authors fantasized about lost communication except for battery-powered ham radios; a swift deterioration in the quality of drinking water; runs on grocery stores that sparked violence; and clogged highways as millions tried to flee dark metropolises.”
I suspect that hostile foreign powers can do all of these – briefly.
But no hostile foreign power can do as much damage to the US as the hurricanes we had last year.
We survived and ultimately we thrived. It is what we do.
The biggest danger of a “cyber attack” is that it might briefly blind us to a nuclear or other attack.
And that is pretty much not possible.
Our vulnerabilities to nature are a serious problem. You can not intimidate nature.
You can not glare at the gulf and say – if you toss off a CAT5 at the US we will nuke you till you glow in the dark.
Russia has had and still has the ability to launch a nuclear attack and wipe out a large portion of the US.
Why don’t they ? Because that is an egregious act of war, and we would respond in kind – MASD.
All of the attacks by foreign powers you fear would be acts of war and would result in massive retailiation – possibly nuclear.
Putin is not that stupid.
“But no hostile foreign power can do as much damage to the US as the hurricanes we had last year.”
You are entitled to have your opinion and vote for your candidate of choice based on that opinion. However, the Constitution permits Congress and the President to have an opinion that differs from yours.
“You are entitled to have your opinion and vote for your candidate of choice based on that opinion. However, the Constitution permits Congress and the President to have an opinion that differs from yours.”
The use of force without justification – which the constitution is ONE part of, is immoral. It is ALSO the basis for the entirety of our criminal law.
You are essentially saying that it is OK to have criminal laws that require the justification of the use of force but that congress need not abide by them ?
Regardless you have degenerated to a defense of majority rule. Is that really where you want to take this argument ?
“You are essentially saying that it is OK to have criminal laws that require the justification of the use of force but that congress need not abide by them ?”
You are starting down the road to another tangent. It is spelled out in the Constitution that the federal government has the responsibility to protect the nation. Just like the ABM system and protecting the Grid from cyber attacks both which you find in the government’s power I find hardening the grid also in its power. Force (taxation) is involved in all three of these things though hardening the Grid is of relatively low cost and I guess you would say low force compared to the others. That security which is satisfactory to you when building the ABM system and protecting us from Grid cyber attacks is decided by Congress based on the enumerated powers and multiple court decisions. Hardening the Grid is similar in all respects except you don’t like it so suddenly you dispense with the delegation of power in the Constitution and switch to Bastiat.
I find Bastiat to be very helpful but until you amend the Constitution “The Law” is not the “law” (framework) of the Constitution.
When one acts morality is NEVER tangent.
“When one acts morality is NEVER tangent”
Morality is an excuse not an issue regarding this question since protection of the Grid was felt by you to be OK based on the nature of the protection. You were choosing one over another based on efficaciousness not on principle even though I am sure you will make a lengthy argument denying that.
“Morality is an excuse not an issue regarding this question”
Again – morality is never tangent.
“since protection of the Grid was felt by you to be OK based on the nature of the protection.”
No that is not what i said, you have broadly overgeneralized.
I said that given that there are actual cyber attacks that are occuring, that government cyber security MIGHT be constitutional.
I did NOT say it would be moral or effective. In fact I specifically stated that government is about the worst at cyber security (except possibly the DNC), and in another post I pointed out why congressional action will be ineffective, expensive and constantly inflating.
“You were choosing one over another based on efficaciousness not on principle even though I am sure you will make a lengthy argument denying that.”
Completely backwards. I have repeatedly noted that government action is NOT “efficaciousness”. I have pretty much NEVER deviated from the claim that government fails at most everything it does. I have not made an exception for hardening the grid or cyber security.
I have MERELY noted that from a constitutional perspective ONLY, It MIGHT be possible to justify cyber security as it is an actual defence against an actual attack.
It is further the direct counter to an actual weapon. Cyber security more strongly correlates to ABM’s than grid hardening. It is an effort to neutralize an attack so that it hopefully has no impact, it is not “hardening” a non military facet to be less damaged by a hypothetical attack.
““since protection of the Grid was felt by you to be OK based on the nature of the protection.”
No that is not what i said, you have broadly overgeneralized.”
No, you were open to dealing with cybersecurity to protect the grid but not hardening the grid itself. You want your brain to draw the line. I want the elected Congress to draw that line.
Do you know what the word “MIGHT” means.
Regardless I have distinguished the one from the other.
do not think that cyber security should be the business of the federal government – because it does and will suck at it. But there is no constitutional impediment to protecting against attacks that are actually occuring.
“do not think that cyber security should be the business of the federal government”
Neither do I except where it involves the core of our infrastructure that our military depends on to protect the nation and prevent national disorder.
How my brain – or yours choses is irrelevant – we are free to choose as we please and free to impliment whatever we are able without using force.
I want congress dealing ONLY with those things that REQUIRE the use of force, and then while infringing on liberty the least possible.
You seem to think that all the choices here absolutely must be made by government – whatever I want you think I am demanding government do that dorm me.
And you pretend that your demand of government is just another oppinion.
I am insisting the people make their own choices – which they are unlikely to do consistent with each other.
You are insistent that government make and impose by force the choice and that everyone must live with that ONE choice.
“I want congress dealing ONLY with those things that REQUIRE the use of force, and then while infringing on liberty the least possible.”
We agree but we don’t agree on the exact details of what those things are. We entrusted that decision to be made by Congress and the President where the judiciary from the beginning decided not to be involved in determining necessity but permitted the enumerated powers to be effectuated.
“We agree but we don’t agree on the exact details of what those things are. We entrusted that decision to be made by Congress and the President where the judiciary from the beginning decided not to be involved in determining necessity but permitted the enumerated powers to be effectuated.”
Really ? I know few people left or right who actually trust more than a tiny portion of elected politicians – or unelected people in government.
The entire concept of rights is about those freedoms/liberties that government may not infringe on.
Not because we trust it.
Not because we agree.
Not at all.
“Really ? I know few people left or right who actually trust more than a tiny portion of elected politicians – or unelected people in government.”
Take note I didn’t use the word trust in my comment. I used the word ‘entrusted’ and that is worlds apart from what you are saying. (“We ***entrusted*** that decision to be made by Congress and the President “) If you no longer wish to entrust the enumerated powers to Congress pass an amendment changing it.
So you entrust people you do not trust ?
I do not.
“So you entrust people you do not trust ? I do not.”
That is the compromise we made. The Compromise, the framework of the Constitution, is better than no compromise and no Constitution.
“That is the compromise we made. The Compromise, the framework of the Constitution, is better than no compromise and no Constitution.”
I can not beleive you have not read the Federalist papers.
Jay, Madison and Hamiliton certainly did not think they were making the compromise you do.
Power corrupts and they knew that.
Further it lures the corruptable – and they knew that.
Most of the impediments and obstacles to weilding power in the constitution are there because our founders did not trust themselves with power.
Much less anyone else.
“I can not beleive you have not read the Federalist papers.”
You can believe whatever you wish and believe what you wish about the writers of the Federalist Papers (and anti-Federalist papers) but you are wrong on all accounts. Everyone knew this was a compromise yet everyone who signed recognized that their greatest fears might be realized. I believe Governor Morris refused to sign because of those fears.
It was a bet on the future and all won the bet because the US is alive today and prosperous where its people do not have to live under Stalinist regimes. It wasn’t a 100% win so yes a lot would be disappointed that the course of the US didn’t follow exactly what they wanted. But I will bet that all or almost all would be satisfied that the 13 colonies didn’t disintegrate and become a possession of a greater nation.
***Perfection is the enemy of good***
Many compromises were made in the creation of the Constitution. Compromise is a constant part of our political process.
Entrusting people we do not trust is NOT one of those.
Innumerable parts of the constitution are there SPECIFICALLY because our founders did NOT trust people with power.
They wanted a federal govenrment with more power than the articles of confederation.
Amoung other things they wanted to move to actually being ONE nation.
But they remained as distructful of power ever, so while they gave govenrment more power than the articles of confederation did,
the made it incredibly difficult to use.
If you do not read the constitution that way – you misread it.
After that you can review Madison in Federalist 51.
Yes, the founders distrusted power and tried to limit it, but they also wanted the country to survive at least into the next century. To do so certain powers were provided that perhaps should not have been expanded in the way they were but it is now over 200 years later and the country still exists and its people are doing better than most people in the rest of the world.
We have to live under what we have using democratic processes to change our direction. It the direction becomes intolerable then revolution is the last resort. For the present I will take what we have.
“Yes, the founders distrusted power and tried to limit it, but they also wanted the country to survive at least into the next century.”
“To do so certain powers were provided that perhaps should not have been expanded in the way they were”
Bzzt, wrong.
I have little doubt our founders would recognize and oppose the unlimited government we have today.
But they did not create a government intended to dictate the future. Our future belongs to us – not them, and they understood that.
What they rejected absolute and struggled in the constitution to prevent was the lawless way we arrived where we are, not where we arrived.
Our constitution was not imposed on us by a majority vote of congress – or the majority of learned justices.
It went through a slighty more stringent approval process than is required for an amendment.
That is how we change the constitution – not by the action of the president, vote of a majority of the legislature or 5 of 9 justices.
If you want the federal govenrment to be about to regulate puddles in Kansas – pass an amendment allowing that.
“but it is now over 200 years later and the country still exists and its people are doing better than most people in the rest of the world.”
The rate of increase of standard of living in much of the 19th century was about 7%. The 20th 3.5%, thus far in the 21st 2%.
Clearly something is wrong. Yes, we are doing better than in the past – but so were those in the USSR.
Nor is 7% unaccheivable today. Singapore and Hong Kong have sustained 6% growth since the 50’s and have gone from impoverished fishing villages, to higer standard of living than the US. China since Mao’s death has had almost 9% growth until very recently.
India’s average growth as been well over 5% since 1989 when they weakened the regulatory Raj.
All over the world we KNOW that developed countries, undeveloped countries even the same country at different times, has faster rising GDP when government is smaller and freedom is greater.
“We have to live under what we have using democratic processes to change our direction.”
Why is that ? What we have was not arrived at through any legitimate processes ? Why does removing improperly added garbage have to be much harder than adding it.
“It the direction becomes intolerable then revolution is the last resort.”
I should think it would be wise to fix the mistakes we have made BEFORE revolution is necescary/
“For the present I will take what we have.”
Meaningless statement – so will I, but that does not mean I will not argue to strip it of all its failed and improper and immoral accretions as rapidly as can be done.
Regardless – you contradict yourself – you want to harden the grid. You are not happy with things as they are. quit pretending you are.
You are making a fake Burkean conservative argument for progressivism, and you clearly do not mean what you are saying.
You are not looking to “take what we have” you are looking to continue the slow erosion of liberty.
“I have little doubt our founders would recognize and oppose the unlimited government we have today.”
They are not here today and they have no voice today. They knew that things would change. You don’t like the direction and perhaps I don’t either but that was something expected and feared. I am willing to live with the Constitution as interpreted today hoping for a change in my direction.
One of the reasons I voted for Trump was I believed he would protect a more conservative Supreme Court. The Supreme Court directs the course of the nation in the long term. You didn’t vote for Trump because something about him offended you. Your lack of such a vote gave support to those that would move the Supreme Court in the direction you hate.
In that context, your actions have contradicted your belief in a narrow interpretation of the Supreme Court. A second candidate will likely end up on the bench as a conservative. Would you have preferred this second candidate to be more like Sotomayor? I hear a lot of talk from you about narrowly interpreting the Supreme Court but I have heard very little that actually pushes the nation in that direction. Too much theory and not enough reality.
“They are not here today and they have no voice today. They knew that things would change. You don’t like the direction and perhaps I don’t either but that was something expected and feared.”
Binary fallacy.
Of course they knew things would change – they provided for change. They specifically provided for change that had a reasonable chance of being moral.
The difficulty in amending the constitution assures public debate, assures that a mere majority can not impose its will on the rest of us by force.
That is what is immoral – actually evil about what we have done. Not only have we transformed into a near democracy, but we have done so by an immoral route.
AGAIN 9 of us may not impose our will on another by force.
You can make whatever arguments you wish, they do not change that the use of force is ALWAYS immoral without justification.
“I am willing to live with the Constitution as interpreted today”
There is no such thing. There is absolutely no thread of logic that runs through what purports to be constitutional and what does nto today.
Decisions are the result of the specific mix of politics and personality at the moment a case goes before the courts.
That is pretty much the definition of the rule of man not law.
The consequences of that – which we have been warned of is that we are lawless.
We are today at this moment fighting over myriads of issues of law.
Enormous numbers of people are certain that something Clinton did is lawless, while certain that when someone they like did the same it was lawful.
And the same in reverse. The problem at this moment is far worse on the left that right, but it is close to universal.
Most of us avoid jail – not because we do not commit crimes – we break the law constantly without knowing it.
But because we have not pissed off someone in government with the power to make our lives miserable.
Or because we have amassed enough power of our own to make anyone who would oppose us even more miserable.
That is not law, that is not governance. That is a form of tryany.
Allan: “(1)They are not here today and they have no voice today. (2)They knew that things would change. (3)You don’t like the direction and perhaps I don’t either but that was something expected and feared.”
Dhlii: “Binary fallacy.”
I am not even sure that such a fallacy officially exists. Perhaps it is incorporated into another fallacy.
Tell us the fallacy that exists in each statement above. I added numbers to each statement in order to make things easier.
I am not interested in a debate about how you or I voted.
Trump has proven a better president than I had expected.
“In that context, your actions have contradicted your belief in a narrow interpretation of the Supreme Court.”
I voted for a candidate that would likely have made atleast as good a judicial choices as Trump AND made other choices better.
“Too much theory and not enough reality.”
I do not get to vote for federal judges. I do get to vote for presidents, and senators, and who they will nominate and confirm is a significant factor in my vote.
I would further note that NONE of the current justices are particularly close to conforming to the rule of law.
I can probably find as many bad decisions of Roberts as Sotomayor.
Classical liberalism tends to share many (not all) ends with the left, but rejects their means.
The common ground between libertarians and conservatives is mostly in opposing the MEANS of the left.
I do not think there is a justice on the supreme court that is consistently correct.
Without significantly diminishing Stare Decisis, as well as being prepared to make 2/3 of the federal govenrment unconstitutional it would be hard to decide correctly today.
So how do you get back to the rule of law, narrow constitutional reading, without massive (if temporary) disruption ?
You do not do so by continuing as we are
“I am not interested in a debate about how you or I voted.”
How you voted is very pertinent to the discussion at hand. In fact, I think it is more important to this discussion than discussions on what Bastiat said. It demonstrates that your debating points have little to do with today’s reality.
The issue is the narrow interpretation of the Constitution vs a living Constitution. You have certain sensitivities of purity that permit you to only act when the environment is as pure as snow. Not voting for Trump demonstrated that your real-time support for a narrow interpretation of the Constitution was less important than purity and compromise. What we are seeing is a lot of rhetoric about purity and very little action to promote the ideas you talk about in a world made up of a lot of people that do not agree with you. Our founders had a choice before passing the Constitution. Compromise or remain as pure as snow. They passed the Constitution and if placed in their shoes it sounds like you would not have done so. Your image, pure as snow, is more important to you. The longer-term problem with your idea is that snow melts.
“So how do you get back to the rule of law, narrow constitutional reading, without massive (if temporary) disruption ?
You do not do so by continuing as we are”
We never get back to a narrow reading of the Constitution without the active support of citizens of the nation and a willingness to compromise. In your case, when you had the chance to act you were absent.
***Perfection is the enemy of good***
Your problem not mine. The world is not perfect. Most problems do not need government intervention. They will resolve themselves on their own.
Those seeking perfection are those seeking government intervention.
As an example – you are demanding that government step in and “harden the grid” – you want government to steal from all of us to benefit some of us to make minor changes in the harm that will be caused if a highly unlikely event occurs. All this despite the fact that this “grid hardening” will inevitably occur anyway, for reasons that make much more sense driven by peoples real needs for protection against things that happen thousands of times a day.
“It was a bet on the future and all won the bet because the US is alive today and prosperous where its people do not have to live under Stalinist regimes.”
Even the USSR brought prosperity – just not to the degree of the US. The highest sustained growth in history are in HK and Singapore that have total government less than half of the US and rank higher on economic freedom.
“that government is best which governs least”
Thoreau
Regardless, either you can state a principle that limits the use of force, or you are arguing that any use of force by a government or by democratic majorities is justified.
If you have no basis to establish when force can be used – then what is your criteria for condemning Hitler ? Staling ? Mao ?
Fascism has been incredibly successful in many countries that have adopted it. Hitler and Musolini brought great prosperity to their counties.
By the terms you are offering, their only failure was in war.
Even Stalin marshalled the USSR to fight Hitler – massive and impossible undertaking.
European socialists are not running failing countries. Standards of living in europe constantly improve – SLOWLY.
The EU has a GDP equal to the US and a population that is 550m compared to our 330M their Standard of living is about 1/3 lower than ours – but still good and still improving.
Even the flagship countries – like Germany have a standard of living that is 1/5 lower than ours – still good and still improving.
If your standard is the improvement in peoples lives that a government brings about – then the facts are clear:
Greater individual liberty so some point we have not come close to results in higher prospertiy.
Smaller government – with an inflection point somewhere below 20% of GDP and about about 1.5% of GDP results in higher prosperity.
