by Gary Farber
Don't tell me we can't win this. Wisconsin Police Have Joined Protest Inside State Capitol.
From inside the Wisconsin State Capitol, Ryan Harvey reports:
“Hundreds of cops have just marched into the Wisconsin state capitol building to protest the anti-Union bill, to massive applause. They now join up to 600 people who are inside.”
Ryan reported on his Facebook page earlier today [Friday, Feb. 25 -gf]],:
“Police have just announced to the crowds inside the occupied State Capitol of Wisconsin: ‘We have been ordered by the legislature to kick you all out at 4:00 today. But we know what’s right from wrong. We will not be kicking anyone out, in fact, we will be sleeping here with you!’
Ryan Harvey's video from Friday:
My quotes:
[…] This is not a budget issue! This is a CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE! […] Mr. Walker! […] We know pretty well now who you work for! [applause] Let me tell you who WE work for! [points to self and police emblem] We work for all of these people! [applause] We are not here, Mr. Walker, to do your bidding! We are here to do their bidding! […] Mr. Walker, this not your House! This is all of our House! [camera pans 360°]
I want to give this officer a big fat kiss on the mouth.
Pictures from Ryan Harvey, February 25, Occupied Capitol Building, Madison, WI:
Police; Firefighters.
Hardhatted working class dreamers who lead us.
The people of Wisconsin.
All who stand of the by people, by the people, for the people.
All photos (C) 2011 by Ryan Harvey. More from February 24th. Dispatches from the Madison Fight: #2, February 25th:
Walking into the occupied State Capitol of Wisconsin was more than mind blowing. I had imagined a small group of folks holding space in one area, confined by police lines.
And from what the news has been reporting, things were starting to die down here.
What I saw was quite different. Right inside the door, a huge poster hangs. “IN THE EVENT OF A GENERAL STRIKE, I VOW TO SUPPORT WORKERS”, it reads, and hundreds of signatures have been scribbled beneath.
The entire 4 or 5 story building is nearly completely occupied by union members, students, and people from across Wisconsin. There were literally hundreds of people here last night, and one or two hundred this morning that, like me, slept on the cold floor or on mats they had brought in.
The Capitol is covered in posters and signs reading things like “Hands Off Workers, Make the Banks Pay”, “Scott Walker is Robin Hood in Reverse”, and “Our Prayers to Libya – Power to the People”. A gigantic “Tax the Rich” banner hangs over the railing on one of the third floor walkway.
In the atrium at the center of the building, beneath a giant dome that peaks above Madison, an impromptu, all-day open-mic is hosted. Speakers announce their union or school, or where they came from. Drummers bang beats to massive chants that erupt every few minutes. “Beat The Bill!” the crowd says over and over, causing echoes throughout the space.
Firefighters, construction workers, steamfitters, cleaners, state workers, high school students, veterans, and police officers stood side by side in opposition to the Tea Party-backed Governor’s crazed anti-Union legislation being discussed around the corner.
Dotted among them were a few non-locals like myself, some who came from as far as Los Angeles to show support. When non-locals announced their presence, huge cheers erupted and people came to them to thank them. [more]
Governor Scott Walker was booed out of a restaurant.
Wisconsin blogger Naomi Houser reports tonight (via Howie Klein on Twitter):
The M******t [a restaurant] in Madison, WI confirms that on Friday night, ******* (one of the owners) politely asked Scott Walker to leave the establishment when other customers began booing him. A bartender at The M*****t said that ‘his presence was causing a disturbance to the other customers and management asked him to leave.’
Maybe he should have stayed home and ordered pizza instead? Okay, maybe not; there might be a long wait.
David Dayen reports, Saturday February 26, 2011 11:07 am: PHOTOS, VIDEO: Massive Crowds – and Organizing – in Madison.
MADISON, Wis. — Thousands of people took part in rallies in support of unions around the nation on Saturday, including here in the Wisconsin capital, where a political stalemate between the Republican governor and Democratic legislators over curtailing the power of unions led to similar battles in other states in the past week.
The tens of thousands of people who filled the square around the Capitol here Saturday rivaled the largest of the demonstrations that have taken place since Feb. 15 over Gov. Scott Walker’s effort to limit the collective bargaining rights of public sector unions and to require public workers to pay more for their health insurance and pensions.
“We’ve had bargaining for 50 years, and he’s trying to destroy it in a week,” said Al Alt, a teacher from Waukesha who was among the protesters. […]
Under a light snow here on Saturday afternoon, demonstrators chanted “This is what democracy looks like” and “Scott Walker’s Got to Go!”
Many of the placards protesters carried were directed at Mr. Walker’s relationship with Charles G. and David H. Koch, the billionaire brothers who have bankrolled conservative causes and Republican politicians, including Mr. Walker’s election campaign last year.
“We will not tolerate Koch heads in Wisconsin,” read one of the signs.
In Miami, about 150 people took part in a rally at Bayfront Park in solidarity with public employees in Wisconsin and elsewhere.
Many picketers expressed concern that Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican, might try to strip away the few protections unions have in Florida. A bill in the Legislature would block union dues from being automatically deducted from paychecks.
The protest in Madison on Saturday was loud but peaceful, and the police have described the demonstrators’ behavior as “exemplary” as protesters have gathered and slept throughout the public areas of the Capitol for days.
But the sleepovers will end on Sunday, when the Capitol Police say they will instruct demonstrators to leave at 4 p.m. for cleaning and maintenance of the building. Mattresses, chairs, cooking equipment and other gear the protesters have used are being removed.
Some demonstrators said they expected at least some protesters to resist having to leave the building, and union officials are unhappy with the decision. Alex Hanna, a co-president of the Teaching Assistants’ Association, called the moved “undemocratic and obviously politically motivated.”
In Illinois, Fraternal Order of Police Expresses Support for Wisconsin Protesters.
Illinois FOP is ready to stand with all Illinois labor organizations in support of unions facing threats similar to those in Wisconsin.
Midwestern states are standing together. Indiana Informs Wisconsin’s Push (these are selective quote's; I'm making an argument; for Governor Walker's and Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana's arguments, click through to the article:
Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin and other officials who are pushing to eliminate or weaken collective bargaining by government employees say their goal is to save millions of dollars and increase government’s flexibility to run its operations.
The experience of a nearby state, Indiana, where Gov. Mitch Daniels eliminated bargaining for state employees six years ago, shows just how much is at stake, both for the government and for workers. His 2005 executive order has had a sweeping impact: no raises for state employees in some years, a weakening of seniority preferences and a far greater freedom to consolidate state operations or outsource them to private companies.
[…]
For state workers in Indiana, the end of collective bargaining also meant a pay freeze in 2009 and 2010 and higher health insurance payments. Several state employees said they now paid $5,200 a year in premiums, $3,400 more than when Mr. Daniels took office, though there are cheaper plans available.
[…]
Andrea Helm, an employee at a children’s home in Knightstown, Ind., said that soon after collective bargaining was ended and the union contract expired, coveted seniority preferences disappeared. “I saw a lot of employees who had 20, 30 years on the job fired,” she said. “I think they were trying to cut the more expensive people on top to make their budget smaller.”
Mr. Walker is trying to persuade Wisconsin lawmakers not only to emulate Indiana at the state level, but also to extend the bargaining restrictions to local governments. He would allow bargaining on only wages, and he argues that, by banning negotiations on subjects like outsourcing, health coverage, workloads and seniority, his plan will be a boon for taxpayers at every level of government.
[…]
Teachers’ union officials said they had traded wage gains to keep their health plan, adding that districts could use cheaper plans, but that would result in worse coverage for teachers.
[…]
Union officials say that collective bargaining provides workers with important protections against retaliation, age discrimination and management decisions that sometimes change with the political winds.
“Layoffs may not be based on merit or effectiveness, but on anything management wants it to be,” said Mary Bell, president of the Wisconsin Education Association Council, which represents 98,000 public school employees.
Ms. Bell said that experienced, high-salary teachers would have targets on their heads and that class sizes would grow bigger without union prodding.
Jim Mills, a longtime welfare worker and union activist in New Castle, Ind., said a big problem with ending collective bargaining was that workers who had ideas to improve government agencies or services became scared to stick their neck out and make suggestions to their bosses.
“If we saw there was a bottleneck and something didn’t work and told them, it was ‘Get lost, you’ve got to do it the way we told you or you can leave,’ ” Mr. Mills said. He noted that after bargaining was banned, his union local dwindled to just 12 members from 260, partly because workers were scared management would know who still paid union dues.
Mike Huggins, the city manager of Eau Claire, Wis., said Mr. Walker’s push to curb bargaining could make management more difficult at the city level because it would hurt municipal employees’ morale and end the labor-management cooperation that he said had yielded excellent ideas to improve services to the public.
He cited a new effort in which Eau Claire saves money for itself and 11 surrounding communities by providing round-the-clock emergency medical service coverage. “All these practices and working relationships we’ve developed over the years would go away,” he said.
If there is one thing the two sides agree on, it’s that an end to collective bargaining will lead to far weaker public sector unions. Mr. Daniels said that after he banned bargaining, membership in the unions for state workers nosedived by 90 percent, with workers deciding it was no longer worth paying dues to newly toothless unions.
Los Angeles solidarity.
Avedon Carol writes that:
…let's not pretend the Republicans are in this alone. The Republicans didn't get where they are today without lots of help from the Democratic leadership. Dems at the state level may be acting courageously to prevent Republican legislators from doing more to wreck the states, but blaming "the Republicans" for everything, while it is what you can expect from MoveOn, is a dangerous illusion. TARP would have been dead in the water without the help of Senator Obama. The Bush tax-shift would have withered away had it not been for Obama and the Dem leadership. We might even have a decent health insurance option had Obama not worked so hard to prevent it. Don't just laugh at Republican voters who "vote against their own interests" for politicians who promise to help them and then spit in their faces when Democratic voters have been doing the same damn thing.
And she links to The Koch Brothers' End Game in Wisconsin.
1) Koch Brothers get their puppet Governor Walker in power
2) Governor Walker gins up a crisis
3) Democrats and Progressives take the bait and counter-protest on collective bargaining
4) Governor Walker will compromise on collective bargaining if the rest of the budget is passed as is
5) Bill passes, with trojan horse give-a-way to the Koch Brothers nested in
6) Koch Brothers will buy Wisconsin state-owned power plants for pennies on the dollar in closed unsolicited bids for which there will be no oversight
7) Koch Brothers get the best vertical monopoly in a generation
Who 'Contributes' to Public Workers' Pensions? Pulitzer Prize winning tax reporter, David Cay Johnston explains:
[…] Accepting Gov. Walker's assertions as fact, and failing to check, created the impression that somehow the workers are getting something extra, a gift from taxpayers. They are not.
Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin' s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers. [….]
Fight on, Wisconsin. Keep badgering Governor Walker.
[Cross posted at Amygdala]
UPDATE, 8:47 p.m.: Madison police chief troubled by Walker's comments on protesters:
Madison Police Chief Noble Wray said Thursday that he found comments by Gov. Scott Walker made about protesters at the state Capitol during a prank phone call “very unsettling and troubling." […] “I would like to hear more of an explanation from Governor Walker as to what exactly was being considered, and to what degree it was discussed by his cabinet members. I find it very unsettling and troubling that anyone would consider creating safety risks for our citizens and law enforcement officers,” the chief said. […]
The Madison Police Department released a separate statement: “The men and the women of the Madison Police Department train for crowd situations where an agitator or provocateur may try to create safety risks for citizens and officers. During the demonstration around the Capitol Square no such situation has arisen. Crowd behavior has been exemplary, and thousands of Wisconsin citizens are to be commended for the peaceful ways in which they have expressed First Amendment rights.”
Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie had no immediate comment on Wray’s statements.
PolitiFact Wisconsin examines Walker's statement saying "almost all" of the protesters in Madison coming from outside of Wisconsin.
I would now like to, and will, point out Laws governing recall in Wisconsin:
The citizens of Wisconsin are granted the authority to perform a recall election by the Wisconsin Constitution, Article VIII, Section 12 to all elective officers after the first year of the term for which the incumbent was elected.
Scott Kevin Walker was sworn into office January 3, 2011.
Oh my god. I heard a rumor tht this was going to happen but didn’t quite beieve it.
Other revolutions were won when the enforcers for the government joined the rebellion.
Oh my god!
And I think Avedon Carol is a bit paranoid. I know their are sell out Demos but her examples aren’t very good.
I am worried abou tthe bait and switch senario sketched ouut. The no bid on thepower plants is just plain corruption and you can bet that the employees of those plants, once the sale goes through will all be fired or end up working fro substancially less
Oh my god. I heard a rumor tht this was going to happen but didn’t quite beieve it.
Other revolutions were won when the enforcers for the government joined the rebellion.
Oh my god!
And I think Avedon Carol is a bit paranoid. I know their are sell out Demos but her examples aren’t very good.
I am worried abou tthe bait and switch senario sketched ouut. The no bid on thepower plants is just plain corruption and you can bet that the employees of those plants, once the sale goes through will all be fired or end up working fro substancially less
My brother, who is in management and not a union employee, was there today.
My brother, who is in management and not a union employee, was there today.
“Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin’ s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers”
This is semantic bullsh*t.
“Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin’ s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers”
This is semantic bullsh*t.
As I always say: don’t mess with the Packers.
As I always say: don’t mess with the Packers.
The link to the restaurant story has been updated. All I would like to suggest is that if any of those folks who are making threatening phone calls or getting upset on blogs about this restaurant have ever employed libertarian reasoning, they deserve to be ridiculed every single time they make a political point.
The link to the restaurant story has been updated. All I would like to suggest is that if any of those folks who are making threatening phone calls or getting upset on blogs about this restaurant have ever employed libertarian reasoning, they deserve to be ridiculed every single time they make a political point.
ccdg
Slarti, yes it is a semantic bull…., but truthful in practice. Wages plus benefits equals, cost of the labor. Whether it is paid in benefits or in cash it is in the name of the worker.
ccdg
Slarti, yes it is a semantic bull…., but truthful in practice. Wages plus benefits equals, cost of the labor. Whether it is paid in benefits or in cash it is in the name of the worker.
I remember reading once that one of the things a leader must never do is issue an order he knows will not be followed. Maybe Scotty ought to head over to the poli sci department and audit a course on leadership? Because he doesn’t seem to be doing too good on the subject at present…
I remember reading once that one of the things a leader must never do is issue an order he knows will not be followed. Maybe Scotty ought to head over to the poli sci department and audit a course on leadership? Because he doesn’t seem to be doing too good on the subject at present…
CCDG: This is semantic bullsh*t.
Before passing judgement on the integrity, honesty, or good faith of newcomer CCDG, there’s something I’d like to know. Does CCDG accept or reject the proposition that workers effectively pay both halves of FICA?
I ask because this proposition has been put forth as non-semantic non-bullshit in the past. Since it is exactly the same proposition as David Cay Johnston advances in the article from which the blockquote is taken, I want to know when, exactly, this former free-market truism became “semantic bullsh*t”.
–TP
CCDG: This is semantic bullsh*t.
Before passing judgement on the integrity, honesty, or good faith of newcomer CCDG, there’s something I’d like to know. Does CCDG accept or reject the proposition that workers effectively pay both halves of FICA?
I ask because this proposition has been put forth as non-semantic non-bullshit in the past. Since it is exactly the same proposition as David Cay Johnston advances in the article from which the blockquote is taken, I want to know when, exactly, this former free-market truism became “semantic bullsh*t”.
–TP
Maybe there’s hope yet. This is some exciting sh*t – a real tea party, if you ask me.
Maybe there’s hope yet. This is some exciting sh*t – a real tea party, if you ask me.
CCDG:
Your comment has just been edited to conform with the Posting Rules, which are posted in the upper left-hand sidebar, and you now see.
Please read them before commenting again. This is a Warning.
Thanks.
I apologize for the lack of cohesion to the Posted Rules at the moment. This will be addressed as soon as I get some time.
Tony P., I know you were just quoting, but your quote has been edited as well.
CCDG:
Your comment has just been edited to conform with the Posting Rules, which are posted in the upper left-hand sidebar, and you now see.
Please read them before commenting again. This is a Warning.
Thanks.
I apologize for the lack of cohesion to the Posted Rules at the moment. This will be addressed as soon as I get some time.
Tony P., I know you were just quoting, but your quote has been edited as well.
On substance, CCDG, perhaps you would expand your comment as to what, specifically, you disagree with here to more than a single sentence of pure assertion?
Could you perhaps expand on your expertise? David Cay Johnston:
Your own expertise is?
On substance, CCDG, perhaps you would expand your comment as to what, specifically, you disagree with here to more than a single sentence of pure assertion?
Could you perhaps expand on your expertise? David Cay Johnston:
Your own expertise is?
crithical tinkerer:
I’m sorry, why are you addressing “Slarti” when he hasn’t posted to this thread?
And, again, specifically, what part of this article are you disagreeing with? Have you even read it?
Forgive me for asking, but you’re literally addressing someone who hasn’t posted, so I’m kinda wondering what you do and don’t read.
You may, of course, simply be confused, and then confused, and then repeatedly confused, but if so, well, we all get confused at times, there are many reasons, I’ve often been confused, and as it happens, I’m confused right now, crithical tinkerer, by your comment, as I am by many of your comments.
Do feel free to be specific and quote that which you are specifically disagreeing with, if you’d be so kind.
Thanks muchly!
crithical tinkerer:
I’m sorry, why are you addressing “Slarti” when he hasn’t posted to this thread?
And, again, specifically, what part of this article are you disagreeing with? Have you even read it?
Forgive me for asking, but you’re literally addressing someone who hasn’t posted, so I’m kinda wondering what you do and don’t read.
You may, of course, simply be confused, and then confused, and then repeatedly confused, but if so, well, we all get confused at times, there are many reasons, I’ve often been confused, and as it happens, I’m confused right now, crithical tinkerer, by your comment, as I am by many of your comments.
Do feel free to be specific and quote that which you are specifically disagreeing with, if you’d be so kind.
Thanks muchly!
Its Marty not Slarti, my bad:
“Yeah I know, its how they spend some of the other billions that I am not fond of, even for a centro-conservative Dobie Gillis(which is now how I officially define my political affiliation, CCDG). Didn’t say they were so evil, just not so nice.
Posted by: Marty | February 24, 2011 at 11:39 AM”
Its semantically wrong because it’s not how it is on the paper and procedural, but effectively is correct.
Its Marty not Slarti, my bad:
“Yeah I know, its how they spend some of the other billions that I am not fond of, even for a centro-conservative Dobie Gillis(which is now how I officially define my political affiliation, CCDG). Didn’t say they were so evil, just not so nice.
Posted by: Marty | February 24, 2011 at 11:39 AM”
Its semantically wrong because it’s not how it is on the paper and procedural, but effectively is correct.
Could you perhaps expand on your expertise?
There are plenty of prominent journalists and college lecturers I disagree with – this argument from “authority” it bullsh#t leading nowhere. Besides Gary, you have strong opinions on all sorts of topics, yet you don’t have any proven “expertise” in these fields – correct me if I’m wrong.
Could you perhaps expand on your expertise?
There are plenty of prominent journalists and college lecturers I disagree with – this argument from “authority” it bullsh#t leading nowhere. Besides Gary, you have strong opinions on all sorts of topics, yet you don’t have any proven “expertise” in these fields – correct me if I’m wrong.
I hope people note that I’ve updated the post. I don’t want to do many, or preferably any, more updates, give length and MEG0, but ditto not too many posts, so this now here: Koch executives vow to ‘continue to fight’ in Wisconsin:
I hope people note that I’ve updated the post. I don’t want to do many, or preferably any, more updates, give length and MEG0, but ditto not too many posts, so this now here: Koch executives vow to ‘continue to fight’ in Wisconsin:
Here is a very good description of what is going on in WI and elswhere. And this is on a previously pure conservative site. There is a chance that liberals and true conservatives can unite around this.
And here is Emmanuel Wallerstein whom i had been following for last couple years and cant wait for the next bimonthly commentary.
His last part says everything that matters.
-“This debate about a “civilizational crisis” has great implications for the kind of political action one endorses and the kind of role left parties seeking state power would play in the world transformation under discussion. It will not be easily resolved. But it is the crucial debate of the coming decade. If the left cannot resolve its differences on this key issue, then the collapse of the capitalist world-economy could well lead to a triumph of the world right and the construction of a new world-system worse even than the existing one.
For the moment, all eyes are on the Arab world and the degree to which the heroic efforts of the Egyptian people will transform politics throughout the Arab world. But the tinder for such uprisings exists everywhere, even in the wealthier regions of the world. As of the moment, we are justified in being semi-optimistic.”
Here is a very good description of what is going on in WI and elswhere. And this is on a previously pure conservative site. There is a chance that liberals and true conservatives can unite around this.
And here is Emmanuel Wallerstein whom i had been following for last couple years and cant wait for the next bimonthly commentary.
His last part says everything that matters.
-“This debate about a “civilizational crisis” has great implications for the kind of political action one endorses and the kind of role left parties seeking state power would play in the world transformation under discussion. It will not be easily resolved. But it is the crucial debate of the coming decade. If the left cannot resolve its differences on this key issue, then the collapse of the capitalist world-economy could well lead to a triumph of the world right and the construction of a new world-system worse even than the existing one.
For the moment, all eyes are on the Arab world and the degree to which the heroic efforts of the Egyptian people will transform politics throughout the Arab world. But the tinder for such uprisings exists everywhere, even in the wealthier regions of the world. As of the moment, we are justified in being semi-optimistic.”
novakant:
I couldn’t agree more that the argument from authority is insufficient.
Thus my, you know, posting links to the actual argument, and then when it’s challenged, asking for the actual arguments in response.
Meanwhile, asking someone “Could you perhaps expand on your expertise?” is not an argument from authority, as I’m sure you must know. It’s a “question.”
And, yes, I’m an autodidact. Do I not provide enough cites on the points I make? Do I claim only authority by virtue of title?
Occasionally. How often?
Do you have a cite on such a figure?
🙂
novakant:
I couldn’t agree more that the argument from authority is insufficient.
Thus my, you know, posting links to the actual argument, and then when it’s challenged, asking for the actual arguments in response.
Meanwhile, asking someone “Could you perhaps expand on your expertise?” is not an argument from authority, as I’m sure you must know. It’s a “question.”
And, yes, I’m an autodidact. Do I not provide enough cites on the points I make? Do I claim only authority by virtue of title?
Occasionally. How often?
Do you have a cite on such a figure?
🙂
Or not.
I suggest perhaps a bit more research into your links, and the sites you appear to consider authoritative.
Note:
Disclaimer:
Why do you think the postings there are reliable sources of information?
Specifically.
Or not.
I suggest perhaps a bit more research into your links, and the sites you appear to consider authoritative.
Note:
Disclaimer:
Why do you think the postings there are reliable sources of information?
Specifically.
“Its Marty not Slarti, my bad”
Thanks for clarifying.
Goodness knows, I make enough typos of my own! And plenty of similar errors and solecisms, so I’m certainly never going to intentionally criticize anyone for that!
As I said, we all get confused often enough.
If there is someone out there who doesn’t ever get confused, and never makes typos — well, okay, I know some people who never make typos in public, but they also publish very little writing in public, but aside from such people — I’d like to meet them! 🙂
“Its Marty not Slarti, my bad”
Thanks for clarifying.
Goodness knows, I make enough typos of my own! And plenty of similar errors and solecisms, so I’m certainly never going to intentionally criticize anyone for that!
As I said, we all get confused often enough.
If there is someone out there who doesn’t ever get confused, and never makes typos — well, okay, I know some people who never make typos in public, but they also publish very little writing in public, but aside from such people — I’d like to meet them! 🙂
Meanwhile, asking someone “Could you perhaps expand on your expertise?” is not an argument from authority, as I’m sure you must know. It’s a “question.”
It’s obvious that your comment is an argument from authority, namely Johnston’s authority.
Do I claim only authority by virtue of title?
In the comment I was responding to you do, citing Johnston’s achievements to prove his authority on the matter.
Generally, you use a large number of links to bolster your points and criticize people for not doing the same. It’s a bit like judging the quality of a paper by the number of footnotes it contains.
Meanwhile, asking someone “Could you perhaps expand on your expertise?” is not an argument from authority, as I’m sure you must know. It’s a “question.”
It’s obvious that your comment is an argument from authority, namely Johnston’s authority.
Do I claim only authority by virtue of title?
In the comment I was responding to you do, citing Johnston’s achievements to prove his authority on the matter.
Generally, you use a large number of links to bolster your points and criticize people for not doing the same. It’s a bit like judging the quality of a paper by the number of footnotes it contains.
Gary
Please, don’t make verbal fallacy argument by talking about person(blog) instead of the post value. It is an example of Reductio ad Hitlerum and it was taken from here not original zerohedge post.
Gary
Please, don’t make verbal fallacy argument by talking about person(blog) instead of the post value. It is an example of Reductio ad Hitlerum and it was taken from here not original zerohedge post.
Just a suggestion, maybe we should wait a bit until CCDG gives a response to Tony P’s question. Arguing over all this before we actually knows what CCDG is taking issue with doesn’t really help us move forward. Thanks.