I am not after perfection.
I do seek to move in the right direction. We know or can know what that is. But we choose to hide from reality.
I have made many arguments against your hodge podge argument that as best as I can tell asserts representative self government as a standalone principle. But I could be wrong as you are ambiguous.
The constitution does not state a philosophy of government and says little about its purpose.
That was done in the declaration of independence. The purpose of government is to secure our rights.
Allan: “***Perfection is the enemy of good***”
Dhlii: “Those seeking perfection are those seeking government intervention.”
Dhlii you and those you complain about are nearly the same. Both of you reject the Constitution. You have Bastiat and they have Marx. The idea of compromise is lost on both of you.
I repeat: Perfection is the enemy of good. I’ll live with the constitutional compromise even though I don’t agree with everything.
“Dhlii you and those you complain about are nearly the same. Both of you reject the Constitution.”
Bzzt, wrong. I expect the constitution to be enforced without discretion AS IT WAS WRITTEN, to be read narrowing as was intended and is required by the rule of law, and changed by amendment by us when we find it lacking.
It is you and the ones I complain of who are similar – you wish to imbue the constitution with religious significance – but not actually follow it. You want to be able to change its meaning with your whim. You have pretty much openly advocated for the rule of man not law.
“You have Bastiat and they have Marx”
I have myriads of arguments – Bastiat is one – a very very good one, but just one of many. Bastiat is not my Marx. He is just one refutaion of the myriads of points of failures in your approach.
“The idea of compromise is lost on both of you.” Compromise is a tool. It is neither a value, nor a principle.
I would have compromised with Hitler to save more jews. But I never would have pretended that the comprise was anything but the lessor evil.
“I repeat: Perfection is the enemy of good.”
It is, and the entire argument for govenrment doing things is the false hope of perfection.
We know that nothing will meet our wants and needs better than free markets.
It will never do so perfectly – it will always be striving to come ever closer to perfection without getting there.
Government is the idiotic pretense that men are inherently evil but weighed down with enough laws and regulations they are perfectable.
“I’ll live with the constitutional compromise”
You do not even get the actual compromises that made the constitution.
You are better with history than most particularly those on the left.
But you have odd spins on the past, you see things that were not there and do not see things that were,
” I expect the constitution to be enforced without discretion AS IT WAS WRITTEN, to be read narrowing”
I can’t say I disagree with a narrow interpretation of the Constitution. However, our democracy has taken us in that direction. It is bad for the nation in the long term, but the solution is political unless you prefer revolution. The Constitution laid out the three branches of government and at present they are reasonably aligned. What is your political solution?
“I can’t say I disagree with a narrow interpretation of the Constitution.”
This is not a question of opinion.
The method or interpreting law and constitution has consequences.
Anything method that closely followed does not produce the same results is inherently immoral.
If Judge A and Judge B find the same law to mean something substantially different – we are lawless. People can not know how the law will be applied to them.
That is the rule of man not law, and it does not work very well.
“However, our democracy has taken us in that direction.”
We are not a democracy,
Quasi majoritarian bad choices imposed by force are still bad.
You keep completely ducking the issue that you may not use force against another without justification.
That is the foundation of the social contract. Government is not legitimate without that premise.
That is little more than a paraphrase of the declaration of independence, or Locke or Kant’s catagorical imperative or …..
It is the foundation of the human conception of right and wrong.
Destroy that you not only have chaos and anarchy, you have no morality.
It is not the subject of opinion. It is as fundimentally a fact as that the sun will rise tomorow.
“It is bad for the nation in the long term, but the solution is political unless you prefer revolution.”
It is bad in the short run, if we do not resolve it politically, ultimately it will be resolved more painfully.
Revolution is not the only alternative – governments fail and collapse all the time – the weimar republic, The USSR,
soon Venezuela.
What I do not understand is why you agree and then argue that we must continue to make things worse in small increments.
Trying to head in the right direction atleast is NOT utopian.
Going further in the wrong one is wrong by any measure.
“The Constitution laid out the three branches of government and at present they are reasonably aligned.”
“What is your political solution?”
Why do you presume the choices are revolution and politics ?
My solution is to speak out to demand better – to demand that even those like you who claim to grasp that government must be limited actually do.
It is to point out repeatedly that what we have:
Is not what was intended.
Does not conform to the rule of law.
Is not moral
Makes us less well off than we would be.
Likely will fail – possibly catastropically.
Will never live up to its promises.
Will only very rarely come close.
Will constantly take credit for improvements that are inevitable.
One way or another, we are on an unsustainable path.
Nearly every factor favors greater individual liberty.
All that said – I am not obligated to provide solutions.
There is nothing wrong with opposing failure and expecting it undone.
With demanding reversion back to what worked less badly than what we have.
With demanding that if you are going to use force against another – individually or through government you must justify it.
Allan: “I can’t say I disagree with a narrow interpretation of the Constitution.”
Dhlii: “This is not a question of opinion.”
Dhlii, since the Supreme Court Justices have differences of opinions on this issue quite frequently, I guess your comment is silly or has an obscure meaning.
Galleleo and the church had a difference of oppinion regarding the earth orbiting the sun.
That difference of oppinion did not change the FACT that the earth orbits the sun.
You can have an oppinion on anything. Most oppinions are WRONG.
“Galleleo and the church”
You have now taken us down another tangent. All we ever have are opinions. They are treated as fact until they are disproven or replaced by what is thought to be better opinions.
The only fact we know is that we will die and that assumes the fact that we are alive. This type of argument leads nowhere. The interpretation of our Constitution will always be in question. Your ability to act, on the other hand, is frozen because you can only accept perfection and as stated earlier ‘good is the enemy of perfection’.
You have made an obvious and fundimental logic error.
Morality is an independent requirement.
Efficacy is an independent requirement.
Constitutionality is an independent argument.
Least infringing solution is an independent argument
Efficiency is an independent argument.
Those of the top of my head are the biggies – but there are others.
Some proposal of your can be constitutional and still ineffective, immoral, inefficient and the most infringing.
You do not seem to grasp that it is SUPPOSED to be hard to make law.
MAYBE passing one hurdle do not pass all.
You have transformed a MIGHT on one issue on one facet into a YES on all facets and a non-existant logical conflict with respect to other issues.
“Morality is an independent requirement.
Efficacy is an independent requirement.
Constitutionality is an independent argument.”
3/5ths of a person was not a moral requirement for the Constitution. We compromised our values when the Constitution was passed. It was the most efficient way to get agreement at that time.
You cannot make your revisions to suit your needs. We left a lot of decisions up to the three branches trying to prevent the federal government from being too powerful. Thus the enumerated powers.
You and I might have differences as to where those powers extend today but it is clear the final decision is in Congress, the President and the Judiciary. You are nitpicking to satisfy your personal beliefs which is fine at the ballot box and the megaphone where it belongs. Franklin told you that we have a “Republic if you can keep it”. I am surprised it still exists.
And it remained immoral, and quite quickly most states banned slavery.
Historically good things and bad things have been done citing the constitution.
A very few of the bad things – such as 3/5 are in the constitution.
Most are not.
Regardless, they are all wrong.
The constitution does not make what is immoral moral.
“You and I might have differences as to where those powers extend today but it is clear the final decision is in Congress, the President and the Judiciary. ”
Jefferson says quite differently in the declaration.
Madison in Federalist 51.
All power comes from the people. All government power is for the purpose of securing rights.
Dictators and tyrants have the final word in totalitarian countries.
No one argues that is moral or right.
Your argument is that the constitution makes the federal government self authorizing.
Might as well end voting. It is unnecescary.
“It is spelled out in the Constitution that the federal government has the responsibility to protect the nation. ”
Bzzt, wrong. The declaration offers the purpose/responsibility of govenrment.
The constitution defines the maximum extent of the power of government – where other factors such as rights does not further limit government.
The constitution does not define the purpose of government.
I word further note that like the left you are engaging in word and semantic games.
As I note repeatedly – national security does not appear in the constitution. nor does protect.
Common defense may overlap national security, but they are not the same thing
we must use the use the actual words – and we must construe them narrowly.
If that actually proves deficient – it is correctable. Any alternative is not, the alternatives are lawless.
This is also important – because we think in words. When we play games with words and their meaning we distort our thinking.
Protecting people is far broader than providing for the common defence, or securing our rights.
As with my children – protection can mean most anything. It is very paternalistic.
Concepts such as protection lead to “fatherland” and “motherland” anthropomorphizing government, usually to very bad ends.
National security is elastic enough to cover anything. Common defense though to broad for me is not nearly as elastic.
Securing rights is far less than protecting.
Law and government is not poetry or fiction where word play is a valuable tool.
Law and government are to be a small part of our lives, and to be conducted with bright lines and precision,
Again the rule of law.
“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream – the maximum of individual freedom consistent with law and order – or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.”
Ronald Reagan.
Note freedom is to be maximized. Law and order are necescary – they are necescary to effectuate freedom, but the objective – even of law and order, is to maximize freedom.
Law and order are a means not an end. Freedom is an end. Securing liberty – law and order for the purpose of maximizing effective liberty – are a means.
Protection is much more, it goes beyond both securing and liberty and exceeds the scope of govenrment,
“Bzzt, wrong. The declaration offers the purpose/responsibility of govenrment.”
The Constitution is the framework. Section 8 permitted a navy etc. and since then we created an air force. You have permitted ABM and cybersecurity for the Grid. Hardening of the Grid fits in fine.
“The Constitution is the framework.”
You claimed it provided the purpose of government.
It does not.
“Section 8 permitted a navy etc. and since then we created an air force.”
Si pass a constitutional amendment.
“You have permitted ABM”
And tanks, and ships and uniforms and guns, and airplanes – all WEAPONS.
Things necescary for an army or navy.
“and cybersecurity for the Grid.”
I said that MIGHT be constitutional as it was defence against an extant threat.
I separately noted that it failed tests besides constitutionality.
Might is not YES, and meeting one hurdle is not crossing all hurdles.
“Hardening of the Grid fits in fine.”
to you, and you are prepared to use force to do so.
I do not cede that you have met the constitutional burdens.
But you have not even attempted to meet the others.
““The Constitution is the framework.”
You claimed it provided the purpose of government.
It does not.”
I am not sure what exact word I used but stated I thought the word framework would be a better choice though I am not sure of the best word to describe it.
“Officials are now discussing how to avert such dire conditions if a grid goes down. “We should be thinking about how we sustain society after a huge power outage,” said Terry Boston, former chief executive of the nation’s largest grid-running organization, PJM Interconnection, and a member of the president’s infrastructure council.””
“Officials” are behind the curve. Fracking has changed the energy industry. There is a reason US CO2 output has tanked and why coal mining is dying.
The “grid” is converting to decentralized gas turbine power generation.
While the per KWH cost is higher than coal, A coal plant must be located far from population centers – necescitating “the grid”, and Coal Plants take days to power up and down.
Gas Turbines take minutes. The result of this transition is power generation is becoming ever more local, and “the Grid” is becoming over les centralized and fragile.
Esentially we are shifting to a more early internet model – and the internet was designed to survive a nuclear attack.
Regardless, again you are looking to centrally plan something that if governmnt does nothing will happen naturally.
Doing nothing is quite often the best choice in our personal lives. It is almost always the best choice involving government.
You worry too much.
“You worry too much.”
Where in the Constitution are you mentioned as an expert on what to or not to worry about.
“You worry too much.”
Where in the Constitution are you mentioned as an expert on what to or not to worry about.
It is not.
The constitution does not cover eating, drinking or sex either.
dhlii – the Constitution is sadly deficient in some areas like eating, sex, sleep, etc. 😉
Sorry, Allan. I have not set myself up as the sole interpreter of the constitution.
My demands are simple – and held commonly by far more than “rigid libertarians”.
First and foremost “the rule of law not man”
That means the law must be enforced with as little discretion as possible – even bad law. Even law I disagree with.
It is by enforcing rigidly bad law, that we provide the impetus to get rid of it.
Enforcing the law rigidly does not preclude challenging the law. Speaking out against it,
Further all law and constitution must be read to the greatest extent possible such that it produces ONE result. ALWAYS, In ALL TIMES, by ALL COURTS.
It is not necescary for judges to like the law. But it is an absolute requirement to impose the law in the same way as every other court in the nation.
Anything else is the rule of man not law.
We can debate the means of reading the law that will produce a single meaning no matter who is reading.
But whatever those means are – they must consistently produce the same result. Anything else is the rule of man not law.
I and others offer “originalism” or “textualism” in various forms to meet those criteria. I think I can make excellent arguments for my particular form of originalism.
But as I noted any approach that always produces the same result so long as that approach is followed will work.
Living constitutionalism does not work – because the results vary by judge and over time.
What I am saying is required is not what is being done.
And quite obviously what is being done works badly.
It results in law enforcement acting with broad discretion.
It results in different outcomes all over.
IT results in the politicization fo the courts.
It results in the destuction of the impetus to change the law and constitution – because it is so much easier to appoint those who will read it differently.
There were separate questions of whether “hardening” is necescary, effective, or will resolve itself.
Regardless of the justification there is no reason that governent should do anything that is not necescary or effective, or will take care of itself.
“Regardless of the justification there is no reason that governent should do anything that is not necescary or effective, or will take care of itself.”
Dhlii, when I run the numbers to determine what I would do, to me it looks like we should act now and harden the grid. You have a different viewpoint.
If “when you do the numbers” things work – then no government involvement would be necescary, this will just happen on its own.
And that actually is the most likely scenario.
Despite your rants about tangents one realization that should have come from the comparison of the effects of EMP weapons and lightning, is that the means of protection are the same. Whatever “hardens” against EMP hardens against lightning and visa versa – Because lightning is EMP.
Lightning protection – like everything else evolves over time. As does our demand.
50 years ago business were striving for 3sigma – 99.9% trouble free. Today we are working for 6sigma 99.9999% trouble free.
Government is not driving that change. Regulators are not.
Two things are – we are better able to afford higher reliability, and we want it and are willing to pay for it.
We have seen lightning protection improve. You may not be paying attention but newer computer gear is less sensitive to ESD and EMP than in the past.
As old things are replaced the newer better gear replaces them.
The same happens with the grid. Anything that protects against a lightning strike at 100M also protects against EMP weapons at 400kM.
but we are protecting the grid from direct hits.
Meaningless postings, Dhlii, repeating the same things over and over again. I am placing all posts into one which is one more post than this discussion deserves.
We disagree on EMP risk and how that risk can be modified. That is OK, however, despite the fact that it can be considered a legitimate national security issue you are rhetorically unwilling to permit the Constitution to be followed. Congress passes legislation according to Article 1 Section 8, the President signs or vetos the bill, and the Supreme Court may rule on its Constitutionality if such a question arises.
Congratulations At lightning speed you have gone from being a simple libertarian to one that seeks to replace the Constitution with your dictatorial type of leadership. You want to sit on a throne.
“I would be encouraged by your “running the numbers” if I really thought you had absorbed Bastiat”
I did absorb Bastiat but Bastiat is not the US Constitution. You seem to forget that in your ludicrous tirades.
“Perhaps you should dispense with the speculation and actually bother to check things before asserting them. “
Let’s see, you referred to Wikipedia without any known names attached. I pointed to the Federal Commission Report which does have names attached including reputable experts and physicists. You pointed to your anecdotal experience. Again, I pointed to the Federal Commission Report. You sound as if Bastiat has precedence over our Constitution. I stand behind our Constitution even portions I don’t like.
Your generalizations and tangents continue in some of the replies that at times are incomprehensible because not infrequently one doesn’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about.
Most importantly though you may have absorbed Bastiat, you do not understand Section 8 of Article 1 in the Constitution.
Allan
Anything can be consider a legitimate national security issue.
Claiming something is national security related – even with some credibility is NOT ENOUGH.
You continuously refuse to address this.
When government acts, it is not merely obligated to justify its actions, but obligated to address the issue in the least infringing way possible.,
Whatever the risk of an EMP attack – a satellite based ABM system address the problem MORE effectively, as well as providing numerous addtional benefits.
An ABM system addresses any ICBM or space based threat. EMP hardening only addresses EMP.
Neither an ABM system nor EMP hardening will have practical benefit against a super power – such as China or Russia..
Conversely an ABM system will work against all smaller threats whether EMP or not.
ABM fits our constitutional understanding of the military and defense. EMP hardening does not. Our founders would have looked scurilously at government subsidizing private home owners to “harden” there homes against cannon. They would have had no issues with producing our own cannon or using snipers.
You continue to “overgeneralize”.
And again, you do so with respect to extending government power – which can not easily be undone as upposed to individual liberty where mistakes are easily corrected.
“Anything can be consider a ***legitimate*** national security issue.”
The issue I provided is very LEGITIMATE. It is up to Congress to decide if it is worth the time and money. There are illegitimate issues but this is not one of them.
A I said ANYTHING can be a legitimate NS issue.
If you accept that as a justification, you can justify anything with it.
The constitution did not grant congress the power to do whatever it pleased.
Even common defence which is more limited than national security, is in the qualifiers – like N&P
i.e. the enumerated powers listed separately are constrained rather than expanded by this.
Congress can raise and army – for common defense.
Not to pick up local garbage.
Regardless, your argument remains overly broad. It is not possible to make a meaningful distinction between the powers you will allow government and what is denied government given the breadth of your interpretation.
You are proving why the constution must be understood narrowly
I am such a horrible tyrant. It is such and evil to insist that neither your nor my liberty can be infringed on absent a compelling justification.
I am an authoritarian – refusing to allow you or anyone else to use force against others – even if some people want that.
“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
Just to be clear – though I have a generally positive attitude towards the constitution, and accept that it (or any similar framework for govenrment) much be NARROWLY and CLOSELY followed, and actually changed when it is found flawed – that is what the rule of law requires.
At the same time – it is not imbued with divine authority. It is not the word of god.
We have changed the constitution 27 times. We can do it again if need be.
At the same time we need not and should not change the constitution by changing the way we read it, rather than changing the words in it. +
The rule of law requires that law and constitution have one meaning for all, yesterday, today and tomorow.
That meaning must to the greatest extent possible be disconnected from politics and ideology,. That the meaning is clear to all.
That the means of expanding or altering the meaning is to actually change the law or constitution.
That is what the rule of law means. You continue to duck that completely.
“I am an authoritarian – refusing to allow you or anyone else to use force against others”
Yes, you are acting like an authoritarian. Our Constitution dictates how things are handled. Congress passes legislation, the President signs or vetos it and the Supreme Court might decide on its constitutional legitimacy but you wish to bypass all that because in your opinion…. That is how authoritarian regimes act.
Obvious sarcasm and you missed it.
Authoritarianism requires excercising power over others.
You might offend others by returning power over their own lives to them.
They might not want it.
But you are ANTI-Authoritarian when you seek to do so.
“Our Constitution dictates how things are handled”
As written and narrowly construed.
BTW that is not a position specific to our constitution,
it is a requirement for the rule of law.
Any constitution without the rule of law is worse than anarchy it is totalitarianism and chaos concurrently.
The rule of law does nto exist if the law is not understood by those subject to it.
The means SCOTUS uses to devine the constitution can not be inaccessible to ordinary people – otherwise you have the rule of man, not law.
“Congress passes legislation, the President signs or vetos it and the Supreme Court might decide on its constitutional legitimacy”
The supreme court is not free to construe the constitution however it wishes – again lawlessness, the rule of man not law.
Dysfunction, totalitarianism, and chaos concurrently.
“but you wish to bypass all that because in your opinion”
I seek to bypass none of that.
I demand that it be done conforming to the requirements of the rule of law.
Not the whim of the SCOTUS of the moment.
“. That is how authoritarian regimes act.”
Yes, Authoritarian regimes substitute the rule of man for the rule of law. That is pretty much the definition of totalitarian.
Though not a possibility two centuries ago, we are fast approaching a point at which the role of judges in interpretting the law, as well as the supreme court couple be replaced by computers. The process is NOT supposed to be creative. It is very nearly pure logic,
“Obvious sarcasm and you missed it.”
No, I agreed with your statement that admitted to being an authoritarian even though it was said sarcastically. You are of that nature because single-handedly your arguments attempt to replace the Constitution with Bastiat.
You confuse blunt and forceful with authoritarian.
I do not seek power over you or anyone else.
I seek to limit the power that you or anyone else have over others.
That is the opposite of authoritarian.
The fact that I do so with vigor and stubornly, does not make me authoritarian.
I am OK with starting with the constitution.
But I do not take it as stone tablets carved by god.
Particularly as or founders wrote it – as the words in it narrowly read mean, it is an excellent start.
Yes, I seek to change it – as I said it is not sacred, and it can be improved.
But we have 4 arguments here
How SHOULD things be
Does the constitution as actually written permit what you wish
Does the N&P clause as SCOTUS has historically interpretted it permit what you wish.
Does the constitution as currently interpretted – elsewhere than the N&P clause permit what you wish.
The only clause of the constitution that has ever been given the breadth necescary for your claims, is the Commerce clause.
That was a big mistake, but it is what it is and it is going to take a long long time to fix.
But that is not what you have argued.
One each of the other 3 points you are wrong.
“You confuse blunt and forceful with authoritarian.”
Not at all. I understand the Constitution is the basis of our law, not Bastiat and though I am agreeable to changing things I don’t alter the Constitution single-handedly trying to work within its framework. That is precisely what you do not do in argument and is how authoritarian figures act in real life.
No allan. The constitution is NOT the basis for our law. It is the framework, it is the limits and justification.
Myriads of other factors go into actual law – BASTIAT. We would be stupid to enact every possible law that did not run affoul of the constitution.
Conformance with the constitution is a NECESSITY for law making, even for the rule of law.
IT is NOT sufficient.
“No allan. The constitution is NOT the basis for our law. It is the framework, it is the limits and justification”
If you prefer the term framework that is fine with me. I prefer it since our law substantially comes from British Law. The Constitution limits government actions, but Article 1 Section 8 provides government specific powers.
The constitution – atleast in the bill of rights and probable elsewhere incorporates common law.
Common Law is the judicial process of discovering natural law.
The constitution is subordinate to natural law. Both by amendment and by logic.
The justification for government is the common law construct of social contract – as reflected in the declaration of independence.
You keep trying to see the constitution as the scope of life.
It is not even the scope of legitimate government.
The constitution is NOT majoritarian. While it explicitly respects a non-majoritarian conception of rights, the constitution (unlike the declaration) is not a justification of government, nor a statement of principles. One of the major mistakes we make – which the founders actually did not, though they unfortunately inadcertantly laid a trap for us, is the presumption that our rights are only those enumerated in the bill of rights.
The 9th ammendment says otherwise – and is completely ignored.
And even rights – such as the right of contract which is in the body of the constitution itself and one of few explicit constitutional constraints on the states, are routinely ignored by the courts – and by legislators.
Yet rights are by definition what the majority can not infringe upon.
Regardless of whether you an I precisely agree on free speech it is likely we both agree that much speech is outside the scope that government can constrain – even if the wish to do so is near unanimous.
Again there is not universal agreement on government infringement on rights, but there is near universal agreement that the whim of the majority is not sufficient.
It is generally accepted that to infringe on a right – the government must choose the least infringing option. That the purpose for infringing must be of great importance, and that the infringment must accomplish that purpose.
“I am agreeable to changing things I don’t alter the Constitution single-handedly trying to work within its framework.”
It is not necessary to alter the constitution to chose not to do something that is constitutional but a bad idea.
AGAIN meeting the limits imposed by the constitution is a NECESSITY for making law.
It is not SUFFICIENT.
“That is precisely what you do not do in argument and is how authoritarian figures act in real life.”
Almost unparseable.
Authoritarian – one who seeks to expand their power to use force against others.
Resisting that – bluntly even forcefully is “anti-authoritarian”
Sorry, there is a 5th – will what you wish to do accomplish much of anything – nope.
Whether the fed’s spend money to harden the grid or not the grid will be hardened – though not because of EMP.
No Bastiat is not the constitution. But he is a good guide to grasping that the real costs of government action are almost always beyond our ability to calculate.
My Bastiat remark was a rebutal to your claims regarding “running the numbers” not your claims of broad constitutional authority.
Bastiat will tell you that whatever the results you obtained from “running the numbers” they are certainly wrong, and near certainly far too low.
The the real cost of government action is incalculable.
“No Bastiat is not the constitution. But he is a good guide to grasping that the real costs of government action are almost always beyond our ability to calculate.”
That is right but we live under the constitution, not Bastiat.
Nope we live in reality, and the economic parts of reality follow bastiat.
In fact even the non economic parts of reality follow bastiat.
The scope of out Government starts with the constitution. Reality is essentially immutable. The constitution is not.
The words of the constitution defined a relatively limited government that conformed sufficiently to human nature to survive and thrive.
Our – even your rejection of those limits makes that government less efficient, less effective, and at greater risk of failure.
Those are reality.
I would further note that As both the 9th amendment dictates as does reality – what is outside the limited scope of govenrment – each of us is free to do as we please.
The constitution and the law do NOT define our lives entire. They merely define our relationship to govenrment.
That relationship is supposed to be a small part of our lives.
By inspection it should be obvious that the larger portion of our lives government occupies the lower our standard of living will be.
Government does not produce – at its very best it supresses impediments to production. Ultimately that is its only value.
Limited government is a logical requirement because as the scale of government increases government shifts rapidly from a facilitator of product and higher standard of living to an impediment – BTW there is copious data on that, we have already discussed it.
“Let’s see, you referred to Wikipedia without any known names attached.”
Really ? So in your world it is not acceptable to refer to basic physics without a specific cite to newton or einstein ?
The critical physics of EMP is mostly pretty simple. The complex parts have little or no bearing on our debate.
“I pointed to the Federal Commission Report which does have names attached including reputable experts and physicists.”
Once you write “federal commission report” – you have already lost.
Wikipedia is not an acceptable source for detailed science on controversial subjects – though it tends to be excellent on non-controversial ones.
But it almost always is better than any “federal commission report”.
“You pointed to your anecdotal experience.”
There is another name for that – reality.
Though I will note I also cited physics.
” Again, I pointed to the Federal Commission Report.”
Again you cited something crafted by politicians with an agenda. I have no idea how many actual physicists there were – I doubt many,
though I would not place high trust is a physicist on a Federal committe.
“You sound as if Bastiat has precedence over our Constitution.”
In what context ? Is Bastiat a better economist than Jefferson or Madison ?
Absolutely. Does Basitat better understand unintended consequences than those who wrote th constitution ?
Almost certainly.
The constitution – AS WRITTEN, NARROWLY CONSTRUED is the absolute law of the law – until it is changed.
It is not however the laws of physics, economics, Bastiat and the constitution serve radically different purposes.
To a large extent Bastiat provides a practical – rather than legal or philosophical explanation for why govenrment must be limited, and
congress – even if it actually has the power to do so, should excercise it with great caution.
IT is possible that Bastiat in places conflicts with the constitution.
But mostly he supliments it.
He is the equivalent of your “federal commission report” except that he has withstood the test of time and is right.
“I stand behind our Constitution even portions I don’t like.”
What does that even mean ?
Do you stand behind counting blacks as 3/5 or a person ?
According to SCOTUS the following are solid constitutional decisions.
Dred Scott v Sanford ?
Buck v Bell ?
Korematsu
Plessey v Fergusseon ?
Bower ?
Kelo ?
Are you “standing behind” those ? Is that what the constitution means to you ?
“Really ? So in your world it is not acceptable to refer to basic physics without a specific cite to newton or einstein ?”
I permit you to have any opinion you wish. You were quoting Wikipedia and I was quoting the Federal study created by scientists including physicists. I just prefer what some of the physicists had to say than what you had to say.
I did not “quote” wikipedia.
I refered you to it as a STARTING POINT for some basic physics, that your atguments clearly did not understand.
If you can get that elsewhere – great.
While I have not read your report and highly doubt that a federal commission report will deal significantly with the basic physics, equally importantly
I am not aware of any federal commission ever appointed that did not find a problem and recomend that the solution was government.
Any debate that does not very seriously consider the option of doing nothing, is flawed from the start.
There are few problems that require the use of force. Any that do not, do not require government, they will resolve best on their own.
“I did not “quote” wikipedia.
I refered you to it as a STARTING POINT ”
The starting point for you to dispute what I believe so happens to be in what I say and the Federal report which I in part relied on along with discussions with those very much involved in EMP. Consideration is based on the Constitution not Bastiat who I very much approve of.
Sorry Allan but you do not get to decide how I must frame my arguments.
You might prefer that I used the Federal Commission report.
There is no requirement that I do so.
Clearly you are impressed with it.
But that is not an argument.
It is a fallacious appeal to authority.
“Sorry Allan but you do not get to decide how I must frame my arguments.”
You can frame the arguments any way you wish but I am not going down all those tangents and I am not going to argue the law based on Bastiat rather than the Constitution.
“You can frame the arguments any way you wish but I am not going down all those tangents”
Your choice.
“and I am not going to argue the law based on Bastiat rather than the Constitution.”
I used Bastiat once – as part of a very legitimate argument that the unintended consequences will wreak havoc on what you are seeking – constitutional or not.
You responding “Bastiat, Bastiat, Bastiat”, I am now arguing bastiat even more just to torque you.
Regardless, conformance with the constitution is a NECESCITY for legislation, It is NOT Sufficient – BASTIAT!
You keep noting “including physicists” as if that means something.
Government reports are policy recomendations – i.e. pretty much by definition recomendations for government action.
The presence of scientists in the process does not make it a scientific process, rather than a political one.
From your description I do not think whatever physics references you report makes are wrong.
Its error is not in physics, but in application.
With few exceptions our debate is not over the basic physics.
The only fundimental physics conflict that I see is that you still do not seem to grasp that essentially using the methods of calculus and dividing the country up into ever smaller peices. At a scale where those peices are about 400M sq. The damage cause by an EMP weapon will be substantially SMALLER than the damage caused by a lightning strike.
IF you protect what is in that cell from lightning, you will have automatically protected it from EMP.
All the digressions about E1, E2, E… are irrelevant. At 200M a lightning strike is an order of magnitude greater energy than an EMP weapon. The differences between E1, E2, … will not matter at all.
The fundimental difference between an EMP attack and lightning is that an EMP attack will immediately effect 50-75% of the cells, 20M Lightning strickes a year might take a few years to reach the same coverage.
Regardless, the natural demand of an increasingly affluent populace for greater reliability will mean that we will(have) shift from 2sigma reliability, to 4,5, 6 sigma and beyond.
Anything that reduces the impact of lightning to 4-5 sigma will be nearly immune to EMP.
This is a massive topic – because our lives are increasingly electronic.
It is also massive because both EMP weapons and lightning can effect anything from a 2mm PCB trace to a 2000m high tension line.
The scale of the impact on each will be approximately proportionate to the length of the conductor – based on faradays law.
Modern semiconductors have ESD protection that will protect from currents much greater than are typical from lightning or EMP.
But all our electronics are not modern. Further even in a modern device there are thousands, often 10’s of thousands of conductors.
The survival of the device does nto depend on the probability of protecting a single input, but on protecting every single connection on the device.
Put more simply we will never acheive 100% protection. and we will never have 100% damage.
Still everything that we automatically do to increase protection against common threats such as ESD and lightning, wil concurrently increase protection against and EMP attack
all without any action by government.
The distinctions your report makes between E1, E2, … matter – when the lightning strike is 1000M from the protected device.
They are meaningless at 100M as the power is so much greater than an EMP weapon.
“Your generalizations and tangents continue in some of the replies that at times are incomprehensible because not infrequently one doesn’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about.”
Again in this instance the overgeneralization problem is yours.
“Most importantly though you may have absorbed Bastiat, you do not understand Section 8 of Article 1 in the Constitution.”
And you CONTINUE to try to apply a view of that broader than ANY ONE credible has ever accepted.
The federalist papers rejected it explicitly. McCollough does NOT say what you claim,
and though SCOTUS eventually reached near limitless federal power it did so through the Commerce Clause not the N&P clause or anything else you have cited – and has NEVER used anything you have offered nearly as broadly as you are arguing. Finally the court has slowly been backing away from even the commerce clause.
Finally the constitution at BEST tells you what government is permitted to do.
NOT what will work. While Bastiat does address what should and should not be permitted, his focus is what will and will not work.
Government is the worst way to solve any problem that can be solved without government.
Several more Gish Gallops by Dhlii. No matter how many of these Gish Gallops you create Dhlii you will not get any closer to the finish line. In fact, the finish line becomes more distant. Your personal dialogue has become its own expanding universe.
Back channeling the left again.
Ad hominem is not argument
no matter how many times you say “gish gallop”.
If my arguments are illogical, divorced from the facts, fallacious or poorly reasoned,
You are an intelligent person and able to demonstrate that.
The fact that you resort to ad hominem rather than argument is by induction evidence that you can not.
“Ad hominem is not argument
no matter how many times you say “gish gallop”.”
Gish Gallop is not an ad hominem. It is simply an expression used to help explain the effects when one is faced with such verbosity and tangential responses. It’s a fast way of getting to the point.
Allan – Gish Gallop is an ad hominem when David Benson uses it because he thinks a single statement makes a Gish Gallop. 😉 Hence, he uses it as an ad hominem even though it makes no sense and I keep telling him he knows not of what he speaks.
Paul I don’t use Gish Gallop as a pejorative when talking to Dhlii. I like Dhlii and I think he is intelligent. Unfortunately, Dhlii seems to believe that every reply requires something similar in size to a volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica and with all those tangents one would have to reply with something at least double that size. A simple issue of an opinion and a quote from Article I Section 8 has led to a massive number of replies that become unreadable. I am waiting for Dhlii to copy in one of his replies “The Law” in full.
Allan – it dos not matter “why” you use “Gish Gallop”.
It is not an argument. As a response it is fallacy. It is either an insult to the person or an insult to the prior argument or both.
As insults here go it is a fairly tame one.
We all dish our some insults, myself included.
My real complaint is when the invective is the entire substance of an argument.
You complain about going off point.
When there is no actual on point argument in your response that is inherently what will happen.
It is no different from left wingnut assertions that one is programed by fox or infowars, or ….
They claim is usually false, it is also irrelevant. If Hitler provided a peice of information that is true – is it not true because it came from Hitler ?
That is what is wrong with fallacies – they take you away from the real argument, from the facts, logic, reason.