Just a suggestion, maybe we should wait a bit until CCDG gives a response to Tony P’s question. Arguing over all this before we actually knows what CCDG is taking issue with doesn’t really help us move forward. Thanks.
“Other revolutions were won when the enforcers for the government joined the rebellion.”
One generally hopes for that in the case of governments which weren’t just democratically elected. Because it’s the opposite of “civilian control of the military”, something you generally want where the civilians are a democratically elected majority party.
IOW, do you really want to cheer the police taking sides in a political dispute during working hours? And ignoring lawful orders? Because if they get into that sort of habit, don’t count on them always being on YOUR side…
“Other revolutions were won when the enforcers for the government joined the rebellion.”
One generally hopes for that in the case of governments which weren’t just democratically elected. Because it’s the opposite of “civilian control of the military”, something you generally want where the civilians are a democratically elected majority party.
IOW, do you really want to cheer the police taking sides in a political dispute during working hours? And ignoring lawful orders? Because if they get into that sort of habit, don’t count on them always being on YOUR side…
To what “lawful order” are you referring, Brett, by whom was it given, and under what auspices does that person have the authority to give that order? Thanks in advance!!
To what “lawful order” are you referring, Brett, by whom was it given, and under what auspices does that person have the authority to give that order? Thanks in advance!!
The news article itself states that “We have been ordered by the legislature to kick you all out at 4:00 today.”
That WOULD be a lawful order, as I understand it, in as much as it’s the legislature’s building.
I mean, really, did you understand the protesters occupying the building to be there lawfully?
The news article itself states that “We have been ordered by the legislature to kick you all out at 4:00 today.”
That WOULD be a lawful order, as I understand it, in as much as it’s the legislature’s building.
I mean, really, did you understand the protesters occupying the building to be there lawfully?
I think the police officers were not at work. They were out of uniform.
I think the police officers were not at work. They were out of uniform.
1. The legislature is not a private entity. It is elected by the people, and its buildings belong to the public.
2. So, you’re suddenly not a fan of the Constitutionally guaranteed right to peaceably assemble. (Using the oh-so-scary word “occupied,” in italics no less, isn’t going to score you any points.)
I’m not at all surprised, but it’s fun to see you admit it. Everyone knows you are only selectively in favor of a very limited number of rights, and only for certain people, but it’s so rare to see you say it out loud that it really makes my day!
1. The legislature is not a private entity. It is elected by the people, and its buildings belong to the public.
2. So, you’re suddenly not a fan of the Constitutionally guaranteed right to peaceably assemble. (Using the oh-so-scary word “occupied,” in italics no less, isn’t going to score you any points.)
I’m not at all surprised, but it’s fun to see you admit it. Everyone knows you are only selectively in favor of a very limited number of rights, and only for certain people, but it’s so rare to see you say it out loud that it really makes my day!
That’s true, they could have been off duty. I took that “we” to be literal, and assumed that they switched to civies before joining the protest, as doing so in uniform would have had substantial legal implications.
I suppose we’ll see today, as the deadline for the protesters to leave the building is 4:00PM today, at which point the police are supposed to escort them out.
That’s true, they could have been off duty. I took that “we” to be literal, and assumed that they switched to civies before joining the protest, as doing so in uniform would have had substantial legal implications.
I suppose we’ll see today, as the deadline for the protesters to leave the building is 4:00PM today, at which point the police are supposed to escort them out.
If the protestors were in there firing off guns, Brett would be celebrating their exercise of their 2nd Amendment rights. If they hit any legislators, whooooooo, bonus!!
But because they’re just working people (ewww) standing up for themselves (ugh), suddenly Brett is in favor of their suppression via state power.
The mask slips so rarely. When it does, take pictures.
If the protestors were in there firing off guns, Brett would be celebrating their exercise of their 2nd Amendment rights. If they hit any legislators, whooooooo, bonus!!
But because they’re just working people (ewww) standing up for themselves (ugh), suddenly Brett is in favor of their suppression via state power.
The mask slips so rarely. When it does, take pictures.
I am certainly in favor of the right to peaceably assemble, with the understanding that you can’t expect to do so wherever you want. If they were *outside* the building, I’d have no complaint. Their purpose in being *inside* the building is clearly to physically disrupt the conduct of government, and that I will certainly complain about.
The capital building belongs to the government, directly, to the people indirectly, and if you think “This is the people’s house, I’m a person, you can’t kick me out!” is a valid legal argument, you’ve got a surprise ahead of you. Go ahead, try it at your local capitol, I urge you.
Your side lost the last election. Now you’re resorting to extra-legal means to make sure that elections don’t have consequences. Don’t expect anyone who doesn’t already agree with you to be impressed.
Oh, and “Using the oh-so-scary word “occupied,” in italics no less” was just repeating what the protesters themselves claimed to be doing. If they understand the building to be “occupied” by themselves, who am I to argue?
I am certainly in favor of the right to peaceably assemble, with the understanding that you can’t expect to do so wherever you want. If they were *outside* the building, I’d have no complaint. Their purpose in being *inside* the building is clearly to physically disrupt the conduct of government, and that I will certainly complain about.
The capital building belongs to the government, directly, to the people indirectly, and if you think “This is the people’s house, I’m a person, you can’t kick me out!” is a valid legal argument, you’ve got a surprise ahead of you. Go ahead, try it at your local capitol, I urge you.
Your side lost the last election. Now you’re resorting to extra-legal means to make sure that elections don’t have consequences. Don’t expect anyone who doesn’t already agree with you to be impressed.
Oh, and “Using the oh-so-scary word “occupied,” in italics no less” was just repeating what the protesters themselves claimed to be doing. If they understand the building to be “occupied” by themselves, who am I to argue?
In regard to the “semantic b++ls++++t” upthread:
It’s simple. Wisconsin state employees have a workers’ comp plan. They arrange with their personnel department to have part of their own paycheck withheld and invested during their working years. After retirement they get the money back in monthly checks. Their health insurance apparently is funded the same way, out of their own checks. I say “apparently” because I am not personallly familiar with their health insurance arrangements but I worked for years as a state employee with a Wisconsin-style deferrred comp pension arrangement as did my husband.
So Gov. Walker is lying when he claims that union benefits are contributing to the deficit in Wisconsin.
In regard to the “semantic b++ls++++t” upthread:
It’s simple. Wisconsin state employees have a workers’ comp plan. They arrange with their personnel department to have part of their own paycheck withheld and invested during their working years. After retirement they get the money back in monthly checks. Their health insurance apparently is funded the same way, out of their own checks. I say “apparently” because I am not personallly familiar with their health insurance arrangements but I worked for years as a state employee with a Wisconsin-style deferrred comp pension arrangement as did my husband.
So Gov. Walker is lying when he claims that union benefits are contributing to the deficit in Wisconsin.
Their purpose in being *inside* the building is clearly to physically disrupt the conduct of government, and that I will certainly complain about.
Really? You object to having the conduct of government disrupted? That’s certainly a first. Generally you’re in favor, on the record, of having government be able to accomplish as little as possible. Gee, I wonder what’s changed . . . ?
Your side lost the last election. Now you’re resorting to extra-legal means to make sure that elections don’t have consequences.
I live in Ohio, not Wisconsin. I was not a party to their election, and I am not resorting to anything. I am sitting on my sofa drinking coffee and typing on a laptop. I know you hate human beings, and can’t distinguish between one and another, but do please try to keep up.
Plus this sentiment about elections having consequences would mean a lot more coming from someone who absolutely, 100%, without doubt supported the Teabaggers trying to shout down healthcare reform at the town hall meetings across the country in 2009. You know it, I know it, so don’t even try to pretend.
I did just realize what this is all about when it comes to you: Jealousy! You’re always making vaguely threatening and ominous statements about the coming revolution, arguing over at The Reality Based Community that certainly there’s a time when you favor politicians being shot, and telling me that affirmative action is like “dancing around a puddle of gasoline with a lit match,” and so on and so forth. You just always believe — despite all evidence that the people involved are a bunch of tough-talking cowards — that any such action is going to come from a bunch of white right-wingers.
So when confronted with people actually taking action to stand up for their rights, and it turns out they aren’t the militia or the residents of Galt’s Gulch, but instead a bunch of DFH public employee union members, you go into DOES NOT COMPUTE mode.
Their purpose in being *inside* the building is clearly to physically disrupt the conduct of government, and that I will certainly complain about.
Really? You object to having the conduct of government disrupted? That’s certainly a first. Generally you’re in favor, on the record, of having government be able to accomplish as little as possible. Gee, I wonder what’s changed . . . ?
Your side lost the last election. Now you’re resorting to extra-legal means to make sure that elections don’t have consequences.
I live in Ohio, not Wisconsin. I was not a party to their election, and I am not resorting to anything. I am sitting on my sofa drinking coffee and typing on a laptop. I know you hate human beings, and can’t distinguish between one and another, but do please try to keep up.
Plus this sentiment about elections having consequences would mean a lot more coming from someone who absolutely, 100%, without doubt supported the Teabaggers trying to shout down healthcare reform at the town hall meetings across the country in 2009. You know it, I know it, so don’t even try to pretend.
I did just realize what this is all about when it comes to you: Jealousy! You’re always making vaguely threatening and ominous statements about the coming revolution, arguing over at The Reality Based Community that certainly there’s a time when you favor politicians being shot, and telling me that affirmative action is like “dancing around a puddle of gasoline with a lit match,” and so on and so forth. You just always believe — despite all evidence that the people involved are a bunch of tough-talking cowards — that any such action is going to come from a bunch of white right-wingers.
So when confronted with people actually taking action to stand up for their rights, and it turns out they aren’t the militia or the residents of Galt’s Gulch, but instead a bunch of DFH public employee union members, you go into DOES NOT COMPUTE mode.
First Gary, my apologies for the posting rules violation, it was late, but I am not a newcomer, I know better.
CCDG = Marty
everyone adjust your comment filters accordingly.
Second, It is semantic BS in the sense that the all otal comp is always negotaiated speraed across all forms of payment FOR EVERYONE.
The money paid for those benefits is paaid by the employer just like all other compensation and received differently by contract.
It is semantics whether the empolyee recives it first and then pays it or the employer pays it directly.
First Gary, my apologies for the posting rules violation, it was late, but I am not a newcomer, I know better.
CCDG = Marty
everyone adjust your comment filters accordingly.
Second, It is semantic BS in the sense that the all otal comp is always negotaiated speraed across all forms of payment FOR EVERYONE.
The money paid for those benefits is paaid by the employer just like all other compensation and received differently by contract.
It is semantics whether the empolyee recives it first and then pays it or the employer pays it directly.
I will add, perhaps quickly enough, that in every reference to the changes, it has beeen reported accurately that the proporsed changes would reduce the TOTAL compensation of state workers by some percetgage paid to allow them to fund these benefits.
I will add, perhaps quickly enough, that in every reference to the changes, it has beeen reported accurately that the proporsed changes would reduce the TOTAL compensation of state workers by some percetgage paid to allow them to fund these benefits.
I wonder if David Cay Johnston would, out of consistency, also argue that corporate income taxes are passed on to the consumer of the corporation’s products?
The topic of transferring costs to employees is an interesting discussion, at least in abstract. Why do employers do that, if it’s equivalent to a pay cut? I ask that out of genuine curiosity. My own employer has been steadily transferring health insurance costs on to the employees, and has been doing that even in times where it needed to keep raising wages to keep compensation competetive.
My ignorance of how this is supposed to work is more than a little disappointing to me.
I also wonder when the “Koch is just going for the power utilities to get even more rich” drum is going to stop beating, now that TPM Muckraker has found it wanting?
I wonder if David Cay Johnston would, out of consistency, also argue that corporate income taxes are passed on to the consumer of the corporation’s products?
The topic of transferring costs to employees is an interesting discussion, at least in abstract. Why do employers do that, if it’s equivalent to a pay cut? I ask that out of genuine curiosity. My own employer has been steadily transferring health insurance costs on to the employees, and has been doing that even in times where it needed to keep raising wages to keep compensation competetive.
My ignorance of how this is supposed to work is more than a little disappointing to me.
I also wonder when the “Koch is just going for the power utilities to get even more rich” drum is going to stop beating, now that TPM Muckraker has found it wanting?
Slart,
The simple answer is that the employees in a private setting simply forget to count the cost of insurance in their total comp because the actual cost is not visible to them.
So to be able to maximize the amount that is visible to them the rapid increase in health costs has been shared more to increase that visibility while allowing for wages to be a little higher.
In hiring practices you can offer 5k more in base and take 3k back in insurance costs and people will still take it, don’t ask me why but every employer will tell you it’s true. Very few people will ask how much they will pay for insurance before they are hired, and that number changes every year.
Slart,
The simple answer is that the employees in a private setting simply forget to count the cost of insurance in their total comp because the actual cost is not visible to them.