“Allan – it dos not matter “why” you use “Gish Gallop”. It is not an argument. As a response it is fallacy”
Gish Gallop is a two-word statement that replaces paragraph after paragraph. All other statements to limit the discussion to the initial point led to a series of long responses. Gish Gallop, it is and will be.
It is at the very least responding to an argument solely by insulting it.
That is fallacy.
With respect to the size and scope of my replies.
Read them. Don’t, it us up to you.
I would note that the running exchange on N&P was driven by you.
I can not count the number of times you have responded “I am not talking about the preamble”.
I think everyone got that long ago. I think you brought up the preamble. But even if you did not, so what.
The scope of the N&P clause is just not as brad as you want. Not as I see it, not as the founders saw it, not even as Hamilton saw it, not as Marshall saw it in the case you cite, and not as SCOTUS has seen it subsequently.
Is your effort to subsidize hardening of the grid constitutional ?
By SCOTUS’s standard of the moment – sure, justified by the commerce clause. Not N&P.
Should it be constitutional ? I do not think anyone who takes a dim view of Wickard would think so.
So figure out who you are ? You do not have to accept my arguments, my values, my principles.
But I am troubled because yours seem to vary with the issue.
You claim great authority for the constitution. Much more so than I do. At times you see it as an impediment to the expansion of government,
but at others you do exactly what the left does rear it broadly to get to what you want.
As I have noted over and over – if the constitution justifies subsidizing the hardening of the grid on a national security basis, it justifies socialism on the same basis.
So what kind of “constitutionalist” are you ? How should the constitution be read ?
I have offered my view. You really have not offered yours.
“I would note that the running exchange on N&P was driven by you.”
No. I copied section 8 to show where I was coming from. You started talking about the preamble and it never stopped.
Sorry Allan, I mentioned the preamble ONCE. And I am pretty sure you mentioned it first.
AFTER I mentioned it you made numerous posts making the pointless clarification that you were using the N&P clause in A1S8 not the preamble.
I REPEATEDLY pointed out that regardless of whether you use the N&P clause in the preamble or anywhere else – A1S8,
It does not mean what you need and even SCOTUS has never found it did.
Which was inevitably followed by you responding as a broken record about the preamble.
The only clause in the constitution that has ever been interpreted by SCOTUS broadly enough to get where you want is the commerce clause.
That was a gigantic mistake that is going to be almost impossible to fix.
Further i9t poisoned th well against future broad interpretations of other clauses.
Then you will wait a long time.
I respect your intelligence too.
But your response is still inaccurate.
You chose repeatedly to pretend this was about the preamble, but for the fact that you kept re-asserting that claim, we passed that after a post or two.
The size of your posts is up to you. No one forces you to respond at all. You are not a victim of my posts.
They are not arrows and no force is involved.
I used Bastiat because YOU respect him, and because his work is the quintesential representation of unintended consquenses – which is just ONE argument for limited government. I linked to him. I do not post massive quotes no matter your concern that I might.
If your views is that this is about an “oppinion” over A1S8 – then the debate is over.
You can have whatever oppinion you want – you can not impose a mere oppinion on others by force you must have more – justification, effectiveness, efficiency.
Ultimately everything is not merely an oppinion and all oppinions are not equal or equally true – almost all are false.
“You chose repeatedly to pretend this was about the preamble,”
Sometimes Dhlii you amaze me. Are you accusing me of copying section 8 more than once and not the preamble because it is all about the preamble? You are totally confused. The debate is whether or not something should be considered a national security issue and the evidence at least in part was the entirety of section 8. No preamble involved at all.
“Sometimes Dhlii you amaze me. Are you accusing me of copying section 8 more than once and not the preamble because it is all about the preamble? You are totally confused. ”
I am not accusing you of anything. I am noting that the fixation on the preamble is yours.
“The debate is whether or not something should be considered a national security issue”
There is no “national security” clause in the constitution. Common defence is not the same thing.
“and the evidence at least in part was the entirety of section 8.”
National security does not appear in A1S8 or anywhere else in the constitution.
“No preamble involved at all.” and AGAIN you drag the preamble in.
Allan, you are the one who keeps refering to it.
I Noted ONCE that the preamble is not given any weight by the courts.
I Separately argued that the N&P clause has never been interpreted as broadly as you wish.
The N&P clause was VIGOROUSLY debated by the framers. It was debated as part of the ratification process,
it is in both the federalist and anti-federalist papers – see federalist 44, both Hamilton and Madison argued that it was both necescary and limited.
That it ONLY gave congress powers INCIDENTAL to expressed powers. It was included specifically to address deficiencies in the Articles of confederation.
Which limited congress only to those acts specifically granted – if congress was empowered to raise an army but not buy weapons – under the articles it could only raise the army.
The N&P clause of the constitution has NEVER meant more than if Congress is expressly granted a power – it is also granted the power to effectuate that power
Nothing more.
That if congress can raise and army – it can arm them too.
“Which limited congress only to those acts specifically granted ”
There is no mention of an air-force, but we have one. An ABM is not mentioned but selectively you approve its use under the Constitution.
If you feel a constitutional amendment is necescary for an airforce I can live with that.
Though you are inadvertantly zeroing in on the ACTUAL meaning of the necescary and proper clause.
Guns and planes and ABM’s are requirements of the military which IS specified in A1S8,
Hardening the grid is a distinct PURPOSE.
Weapons, tools and suplies are the necescities of the military to fulfill the purpose the constitution gives them.
Hardening the grid is related purpose – and not nearly so closely related as you assert.
“If you feel a constitutional amendment is necescary for an airforce I can live with that.”
I don’t think it is necessary and I have very kind feelings towards Abraham Lincoln who kept the nation together despite the fact he violated certain laws and principles.
We can re-evaluate all of this when we are faced with an actual civil war as Lincoln was.
We do not face anything close to the circumstances Lincoln did. You can not use Lincoln to rationalize what you wish to do today.
I would further note that Lincoln fought the civil war with a government not merely a tiny fraction of today, but one that consumed 3/4 less of GDP than the peacetime economy of today.
“We do not face anything close to the circumstances Lincoln did.”
We don’t and I am not using Lincoln as an argument. I use him merely as an example since some with strong Libertarian feelings say some nasty things about Lincoln. This demonstrates perfection is the enemy of good.
“We don’t and I am not using Lincoln as an argument. I use him merely as an example”
Same thing.
“since some with strong Libertarian feelings say some nasty things about Lincoln.”
Various people think lots of things. Libertarins are not homogenous.
Some libertarians are pro-life some prochoice.
Some – like myself are neither (or both)
“This demonstrates perfection is the enemy of good”
Libertarians are the LEAST for perfection.
Systems involving humans – are not perfect, in fact systems without humans are not perfect.
Libertarianism results in iterative refinement – gradual improvement never reaching perfection.
The vast majority of government action does little actual good and much more harm than good.
It is idiots that think passing more laws or spending more govenrment money will on net actually improve anything – absent any actual evidence to support that,
that are the starry eyed utopians.
“Same thing.”
Not quite unless one shortens the sentence and paragraph taking the statement out of context.
“We don’t and I am not using Lincoln as an argument. I use him merely as an example since some with strong Libertarian feelings say some nasty things about Lincoln. This demonstrates perfection is the enemy of good.”
Example – argument – the details do not matter, so long as the example is supposed to refute something or support something it is a form of argument.
It is irrelevant whether the example is lincoln.
P Implies Q
P
Therefore Q
P Implies Q
~Q
Therefore ~P
Does not matter what P and Q are.
This gets more complicated with existential quantification,
But the point is still the same an example makes an argument
It is fallacy no matter who uses it – particularly if it is used without an argument.
If it is not an insult of the person substituting for argument
it is atleast an insult of an argument substituting for argument
Most everyone here myself included tosses arround insults and slathers their arguments with adjectives.
All of which are inappropriate in actual debate, and all of which are fallacy of some form.
But that can be ignored – if it is part of an actual argument.
as an example:
“Your argument is stupid” or any other insult, has no value at all
“Your argument is stupid because …..” is bad form but is still something that can be evaluated.
dhlii – Moi???? he says with raised eyebrows.
Really ?
I am trying to decide if it is ad homimen – I think it is, but it is pretty mild
But it is absolutely fallacy.
It is insult as argument. But it is more insult of the argument than insult of the person.
Regardless it is not argument. It is the opposite of argument
it is evasion.
“Really ? I am trying to decide if it is ad homimen ”
You can think what you wish but that doesn’t change how I meant it. You Gish Gallop all around this topic.
“You can think what you wish but that doesn’t change how I meant it. You Gish Gallop all around this topic.”
However you meant it, it is fallacy, not argument.
Further it is obviously a mild insult. I just have not decided whether it is an insult of the person – fallacious ad hominem” or just insult as a substitute for argument.
What it is not, is an argument.
I would be encouraged by your “running the numbers” if I really thought you had absorbed Bastiat.
You provided no enumerated constitutional power that had the remotest relationship to subsidizing the hardening of the grid.
The meaning of the necessary and proper clause was debated and established AT ITS WRITING.
Madison and Hamilton made abundantly clear that the clause would only permit execution of power already granted by the Constitution
Read the federalist papers.
“No axiom is more clearly established in law or in reason than wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power for doing it is included.” James Madison
Read McCulloch v. Maryland it says no more than Madison’s quote above.
SCOTUS determined that a national bank was a reasonable tool in facilitating the federal government enumerated power of taxing and spending.
I can disagree with whether the enumerated power necessitates a bank, I can even believe SCOTUS got it wrong, but SCOTUS did not find the ‘necessary and proper” clause justified anything beyond what was required to facilitate an enumerated power – in other words the very case you cited REJECTED your argument.
The fundimental error of the court was in authorizing things that were NOT “necescary and proper”.
Government may not infringe on liberty when there is a viable atlerantive – and that is the proper meaning of “necessary and proper”.
If a bank is actually necescary – rather than merely convenient to an enumerated power – then the clause authorizes it.
otherwise it prohibits it.
If you are going to lob grendades – you should atleast look them up on wikipedia first.
Particularly if you are not familiar with them.
Do you think this is my first Rodeo ?
Allan you are an intelligent person. But you are constantly underestimating me, and making shallow arguments that small amounts of research would quickly reveal are not nearly so compelling as you think.
“If you are going to lob grendades – you should atleast look them up on wikipedia first.”
Wikipedia is fine for a first glance, but I don’t think I would argue Constitutional Law based on Wikipedia.
The primary purpose for the passage of US Constitution was that the Articles of Confederation did not confer enough power on the central government for the security of the 13 states as a group. Security of the 13 states as a group is clearly detailed in section 8 of the Constitution along with the Necessary and Proper Clause at the end of section 8. One could utilize any one of multiple sentences to demonstrate a need to harden the grid in order to carry out the enumerated power provided in those sentences. You can argue differently but I believe your position would fail the test of public opinion and the decision of every justice on the Supreme Court.
“Wikipedia is fine for a first glance, but I don’t think I would argue Constitutional Law based on Wikipedia.”
Did not ask you to rely on Wikipedia.
Just not make errors that even a weak source like wikipedia would prevent you from making.
“Did not ask you to rely on Wikipedia.
Just not make errors that even a weak source like wikipedia would prevent you from making.”
Perhaps Wikipedia is responsible for some of your comments that are wrong. Weak sources have a lot of error. If you using a weak source as your base of knowledge there is no way for you to know when they are telling you something that is wrong.
Perhaps you should dispense with the speculation and actually bother to check things before asserting them.
It is irrelevant whether WikiPedia is perfectly accurate. It is relevant that you start somewhere, and that you do not just assume your first source is wrong that you verify its error when you disagree,
“The primary purpose for the passage of US Constitution was that the Articles of Confederation did not confer enough power on the central government for the security of the 13 states as a group”
Loosely true, but still not the purpose of government and not the purpose of the constitution.
The FUNDIMENTAL drivers of the constitution were.
The articles did not grant the federal government sufficient power to enforce the responsibilities it awarded that government.
As an example foreign policy under the articles was the responsibility of the national govenrment.
But The national government did not have the ability to prevent states from conducting their own foreign policy.
States were sending representatives to foreign countries and ignoring provisions of treaties.
The final straw was the inability of the national government to respond to Shay’s rebellion.
Addressing your argument – the fact that the constitution granted the federal government more power than the articles does not in and of itself tell us much about how much power the constitution granted the federal government. More than the articles, need not be that much.
Allan: ““The primary purpose for the passage of US Constitution was that the Articles of Confederation did not confer enough power on the central government for the security of the 13 states as a group”
Dhlii: “Loosely true, but still not the purpose of government and not the purpose of the constitution.”
What do you mean loosely true? After such a statement one expects a little higher quality than you provided in your explanation which was incomplete and said little. You just wanted to add your two cents. Next time, don’t use slugs.
“What do you mean loosely true? After such a statement one expects a little higher quality than you provided in your explanation which was incomplete and said little. You just wanted to add your two cents. Next time, don’t use slugs.”
The initial assertion is YOURS. The burden of proof is YOURS.
And BTW I provided lots of support for “loosely”.
You are yanking a single phrase, complaining that I offered no support – when you committed to address the support.
The more important point than your rant against “loosely” is that your assertion is irrelevant.
The rationale for transitioning between the articles of confederation and the constitution, at best cursorily deals with the purpose of government.
You are back AGAIN arguing that the “necescary and proper” clause is an independent grant of power.
It is NOT, The constitutional convention specifically asserted the contrary. The federalist papers asserted the contrary, and SCOTUS has consistently asserted the contrary.
If you are trying to convert any of the enumerated powers in the constitution into a blanket justification for any government action, you are making the same mistake as the left.
Your end result will ultimately be socialism.
One of the inherently flaws in the constitution is that while it made it extremely difficult to expand federal power – hence taking over 150 years to get to FDR’s New Deal,
Once expanded it made correcting the error and rolling back any expansion as difficult or more so than the expansion itself.
While not specifically a constitutional issue – PPACA is a demonstration of this problem.
The rule of law – and logic dictates that law must have supermajority support.
It was very difficult to get PPACA passed. That alone should have been a warning sign.
But the requirement for supermajority support is supposed to be bidirectional – not one way.
Any law that can not MAINTAIN supermajority support should near automatically be rolled back.
Instead it takes super majority support to undo something that there is not majority support for.
The constitution should be the same.
“You are back AGAIN arguing that the “necescary and proper” clause is an independent grant of power.”
Totally not true and well understood by anyone that can understand the English language.
Quote where I indicated any such thing. Even when I quoted the Necessary and Proper Clause I did so with the enumerated powers provided along with that statement from section 8.
You have a problem. You cannot find me making such an argument and you have once again gone so far out on a limb there is no turning back. Either provide a quote that demonstrates what you say or jump off the limb. I’ll provide a net.
Once again I see you are getting to tangents. This time it is with FDR and the PPACA. The latter has no basis in anything from the Constitution I quoted. You do this because your argument sucks.😀
“Totally not true”
Then can I assume that you will not cite the Necescary and proper or general welfare clauses as justifications for specific acts of government again ?
You do not get to say something is not true and then act as if it is.
In just a few seconds I found:
ALLAN:The Constitution does state:
“The Congress shall have Power … To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
I am sure there are others.
Regardless the above does EXACTLY what you have said you did not do – use the preamble and the necessary and proper clause as a grant of power.
The preamble is constitutionally meaningless.
The 2nd reference to common defence as followed immediately by the second general welfare clause. Neither have ever been used as specific grants of power.
Regardless, “defence” must still be construed narrowly. You are free to construct forts – thought there are limits on that.
You are free to construct an ABM system.
I doubt you will find a founder that would have allowed congress to subsidize private property owners strengthening their homes to resist british cannons prior to the war of 1812.
That is essentially what you are trying to do.
Regardless, like the left you are trying to expand a clause to give you power you want. That is not how the constitution works. Amend it, do not mangle its interpretation.
It is farcially obvious that you are engaged in an overboard interpretation – when your breadth gives government the power to do anything.
Your “national security” argument destroyed what little was left of the 4th amendment. “national security” is sufficiently broad to bring EVERYTHING under the federal govenrment.
Common defence in the narrow sense in the constitution is NOT so broad as your conception of “national security”.
Cite a specific constitutional grant of power that outside of time of war allows the government to commandeer whatever it wants.
“In just a few seconds I found:
ALLAN:The Constitution does state:”
Dhlii, you are becoming a little incoherent. To make things absolutely clear and avoid the pitfalls of a discussion regarding the Preamble which I believe is near meaningless I quoted only from Article 1 Section 8 in my initial explanation. Nonetheless, you keep referring to the Preamble instead of the end of section 8 which lists the enumerated powers to which the Necessary and Proper Clause applies. By doing so you created an argument that never existed and you kept on doing the same thing instead of reviewing the Constitution and my quoted passage from it.
In this most recent post once again you fall prey to lousy logic when you say: “I doubt you will find a founder that would have allowed congress to subsidize private property owners strengthening their homes to resist british cannons prior to the war of 1812. That is essentially what you are trying to do.”
Nowhere in Section 8 does it promote anything of the kind but it does promote the ability of the United States to defend itself in numerous clauses. In fact, though planes were not anticipated we have an airforce based on what was said in Section 8. You don’t seem to be able to distinguish personal actions from collective actions as you seem more interested in promoting your personal views on things anticipated by our Founders to be debated in Congress. The grid is a collective action for the defense of the nation, not a personal one and only Congress has a right to pass a law protecting it in the name of national defense. The President could sign or veto and you could bring your action to the Supreme Court which would throw it out if the lower courts hadn’t already done so.
I cited the preamble – because you initially did too.
Regardless, both a GW and N&P clause are in A1S8 and the courts have never read them as you are trying.
Whether in A1S8 or the preamble.
Put differently your pre-amble claim is a red herring. It is irrelevant WHERE N&P or GW are found – they have never been given the breadth you attempt.
Regardless, we have beaten N&P and A1S8 to death. Not the federalists, not Marshal, not todays SCOTUS have understood it as you do.
I have said that over and over. You keep ignoring it and going back to arguing about the preamble.
The N&P clause does not expand any enumerated powers. It does not convert “common defence” into “national security”.
And just to be clear “common defence” is not actually an enumerated power – just as “general welfare” is not, and “necescary & proper” is not.
N&P means that if congress can raise an army – it can also buy them weapons.
It does not allow for marshal law outside of times and zones of war, your national security argument is marshal law without war.
“I cited the preamble – because you initially did too.”
NO!!!. I only cited section 8 and when I copied it the entirety of what I copied was from section 8.
Allan,
the debate over whether you cited the preamble is pointless and tedious.
I think you did and I think it is self evident from the posts.
But that debate is irrelevant.
SCOTUS has NEVER – including Marshall in McCullough, used ANY N&P clause as broadly as you are.
It does not matter which N&P clause you cited.
Whether I properly criticised you for refering to the preamble or not.
Everything I have said about N&P applies REGARDLESS of where N&P is found.
It does nto matter one iota where you copied it from.
“he debate over whether you cited the preamble is pointless and tedious.”
Dhlii, there is no debate. I copied section 8 from an online Constitution and deleted some things but didn’t add anything. It was your usual assumptions that create your present problems. Why would I bother with copying the preamble separately when I could copy everything at once. You probably forgot that section 8 had that clause I quoted. It is not possible yet to take sh-t and make it into gold.
You did everything you say – and more. And it is the more that is the problem.
Worse still, you fixated on the fact that I noted the preamble has no meaning to waste myriads of posts ranting about the preamble.
It does not matter where you find the N&P clause it has never been read as expansively as you wish.
Nor has any other part you cited.
You keep returning to this preamble nonsense as if I am fixated on it – I am not.
I do not care where you found the N&P clause.
“It does not matter where you find the N&P clause it has never been read as expansively as you wish.”
Section 8 The Short Form:
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers…” (special emphasis on the words “foregoing Powers”.)
Section 8 The Long Form
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; — And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
You warned me not to post the entirety of Bastiats “the law” and them clog the forum with A1S8.
I have read it repeatedly. No matter how many times you refer to it or quote it:
It can not be read as broadly as you wish.
Our founders overtly opposed your broad interpretation – even Hamilton.
Marshall’s oppinion – though far broader than I would go, is still far less than what you need.
I grasp you think differently. But you have not persuaded me. Nor have you persuaded to courts.
No I did not forget that the N&P clause occurs multiple times – so does general welfare.
The preamable has been given no meaning by the courts.
The General Welfare clause – wherever you find it has been given no meaning by the courts.
The N&P clause wherever you find it has been given narrow meaning by the courts.
You want to fight over where the N&P clause is located, rather than what it actually means.
If you think my logic is lousy then you should have no difficulty explaining why subsidizing private parties to protect their homes from cannon is different from subsidizing to protect the electrical grid from EMP ?
Any argument you can make for one I can make for the other or atleast some permutation of the other.
Maybe we do not “harden” private homes – but only taverns – after all they serve and important public and even defense related purpose.
“it does promote the ability of the United States to defend itself in numerous clauses.”
Defend – yes, but no where is there any grant of defence power that allows the government to co-opt the economy atleast not outside of times of war..
If you wish to argue that the airforce requires a constitutional amendment – ( can live with that.
Until the 50’s the “airforce” was part of the army. The constitution does not mention cannons either they (and an airforce) reasonably fall under N&P,
meddling in the economy does not.
I would further note Korematsu. Do you think that was properly decided ?
Do you think that the US during times of war can incarcerate US citizens of foreign descent on National security grounds ?
Scotus thought so – though Roberts recently explicitly repudiated Korematsu.
You are completely blind to the fact that the things you think are justified by your overgeneralization are indistinguishable from things most of us – including I hope you, think are unjustifiable.
AGAIN if you read the constitution too narrowly – that is fixable by amendment. If you read it broadly – you can not correct.
I think that an airforce fits A1S8 & N&P – but I can live with requiring an amendment for an airforce. There is no harm to that.
Overgeneralizing the power of govenrment always comes to great harm eventually.
“You don’t seem to be able to distinguish personal actions from collective actions”
Try a mirror.
There are the actions of individuals.
There are the actions of individuals as part of voluntary groups – there is ZERO legal distinction between these.
There are the actions of government – these are collective actions accomplished by force.
If you wish to call the grid “collective action” – while I think that is a distortion I will work with that.
But it is NOT a FORCED collective action. Though your subsidizing hardening the grid will convert it into a FORCED collective action.
You are correct we have a collective action problem here – but the problem is YOURS.
You conflate private voluntary group action with public government FORCED group action.
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
Government is FORCE, never forget that. Anything you do through government is ultimately BY FORCE.
We can act collectively without using force. You do not seem to grasp that.
I fully expect that without any government involvment the “grid” will end up “hardened” on its own.
To protect against NK EMP weapons ? Maybe but probably not. To protect against disruption from other common forms of EMP – certainly.
As our wealth increases our demands increase. That is how things work.
When the electric system was young 2sigma was an aspiration. Today we strive for 6sigma in 20 years it will be 9sigma.
No one sane would have argued for 6sigma in the early 1900’s it was cost prohibitive. But today we are more wealthy and it is easier to acheive and we want it.
No one sane today would argue for 9sigma ……………
Do you doubt that in the future we will have a 9sigma grid ?
Things improve over time – not because of government and regulation – beyond the foundation of the rule of law.
But because we become more wealthy and we want more – we want cleaner air, water, … and we can afford them because we are better off.
Where regulation brings those about before we want them sufficiently – it makes us poorer. It forces us to do something only a few of us want badly and that means we forgo things we want more – we are poorer.
Are you hearing Bastiat in that ? How about Maslow ?
When you use force – even for something good, where that good does not justify the use of force – youi make us poorer, and you SLOW progress, and improvement of standard of living. Do it enough and you can stop or reverse is – see Venezuela.
Again Bastiat, Maslow, reality.
The constitution does not address that at all.
The constitution addresses when you CAN use force. Not when that use of force will be beneficial.
Public oppionion is not the test.
Again channelling the left.
You know better, We are not a democracy.
Individual rights are those things that even the majority is NOT permitted to infringe on.
“Public oppionion is not the test.
Again channelling the left.”
Your boat is filling up with water so you are dumping out half of the statements made to get rid of context.
The statement discussed section 8 and ended with “You can argue differently but I believe your position would fail the test of public opinion and the decision of every justice on the Supreme Court.”
You are grasping at straws and trying to obscure the thoughts made. Time for you to start quoting what the other person said to keep you on the straight and narrow.
AGAIN – public opinion is not the test.
As you are so certain that you have every justice on the court – I presume you can cite a case ?
I will grant you that SCOTUS has gone too far, in the past century. But they tanked “gun free school zones” – so no I do not think you could get a unanimous court.
I would further note that in the recent Trump immigration decision the court formally repudiated Koramtsu – which is essentially your argument – that national defense allows government to do pretty much as it pleases and violate our rights.
Though I will end this by noting that while you are wrong on the court and constitutional interpretation as they currently are.
I do not claim SCOTUS gets things right all the time. In fact they get them wrong most of the time.
False is false – even when SCOTUS says otherwise 9-0.
I quoted one of your posts, though I am note quite sure why – are you unable to read your own writing ?
Allan:
Some logic lets assume your argument is correct and see if we arrive at a contradiction.
You say you are not relying on the preamble, the necessary and proper clause, but a specific clear grant of power.
That begs the question of why you brought up the preamble, General Welfare or necessary and proper clause.
So what specific grant of power is that ?
I am guessing you are conflating common defence with national security, or some other nonsense that makes anything you want “common defence”
Dhlii, I had combined all your posts into one so that the discussion could be more focused instead of tangential. I see that is impossible with you. As a fireman one tries to put out flames. You act in a fashion to spread the flames into as many new fires as possible. That is not good.
I refer you to my earlier discussion.
“You say you are not relying on the preamble,”
True. I relied on the last paragraph in Section 8. See my earlier discussion.
“You botched McCullough Vs. Maryland and you are advising me to get legal advice ?”
No. You focus too closely on the items discussed and you miss the entire decision that involves the law. I think Fred Friendly wrote a book on the Constitution over 20 years ago that discusses the major court cases. I believe this case was one of them and one you ought to read. Marshall reasoned that it would only be reasonable to imply that the US has to have a means of execution of the powers it was provided. “Defense” of the nation was obvious based on the enumerated powers in Section 8.
“ AGAIN: The constitution and law must be construed NARROWLY. This is not about substitution.”
I refer you to my previous response and my above interpretation of Justice Marshall’s decision. You ought to start reading an annotated Constitution so that what it means can be explained to you
““In questions of power let no more be said of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution”
Thomas Jefferson’”
It would be better for you to actually read the Constitution and what Justice Marshall said and other Supreme Court Justices said on the matter. You have your little book of libertarian quotes, but we are dealing with the Constitution and not your little book.
“ I am blaming you for finding in it what is not there”
Blame yourself for placing Bastiat ahead of the Constitution. Bastiat is wonderful, but Bastiat doesn’t represent the law of the land.
As far as the numerous other posts and comments made by you I decline to respond as for the most part they are duplicating one another. Volume is not a good substitute for content.
Allan – I am very concerned about the Sun People. Where are they? And what provisions have we made for their survival?
I have read Friendlies “The Good Guys, The Bad Guys, And The First Amendment” – it is excellent and I highly recomend it.
I would be completely shocked to find a later work making the broad arguments you are
The book in question was: The Constitution: That Delicate Balance by Fred W. Friendly
I will add it to my reading list .
The good guys the bad guys and the first amendment by Friendly was EXCELLENT.
BTW though I can not recall its name – Caroline Kennedy did an excellent book on our individual rights.
That was unbeleiveably libertarian.
“Blame yourself for placing Bastiat ahead of the Constitution. Bastiat is wonderful, but Bastiat doesn’t represent the law of the land.”
Bastiat represents the laws of economics. They are not subordinate to the law of the land.
Just as the sun will not obey the dictates of congress.
Separately I am placing the constitution – read as written ahead of your constitution read as you think is useful to your argument.”
“Industry, if left to itself, will naturally find its way to the most useful and profitable employment, whence it is inferred, that manufactures without the aid of government will grow up as soon and as fast, as the natural state of things and the interest of the community may require.”
alexander Hamilton.
IF you can not find what you are looking for in Hamilton – you will not find it in any other founder.
“then the Sun People are going to come out to get you. Place yourself inside of a Faraday Cage.”
Allan when this is your response it is clear you have no argument.
This is not about the constitution vs. the articles of confederation.
“Neither you nor I are free to impose that choice on others by force.
Acting through government is using force.”
Is a fundamental moral proposition. It underpinning society.
The constitution does limit government to justifiable uses of force.
But even if it did not, they would still be immoral and ineffective.
A second reply to the same statement? Get two Faraday cages and refine your thinking about human behavior.
My arguments are consistent with actual human behavior.
If you disagree – I expect an actual argument – not naked assertions.
Why is my argument inconsistent with human behavior ? Why is yours not.
Do not let facts get in the way of insults.
You have failed to justify the use of force to “harden the grid”.
You have failed to demonstrate why the results will be better than if the market is left on its own.
You want to spend money to do something that will likely happen on its own. that will near certainly never be needed, that even if it was will not have addressed the actual fundimental needs at that time.
You seek to use force. The burden was on you and you have not met it.
A third reply to the same post? Instead of a third Faraday cage get a bigger one. I have made it clear why I believe hardening the grid is a federal issue and I justified it. You were too busy reading a book on how to build a bigger outhouse that is required with all the BS you have been throwing about. You have no idea on how one balances risks. You mix ideology with science and mess up both.
“I have made it clear why I believe hardening the grid is a federal issue and I justified it.”
No you have not. You have muttered National Security as if it is a magic wand.
It is not. Government should entirely take over food production for exactly the same reasons.
“You were too busy reading a book on how to build a bigger outhouse that is required with all the BS you have been throwing about.”
You make bad oversimplified technological arguments and then complain because I have to go into detail to refute them ?
“You have no idea on how one balances risks.”
That is both false and not the point – you are the one seeking to drag government into something.
The requirement to demonstrate a proper risk reward assessment is on YOU.
And you have failed entirely.
“You mix ideology with science and mess up both.”
God forbid that the results of science should concur with any philosophy that you can label as ideology or dogma.
Get a clue – particle physics is “ideology” it is also science.
Progressivism is ideology, it is not science.
I could care less if you call something “ideological”.
The only valid argument is demonstrating that it is false.
“No you have not. You have muttered National Security as if it is a magic wand.”
Dhlii, I provided you with loads of reasons. Maybe your Faraday cage is lined with mirrors that are blinding you.
I can’t say much more because you might be a captive of the sometimes violent Sun People who are giving you a good tanning.
“Dhlii, I provided you with loads of reasons.”
Nope. We have been through national security – that failed.
“Maybe your Faraday cage is lined with mirrors that are blinding you.
I can’t say much more because you might be a captive of the sometimes violent Sun People who are giving you a good tanning.”
This type of nonsense argument just makes you look silly and nuts.
You would not except stupid ad hominem from other posters here.
Why should you accept it from yourself ?
““We are just talking about strength and scale. That is it.”
Your statement is totally wrong.”
Nope
“A ligtning strike can cause an EMP phenomenon ”
Nope, it IS EMP.
“but is quite localized”
Yes, but that effects the are of damage.
“because in general it hits the ground or not that high up.”
You clearly do not understand either Lightning or EMP weapons.
It is not the “strike” that matters, it is the EM Wave.
“You clearly do not understand either Lightning or EMP weapons.
It is not the “strike” that matters, it is the EM Wave.”
You really have to look at the scientific commission’s report since you tangle up the concepts so badly. EMP travels in a straight line so when lightning hits the ground all the waves (from a tiny lightning strike compared to that of a nuclear weapon) don’t join together to increase force and travel around curves.
Please re-read your response.
The energy in a lighting bolts is 1×10^9 Joules
That of an EMP weapon about 6×10^13 Joules
Or about the same as 60000 lightning bolts
There are about 20M lightning strikes in the US per year.
As is typical you have made up your mind and are not interested in anything to the contrary.
I am not arguing that there will be no damage – in fact it is not possible to protect sufficiently to guarantee no damage.
I am arguing that protecting the grid has no benefit if most electronics are destroyed.
A grid with nothing to use it is useless.
I am also arguing that as is typical, those focused on a particular disaster see it as far worse than it actually turns out to be.
I have tried to deal with the physics with you, but you continue to assume that the worst cases – which will occur in some small portion of the effected area, are what will occur everywhere.
You also oddly assume that the probability of an EMP attack is high and that neither the ABM system we have nor the superior one we should be working on will protect against it.
The significance of any problem is the probability of the problem times the magnitude of the problem.
The probability is very low, and can be reduced to almost non-existance by improving or ABM capability – something inside the legitiamte role of government that would protect against multiple threats not one.
Further the magnitude of the problem is also lower than you fear.
“As is typical you have made up your mind and are not interested in anything to the contrary.”
Absolutely not. I rely on the best evidence and prudence. The commission’s report is too damaging to your conflicting arguments. If I heard good arguments or at least new ones I would listen carefully, but it appears you have nothing in the last number of postings.
” am arguing that protecting the grid has no benefit”
Of course, it does. Try running a factory after the circuit breakers are turned off. A very, very, very unlikely total wipeout of everything would end up with most of the country dead so we have to count on portions still being intact. You are dealing with outliers and lightning strikes that band together traveling around curves willfully attacking electronics everywhere. Your scenario is a fanciful horror story that comes out of Hollywood and dispenses with physics and common sense. To show you want to be proactive you promote an ABM which I am not against while fighting against a reasonable solution costing around $2Billion. I suppose you will have the ABM point to the sun as well to fight off an EMP attack by the Sun People.
Allan,
The only conflict in my arguments is that your hypothetical is rife with contradictions.
The commissions report has the same value as nearly every such commission report.
We would be bankrupt 10 times over if followed.
Honestly I do not much care what the “commission” said.
So long as they are advocating government action outside the legitimate sphere of govenrment,
the are a threat not a help.
And again National Security is an argument broad enough to cover anything – and everything that government wishes to do.
“We would be bankrupt 10 times over if followed.”
I think you are repeating yourself.
If it is unlikely you will wipe out everything it is unlikely you will wipe out the grid.
Your argument is that the grid is more critical than the things that use it.
That is false.
“Your argument is that the grid is more critical than the things that use it.”
Nope.