So to be able to maximize the amount that is visible to them the rapid increase in health costs has been shared more to increase that visibility while allowing for wages to be a little higher.
In hiring practices you can offer 5k more in base and take 3k back in insurance costs and people will still take it, don’t ask me why but every employer will tell you it’s true. Very few people will ask how much they will pay for insurance before they are hired, and that number changes every year.
From your Wikipedia link:
Sometimes there are problems with getting too attached with cute neologisms; there’s definitely a problem with this one in the context it was used.
I recommend sticking with more conventional taxonomies (e.g. here, or here, as examples) of logical fallacy. You’re free to do as you wish, of course.
From your Wikipedia link:
Sometimes there are problems with getting too attached with cute neologisms; there’s definitely a problem with this one in the context it was used.
I recommend sticking with more conventional taxonomies (e.g. here, or here, as examples) of logical fallacy. You’re free to do as you wish, of course.
Slarti,
Would it make sense to say that wages are “contributed” by the employer?
Slarti,
Would it make sense to say that wages are “contributed” by the employer?
I wouldn’t have used that word, no.
I wouldn’t have used that word, no.
Compensation is compensation. Some compensation is, effectively, voluntary. But not much of it. If you, for instance, had a company matching tax-deferred savings plan that you chose not to participate in, it might be accurate to refer to such things as “contributions”. Everything else, though, is compensation. IMHO, of course.
Compensation is compensation. Some compensation is, effectively, voluntary. But not much of it. If you, for instance, had a company matching tax-deferred savings plan that you chose not to participate in, it might be accurate to refer to such things as “contributions”. Everything else, though, is compensation. IMHO, of course.
Slarti
This is the definition of Reductio ad Hitlerum: It is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone’s origin rather than its current meaning or context.
Gary was saying that the post i cited(zerohedge) has no merit because of their disclaimer(origin), hence anything they say(context) has no merit.
Truth is, zerohedge is full of paranoid and manipulative posts, especially if you read commentaries. To me they are invaluable source of financial informations, which i compare to informations from other sources in order to trust. they are with extreme republican/liberaterian bias but its easy to ignore that.
Slarti
This is the definition of Reductio ad Hitlerum: It is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone’s origin rather than its current meaning or context.
Gary was saying that the post i cited(zerohedge) has no merit because of their disclaimer(origin), hence anything they say(context) has no merit.
Truth is, zerohedge is full of paranoid and manipulative posts, especially if you read commentaries. To me they are invaluable source of financial informations, which i compare to informations from other sources in order to trust. they are with extreme republican/liberaterian bias but its easy to ignore that.
That bit that I quoted, above, about:
occurs in the paragraph after the definition that you cut-and-pasted, above. If it means one thing, then it’s got the playing-the-Nazi-card meaning, too, doesn’t it?
No, that’s not what Gary was saying. He’s asking you why you think you can believe that one source, the one that actually (unlike many other places, including this one) says that, hey, we could be wrong. They’re not some shrine of infallibility. No one is. So, if you want to adopt and advocate zerohedge’s POV on something, you’d best be prepared to defend that POV, because zerohedge isn’t going to necessarily jump in and help you out, here.
Come to your own conclusions, in general, so that you can defend them yourself.
Not presuming to speak for Gary; the above is more my interpretation of what he’s said to you.
That bit that I quoted, above, about:
occurs in the paragraph after the definition that you cut-and-pasted, above. If it means one thing, then it’s got the playing-the-Nazi-card meaning, too, doesn’t it?
No, that’s not what Gary was saying. He’s asking you why you think you can believe that one source, the one that actually (unlike many other places, including this one) says that, hey, we could be wrong. They’re not some shrine of infallibility. No one is. So, if you want to adopt and advocate zerohedge’s POV on something, you’d best be prepared to defend that POV, because zerohedge isn’t going to necessarily jump in and help you out, here.
Come to your own conclusions, in general, so that you can defend them yourself.
Not presuming to speak for Gary; the above is more my interpretation of what he’s said to you.
“I wouldn’t have used that word, no.”
Well, that is the logical implication of your query of DC Johnston’s “consistency”.
My company has a Simple IRA with employer matching. Participation is voluntary. Those who do not participate get a higher cash wage than those who see the deduction each pay period on their check stub. Those who take the cash up front obviously have a very high liquidity preference, because they are essentially working for a lower wage than participants.
From the standpoint of the firm, this is a clever way to have some of the work done at less labor cost. It is not “voluntary” (On the revenue side, see market segmentation.)
The employer “contribution” (and similarly the corporate income tax) is a cost of doing business. It is a labor cost—part of the overall wage structure of the firm in (one assumes) what is called “conditions of market competition” in micro-economics. It does not fall from the sky or from “the taxpayers” in the instance of public employees.
If you insist that these costs are ‘voluntary’, you impute some kind of altruism to (some) firms, which in turn raises their marginal costs and lowers profitability. If one “believes” in the Theory of Pure Competition this can only be seen as irrational….a market breakdown.
Seen in this light, the stalwarts of “The Free Market” are actually arguing that markets do not work!
Now CCDG can call this whatever animal product he likes, but it is the theory that, under any other circumstances, they claim they are willing to die for.
Which is another way of saying that conservatives are in fact bullsh*tters for the rich and powerful.
“I wouldn’t have used that word, no.”
Well, that is the logical implication of your query of DC Johnston’s “consistency”.
My company has a Simple IRA with employer matching. Participation is voluntary. Those who do not participate get a higher cash wage than those who see the deduction each pay period on their check stub. Those who take the cash up front obviously have a very high liquidity preference, because they are essentially working for a lower wage than participants.
From the standpoint of the firm, this is a clever way to have some of the work done at less labor cost. It is not “voluntary” (On the revenue side, see market segmentation.)
The employer “contribution” (and similarly the corporate income tax) is a cost of doing business. It is a labor cost—part of the overall wage structure of the firm in (one assumes) what is called “conditions of market competition” in micro-economics. It does not fall from the sky or from “the taxpayers” in the instance of public employees.
If you insist that these costs are ‘voluntary’, you impute some kind of altruism to (some) firms, which in turn raises their marginal costs and lowers profitability. If one “believes” in the Theory of Pure Competition this can only be seen as irrational….a market breakdown.
Seen in this light, the stalwarts of “The Free Market” are actually arguing that markets do not work!
Now CCDG can call this whatever animal product he likes, but it is the theory that, under any other circumstances, they claim they are willing to die for.
Which is another way of saying that conservatives are in fact bullsh*tters for the rich and powerful.
With the Left trying to intimidate the Koch brothers to back off of their support for freedom and signaling to others that this is what happens if you oppose the administration and its allies, we have no choice but to continue to fight
See, this is what gets up my nose. Busting unions and deregulating industry is all about “freedom”, apparently.
Busting unions and deregulating industry is about favoring the interests of owners of commercial enterprises over those of other stakeholders in those enterprises, and/or other folks who are affected by their activities.
The United States was not established to be a capitalist empire. Not even a capitalist republic. Just a republic.
Breaking labor and deregulating industry is not about freedom, and f**k the Koch’s and their PR lackey for claiming that it is. Go straight to hell, boyos.
In any case, I welcome the Koch’s continued participation in our political process. They’re putting the spine back in the middle class. Their emergence as public figures is a gift to working people everywhere.
Now you’re resorting to extra-legal means to make sure that elections don’t have consequences. Don’t expect anyone who doesn’t already agree with you to be impressed.
The folks in WI don’t give a single freaking turd if you are impressed with them or not. They want to retain the right to bargain collectively. Full stop.
Strikes, civil disobedience, and other public actions bug you? That’s why we have collective bargaining.
This whole thing is a situation that should never have happened. I’m personally glad it did, because it has galvanized middle class people, who are finally figuring out they’re getting screwed eight ways to Sunday, and it’s scared the crap out of other governors who had similar agendas. But if Walker had any skill whatsoever, he would have gotten most or all of his agenda without the crapstorm.
Public employees need to give back some benefits? He could have sold that in a walk. Then, let the unions kick up a fuss, *then* claim he needs to 86 collective bargaining.
But no, he had to have it all right at the jump. Before he’s even been in office for month.
The man is a bonehead.
Works for me.
I am certainly in favor of the right to peaceably assemble, with the understanding that you can’t expect to do so wherever you want.
Trust me when I say I’ve made a solid mental note of your caveat here.
In hiring practices you can offer 5k more in base and take 3k back in insurance costs and people will still take it, don’t ask me why but every employer will tell you it’s true.
Thanks for sharing this interesting insight from the ownership / management side of the house. If I’m not mistaken, we’re in similar industries. I’ll keep all of this in mind next time I negotiate compensation.
You gotta watch your back every minute, y’all. Sucks, doesn’t it?
I wonder if there is anybody in the entire freaking country who has ever considered the value — the pure, keeping it real, dollar value — of the time, effort, and good will that gets pissed away each and every day by our adversarial approach to managing the relationships between ownership, management, and labor.
All factors of production, all conceptually engaged in the same project, and all at each others’ throats 24/7.
It’s a monumental waste of time and energy.
With the Left trying to intimidate the Koch brothers to back off of their support for freedom and signaling to others that this is what happens if you oppose the administration and its allies, we have no choice but to continue to fight
See, this is what gets up my nose. Busting unions and deregulating industry is all about “freedom”, apparently.
Busting unions and deregulating industry is about favoring the interests of owners of commercial enterprises over those of other stakeholders in those enterprises, and/or other folks who are affected by their activities.
The United States was not established to be a capitalist empire. Not even a capitalist republic. Just a republic.
Breaking labor and deregulating industry is not about freedom, and f**k the Koch’s and their PR lackey for claiming that it is. Go straight to hell, boyos.
In any case, I welcome the Koch’s continued participation in our political process. They’re putting the spine back in the middle class. Their emergence as public figures is a gift to working people everywhere.
Now you’re resorting to extra-legal means to make sure that elections don’t have consequences. Don’t expect anyone who doesn’t already agree with you to be impressed.
The folks in WI don’t give a single freaking turd if you are impressed with them or not. They want to retain the right to bargain collectively. Full stop.
Strikes, civil disobedience, and other public actions bug you? That’s why we have collective bargaining.
This whole thing is a situation that should never have happened. I’m personally glad it did, because it has galvanized middle class people, who are finally figuring out they’re getting screwed eight ways to Sunday, and it’s scared the crap out of other governors who had similar agendas. But if Walker had any skill whatsoever, he would have gotten most or all of his agenda without the crapstorm.
Public employees need to give back some benefits? He could have sold that in a walk. Then, let the unions kick up a fuss, *then* claim he needs to 86 collective bargaining.
But no, he had to have it all right at the jump. Before he’s even been in office for month.
The man is a bonehead.
Works for me.
I am certainly in favor of the right to peaceably assemble, with the understanding that you can’t expect to do so wherever you want.
Trust me when I say I’ve made a solid mental note of your caveat here.
In hiring practices you can offer 5k more in base and take 3k back in insurance costs and people will still take it, don’t ask me why but every employer will tell you it’s true.
Thanks for sharing this interesting insight from the ownership / management side of the house. If I’m not mistaken, we’re in similar industries. I’ll keep all of this in mind next time I negotiate compensation.
You gotta watch your back every minute, y’all. Sucks, doesn’t it?
I wonder if there is anybody in the entire freaking country who has ever considered the value — the pure, keeping it real, dollar value — of the time, effort, and good will that gets pissed away each and every day by our adversarial approach to managing the relationships between ownership, management, and labor.
All factors of production, all conceptually engaged in the same project, and all at each others’ throats 24/7.
It’s a monumental waste of time and energy.
I also wonder when the “Koch is just going for the power utilities to get even more rich” drum is going to stop beating, now that TPM Muckraker has found it wanting?
Hmmmmm . . .
[q]Just days after appearing on TV and radio in Chicago to remind Illinois that Wisconsin is open for business, Governor Walker introduced a bill that would essentially ban wind development in Wisconsin. The move would leave Wisconsin dependent on other states, including Illinois, to meet our energy demand.
In the bill introduced for consideration in the special session, Governor Walker suggests placing regulations on wind development that are so restrictive, they would essentially prohibit the development of future wind projects in Wisconsin, and even stop some already on the docket. If passed, it’s estimated that Wisconsin will immediately lose $1.8 billion in new wind power investments and jeopardize eleven currently proposed wind projects. Illinois has no restrictions on wind siting.
Wisconsin currently ranks fifth in the nation in the portion of its electricity derived from imported coal. Wisconsin sends more than $850 million out of state every year to places like Indiana, Wyoming, and Illinois to purchase coal.