Mr. Kurtz, while I can fully understand your anger and frustrations, the fundimental problems of the left are not in their goals – though some of those are bad, but in their means.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Franklin
Whether your enemy is British rulers, or modern leftist, Franklin’s advice remains true.
I do not want a system like either china’s or Pinochet’s Chile – though I would not both share many of the same trait’s.
Significant economic liberty without political freedom and decades of rapidly rising standard of living.
“The notion that social repression necessarily means a lack of technological or material progress is demonstrably incorrect.”
Both China and Chile (as well as Hong Kong and Singapore) demonstrate your assertion as true.
But my “notion” is not in conflict with your assertion.
I would refer you again to the Reagan quote from “A time for Choosing”.
Outside the limited powers necessary to achieve the rule of law – which is not as the left thinks a call to impose law en mass,
Greater individual liberty means more rapidly rising quality of life.
Hong Kong, Singapore, Chile and China demonstrate that you can have a great deal of freedom as well as order and a rapidly rising standard of living.
They demonstrate that increases in freedom – even in repressive regimes consistently result in improvement to life.
But they are NOT exceptions to the rule, nor is europe, which over the past 3/4 century has done extremely well with socialism lite.
At the same time Europe has underperformed the US by about 3/4%, and over time that means they continue to fall farther behind.
The EU has almost double the population of the US, with only fractionally larger GDP.
Even the greater states like Germany, France and the UK have standards of living that are atleast 20% below the US.
The EU has done well, but not as well as we have.
Those nations with greater liberty improve faster (all other things being equal).
Despite their lack of political liberty, Singapore and hong kong have had great freedom in most other ares for 3/4 of a century and therefore outperformed the US.
More recently China and India (as well as much of asia) have substantially improved individual liberty and are thriving as a consequence.
They will not catch up to the US – because they do not have the same absolute levels of freedom that we do, and therefore can never reach our quality of life.
Conversely our rate of improvement has slowed as our freedom has declined.
Can’t believe the ignorance if not outright stupidity. The so-called Cambridge Five were students at Cambridge University in the 1930s. That’s half a century before I started visiting.
David Benson owes me eight citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seven weeks and needs to cite all his work from now on. – you were the ignorant one, we were just trying to educate you.
Well, I wasn’t. Your comment was both unnecessary and diverting from the purpose at hand. A variation on the Gish Gallop just to have something inane to write.
David Benson owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seven weeks and needs to cite all his work from now on. – I will need a citation on how this fits the Gish Gallop. Note that I have changed the number of citations you owe me now.
As I stated before several times, I once listened to Gish Gallop.
David Benson owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seven weeks and needs to cite all his work from now on. – you evidently did not learn anything.
Only how he gallops. You have a similar tendency to change the subject; bad rhetorical practice.
David Benson owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seven weeks and needs to cite all his work from now on. – the keyword is a Gish Gallop is gallop. It is not the Gish Statement.
So ? It is still a counterfactual for your claim.
It also demonstrates that marxism to the point of espionage can and has existed at Cambridge.
I have not regularly visited Cambridge, but I would be surprised if the post modernist form of marxism was not flourishing at Cambridge, as it is in most of the western academy.
I could be wrong. Cambridge could be the unique exception.
But nothing you have said credibly challenges that judgement.
Nothing you have written leads me to beleive you would recognize authoritarian statism in leftist forms if it hit you over the head.
Just what is “monogamy”?
Wow, supporting monogamous relationships. That’s something to get your underwear in knots over.
And something highly unlikely to impact either the postdoc’s own job performance in a physics lab or his treatment of any students he teaches or oversees.
It is a simple fact of biology and psychology that there are consequences to promiscuity. It leads to higher rates of disease and the lack of emotional fulfillment.
Disease riding on the heels of promiscuity has been the bane of humankind since recorded time. After all, syphillis has been a scourge since pre-Columbian times.
No matter how culturally acceptable, or cosmopolitan casual hookups may seem, there is a price to pay in the end. Even without considering HIV, there is HPV, Herpes, Mono, etc.
We can go round and round on studies with conflicting results. Dating apps tend to extrapolate that gay and straight men report similar sexual histories. Well, obviously, no one regardless of sexuality is going to present themselves as well worn as the floor of a NY taxi cab when trying to find a new date. There are many other studies, not associated with dating apps, that showed that gay men had more lifetime partners, and sexual encounters with strangers, than straight men. Which side is right doesn’t really matter. Sleeping around courts disaster, no matter what sexuality. A gay man or a straight man who had 1,000 partners will probably have multiple STDs. Just ask Charlie Sheen and Magic Johnson.
HIV would have gone extinct if we did three things globally- either remain conscientiously monogamous or use a condom every single time, don’t share needles, and in addition to testing blood products, do not accept blood and tissue donation from high risk individuals. That prevents blood and tissue donations from getting into the inventory that are from recent infections, too soon to throw a positive result. Another good idea is to get tested before beginning a new relationship.
All humanity managed was the last arrow in the quiver, and many fight even that as discriminatory. Well, of course all health screening is by definition discriminatory.
We had the ability to end this dread disease through prevention, which would have saved millions of lives. It is incredibly frustrating that we still have this plague when we could have, and should have, stopped it dead.
As far as the professor’s particular comments, I take an employer’s perspective. If an employee makes a statement that either materially damages the business, or is a safety concern, then they have to go. I do not believe that Universities should continue to enable and support intolerance and bigotry against Christianity and conservatives. I have news for them. The professor’s view on monogamy in gays is actually quite Liberal when compared with that of Islam’s take on homosexuality being a capital crime.
Another shocking revelation to these students is that not every single professor they will encounter will agree with every singe aspect of their characters, actions, and unique self.
Universities should make a tolerance class an undergrad requirement.
If it’s any consolation to these students, casual sex has become so normalized that the current generation knows how to get a casual hookup, but not how to date or find a mate. There was some dating project documentary that was very interesting.
In addition, now that 26 forms of birth control are all provided free of copay (and with accompanying increases in premiums to fool those who cannot do math), condom use is declining. What happens when promiscuity in the heterosexual community increases, and condom use decreases? STDs skyrocket, as is happening in CA. In fact, there is now a completely untreatable form of gonorrhea that recently arrived from Asia.
So, rest assured, heterosexuals are also acting in a completely self destructive, irresponsible, and ignorant manner, with the resulting disease and failure to connect with people on any meaningful level.
If the latest HIV vaccine proves effective in any way, you will see a corresponding decrease in condom use in the gay and straight community. The result will be some new plague with all the telethons, colored ribbon pins and stickers, and massive government funding. However can we stop the spread of STDs? This generation has absolutely no idea, despite being advised on how to engage in oral sex in their sex ed class in elementary school.
IF SUBJECT IS A SCIENTIST..
WHY IS HE ADVOCATING ON BEHALF OF ‘CHRISTIANS..??
If Mr Wall is a respected academic, he might know that the scientific community is somewhat leery of scientists pushing religious views. The ‘Intelligent Design’ issue comes to mind here. In that controversy, a few academics lent the prestige to what is essentially ‘creationist science’.
While I don’t object to religious viewpoints, professionals in any field call unwanted attention to themselves by publicly stating views at odds with the basic nature of their profession.
One might be leery of a medical doctor advocating spiritual remedies, or a military general with pacifist beliefs. Any stated viewpoint at odds with the profession is going to rouse concerns. This issue shouldn’t be framed as a Culture Wars conflict.
You’re joking right? There are great many scientists who espouse a Christian viewpoint. You are implying that they not be able to do so, and that is reprehensible, not in the least because it’s a violation of their First Amendment rights.
“IF SUBJECT IS A SCIENTIST..
WHY IS HE ADVOCATING ON BEHALF OF ‘CHRISTIANS..??”
What nonsense. Being a scientist does not require that you check all religious views at the door.
I am not aware of any scientific organization that takes a position on religion.
In fact it would be WRONG for any group whose primary purpose is science to take a position on things that are not in the domain of science.
While it is absolutely appropriate for individual scientists to hold whatever views they wish on anything.
Science is not a cult where all are required to share the same beleifs on everything.
Or atleast barred from speaking out on issues whether others see things differently.
Yes, you are actually objecting to people presenting a religious view point.
No Calling attention to yourself for things having nothing to do with your profession is NOT at odds with the nature of the profession.
You seem to think that merely expressing your preferences turns them into proscriptive laws.
You are free to prefer whatever you want. Just as Wall is free to differ.
If you are leary of medical doctor advocating spiritual remedies – see another doctor. If My doctor was into faith healing or something like that
I would want to know about it. I certainly would not want his profession to force him to hide that from everyone.
You have concluded that science is complete, has answers for everything and can preclude its adherents from holding beleifs or views on matters science has no answers to.
You have things BACKWARDS – any professional group that requires adherence on matters outside the narrow scope of that groups domain is more than concerning, it is a serious problem.
While Cambridge is free to impose whatever conditions they wish on Walls employment.
Cambridge’s reputation and my support for them falters as they intrude into domains that are not their business.
Of course this issue is a culture wars conflict – your entire response drips with culture wars garbage.
If you are not free to hold unpopular, even wrong views – your are not free.
You seem to think that the freedom – the rights of LGBT individuals rests on some merit. It does not.
The rights of homosexuals rest on the right to individual liberty – the freedom to beleive the wrong things.
You’re looking for Culture War issues because right-wing media conditions you to seek them.
For crying out loud, you’re the one who went off on a witless Sam Harris whinge.
Typical leftist claptrap.
You do not seem to beleive that others can think for themselves – does that Apply to you ?
Or are you magically immune to the right wing media (?????) or the Russians or whatever your boogey man of the day is.
I am libertarian. Not Republican. I do not watch Fox or “right wing media”.
I do not follow talking head news.
I am responding to the FACTS, with LOGIC and REASON – you might try it.
Regardless, why do you think you have the skills necescary to peer into the minds of others and determine what influences them or conditions them or whatever nonsencial argument that devolves to “I am better than you, and I get to tell you how to think, and if you do not think as I do it must be because either you are stupid or your are enthralled to some outside influence.
Grow up! Rather than your immoral fallacious garbage attacks pretending you know some spurious reason others disagree with you.
Make the argument for your position.
I do not care who you think influences me, or who influences you, I do not care about what you think is going on in other peoples heads.
I do care about facts, logic, reason – real arguments.
What is the alt right media? a bunch of demonetized deplatformed websites that people have to actively seek out under the rubbish of the legacy mass media if they have ever even heard of it in the first place? oh you mean brietbart. one website. lolz
He’s a liberally educated man with avocational interests as well as vocational ones. You couldn’t be more obtuse.
The left demands absolute fealty in everything.
I am reminded of “the death of Stalin”. Power Players in the kremlin knew they had to unreservedly support the “right path” whatever that was, or end up in Beria’s cells or the Gulags, while at the same time dogma could change at any time, therefore whatever they had said in support of the dogma of the past had to be expressed such that it could be parsed to mean the opposite.
That is the modern left. Doggedly adhering to beleifs that change daily
Are Stalin references now the proscribed rebuttal to so-called ‘leftists’. Someone told me that the Family Reseach Counsel was advising the use of Stalin references in their monthly email.
“Are Stalin references now the proscribed rebuttal to so-called ‘leftists’. ”
If you do not wish to be compared to some vile group or another – do not act like them, do not share their values.
More simply – the shoe fits.
‘Someone told me that the Family Reseach Counsel was advising the use of Stalin references in their monthly email.”
I have no idea what is in FRC emails. Do not get them, Do not care what FRC is saying.
You still do not seem to comprehend that people who disagree with you could be intelligent and think for themselves.
As to the source of the Stalin References, I recently watched “the Death of Stalin” it is a pretty good movie on Netflix I beleive.
The movies depiction of the intellectual jockeying of the upper tier of the soviet leadership mirrors that of the modern left.
But Putin will work as well as Stalin. With the difference that Putin is not demanding ideological purity, just loyalty.
You leftists do not grasp that all top down statism fundimentally works the same.
Socialism, Fascism, communism, peronism, …..
It does not matter, when you endow the group with authority it does not possess, when you pretend that the group is more than individuals in free association,
when you pretend that some collective wisdom – which is always the wisdom of some powerful individual or elitist group can be imposed by force on an individual,
things go to hell.
Mr. Kuntz, as an example does not seem to share your viewpoint on any issue,
but he shares your willingness to impose a viewpoint on others by force.
and thus right or left is indistinguishable from you.
If you’re on the far right, everyone else is left.
Peter Hill – and if you are on the far left everyone is on the right.
The Bernie Bros don’t include me in their fold. In fact, the real left thinks I’m an ‘establishment’ type.
I judge you by your posts here.
Absolutely there are people further left than you.
Far less than you think.
Though it does not matter much.
You are still advocating for the same authoritarian crap that Stalin did.
Whether that puts on on the far left, far right or some kind of centrist authoritarian – the comparison to Stalin still works.
“If you’re on the far right, everyone else is left”
Irrelevant.
Again: If you do not wish to be compared to some vile group or another – do not act like them, do not share their values.
If you actually read my post you would have read that there is little difference between statists on the left and those on the right.
There is not a great deal of difference between Stalin and Hitler, or Musolini, or Franco, or Peron,
Just as there is not a great deal of difference between your flavor of statism and any other.
If you do not wish to be compared to any of the reprehensible statists of history – learn from history and do not continue to advocate for things we know fail badly.
It’s Kurtz to you not Kuntz. As in colonel Kurtz whose methods you consider unsound
I like Putin, yes, I admire his cunning. I think he is an admirable competitor and not an enemy as POTUS fairly said. And no i am not a Russian but. and apropos of Russia, probably Russia owes its existence to Stalin for all the bad he did which was a lot.
Trotsky is the icon of the modern day left, not Stalin. Or more like Bakunin the anarchist. Or maybe not even them, they were all concerned with economic issues and today’s left is all about gay stuff even though it affects very few people. They are loudmouthed yet irrelevant.
The left has many Icon’s.
Stalin is where socialism leads. There is a reason most of the “icon’s” of the left died quickly or lost power in their revolutions.
Socialism draws totalitarians like shit draws flies.
Regardless I am not looking to debate details of the history of the USSR,
My argument was an anology and it was about how the ideology become destructive of thought and dissent.
It was not especially about Stalin.
Peter Hill,…
Stalin references are not nearly as common as the free and sloppy use of the “fascist” or “Nazi” labels.
But maybe it’s making a bit of a comeback as a reaction to all of the “fascist/ “Nazi”/”threat to democracy” talk.
I personally prefer “pinko” or “lousy commie” to the Stalinist accusation, but people are free to choose among a variety of descriptions.
“Fellow traveller” is OK too, but a lacks the same impact as some of the other labels.😐😁
Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Franco, Peron – what does it matter ?
Statism fails. Whether you call it communism or national socialism.
I raised Stalin – SPECIFICALLY to address the dysfunction that occurs when the expression of an oppinion can result in imprisonment or death, sometimes even decades later.
“The Death of Stalin” is a quasi-historical comedy. One that entertainly exposes the results of criminalizing political differences, and supressing expression that deviates from the dogma of the moment.
The modern left is not mostly sending those with offensive views to the gulags, but it is shouting them down, disrupting their lives, denying them service and on occasion assualting them.
And this is getting worse and will not end well.
It matters a lot depending on who is leading your faction when the SHTF. Trust me Mao was head and shoulders over the rest when it came to SHTF stuff. Really the American rural areas should study up on Mao’s history to get an idea of what a successful rural based organization looks like in an incipient civil war.
Peasants in the USSR and Peasants in China were radically different.
American farmers have absolutely no resemblance to peasants anywhere.
Merely being rural is not much common ground.
he can have an opinion yes and he can have a blog about whatever yes?
thats only ok if you agree with leftits
keep it up crazy left you may find yourself on the end of something similar to what stalin dished out on the trotskyites one day!
Is a scientist allowed to have personal opinions? Is a physicist allowed to contribute to a discussion of right and wrong, when morality has no play in astrophysics?
One should also consider that higher learning was often the provence of the religious scholar, such as the Jesuits. Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, was a monk pottering around in his garden of smooth and wrinkled peas. Wine cultivation was honed in monasteries. Art was almost exclusively religious for much of human history. For instance, the Pieta or the Sistine Chapel.
It is considered gauche for a scientist to admit that he or she has any religious views, but that is simple bigotry.
Unfortunately religion has gotten a bad rap in recent years. Scandals in the priesthood and questionable activism by the so-called Christian Right have created a climate where academics might have good reason to be wary of religious-based views.
I guess you have been paying no attention to #metoo.
Sexual misconduct is widespread and varied, with no evident correlation to ideology or religion.
I think you will find most of the “christian right” has near zero overlap with “the priesthood”.
Regardless the fundimental point you seem to have entirely missed is that no group is immune to misconduct by its members or its leaders.
NONE.
I celebrate the #metoo smearing of the left – not because the left and leftist elites are more likely to engage in sexual misconduct than any other group.
But because they have lorded over everyone else their purported virtue.
I suspect many on the left feel the same about scandals in the priesthood.
Regardless, you should remove the board from your own eye, before trying to remove the mote from that of your brother.
As the scandals in Hollywood, politics, environmentalism, neighborhood communities…
There is no justification for bigotry. I would say that Christians have good reason to be wary of intolerance. Freedom of religion is a Constitutionally protected right.