“While other states are moving forward with their own energy independence, it appears Governor Walker wants Wisconsin to remain dependent on places like Illinois for our dirty coal habit. This move is sending a very dangerous message to the global wind industry. From those who install wind turbines to those who manufacture them, Governor Walker is suggesting they take their business elsewhere,” said Kerry Schumann, Executive Director of Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters.[/q]
I wonder who the largest out-of-state supplier of coal to Wisconsin is? I wonder . . .
I also wonder when the “Koch is just going for the power utilities to get even more rich” drum is going to stop beating, now that TPM Muckraker has found it wanting?
Hmmmmm . . .
[q]Just days after appearing on TV and radio in Chicago to remind Illinois that Wisconsin is open for business, Governor Walker introduced a bill that would essentially ban wind development in Wisconsin. The move would leave Wisconsin dependent on other states, including Illinois, to meet our energy demand.
In the bill introduced for consideration in the special session, Governor Walker suggests placing regulations on wind development that are so restrictive, they would essentially prohibit the development of future wind projects in Wisconsin, and even stop some already on the docket. If passed, it’s estimated that Wisconsin will immediately lose $1.8 billion in new wind power investments and jeopardize eleven currently proposed wind projects. Illinois has no restrictions on wind siting.
Wisconsin currently ranks fifth in the nation in the portion of its electricity derived from imported coal. Wisconsin sends more than $850 million out of state every year to places like Indiana, Wyoming, and Illinois to purchase coal.
“While other states are moving forward with their own energy independence, it appears Governor Walker wants Wisconsin to remain dependent on places like Illinois for our dirty coal habit. This move is sending a very dangerous message to the global wind industry. From those who install wind turbines to those who manufacture them, Governor Walker is suggesting they take their business elsewhere,” said Kerry Schumann, Executive Director of Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters.[/q]
I wonder who the largest out-of-state supplier of coal to Wisconsin is? I wonder . . .
No, I don’t think you’ve read me correctly. I’m not saying Johnston is incorrect.
I’m going to have to think up a better way to put this, apparently. I blame myself (about 0:20 in).
No, I don’t think you’ve read me correctly. I’m not saying Johnston is incorrect.
I’m going to have to think up a better way to put this, apparently. I blame myself (about 0:20 in).
Be sure and let us know, once you’ve figured it out. But: relevant to what I was saying, how?
Be sure and let us know, once you’ve figured it out. But: relevant to what I was saying, how?
If you insist that “up” is really “down”, I’m going to have to ridicule you.
If you insist that “up” is really “down”, I’m going to have to ridicule you.
CCDG = Marty
Thanks for mentioning that.
It’s what I read off your IP address when I made a point of checking, but didn’t want to make a point of it, and say you were sock-puppeting; there are many innocent reasons for accidentally using another handle, and other reasons the IP could have been used here only by both Marty and CCDG, and you as Marty also use other IPs, which is entirely reasonable, and so on.
novakant:
Ah, the “‘it’s obvious’ argument.” Okay.
I disagree with your interpretation of my words.
I repeat that I believe I wasn’t doing such a thing; you’re entitled to your own interpretation. Thanks for your opinion. Carry on.
We’ve now also leapt into Mike Godwin’s territory:
HTH. HAND.
CCDG = Marty
Thanks for mentioning that.
It’s what I read off your IP address when I made a point of checking, but didn’t want to make a point of it, and say you were sock-puppeting; there are many innocent reasons for accidentally using another handle, and other reasons the IP could have been used here only by both Marty and CCDG, and you as Marty also use other IPs, which is entirely reasonable, and so on.
novakant:
Ah, the “‘it’s obvious’ argument.” Okay.
I disagree with your interpretation of my words.
I repeat that I believe I wasn’t doing such a thing; you’re entitled to your own interpretation. Thanks for your opinion. Carry on.
We’ve now also leapt into Mike Godwin’s territory:
HTH. HAND.
NO RECURSION IN COMMENTS! YOU WILL BREAK DA INNERNETS!
NO RECURSION IN COMMENTS! YOU WILL BREAK DA INNERNETS!
It’s what I read off your IP address when I made a point of checking, but didn’t want to make a point of it, and say you were sock-puppeting
Dude, no sock-puppeting involved, it was just a joke.
CCDG is “centrist-conservative Dobie Gillis”, which was Marty’s very well-played response to Countme’s (that other noob) needling in another thread. Also the name of Marty’s mojito-and-blues-fueled political movement.
One which has tremendous appeal, although sadly one in which I cannot participate, as my allegiance remains rive gauche, with a nice Cote du Rhone and vintage Mingus.
It’s what I read off your IP address when I made a point of checking, but didn’t want to make a point of it, and say you were sock-puppeting
Dude, no sock-puppeting involved, it was just a joke.
CCDG is “centrist-conservative Dobie Gillis”, which was Marty’s very well-played response to Countme’s (that other noob) needling in another thread. Also the name of Marty’s mojito-and-blues-fueled political movement.
One which has tremendous appeal, although sadly one in which I cannot participate, as my allegiance remains rive gauche, with a nice Cote du Rhone and vintage Mingus.
If you insist that “up” is really “down”, I’m going to have to ridicule you.
You’re the one making the self-refuting argument about ‘voluntary’ contributions. Congratulations. To paraphrase FDR, “I welcome your ridicule”.
If you insist that “up” is really “down”, I’m going to have to ridicule you.
You’re the one making the self-refuting argument about ‘voluntary’ contributions. Congratulations. To paraphrase FDR, “I welcome your ridicule”.
Which bits are self-refuting? Please quote me, when answering.
Which bits are self-refuting? Please quote me, when answering.
For reasons of brevity, I neglected to point out what is obvious to some, not to others, which is that Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana is running for President.
And he’s one of the most sane Republicans.
Some context:
For those not following the program, Daniels has always been a budget guy. As Republican officials and elected Republican officals go, he’s not an extremist.
He’s also a much more experienced hand than Governor Scott Walker, period.
He capped the property tax, making him heroic to homeowners, those genuinely stuck with overly high property taxes — this has genuine pros and cons, but is in general regressive, and regressively raised the sales tax, which largely hits the poor disproportionately, because they are, you know, poor, so those little bites hurt much more when you can’t afford much.
But his limit on property taxes, popular with much of the middle class meant that Mr. Budget Expert Moderate caused a”major drop in State revenue” when he then cures by more “major spending cuts” in government, and is that cutting “waste” or costing, in the long run, more for government? Are those services genuinely helpful to people, or will they cause more people to complain that Government Isn’t Efficient?
Does the profit motive which comes into play when you privatize always lead to lower costs to the citizens? I suggest not, though sometimes.
Who does it hit most badly? Poor, middle class, upper class?
Discuss.
For reasons of brevity, I neglected to point out what is obvious to some, not to others, which is that Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana is running for President.
And he’s one of the most sane Republicans.
Some context:
For those not following the program, Daniels has always been a budget guy. As Republican officials and elected Republican officals go, he’s not an extremist.
He’s also a much more experienced hand than Governor Scott Walker, period.
He capped the property tax, making him heroic to homeowners, those genuinely stuck with overly high property taxes — this has genuine pros and cons, but is in general regressive, and regressively raised the sales tax, which largely hits the poor disproportionately, because they are, you know, poor, so those little bites hurt much more when you can’t afford much.
But his limit on property taxes, popular with much of the middle class meant that Mr. Budget Expert Moderate caused a”major drop in State revenue” when he then cures by more “major spending cuts” in government, and is that cutting “waste” or costing, in the long run, more for government? Are those services genuinely helpful to people, or will they cause more people to complain that Government Isn’t Efficient?
Does the profit motive which comes into play when you privatize always lead to lower costs to the citizens? I suggest not, though sometimes.
Who does it hit most badly? Poor, middle class, upper class?
Discuss.
Please quote me, when answering.
See your post @ 10:45 above. You termed “some compensation” is ….”voluntary” and imply it is somehow a “contribution” which is, in some strange way, different than compensation.
When I write (quite politely for me, I might add) to express some mild disagreement with this, you logically threatened to ridicule me. Now I have been ridiculed by the best, but that really hurt my feelings (insert snicker here).
Please quote me, when answering.
See your post @ 10:45 above. You termed “some compensation” is ….”voluntary” and imply it is somehow a “contribution” which is, in some strange way, different than compensation.
When I write (quite politely for me, I might add) to express some mild disagreement with this, you logically threatened to ridicule me. Now I have been ridiculed by the best, but that really hurt my feelings (insert snicker here).
“You gotta watch your back every minute, y’all. Sucks, doesn’t it?
I wonder if there is anybody in the entire freaking country who has ever considered the value — the pure, keeping it real, dollar value — of the time, effort, and good will that gets pissed away each and every day by our adversarial approach to managing the relationships between ownership, management, and labor.”
I have. And just a glimpse from management. We carried one hundred percent benefits for years, and a rich cadillac health plan to boot, for years after our competition had started to ask their employees to pay up to 25-30% for their health care. we had a limited 401(k) match which few participated in and a fairly rich stock purchase match.
We found we were regularly losing employees to the most trivial salary differences both in the hiring and retention processes in our business.
So you can say that you have to “watch your back” but the reality is we adjusted to what people demanded for compensation structure.
“You gotta watch your back every minute, y’all. Sucks, doesn’t it?
I wonder if there is anybody in the entire freaking country who has ever considered the value — the pure, keeping it real, dollar value — of the time, effort, and good will that gets pissed away each and every day by our adversarial approach to managing the relationships between ownership, management, and labor.”
I have. And just a glimpse from management. We carried one hundred percent benefits for years, and a rich cadillac health plan to boot, for years after our competition had started to ask their employees to pay up to 25-30% for their health care. we had a limited 401(k) match which few participated in and a fairly rich stock purchase match.
We found we were regularly losing employees to the most trivial salary differences both in the hiring and retention processes in our business.
So you can say that you have to “watch your back” but the reality is we adjusted to what people demanded for compensation structure.
It’s unsurprising you’d find both agreeable, since they are the same piece. Citing it the same piece twice, with two different links, doesn’t actually double the support for it.
The Zero Hedge link: “Submitted by David DeGraw from Amped Status”
The Ampted Status link.
Both are the same piece by Wallerstein. You appear not to notice. But you like both. Not surprising. You like them even better when you reread them. But you reread them, and don’t notice they’re identical.
May I ask why?
However, Immanuel Wallerstein is an interesting guy. You might like his own actual website.
If you look forward to more recent material by him, try reading it; that’s from Feburary 15th.
HTH.
It’s unsurprising you’d find both agreeable, since they are the same piece. Citing it the same piece twice, with two different links, doesn’t actually double the support for it.
The Zero Hedge link: “Submitted by David DeGraw from Amped Status”
The Ampted Status link.
Both are the same piece by Wallerstein. You appear not to notice. But you like both. Not surprising. You like them even better when you reread them. But you reread them, and don’t notice they’re identical.
May I ask why?
However, Immanuel Wallerstein is an interesting guy. You might like his own actual website.
If you look forward to more recent material by him, try reading it; that’s from Feburary 15th.
HTH.
novakant, let’s return for a moment: Generally, you use a large number of links to bolster your points True.
Do I? Perhaps so. Cite, please? 3 will do. Go for one, if you like. I’m imperfect, so I believe you might be write.
But since I do it frequently enough, you say/imply, for you to seem to assert that I do it generally, it should be trivial to bring us an example of me doing it once.
Showing me three examples of my criticizing people for not “use[ing] a large number of links to bolster your points” — not specific claim you are making, please — would educate me, and help me in future avoid making this error.
I’d like you to help me lessen my faults, by bringing my bad habit here, that you assert, to my attention. Three examples would help me a lot with this.
If I do do it frequently, it should, again, be easy for you to find me engaging in such a possible frequent habit.
Thanks! I appreciate the help.
novakant, let’s return for a moment: Generally, you use a large number of links to bolster your points True.
Do I? Perhaps so. Cite, please? 3 will do. Go for one, if you like. I’m imperfect, so I believe you might be write.
But since I do it frequently enough, you say/imply, for you to seem to assert that I do it generally, it should be trivial to bring us an example of me doing it once.
Showing me three examples of my criticizing people for not “use[ing] a large number of links to bolster your points” — not specific claim you are making, please — would educate me, and help me in future avoid making this error.
I’d like you to help me lessen my faults, by bringing my bad habit here, that you assert, to my attention. Three examples would help me a lot with this.
If I do do it frequently, it should, again, be easy for you to find me engaging in such a possible frequent habit.
Thanks! I appreciate the help.
Thanks for using ellipses to obliterate my point. It was only a point by analogy; a parenthetical if you will.
But in the interests of clarification: you’ve heard of voluntary-participation in savings programs where the employee’s voluntary contribution is matched?