I suspect the majority of people believe that promiscuity is a bad idea for health reasons.
If he shows bias against gay students in the classroom, harms the reputation of the school, or is a safety issue then it would be actionable. For instance, when professors say things like all whites should die or they automatically give a lower grade to white males to offset their privilege, that would be harmful to students. Saying that promiscuity is wrong for health reasons, or that gay marriage was against his religion is stating a widely held belief. Muslims and Orthodox Jews hold the same beliefs. Should all of them be barred from employment?
The reality is that most people disapprove of other’s choices from time to time. Take voting. There are many professors who express criticism on how conservatives voted in the past election. Does an anti-Trump professor merely disagree with Trump-voting students, or harass them and grade them differently?
There is no justification for bigotry. Absolutely!
But everything that is wrong or immoral, is not a crime, nor the business of government.
Government is force. All uses of force must be justified. The use of force is justified in punishing people’s actions, not their thoughts or even their words.
You can punish bigotry but you must do so without the use of force, aka government.
You punish bigotry by shunning and protesting those you believe are bigoted.
With respect ot Cambridge – it can do as it pleases.
And just as it can discipline or fire Wall, the rest of us can judge Cambridge’s response and act accordingly.
I think that a university such as Cambridge should encourage diverse even offensive viewpoints.
But I may not use force to compel Cambridge to conform to my view.
what’s bigotry anyways? does that not mean religious prejudice?
I think that there is a lot of room for religious prejudice. i am not one of the freemason indifferentists who believe all religions are equal.
secularism, laicite, those are tropes of the enlightenment. they operated historically to take down clerical power in government and now they only serve to empower a bunch of rabble who want to shout down physics professors who dare to champion monogamy. the same sort of people who want to let in muslim migrants by the millions who are ardently anti-homosexual btw. isnt that ironic? i can never figure that one out.
Whatever bigotry is, it has no place in government, and government has no business addressing it privately.
Absolutely there was a secular movement concurrent with and overlapping the enlightenment.
But the enlightenment was not inextricably linked to secularism.
Regardless, you are blaming lots of issues that have inherently coalesced in progressivism on the enlightenment.
The progressive movement – both now and more than a century ago had SOME overlap with the enlightenment
but theses are NOT the same things.
The earliest origens of the enlightenment go back to 14th/15th century germany where each city had its own denomination as well as hereitics and ultimately the people had to learn tolerance or remain in constant war.
Religious tolerance is one of the earliest forms of individual liberty that arose.
Please do not ask me to defend the stupidity and hypocracy of the modern left.
Classical liberalism and progressivism have barely more common ground than conservatism and progressivism.
Of course you are right that progressivism is something different. Maybe I have conflated them unfairly with other things.
I would call Westphalia a victory of sovereignty and the nation state over the earlier feudal order, not really so much a victory of religious tolerance.
I am not really fond of the separation of church and state. It’s a pillar of American system but I find little fault with it. I probably would have been a Royalist in 1776.
The US separation of church and state is a reflection of what preceded in Europe for centuries.
Colonist came here for religious freedom.
Europe particularly germany did not come to religious tolerance willingly .
They came to it because it is damn near impossible to convert people by force, and the degree of religious pluralism in europe and particularly germany at the time required developing grudging religious toleration or a permanent state of warring states.
Some came for freedom and some came for money. A lot of the early colonies were money making endeavors. Some came for both.
Germany came to Westphalia because the forces of the Emperor were financially exhausted. Nationalism was the victor not religious liberty.
It is not conversion by force that matters in this context it is social acculturation into religious habits customs and morals inculcated into society. That is mostly done by laws which have both their origin in religious traditions and their ongoing inspirations from them. From Moses to Sharia to Shinto.
The idea that religious cohesion or observance is mostly voluntary is just kind of a lack of insight into how human beings develop cognitively over time. Its mostly just seeping into us from all around us whether we like it or not. I do agree with the bible thumpers on this much: the official religion of the US is secular humanism. To say there is no religion allowed is roughly equal to saying that a specific church is the official church. Tolerance and disestablishmentarianism are not the same thing. You can have a state church in a very tolerant society. England for example. By same token you can have a secular republic which is very intolerant of religious differences. Some people think France is that way or even the US but I think that is unfair to both probably. A better example would have been the USSR which was secular but very intolerant of religion.
“Some came for freedom and some came for money.”
Like the left you keep fixating on motive.
Whatever the reason they came, the still came. Many grew wealthy, and they did so because they were more free than where they came from.
You continue to fight over Germany completely missing the point.
First I am talking about a period starting prior to Luther and extending more than 100 years after.
That was a time of constant warring over religious issues between various german states.
Ultimately they realized victory was impossible and in exhastion they gave up and begrudingly developed religious toleration.
All kinds of things happened later that are irrelevant to anything I am discussing. If they are important to you – good for you.
The German states are essentially the birth place of the enlightenment. Raising and nurturing it to a large extent occured elsewhere.
In fact this theme of religious conflict and begruding toleration permeates several centuries and spreads out of Germany through to the colonies.
Are there other concurrent themes – certainly. Did absolutely everyone come to the colonies for religious freedom – certainly not.
But whether in the colonies or in Germany, you seem to beleive that because many things were going on concurrently, that you can discount any you wish to ignore.
You bitch about those on the left – why do you engage in the same tactics that you complain about ?
“I am not really fond of the separation of church and state. It’s a pillar of American system”
We have to remember that separation of church and state was to prevent domination of one religion in the federal government. States had state churches some of which were supported by the general taxpayer.
The natural sciences, physics, chemistry, biology, et cetera don’t have the problem with personal Christian belief that the social sciences do. You can draw a Venn diagram of what one’s personal sexuality impacts and one’s professional conduct impacts in the natural sciences impacts and see that unless one’s science is unforgivably sloppy, no overlap at all occurs. In the natural sciences, we hypothesize about natural phenomena, observe them, record the results of those observations, and sexuality of the observer doesn’t enter the picture.
It’s only in the social sciences where this becomes an issue, because they are about human behavior, and that leaves scope for observational bias, prejudice, et cetera to affect research.
Discriminating against Christians in either discipline is just as wrong as discriminating against LGBTs.
which is why evolutionary psychology that is empirical yet take social organization as a subject of serious study, always gets a bad rap from the softie sociologists who have bigger budgets.
“there are safe spaces for LGBT+ students, and there were plans in place to deal with any discrimination.”
The safe spaces may be found between their ears. Each and every human may find solace there if they so desire. If a person subjects themselves to the tyranny of other persons opinions they may never be content with who they are.
any discrimination may be countered with factually based analysis not histrionics.
Either we, as American citizens, are all equal under the law or we are not – no special classes of persons required.
Allowing government to create separate classes of persons in order to bestow upon them special rights/privileges above and beyond the rights enumerated within the US Constitution only serves to tear the social fabric that once bound the nation together further apart.
Jon: the title of this piece is very misleadinng: the issue wasn’t monogamy, but espousing the position that LGBT people are, by virtue of their sexual orientation, promiscuous, and that they need a religious fix for this “flaw”. The University ‘s response—that it expects policies and procedures to be followed, is appropriate.
He’s quite correct from a sociological standpoint, and it’s something that’s been acknowledged in magazine journalism for 35 years or more. You want a fictional account of what this looks like in meat space, read Larry Kramer’s Faggots, published in 1978. There’s a certain discourse that fancies lesbians are exceptionally loyal, but actually studies of lesbians don’t bear that out (they behave in this regard like ordinary unmarried people and not like male homosexuals) and their relationships tend to have a lot of drama.
He’s quite correct from a sociological standpoint, and it’s something that’s been acknowledged in magazine journalism for 35 years or more. You want a fictional account of what this looks like in meat space, read Larry Kramer’s Fa**ots, published in 1978. There’s a certain discourse that fancies lesbians are exceptionally loyal, but actually studies of lesbians don’t bear that out (they behave in this regard like ordinary unmarried people and not like male homosexuals) and their relationships tend to have a lot of drama.
[Darren, it’s inane to set the moderation filter to sh!tcan posts containing that word, particularly when it’s the title of a book]
Just as Wall is free to hold whatever opinions he wishes, Cambridge is equally free to reject Wall for whatever reason they wish.
A job is not a right.
A “safe space” is not a right.
Our confusion over what is an is not a right leads us to expect government and courts to resolve issues that are not their business.
The Equal protection of the law – means that government will not treat us differently because we are rich, poor, gay, straight, black white.
We are not actually equal, Only government is obligated to be blind to our differences.
Everyone of us discriminates all the time, discriminate is a synonym for choose.
The only legitimate response to the poor choices of another are to make our own choices differently.
Do not frequent a bakery that discriminates in ways you do not like.
If Cambridge does not like Wall’s views on any subject, it can dismiss him – or not, depending on its own perception of its own self interest.
What you may not do is use force to compel the non-violent choices of others. Government may not discriminate. Nor may it use force to compel or prohibit the discrimination of others.
i think if we let crazy leftist movements ruin higher education with their own brand of LYSENKOISM then our civilization will go down as the most intelligent and yet unwise culture to have ever existed. that is if it is ever excavated from the dust of ruin to which it is advancing.
“i think if we let crazy leftist movements ruin higher education with their own brand of LYSENKOISM then our civilization will go down as the most intelligent and yet unwise culture to have ever existed. that is if it is ever excavated from the dust of ruin to which it is advancing.”
Already a Fait Accompli
Nor am (I so sure that we are all that intelligent.
Regardless, we are the most afluent society ever while concurrently the most agreived.
We are not teaching people how to succeed, we are teaching them why it is someone else’s fault that they will fail.
That is not going to end well.
We need much more basics in education, as well as critical thinking.
In either case, the postdoc published his personal feelings on a personal blog, presumably on his own time and not his university’s. Since he was just hired by Cambridge, this isn’t a case of ongoing conduct, but past conduct that didn’t impact the quality of his work either as a teacher or in physics research.
The university properly confined its remarks, not to the postdoc’s personal beliefs, but to its expectations of his current conduct as a researcher and teacher. They presumably made this guy read their policy and sign it, and expect him to behave according to it. That’s all they can justifiably do.
Those students demanding additional assurances of his conduct are wrong. Wall didn’t even behave wrongly before he was hired – he expressed his opinions on a matter that don’t touch his behavior as a physics researcher.
Heres the problem: this professor believes that gay people are automatically promiscuous, AND that they need Christian religion to fix this fundamental character flaw. Given this absurd philosophy, it would be unreasonable to assume he could treat LGBT students the same as non-LGBT students. He has said they automatically have character flaws that need a religious remedy. All that was asked was assurance that there are safe places for LGBT students and a plan if they are the victims of discrimination, both of which are reasonable, given his writings.
I seriously question the intelligence of anyone purporting to teach at university who not only holds, but publicly espouses, such ignoramus views.
Male homosexuals are pretty much off the charts bar those who order their life in such a way as to spend little time socializing. (One fellow with whom I was acquainted who wasn’t off the charts lived with his disabled parents in a little town in Wayne County, NY, had a long commute, and worked night shifts). This isn’t arguable, Natacha.
You have not offered a problem that you have the right to use force to correct.
You have made numerous posts here – you too offer an absurd philosophy and have fundamental character flaws.
If you are not free to be wrong – you are not free.
With respect to this issue – cambridge can do as it pleases – that is what true freedom means.
Wall has no right to a job,
Your “safe space” is in your head, or your own apartment or home.
You do not have a right to purge the world of ideas that offend you.
You do not have the right to purge your workplace or college of ideas and expressions that offend you.
You do have the right to seek another college or place of employment.
You are free to question anyone’s intelligence – I have very serious doubts about yours.
That is how freedom works.
What you do not have is the right to use force (aka government) against another because you do not like what they say, or think.
Your belief that your do reflects a lack of intelligence, your willingness to use government to enforce that belief is more than an intelligence failure, it is a moral failure.
they are crazy and like the crazies who wander the streets urinating and defecating everywhere and harassing normal social activities they should be corralled and restrained. thats’ the use of force that any fool could have seen is necessary and the West has simply lost its wits to let them run wild. I am done with Enlightenment pretensions about this kind of thing
You confuse modern progressivism and the enlightenment.
There is a small portion of society that is going to be criminal – no matter what.
One of the legitimate roles of govenrment is to protect the rest of us from that small element without significantly infringing on our freedom.
In fact like many other human attributes – this distributes on a bell curve.
There are small portions of the population whose intelligence is sufficiently low that they can not thrive.
There are small portions of the population who are sufficiently mentally disturbed that they can not thrive.
These are real problems and they need addressed.
But the fact that some small portion of the whole for various reasons can not thrive, does not mean we should abandon liberalism (that is the real liberalism of the enlightenment, not the garbage the modern left sells).
In human history there is no example that comes close to the improvement in quality of life that the enlightenment ideas of individual liberty have wrought.
The benefits of individual liberty are so great that we should always err on the side of freedom.
If my choice is between a few crazies defacting in the streets and allowing either the left or the right the power over all of us they demand in order to fix that problem
I will live with the crazies.
But that is a false dilema.
The first fallacy, the most critical is the presumption that there is a black and white problem with a black and white solution.
Rather that trying to figure out how to use force to completely fix whatever problem you fear,
consider changing incentives so that the problem diminishes on its own.
You can often “solve” a problem by using force and reducing liberty – but the side effects are typically much worse than the problem.
Are you OK with incarcerating everyone with a low IQ or everyone who can not manage anywhere but on the streets ?
Natatcha:”Heres the problem: this professor believes that gay people are automatically promiscuous,” No. He explicitly stated that not all gays are promiscuous.
In addition, it seems likely that he has also made comments in his life about the proliferation of casual hookups among the heterosexual community.
And in any case, unless he’s made those comments in class time, to co-workers during the conduct of research, or while grading someone else’s work, it’s not material to his qualifications to do research in physics or teach it.
I seriously question that you are qualified to assess the qualifications of a post-doctoral physics researcher. But you can prove me wrong. Succinctly state the Laws of Thermodynamics, in conversational English. Tell us what you think are the differences between general and special Relativity. Define Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction.
Seemed like the professor was fairly well reasoned. Although, you can even tell in reading what he wrote that he was walking on egg shells. What’s the counter argument to what he wrote?
LGBT people are not fundamentally any more promiscuous than straight people.
That’s simply false, Natacha. It’s especially false in re to male homosexuals.
I think it’s false with regard to male gays but I am not sure the same thing applies to lesbians. i would find that an interesting empirical study., but the crazy leftists are only interested in deconstructionist dogma so it’s a waste of time to parlay the matter.
There are two distinctly different debates that are being conflated.
Is Mr. Wall free to make the statements that he has made.
Are those statements correct.
The left assumes the statements are false because they do not fit their narative and that alone is justification for banning them
To many on the right assume that proving that some or all of his statements are correct is relevant to whether he is free to speak as he does.
And most everyone is blind to the fact that there is a giant gulf between government constraint of expression, and private agreements that might voluntarily restrict liberty
Natacha – you know this from personal experience with both groups?
Why does this matter ?
You are not free, is you are not free to be wrong.
Have the debate over promiscuity, if you wish, or ignore Wall.
But you may not use force to silence him – even if you think he is wrong.
stop with the objectivist platitudes already. this is a battle of group coordinated force and it must be met samewise.
Not an objectivist either.
Rather than fixate on labels, you might get further by focusing on arguments.
Wait, I am sorry, you rejected reason, that leaves you with nothing but force.
Sorry Mr. Kurtz, We may share the same views with respect to the left,
but the same immoral means to a different end is no improvement.
I used to be idealistic liberterian objectivist type. Now I pus that all aside. Now I am Ok with force to meet force. Simple as that. Every government is organized force, and by definition, the most forceful gang in the territory, or else it’s not allowed to call itself government. The leftist radicals use the space of liberty to advance their agenda of disrupting basic social order, and they have gone a long way with it. if they go a lot farther who knows if the West survives at all. Or deserves to for that matter. I really believe that the capacity of a society to organize itself with rules and social order is the bedrock of civilization and culture and we are completely losing it, except maybe where commerce is concerned. Well commerce is not the only human space worthy of social order. Indeed I sometimes wonder if the capitalist-globalists, if we can call them that, are behind the leftist radicals, bent on erasing any impediments to their property rights and free movement and usage of capital. they grind all human differences down and make us all into little ball bearings of even size and shape. The big lie is that they are in favor of diversity. Only in a superficial way, perhaps.
Everyone is OK with force to meet force.
That violates the NAP and just about every organized system of values their is.
But do not play the same stupid games as those on the left and confuse the absence of the choices you want with force.
Words matter, they are how most of us think, they are how we communicate,
Government is not poetry, it is the use of force.
The use of force must be justified, the most common universally accepted justification is against force.
The fact the use of force in self defense or defense of others is justified,
leads many of us to characterize everything we do not like as a use of force.
Criticising promiscuity is not force.
Firing someone for their opinions is not force. Firing someone for any reason is not force.
I used to be conservative.
I am not “idealistic”, I have arrived at my strongly principled classical liberalism mostly pragmatically.
I have watched our government – local, state and federal for 60 years, I have watched governments throughout the world.
If you are not blind to the past century of historical and bloody failure of socialism, then you are also aware that all forms of statism not merely those of the left fail.
You are aware that universally Quality of life rises fastest where there is the greatest individual liberty.