It’s the employee’s voluntary contribution to that kind of account that I’d call contribution. The employer’s match to that would be compensation. It’s usually called a contribution, and I’ll leave it to those more inclined to hairsplitting than I to sort that out.
I hope this helps.
I apologize if that’s so dead-obvious that it looks as if I’m saying something else.
Only if you keep on insisting that I said the opposite of what I said, note. Are you going to keep doing that?
Thanks for using ellipses to obliterate my point. It was only a point by analogy; a parenthetical if you will.
But in the interests of clarification: you’ve heard of voluntary-participation in savings programs where the employee’s voluntary contribution is matched?
It’s the employee’s voluntary contribution to that kind of account that I’d call contribution. The employer’s match to that would be compensation. It’s usually called a contribution, and I’ll leave it to those more inclined to hairsplitting than I to sort that out.
I hope this helps.
I apologize if that’s so dead-obvious that it looks as if I’m saying something else.
Only if you keep on insisting that I said the opposite of what I said, note. Are you going to keep doing that?
but the reality is we adjusted to what people demanded for compensation structure.
Indeed. Absent less whining for lower wages, the beatings shall continue.
but the reality is we adjusted to what people demanded for compensation structure.
Indeed. Absent less whining for lower wages, the beatings shall continue.
I apologize if that’s so dead-obvious that it looks as if I’m saying something else.
It did. Apology accepted.
I apologize if that’s so dead-obvious that it looks as if I’m saying something else.
It did. Apology accepted.
Gary, you do realize that you just asked me to provide three cites to support my claim in response to a post of mine criticizing you for excessively asking people to provide cites, no?
Gary, you do realize that you just asked me to provide three cites to support my claim in response to a post of mine criticizing you for excessively asking people to provide cites, no?
I have.
I believe this. I don’t generally see you as a particularly anti-worker guy.
So you can say that you have to “watch your back” but the reality is we adjusted to what people demanded for compensation structure.
Fair enough, and in fact after writing it occurred to me that my reading of your comment was overly suspicious. Apologies.
Although I think folks do, generally, have to watch their backs, which is, basically, a counter-productive PITA. For all concerned.
The fact, with which I think you’ll be in general agreement, is that our current situation places labor and management + ownership in adversarial roles. It’s not productive.
I have.
I believe this. I don’t generally see you as a particularly anti-worker guy.
So you can say that you have to “watch your back” but the reality is we adjusted to what people demanded for compensation structure.
Fair enough, and in fact after writing it occurred to me that my reading of your comment was overly suspicious. Apologies.
Although I think folks do, generally, have to watch their backs, which is, basically, a counter-productive PITA. For all concerned.
The fact, with which I think you’ll be in general agreement, is that our current situation places labor and management + ownership in adversarial roles. It’s not productive.
Gary, i pointed out Ampted Status link in order to point out to you that it is not original ZeroHedge post, but a guest post from David DeGraw. Not that i did not notice that it is the same thing.
On the other hand, my link for Wallerstein is pointed to the same commentary as yours from his actual website.
My link gives a link for 13 years of Wallerstein commentaries where you can read his analysis points to consequences of actions from that time. If anyone has time to read them might find it astonishingly accurate predictions of future that was. Which indicate that what he says now is very likely accurate predictions of things to come.
Gary, i pointed out Ampted Status link in order to point out to you that it is not original ZeroHedge post, but a guest post from David DeGraw. Not that i did not notice that it is the same thing.
On the other hand, my link for Wallerstein is pointed to the same commentary as yours from his actual website.
My link gives a link for 13 years of Wallerstein commentaries where you can read his analysis points to consequences of actions from that time. If anyone has time to read them might find it astonishingly accurate predictions of future that was. Which indicate that what he says now is very likely accurate predictions of things to come.
russell:
I like to think I greatly appreciate it as a generality, and it’s an essential part of my underlying politics and approach, but I have no metric or formula for the specifics, so I can’t say that I have any specific dollar amounts in mind, but I’m sure that’s not what you were asking for. 🙂
It’s what one calls a “rhetorical question,” but I thought I’d give my answer, anyway, because that, also, is the way I swing.
russell:
I like to think I greatly appreciate it as a generality, and it’s an essential part of my underlying politics and approach, but I have no metric or formula for the specifics, so I can’t say that I have any specific dollar amounts in mind, but I’m sure that’s not what you were asking for. 🙂
It’s what one calls a “rhetorical question,” but I thought I’d give my answer, anyway, because that, also, is the way I swing.
Marty, because I argue with you so often, I want to say, without having the time to identify and respond to specific comments, that I value your comments from the perspective of management, and in fact often agree with many of your points, I do agree that unions are not Unalloyed Good, there are corrupt union locals and unions, there are abuses it’s not black and white, and that in general you often make many good points, as well as those I argue with, but it’s much easier and more tempting to single out the stuff to disagree with, so I’m Lazily trying to catch up by noting that you do, in fact, often make valuable and good points, and I thank you for them.
Marty, because I argue with you so often, I want to say, without having the time to identify and respond to specific comments, that I value your comments from the perspective of management, and in fact often agree with many of your points, I do agree that unions are not Unalloyed Good, there are corrupt union locals and unions, there are abuses it’s not black and white, and that in general you often make many good points, as well as those I argue with, but it’s much easier and more tempting to single out the stuff to disagree with, so I’m Lazily trying to catch up by noting that you do, in fact, often make valuable and good points, and I thank you for them.
Gary, on the other hand, if you were trying to say that those two posts, One on the hard right and another on the left websites are saying same things and advocating for the same development, then that is point of my sentence from the comment you criticized:”Here is a very good description of what is going on in WI and elswhere. And this is on a previously pure conservative site. There is a chance that liberals and true conservatives can unite around this.”
Gary, on the other hand, if you were trying to say that those two posts, One on the hard right and another on the left websites are saying same things and advocating for the same development, then that is point of my sentence from the comment you criticized:”Here is a very good description of what is going on in WI and elswhere. And this is on a previously pure conservative site. There is a chance that liberals and true conservatives can unite around this.”
I do notice that I wrote:
I apolgize for such an “excessive” request for help.
I believe I’ll decline additional recursion now.
ct:
Yes, there is.
I do notice that I wrote:
I apolgize for such an “excessive” request for help.
I believe I’ll decline additional recursion now.
ct:
Yes, there is.
Thanks Gary. It is always easier, and generates more discussion, to respond to the things we disagree with.
In this very post I chose to comment on the one section that I disgreed with most heartily while not going through each part to note where I agreed and disagreed. Although there was some of each.
Thanks Gary. It is always easier, and generates more discussion, to respond to the things we disagree with.
In this very post I chose to comment on the one section that I disgreed with most heartily while not going through each part to note where I agreed and disagreed. Although there was some of each.
I find this article from Wallerstein a revelation of the historic importance to the left of the world.
I find this article from Wallerstein a revelation of the historic importance to the left of the world.
CT, I don’t find it at all a “revelation,” and I’m agnostic about how useful the WSF is, and the last half is essentially belly-button examining of the role of the WSF, but otherwise I pretty much completely agree with what Wallerstein wrote/said there.
I promise you that I read every word.
But also that I have endlessly long held the same opinions.
I don’t write long formal pieces, though.
It would be nice to have Hilzoy’s rephrasing/view.
But I do agree that everyone might benefit from reading up to “It is only with the crea tion of the WSF in 2001 that there hascome into existence a structure within which an alternative strategy for
the middle run may possibly be developed.”
After that, I’m agnostic, because I haven’t looked at the WSF enough, and have no opinion as to how important/unimportant it may turn out to be.
But I’ll endorse more or less everything in the first half, and I’ll suggest that anyone who approaches the topic from the angles of singularity theory can’t help but agree.
All these economic/social issues will be irrelevant in fifty years, due to technological changes, in short.
A world with nanoreplicators is a world with a radically different economy. How that social change will take place, I make no predictions, save that the rich will benefit first until we no longer have meaningful distinctions, and then it doesn’t matter, because this will happen after I’m dead.
If someone makes a clone of me and recreates a simulacrum of my mind, in future, ask me/him what I think then. 🙂
CT, I don’t find it at all a “revelation,” and I’m agnostic about how useful the WSF is, and the last half is essentially belly-button examining of the role of the WSF, but otherwise I pretty much completely agree with what Wallerstein wrote/said there.
I promise you that I read every word.
But also that I have endlessly long held the same opinions.
I don’t write long formal pieces, though.
It would be nice to have Hilzoy’s rephrasing/view.
But I do agree that everyone might benefit from reading up to “It is only with the crea tion of the WSF in 2001 that there hascome into existence a structure within which an alternative strategy for
the middle run may possibly be developed.”
After that, I’m agnostic, because I haven’t looked at the WSF enough, and have no opinion as to how important/unimportant it may turn out to be.
But I’ll endorse more or less everything in the first half, and I’ll suggest that anyone who approaches the topic from the angles of singularity theory can’t help but agree.
All these economic/social issues will be irrelevant in fifty years, due to technological changes, in short.
A world with nanoreplicators is a world with a radically different economy. How that social change will take place, I make no predictions, save that the rich will benefit first until we no longer have meaningful distinctions, and then it doesn’t matter, because this will happen after I’m dead.
If someone makes a clone of me and recreates a simulacrum of my mind, in future, ask me/him what I think then. 🙂
“Really? You object to having the conduct of government disrupted? That’s certainly a first. Generally you’re in favor, on the record, of having government be able to accomplish as little as possible. Gee, I wonder what’s changed . . . ?”
Nothing has changed. I’m in favor of having government do very little. I’m in favor of it doing very little because the law directs it to do very little, rather than doing very little because the losers of elections physically impede it’s operations.
Look, government is an incredibly dangerous institution. It’s capable of genocide, of ruining a society, of horrific evils. It’s capable of horribly messing things up even out of benign motives. The rule of law, strict compliance with procedure, is a major safeguard against it running amok.
But you don’t have standing to insist on the government being bound by the rule of law, and having to follow procedures, if you’re not willing to be so bound yourself. That goes for your political opponents, too. How can you approve of your own side doing anything you’d disapprove of when done by your opponents?
I’ve taken part in protests before. I did so *legally*, we protested outside the building, and we left the place cleaner than when we came. And it wasn’t just because the police had snipers posted on the rooftops of nearby buildings, either. (Funny how people get paranoid if you’re protesting a gun control law…)
Now, the Republicans in Congress tried to impede the activities of the then Democratic majority last year, but they did so in compliance with the standing rules of the institution. While the Wisconsin Democrats have done so in violation of those standing rules. That’s a significant difference in my book.
I realize it’s not a significant difference in your book. That’s because the only difference that’s significant in the minds of a lot of the people commenting here, is whether it’s your side, or the other side. If it were the Tea party occupying that building, and the cops refused an order to evict them, and joined them instead, you’d freak. Seriously, you would.
I don’t have a very high opinion of that kind of thinking.
And, yeah, there are circumstances under which I favor politicians being shot. I damned well hope there are for you, too. Or maybe you think the Gadafhi should feel safe right now walking the streets of Tripoli? Yes, you probably think there are circumstances under which politicians should be shot, and while you probably disagree with me at the margins, hopefully we have this much in common:
Those circumstances are distant from the ones we currently find ourselves under.
“Really? You object to having the conduct of government disrupted? That’s certainly a first. Generally you’re in favor, on the record, of having government be able to accomplish as little as possible. Gee, I wonder what’s changed . . . ?”
Nothing has changed. I’m in favor of having government do very little. I’m in favor of it doing very little because the law directs it to do very little, rather than doing very little because the losers of elections physically impede it’s operations.
Look, government is an incredibly dangerous institution. It’s capable of genocide, of ruining a society, of horrific evils. It’s capable of horribly messing things up even out of benign motives. The rule of law, strict compliance with procedure, is a major safeguard against it running amok.
But you don’t have standing to insist on the government being bound by the rule of law, and having to follow procedures, if you’re not willing to be so bound yourself. That goes for your political opponents, too. How can you approve of your own side doing anything you’d disapprove of when done by your opponents?
I’ve taken part in protests before. I did so *legally*, we protested outside the building, and we left the place cleaner than when we came. And it wasn’t just because the police had snipers posted on the rooftops of nearby buildings, either. (Funny how people get paranoid if you’re protesting a gun control law…)
Now, the Republicans in Congress tried to impede the activities of the then Democratic majority last year, but they did so in compliance with the standing rules of the institution. While the Wisconsin Democrats have done so in violation of those standing rules. That’s a significant difference in my book.
I realize it’s not a significant difference in your book. That’s because the only difference that’s significant in the minds of a lot of the people commenting here, is whether it’s your side, or the other side. If it were the Tea party occupying that building, and the cops refused an order to evict them, and joined them instead, you’d freak. Seriously, you would.
I don’t have a very high opinion of that kind of thinking.