Everything you say of the left is true. But it is not limited to the left.
The west will survive the left. That does not mean the process will not be painful and destructive.
One of the more important ways we learn is through failure.
“I really believe that the capacity of a society to organize itself with rules and social order is the bedrock of civilization”
“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream – the maximum of individual freedom consistent with law and order – or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.”
Ronald Reagan
Sorry, but every study I’ve ever seen over the past thirty years says that you are wrong. You need to inform yourself before you speak.
Wally Moran – Natasha has never been to a gay bathhouse.
i remember when i was a minor in high school and sometimes had to go to universities and used to get harassed by the male homos in the bathroom, a lot of my friends had the same experiences so I am aware it was not personal.
facts matter. what do they do? among other disgusting things, they hammer holes in the university toilet walls to make glory holes. look that up if you think it’s a fiction. it’s a portal for anonymous sexual contact and a threat to public health. its a very disgusting practice; i can only speculate why gays thought they were safe to cruise the university toilets. maybe because university administrators were ardent homosexuals too at a disproportionate rate, I would suspect.
Mr Kurtz – I have seen enough writing on public restroom walls to indicate what was going on and I have seen gloryholes before, although never in action. 😉
Backed up by what?
here’s an interesting article.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3613286/
maybe the promiscuous gay cruising mentality has rubbed off on heteros, and that’s part of the reason why the powers that be wanted to corrall it for centuries past? maybe or maybe not but will society be better when everybody is free to just indulge their sexual whims at will?
as it has advanced in that direction so too has the gay “movement” is that coincidence or causal relations of some kind? i dont know just asking
“LGBT people are not fundamentally any more promiscuous than straight people.”
Natacha, these disputes always come down to the same thing, where is your proof? You are a leftist, a faith-based religion, so you take on faith certain beliefs that have been proven not to be true. Religious people believe in God and that is something that cannot be proven one way or the other. They recognize their belief is faith-based but you are duped into believing that all this garbage you promote is based on real science.
Let’s concede you may be right. It doesn’t affect his ability to perform research in physics or teach the subject. Firing him and banning him from research in physics would be almost as bad as what happened to Alan Turing, who was persecuted to the point of suicide for his homosexuality (despite having helped win World War 2 and lay the foundations of computer science).
Jean Lafitte, I very much appreciate what you have written here especially the recognition that each and every life can benefit others whether we agree with them or not. Alan Turing was an excellent example of a man whose life was ruined because of prejudice. Would Germany have come up with the Atomic bomb earlier and other advantages if they didn’t discriminate against Albert Einstein, Edward Teller, Enrico Fermi’s Jewish wife, James Franck and many others?
Why does the left want to repeat the mistakes of discrimination pushing the government and public sector to play an active part in such discrimination?
In a statement to Inside Higher Ed, the university did not strongly defend the right of Wall and others to hold and publish such views, but rather noted that all employees are expected to adhere to university policies.
Academic institutions are what Fr. Paul O’Shaughnessy has called ‘sociologically corrupt’, a term he used to describe a situation wherein they are unable to reform themselves with their internal procedures. They simply do not merit the autonomy or resources they claim in this society, and need to be ripped to pieces by others. Same with the bar.
TSpasticsD continues to just Make Stuff Up. Cambridge University is one of the finest in the world, hardly in need of reformation.
‘Finest in the world’ is prof-speak for a regime which can and does incorporate atrocious waste, self-indulgence, and gross office politics.
No, Spastic, it’s not inside the Beltway.
You’re Making Stuff Up again.
he makes brilliant contributions to this blog and I applaud him. well done spastic!
Free inquiry is one of the fundimental purposes of a college.
Cambridge is free to value “safe spaces” over free expression, but in doing so it fails as a college.
That would mean that as a university it has failed ad the primary task of a university.
Yes, it is in need of reformation.
Cambridge University doesn’t have “safe spaces”. Neither does the town.
https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/14386
Thanks for the link, Darren.
I don’t know very much about Cambridge.
But when I saw Benson confidently declare that Cambridge “doesn’t have safe spaces”, that there was a pretty good chance that Cambridge does have safe spaces.
The entire attack on Wall is a gigantic call for safe spaces, a call to make the entire campus a “safe space”
Tom Nash, I should have stated that Cambridge University didn’t have so-called safe spaces. The fact that this has now occurred is unpleasant news to me. I hope that the dons work to reverse this policy.
DB Benson,..,
From the article that Darren linked, and from some other articles, it sounds like the UK institutions are trying to avoid some of the most extreme elements of “safe spaces” found in some American University.
The Varsity UK article, while mentioning Cambridge’s support for safe places, also mentions that institution’s reservations about trying to “shut down” or isolate all expressions that a student organization might disapprove of.
From what I’ve read, it looks like the UK universities are not as willing to some in America to bow to student pressure for censorship of opposing viewpoints.
Re-read the article – as well as my post.
You are misreading both.
dhlii,….
-My comment was actually to Darren, and about someone else’s erroneous claim that” Cambridge University doesn’t have safe spaces”.
The Varsity UK article linked by Darren refers to Cambridge University’s defense of its “safe spaces”.
I don’t think I misread either the comments or the article.
dhlii,…
-I thought your comment was to me….my mistake.
It looks like it was intended for DB Benson.
The article did not speak to the existance of safe spaces at cambridge. I beleive someone has linked to evidence that they do exist.
But the article explicitly and repeatedly refered to the demand for safe spaces..
Discussion of Safe spaces is not off topic, nor an exageration.
It is self evident from the article that they are an issue.
dhlii,…
The Varsity UK article linked by Darren Smith actually stresses Cambridge’s support for safe spaces.
It stresses that of the input from the various universities mentioned that “Cambridge was the only university to explicitly defend safe spaces”.( I think that is the exact quote, without backing out of this comment and reviewing the article).
I’d have to review it again to see if that particular article refers specifically to the actually existence of safe spaces at Cambridge, but as you mentioned, that is confirmed in other articles.
And given Cambridge’s commitment to safe spaces, it seems likely that those safe spaces have a home at Cambridge.
Sorry, I was unclear “the article” – this article by Turley.
Absolutely it was a mistake to assert that Cambridge did not foster Safe Spaces – while I did not “know” the answer to that question, does anyone doubt that google would provide the answer or what that answer would be ?
But my comments were that “safe spaces” were a legitimate topic, as they are referenced in Turley’s article.
Thanks for the clarification, dhlii.
I thought we had wildly different interpretations of the Varsity UK article that Darren linked.
Again to clarify – I am not arguing about whether Cambridge has safe spaces. When this started I had no answer to that.
I am arguing that those opposing Wall were clearly demanding safe spaces.
dhlii – David Benson neither reads or listens.
David, even smart people can be pretty stupid at times. That goes for professors as well. Something you should have already learned.
Cambridge without a doubt had quite a crew of people in the student body and on the payroll who favored the enemy during the Cold War. They can bloody well put up with someone who is not on board with homosexual pseudogamy, an idea which hardly occurred to anyone prior to 1986. No one in authority will tell these bellyaching jackwagons to get stuffed in a plain and public way, so they’ll be back the next time if they do not prevent his appointment now.
TSpactisD is just Making Stuff Up again. I visited Cambridge University many times in the previous century. Nobody that I talked to paid the slightest attention to the Soviet Union or its aftermath, being concentrated on their subjects and a bit on British politics.
You didn’t have a one-on-one conversation with a campus Marxist when you stopped by, ergo none were there. I can never figure out whether it’s dementia or a lifetime habit of fraud that induces you to make these silly arguments, but you should stop it.
No, mathematicians and computer scientists don’t spend their time studying Marxism. I suppose that might be part of a subject, history or economics maybe. But one would be more likely to find that studied over at Oxford University, I should think.
As I stated, my impression is that politics was local, i.e., British matters. That was also true at Edinburgh University.
David Benson owes me eight citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seven weeks and needs to cite all his work from now on. – How soon we forget the Cambridge Five, plus others.
Good point.
Institutes of mathematics and computer science do not typically fixate on views on monogamy and homeosexuality either.
“mathematicians and computer scientists don’t spend their time studying Marxism. ”
David, people read outside of their professions. You sound as if you never read any American history or bothered to learn anything except the leftist ideas that permeate our university campuses.
Marxists contributed a lot to the understanding of economics and society with the dialectic of class and group conflict and struggle for resources. Today, leftists don’t really care about the working class, just posturing on bizarre topics like homosexual and trans rights or whatever. Topics that doctrinaire marxists in soviet union and china considered bourgeouis affectations at best, perversions underming the interests of the workers’ state at worst.
“I can never figure out whether it’s dementia or a lifetime habit of fraud that induces you to make these silly arguments, but you should stop it.”
DSS, David’s name is that of a professor. Did someone steal that name from the real professor?
TS to Dance,…
If Benson declares that no one he talked to “paid the slightest attention to the Soviet Union or its aftermath”, that alone leads me to believe that “they favored the enemy during the Cold War”.
Benson reminds me so much of the lady from New York who couldn’t understand how it was possible that Nixon won the election, since nobody she knew voted for him.
Pauline Kael probably did know no one who was a vociferous supporter of Richard Nixon. Most people don’t devote much discussion to public affairs in meatspace, women tend to be particularly averse to it, and Kael herself lived in an other-directed and status-conscious society where Republicans weren’t advertising themselves.
I haven’t bothered to look at the menu of schools and programs available at WSU, but unless the place is very out of the ordinary, there is and was a red haze contingent on the faculty, the administration, and the student body. Nowadays, various obnoxious subcultural particularisms are all the rage (in re homosexuality especially) and have been for 20 years or more. My own contemporaries were more-often-than-not Republicans in our youth, but the red haze types in the student body and on the faculty were easy to locate.
https://www.middlebury.edu/institute/people/moyara-ruehsen
https://literature.ucsc.edu/faculty/singleton.php?&singleton=true&cruz_id=tyrus
sbs.ox.ac.uk/community/people/mari-sako
linkedin.com/in/phillipschmandt
twitter.com/profdavidharvey
Pauline Kael probably did know no one who was a vociferous supporter of Richard Nixon. Most people don’t devote much discussion to public affairs in meatspace, women tend to be particularly averse to it, and Kael herself lived in an other-directed and status-conscious society where Republicans weren’t advertising themselves.
I haven’t bothered to look at the menu of schools and programs available at WSU, but unless the place is very out of the ordinary, there is and was a red haze contingent on the faculty, the administration, and the student body. Nowadays, various obnoxious subcultural particularisms are all the rage (in re homosexuality especially) and have been for 20 years or more. My own contemporaries were more-often-than-not Republicans in our youth, but the red haze types in the student body and on the faculty were easy to locate.
Easy to locate:
https://www.middlebury.edu/institute/people/moyara-ruehsen
Easy to locate:
https://literature.ucsc.edu/faculty/singleton.php?&singleton=true&cruz_id=tyrus
Easy to locate
https://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/community/people/mari-sako
Easy to locate:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/phillipschmandt
Easy to locate:
https://twitter.com/profdavidharvey
FF Sierra,…
In a way, I gotta give him credit; when he’s dead wrong, he is supremely confident that he’s right.
You dont know history or much else i suspect
here are the facts
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35360172
leftists never care about facts. they are crazy.
Someone should have taught you history, David. Ever hear of the Cambridge Five (a spy ring for the Soviets all trained at Cambridge).
We have one in the White House so …….
blunt, burgess, et al
Yeah, because the whole promiscuous thing is what leads to a 20% rate of HIV among queer men. But by all means, criticize the person who points out the vacuousness of such a life. And the danger.
Democrats and Liberals are just plain insane. They have gone off the deep end.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Ain’t Democrats and Liberals. Neither advocate license.
Yes, they do.
TSpasticsD continues to just Make Stuff Up.
I don’t understand these guises and poses you adopt. When in the last forty years has any significant body of soi-disant ‘liberals’ ever offered a critique of the culture of sexual license or advocated institutional or public policies which would discourage it? I can think of two circumstances: college faculty who despise fraternities and state legislators who want to remove the statute of limitations on sexual abuse prosecutions. Neither is motivated by puritanism, so they are examples which do not apply.
You haven’t an ounce of integrity.
Spastics, there is a wide selection of responses to your jumping from advocacy, the original point, to advocacy of puritanism, your current misdirection. Do try to stay on topic.
Here I am surrounded by student housing, including fraternities and sororities. I choose to live here. Over the years various policies have reduced license, principally alcohol and drug abuse, but also related to matters sexual. Probably the most important recently has been the new city police chief who came from Claremont, California.
I suppose that you would consider the faculty at Washington State University to be “liberal”, but nobody advocates license and most oppose it. It has taken almost five decades to produce an atmosphere of seriousness on the part of the students as a whole.
You tilt at windmills.
David Benson owes me eight citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seven weeks and needs to cite all his work from now on. – and yet you cannot seem to get me my citations.
Did you get a change of meds? I am seeing complete sentences, paragraphs, coherent thoughts. What happened?
PCS…-Ghost writer, most likely.
Tom Nash – maybe his son is visiting. 😉
Sorry DBB but in this you are wrong. The left has over time become more extreme and more unhinged.
Democrats are cheering because they have elected an openly socialist representative. They are certainly free to do so, but the mere fact that they have dones so reflects the extremity and ignorance of the party and its voters. No ideology or “ism” of any kind has resulted in a tiny fraction of the blood and genocide of socialism.
Fundimental to socialism is the very issue we are debating here – that government may use force to supress ideas that it does not like.
All governments unfortunately have done so. But none hold a candle to socialists in the copious flow of blood.
But a party that elects the promiscuous and the abusive and the mean spirited is just fine.
I’m not comfortable with firing people for their polictical views or beliefs.
Justice Holmes — You are writing about the Republicants?
David Benson owes me eight citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seven weeks and needs to cite all his work from now on. – it is the Democrats who seem to be pushing to legalize or normalize child pornography, not Republicans. Now I am an Independent. I do not have skin in the game here, but the Democrats are fighting a losing battle on morality.
You are not obligated to do what you are not comfortable doing.
But you are not free to constrain others from doing something just because you are not comfortable.
they all do. quit whining. it’s in the nature of the creepy dudes who like to be in the limelight. they’re all cads
You’re the only “queer” in this discussion. What about Lesbians?
Natacha – what about lesbians? Would you like to speak from personal experience?
No, I’m not a Lesbian, but the fact that you think that is insulting or something to be ashamed of says more about you than me.
Natacha – are you offended by being asked if you are a lesbian? How un-liberal of you. I thought there might be the chance you were speaking from experience, however since you have now ticked off the entire LGetc community, that is on you. 😉
Whatever you are you are intolerant of people who do not think as you do.
Thank you presiden tramp i.like family.
Help transfer many my bank BCA.no rekening.7970234831 Hasbullah
Thank
Help my friend
Lamebridge
He is going to continue to teach physics.
Jeez…
David Benson owes me eight citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seven weeks and needs to cite all his work from now on. – isn’t physics agnostic? When you drop the cannonball from the Leaning Tower of Pisa it either drops or it doesn’t. Has nothing to do with religion. The pulleys work or they do not.
I used to be a pretty staunch liberal, but since Trump appeared on the scene hardly a day goes by in which liberals don’t do something else I find completely abhorrent. Identity politics will end up being the final ingredient that causes America to explode–and it won’t be pretty for anybody.
Ha, ha, ha,
Karl Kolchak – there are both the #WalkAway and #RunAway movements if you are interested. 😉 There is a third one but I cannot remember the name. They are all designed for liberals to leave the Democratic party.
The modern left is illiberal.
You do not have to support Trump to grasp that the greatest threat to our society right now is from the left, not the right.
i welcome an end to the fraud of liberalism, anyhow. let’s stick a fork in the enlightenment pretense that reason wins the day. it’s mostly about culture and group interests. that’s the part of marxism i find insightful. being a white male gentile hetero i do not find myself aligned with their groups however. so all the leftist methods of social organizing and pressure and pushback etc i believe should be applied to their pet groups. simple as that. they dont believe in the enlightenment crap anymore and neither should we. that was kind of just a smokescreen for the french revolution which the marxists have pegged as a bourgeouis revolution and the rest of the gibberish as moralizing propaganda
Well the enlightenment has served us well thus far.
If you wish to go back to the abysmal rate of progress that took us 150,000 years to get from the cave to the printing press – fine, but do not force me to come with you.
The enlightenment is about more than reason – it is even more about freedom. You appear to be a knowledgeable person, you know or can confirm that the rate of improvement of quality of life correlates to nothing more strongly than freedom.
As to “culture and group interests” – look arround the world – there are massive homogenous cultures and shared group interests in China and India and elsewhere.
The history of the US is NOT a history of the success of a culture, or group interest – unless that culture is the culture of freedom.
This country is the most diverse in the world. we have the least cultural homogenity of any nation.
Though we had more homogenity in 1776 – it was STILL the least in the world. The values and culture of our founders were far more diverse than any nation at the time.
While predominantly anglo-saxon, there were dutch and germans, and even there anglo-saxon roots were disparate.
Marxism is about groups rather than individuals. Modern post modernism is just marxism recast as racial or ethnic or sexual conflict rather than class conflict.
If you really buy this group and cultural values you are selling, you are not much separated from the left.
Adopting the tactics of the left is just another “road to serfdom”.