And, yeah, there are circumstances under which I favor politicians being shot. I damned well hope there are for you, too. Or maybe you think the Gadafhi should feel safe right now walking the streets of Tripoli? Yes, you probably think there are circumstances under which politicians should be shot, and while you probably disagree with me at the margins, hopefully we have this much in common:
Those circumstances are distant from the ones we currently find ourselves under.
I am in full agreement with you, Gary, in a sense that WSF will not have a significant influence on US, but on the world at large, hence my wording: “historic importance to the left of the world”.
I have had those views for last 9 years, not as long as you, but revelation importance is for others less involved with politics, for those that the recent economic crash had suddenly thrown into the public conversation about politics. And there is many as that. Existence of the Tea Party and the lack of historic and economic comprehension their views are showing is the proof that they are newcomers to the debate, and there is many of them.
In my view, republicans display just a very superficial, shallow knowledge of history and economic principles. If they allow themselves to get deeper into it, they will come to the same conclusion as liberals have.
Talking about history of the FDR and how his actions created the middle class and about economic basics is the only matter that is worth debating with republicans. Everything else is sidetracking into oblivion.
I am in full agreement with you, Gary, in a sense that WSF will not have a significant influence on US, but on the world at large, hence my wording: “historic importance to the left of the world”.
I have had those views for last 9 years, not as long as you, but revelation importance is for others less involved with politics, for those that the recent economic crash had suddenly thrown into the public conversation about politics. And there is many as that. Existence of the Tea Party and the lack of historic and economic comprehension their views are showing is the proof that they are newcomers to the debate, and there is many of them.
In my view, republicans display just a very superficial, shallow knowledge of history and economic principles. If they allow themselves to get deeper into it, they will come to the same conclusion as liberals have.
Talking about history of the FDR and how his actions created the middle class and about economic basics is the only matter that is worth debating with republicans. Everything else is sidetracking into oblivion.
I always thought that contracts were among the key pillars of The Rule of Law. One kind of contract is an agreement to exchange current labor for current AND FUTURE compensation. How sincerely do we believe in The Rule of Law if it’s acceptable for one party to renege on a contract on the excuse that “We’re broke”, but unacceptable for the counter-party to protest effectively?
–TP
I always thought that contracts were among the key pillars of The Rule of Law. One kind of contract is an agreement to exchange current labor for current AND FUTURE compensation. How sincerely do we believe in The Rule of Law if it’s acceptable for one party to renege on a contract on the excuse that “We’re broke”, but unacceptable for the counter-party to protest effectively?
–TP
Brett
“Look, government is an incredibly dangerous institution. It’s capable of genocide, of ruining a society, of horrific evils. It’s capable of horribly messing things up even out of benign motives. The rule of law, strict compliance with procedure, is a major safeguard against it running amok.”
It is easy to find negative sides of anything you desire to find, it indicates hate. Love is finding only positive sides, and world is gray as we all know it, not black and white as children see it.
You see, governments are also capable of awesome goodness. For example: organising the millions of people in war against Nazy and Japan, declaring Emancipation proclamation, Civil rights acts that was needed due to inaction of the government in previous years. Government is capable of Writing Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the US, Its amendments. Or do you want to argue that Founding fathers did that as individuals, as corporation, or a part of Free Masons. Do you think that FF were not doing it as government?
Brett
“Look, government is an incredibly dangerous institution. It’s capable of genocide, of ruining a society, of horrific evils. It’s capable of horribly messing things up even out of benign motives. The rule of law, strict compliance with procedure, is a major safeguard against it running amok.”
It is easy to find negative sides of anything you desire to find, it indicates hate. Love is finding only positive sides, and world is gray as we all know it, not black and white as children see it.
You see, governments are also capable of awesome goodness. For example: organising the millions of people in war against Nazy and Japan, declaring Emancipation proclamation, Civil rights acts that was needed due to inaction of the government in previous years. Government is capable of Writing Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the US, Its amendments. Or do you want to argue that Founding fathers did that as individuals, as corporation, or a part of Free Masons. Do you think that FF were not doing it as government?
Scratch a libertarian, find an authoritarian.
Scratch a libertarian, find an authoritarian.
And, yeah, there are circumstances under which I favor politicians being shot. I damned well hope there are for you, too. Or maybe you think the Gadafhi should feel safe right now walking the streets of Tripoli?
Whatever else Col. Gadafhis is, he is not a “politician” as the word is commonly understood. That you cannot tell the difference reveals everything that’s wrong in your head and your soul.
And, yeah, there are circumstances under which I favor politicians being shot. I damned well hope there are for you, too. Or maybe you think the Gadafhi should feel safe right now walking the streets of Tripoli?
Whatever else Col. Gadafhis is, he is not a “politician” as the word is commonly understood. That you cannot tell the difference reveals everything that’s wrong in your head and your soul.
“Look, government is an incredibly dangerous institution. It’s capable of genocide, of ruining a society, of horrific evils. It’s capable of horribly messing things up even out of benign motives. The rule of law, strict compliance with procedure, is a major safeguard against it running amok.”
And it all starts with telling the police to turn on the people they are supposed to protect. And the government will only engage in those evils when the people taking instructions from the government go along with their orders.
This is something I think you fail to understand– that any institution, to function, ultimately depends on the consent of the rank-and-file on the front lines, not simply the caprice of those at the top. You can’t make workers do something they, ultimately, refuse to do.
“Look, government is an incredibly dangerous institution. It’s capable of genocide, of ruining a society, of horrific evils. It’s capable of horribly messing things up even out of benign motives. The rule of law, strict compliance with procedure, is a major safeguard against it running amok.”
And it all starts with telling the police to turn on the people they are supposed to protect. And the government will only engage in those evils when the people taking instructions from the government go along with their orders.
This is something I think you fail to understand– that any institution, to function, ultimately depends on the consent of the rank-and-file on the front lines, not simply the caprice of those at the top. You can’t make workers do something they, ultimately, refuse to do.
Next from Brett: anger that those darned “outside agitators” in the south are telling people to illegally sit in restaurants where they’re not allowed to!
Next from Brett: anger that those darned “outside agitators” in the south are telling people to illegally sit in restaurants where they’re not allowed to!
That was every bit as useful as any of the “scratch a liberal” sayings, Phil.
That was every bit as useful as any of the “scratch a liberal” sayings, Phil.
What, you’re going to ding me for . . . brevity, glibness, what?
What, you’re going to ding me for . . . brevity, glibness, what?
You’re just in danger of turning into the right-wing posters we had to ban for repeated incivility, Phil.
Or, you know, Charles.
I’d like to believe that you can exert some self-control over your inner rhetorical pugilist.
You’re just in danger of turning into the right-wing posters we had to ban for repeated incivility, Phil.
Or, you know, Charles.
I’d like to believe that you can exert some self-control over your inner rhetorical pugilist.
Oh, brother.
Oh, brother.
Just so I’ve got this clear, if last year Tea party members had physically occupied the Capitol building in Washington, in an effort to scare Democratic legislators into not passing Obamacare, you’d have been cool with that?
Just so I’ve got this clear, if last year Tea party members had physically occupied the Capitol building in Washington, in an effort to scare Democratic legislators into not passing Obamacare, you’d have been cool with that?
Brett
But what would Tea Party’s message in order to stop Obamacare? Take our country back? Get the government out of my Medicare?
If Tea party occupied Capitol building without Nazy slogans, Obama/hitler pics in a non-violent manner as WI protesters i would not have problems with that. If they did it with original intent they started with: “no bailout” I would have joined them.
But what was the message of Tea Party when they protested Obamacare? Is there any reality, any factual arguments?
Brett
But what would Tea Party’s message in order to stop Obamacare? Take our country back? Get the government out of my Medicare?
If Tea party occupied Capitol building without Nazy slogans, Obama/hitler pics in a non-violent manner as WI protesters i would not have problems with that. If they did it with original intent they started with: “no bailout” I would have joined them.
But what was the message of Tea Party when they protested Obamacare? Is there any reality, any factual arguments?
I’ll answer with a question of my own: You believe that there are some circumstances under which it’s acceptable — nay, imperative!! — to break the rules (for which you may read, “Shoot a politician” or, if it makes you feel better, “jury nullification”), but other circumstances in which it’s an absolutely unalloyed moral and civil wrong (for which you may read “hold a protest in the halls of the legislature, under risk of arrest”). And that you, Brett Bellmore, and you alone are capable of telling the difference.
That about right?
(Tyro’s point is absolutely on target — you’d have been telling black people that they were in the wrong for sitting at the Woolworth’s lunch counter, because it was against the rules. Which means, despite Slarti’s pearl-clutching or whatever he thinks he’s doing, I’m right: You’re not a libertarian, you’re an authoritarian. You just think you should be the authority in question.)
I’ll answer with a question of my own: You believe that there are some circumstances under which it’s acceptable — nay, imperative!! — to break the rules (for which you may read, “Shoot a politician” or, if it makes you feel better, “jury nullification”), but other circumstances in which it’s an absolutely unalloyed moral and civil wrong (for which you may read “hold a protest in the halls of the legislature, under risk of arrest”). And that you, Brett Bellmore, and you alone are capable of telling the difference.
That about right?
(Tyro’s point is absolutely on target — you’d have been telling black people that they were in the wrong for sitting at the Woolworth’s lunch counter, because it was against the rules. Which means, despite Slarti’s pearl-clutching or whatever he thinks he’s doing, I’m right: You’re not a libertarian, you’re an authoritarian. You just think you should be the authority in question.)
Also and JFTR anyone who uses the word “Obamacare” is an infant, not a person with opinions worth listening to.
Also and JFTR anyone who uses the word “Obamacare” is an infant, not a person with opinions worth listening to.
In the good old days, when we had a protest, or occupied a building, we considered pretty much a failure unless the police carried us out.
I guess times change. Now we are the police and we just join in. Who says our generation hasn’t changed things.
In the good old days, when we had a protest, or occupied a building, we considered pretty much a failure unless the police carried us out.
I guess times change. Now we are the police and we just join in. Who says our generation hasn’t changed things.
Phil, I know Brett really gets up your nose, but I think you make your point even stronger if you just go for one well placed comment rather than a flurry of response. I realize that it is a target rich environment, but I think it would ultimately work out better.
Phil, I know Brett really gets up your nose, but I think you make your point even stronger if you just go for one well placed comment rather than a flurry of response. I realize that it is a target rich environment, but I think it would ultimately work out better.
Phil, i agree with lj, and to add, do not make personal attacks, it makes it much harder to be understood, stay on the arguments
Phil, i agree with lj, and to add, do not make personal attacks, it makes it much harder to be understood, stay on the arguments
I don’t think two consecutive comments, one of which was clearly an afterthought, counts as a “flurry,” lj.
I don’t think two consecutive comments, one of which was clearly an afterthought, counts as a “flurry,” lj.
I think you make your point even stronger if you just go for one well placed comment rather than a flurry of response.
I shudder to think of how strong Gary’s comments might be were he to adhere to this suggestion.
I think you make your point even stronger if you just go for one well placed comment rather than a flurry of response.
I shudder to think of how strong Gary’s comments might be were he to adhere to this suggestion.
Phil:
So, you’re comfortable with statements like: scratch a liberal, find an aspiring mass-murdering Marxist?
You think that’s in line with the posting rules, and years of ObWi tradition, if I’m reading you right.
Hopefully I’m horribly mistaken, and you’ll unpack scratch a libertarian, find an authoritarian into something resembling an argument that’s relevant to, well, anything at all.
Phil:
So, you’re comfortable with statements like: scratch a liberal, find an aspiring mass-murdering Marxist?
You think that’s in line with the posting rules, and years of ObWi tradition, if I’m reading you right.
Hopefully I’m horribly mistaken, and you’ll unpack scratch a libertarian, find an authoritarian into something resembling an argument that’s relevant to, well, anything at all.
And sure enough to make my point:
(bold mine)
And sure enough to make my point:
(bold mine)
this is about our freedoms and democracy. If the unions are busted, they were the only firewall between the middle class and the corporations. If the unions are busted what will happen to the middle class? We will be the mercy of the corporations, and the Republican party.
this is about our freedoms and democracy. If the unions are busted, they were the only firewall between the middle class and the corporations. If the unions are busted what will happen to the middle class? We will be the mercy of the corporations, and the Republican party.
So, you’re comfortable with statements like: scratch a liberal, find an aspiring mass-murdering Marxist?
The fact that you can find a formulation using the same structure that’s patently ridiculous doesn’t make every formulation with the same structure equally ridiculous. I know that you know this.
Or, heck, maybe you don’t. I can’t read your mind, but you’ve previously shown an inclination towards understanding that, because two things look alike at first glance, it doesn’t mean they’re actually similar or related.
Hopefully I’m horribly mistaken, and you’ll unpack scratch a libertarian, find an authoritarian into something resembling an argument that’s relevant to, well, anything at all.
I think I’ve made my point in re: Brett and his fair-weather libertarianism, which is really running interference for authoritarianism, quite clearly. If that particular phrase bothers you so much, fine — I spoke hastily, as its implications are an insult to actual libertarians like Jim Henley and Radley Balko.
Do you have a further point with this, or . . . ?
So, you’re comfortable with statements like: scratch a liberal, find an aspiring mass-murdering Marxist?
The fact that you can find a formulation using the same structure that’s patently ridiculous doesn’t make every formulation with the same structure equally ridiculous. I know that you know this.
Or, heck, maybe you don’t. I can’t read your mind, but you’ve previously shown an inclination towards understanding that, because two things look alike at first glance, it doesn’t mean they’re actually similar or related.
Hopefully I’m horribly mistaken, and you’ll unpack scratch a libertarian, find an authoritarian into something resembling an argument that’s relevant to, well, anything at all.
I think I’ve made my point in re: Brett and his fair-weather libertarianism, which is really running interference for authoritarianism, quite clearly. If that particular phrase bothers you so much, fine — I spoke hastily, as its implications are an insult to actual libertarians like Jim Henley and Radley Balko.
Do you have a further point with this, or . . . ?
Phil,
it’s just an overall reminder. I know (believe me, I do know) what it is like to post a comment, and then look over what you had written and think ‘crap, I missed responding to this glaring inconsistency!’
I really really really don’t make this some sort of discussion on precisely where we should draw the line on any number of things in the comments or about the content of any specific comment or comment thread, (especially since I will be over the Pacific in about 24 hours, with all the joy that entails) so this isn’t even a ‘hey knock it off’ kind of comment, just the gentlest suggestion to you and everyone else and I certify that no pearls were clutched. Thanks.
Phil,
it’s just an overall reminder. I know (believe me, I do know) what it is like to post a comment, and then look over what you had written and think ‘crap, I missed responding to this glaring inconsistency!’
I really really really don’t make this some sort of discussion on precisely where we should draw the line on any number of things in the comments or about the content of any specific comment or comment thread, (especially since I will be over the Pacific in about 24 hours, with all the joy that entails) so this isn’t even a ‘hey knock it off’ kind of comment, just the gentlest suggestion to you and everyone else and I certify that no pearls were clutched. Thanks.
I’d like to know whether “Scratch a libertarian, find an authoritarian” is more offensive to libertarians or to authoritarians.
I’m not saying Phil’s maxim is either true or false. I am saying that Slarti’s response seems to assume that the maxim is offensive to somebody, and I wonder to whom.
–TP
I’d like to know whether “Scratch a libertarian, find an authoritarian” is more offensive to libertarians or to authoritarians.
I’m not saying Phil’s maxim is either true or false. I am saying that Slarti’s response seems to assume that the maxim is offensive to somebody, and I wonder to whom.
–TP
Likewise, the fact that I came up with a patently ridiculous formulation using the same structure doesn’t mean that yours wasn’t ridiculous.
But I think you know this.
If I’m not making my point sufficiently clear, though, I’m asking that you cease and desist with the meaningless generalizations crap. If you have a point to make with Brett, I’m hoping that you can manage to do so without impugning perhaps a good chunk of the United States.
Or maybe not. But hope springs eternal.
Look! Cliches are fun!
Likewise, the fact that I came up with a patently ridiculous formulation using the same structure doesn’t mean that yours wasn’t ridiculous.
But I think you know this.
If I’m not making my point sufficiently clear, though, I’m asking that you cease and desist with the meaningless generalizations crap. If you have a point to make with Brett, I’m hoping that you can manage to do so without impugning perhaps a good chunk of the United States.
Or maybe not. But hope springs eternal.
Look! Cliches are fun!
Excellent, Phil.
Not so excellent, Tony. See Phil for details.
Excellent, Phil.
Not so excellent, Tony. See Phil for details.
Ok, first of all, jury nulification isn’t “breaking the rules”, which is why judges, no matter how much they’d like to, don’t get to jail or otherwise punish jurors who nulify. It’s simply an aspect of the rules which judges hate to acknowledge, because it implies that THEY might occasionally do things that need to be countered. Jury nulification is why juries exist. All the classic cases that are pointed to as justifications for jury trials, they were cases of nulification. William Penn? Guilty as hell.
Second, sure, I distinguish between cases where violating the rules is justified, and cases where it isn’t. Trying to undo the outcome of an election, shutting down the government because your party doesn’t run it? Doesn’t qualify. Well, not as anything but being sore losers…
Oh, and Phil? “Bush tax cuts”? How infantile…
Ok, first of all, jury nulification isn’t “breaking the rules”, which is why judges, no matter how much they’d like to, don’t get to jail or otherwise punish jurors who nulify. It’s simply an aspect of the rules which judges hate to acknowledge, because it implies that THEY might occasionally do things that need to be countered. Jury nulification is why juries exist. All the classic cases that are pointed to as justifications for jury trials, they were cases of nulification. William Penn? Guilty as hell.
Second, sure, I distinguish between cases where violating the rules is justified, and cases where it isn’t. Trying to undo the outcome of an election, shutting down the government because your party doesn’t run it? Doesn’t qualify. Well, not as anything but being sore losers…
Oh, and Phil? “Bush tax cuts”? How infantile…
It seems that libertarianism, at least in the anglo-saxon political debate, is often confused with or rather reduced to minarchism, leaving us with a false dichotomoy.
It seems that libertarianism, at least in the anglo-saxon political debate, is often confused with or rather reduced to minarchism, leaving us with a false dichotomoy.
Brett, after I’ve taken Phil (gently, I hope) to task, “How infantile” is probably not the best way to get this discussion back on point.
Brett, after I’ve taken Phil (gently, I hope) to task, “How infantile” is probably not the best way to get this discussion back on point.
Just pointing out that “Obamacare” is no more childish than “Bush tax cuts”.
Just pointing out that “Obamacare” is no more childish than “Bush tax cuts”.
Just pointing out that “Obamacare” is no more childish than “Bush tax cuts”.
False equivalence– “Obamacare” is the sort of childish coining invented by frustrated right wings because they thought it sounded cute, like Rush chanting “feminazis” and the like. Of course it goes to a greater social/moral/culture problem within the right regarding namecalling and a general culture of immaturity and childishness, borne of frustration.
But that’s neither here nor there. The greater point is that there are certain personal, moral, and spiritual consequences to police who are being asked to participate in some kind of violent crackdown on the protesters at the behest of Gov. Walker. Wanting to avoid those consequences is probably the best move for most of those individual police officers, as the consequences of following unjust orders could dog them for the rest of their lives (or even eternity, if you believe in that kind of thing).
Unfortunately, Gov. Walker is in a position where the public simply doesn’t recognize him or his ideas as legitimate. The consent of the governed doesn’t just happen once; it is ongoing. You can’t betray your own stakeholders, as Gov. Walker has done, because ultimately he depends on public sector workers of all kinds to implement his agenda– by lying to them, betraying them, and threatening violence against them, he has forced them into a corner just when he depends on them.
Just pointing out that “Obamacare” is no more childish than “Bush tax cuts”.
False equivalence– “Obamacare” is the sort of childish coining invented by frustrated right wings because they thought it sounded cute, like Rush chanting “feminazis” and the like. Of course it goes to a greater social/moral/culture problem within the right regarding namecalling and a general culture of immaturity and childishness, borne of frustration.
But that’s neither here nor there. The greater point is that there are certain personal, moral, and spiritual consequences to police who are being asked to participate in some kind of violent crackdown on the protesters at the behest of Gov. Walker. Wanting to avoid those consequences is probably the best move for most of those individual police officers, as the consequences of following unjust orders could dog them for the rest of their lives (or even eternity, if you believe in that kind of thing).
Unfortunately, Gov. Walker is in a position where the public simply doesn’t recognize him or his ideas as legitimate. The consent of the governed doesn’t just happen once; it is ongoing. You can’t betray your own stakeholders, as Gov. Walker has done, because ultimately he depends on public sector workers of all kinds to implement his agenda– by lying to them, betraying them, and threatening violence against them, he has forced them into a corner just when he depends on them.
Possibly, but the “sounded cute” is purely projective.
Let’s just go with that the Bush tax cuts were Bush’s idea, and the Obama healthcare plan was Obama’s, shall we?
Unless someone wants to dispute either of those.
Possibly, but the “sounded cute” is purely projective.
Let’s just go with that the Bush tax cuts were Bush’s idea, and the Obama healthcare plan was Obama’s, shall we?
Unless someone wants to dispute either of those.
“But that’s neither here nor there. The greater point is that there are certain personal, moral, and spiritual consequences to police who are being asked to participate in some kind of violent crackdown on the protesters at the behest of Gov. Walker.”
There is not a shred of evidence that the police are being asked to participate in ANY kind of violent crackdown on anyone.
Quite the contrary.
They haven’t arrested anyone as far as I have been able to find. Despite the expectations of the protestors as noted in my earlier comment.
“But that’s neither here nor there. The greater point is that there are certain personal, moral, and spiritual consequences to police who are being asked to participate in some kind of violent crackdown on the protesters at the behest of Gov. Walker.”
There is not a shred of evidence that the police are being asked to participate in ANY kind of violent crackdown on anyone.
Quite the contrary.
They haven’t arrested anyone as far as I have been able to find. Despite the expectations of the protestors as noted in my earlier comment.
Look, government is an incredibly dangerous institution. It’s capable of genocide, of ruining a society, of horrific evils. It’s capable of horribly messing things up even out of benign motives.
IMVHO, you are mistaking government for the general human condition.
Are you under the impression that these things do not happen in contexts where either the scope or size of government is extremely limited?
Look, government is an incredibly dangerous institution. It’s capable of genocide, of ruining a society, of horrific evils. It’s capable of horribly messing things up even out of benign motives.
IMVHO, you are mistaking government for the general human condition.
Are you under the impression that these things do not happen in contexts where either the scope or size of government is extremely limited?
russell, I think the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century have shown quite clearly that such things are more likely to happen on a large scale when governments have more or less unlimited power and control every aspect of society. So yes, limiting the scope and size of government is generally a good thing. The question is of course how far we want to go with this and how to counterbalance the ever increasing power of non-state actors like the financial sector and multinational corporations.
russell, I think the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century have shown quite clearly that such things are more likely to happen on a large scale when governments have more or less unlimited power and control every aspect of society. So yes, limiting the scope and size of government is generally a good thing. The question is of course how far we want to go with this and how to counterbalance the ever increasing power of non-state actors like the financial sector and multinational corporations.
I think that core of Obamacare was Mitt Romney’s idea.
I think that core of Obamacare was Mitt Romney’s idea.
Trying to undo the outcome of an election, shutting down the government because your party doesn’t run it?
Yes, that’s why the Democrats left the state – simply because the Republicans won. It’s not like there’s a very specific and troublesome issue at hand, just the general idea that the Republicans have a majority in the state legislature and there’s a Republican governor. That’s all.
And with all their rule-breaking, I guess they’ll be subject to arrest or some sort of penalty when they come back to Wisconson right?
Trying to undo the outcome of an election, shutting down the government because your party doesn’t run it?
Yes, that’s why the Democrats left the state – simply because the Republicans won. It’s not like there’s a very specific and troublesome issue at hand, just the general idea that the Republicans have a majority in the state legislature and there’s a Republican governor. That’s all.
And with all their rule-breaking, I guess they’ll be subject to arrest or some sort of penalty when they come back to Wisconson right?
Trying to undo the outcome of an election, shutting down the government because your party doesn’t run it?
Sometimes this is the moral thing to do. You deny this under ALL circumstances? I truly doubt that.
When tea party types speak glibly about 2nd amendment remedies and watering Liberty’s tree with somebody’s blood, I don’t get all that excited about the imputed violence and “disrespect” for government. I get excited because they are absolutely on the wrong side of real liberty, equality, and fraternity.
Trying to undo the outcome of an election, shutting down the government because your party doesn’t run it?
Sometimes this is the moral thing to do. You deny this under ALL circumstances? I truly doubt that.
When tea party types speak glibly about 2nd amendment remedies and watering Liberty’s tree with somebody’s blood, I don’t get all that excited about the imputed violence and “disrespect” for government. I get excited because they are absolutely on the wrong side of real liberty, equality, and fraternity.
Look, government is an incredibly dangerous institution. It’s capable of genocide, of ruining a society, of horrific evils. It’s capable of horribly messing things up even out of benign motives.
All of this is forgiven if said government is democratically elected, right?
Look, government is an incredibly dangerous institution. It’s capable of genocide, of ruining a society, of horrific evils. It’s capable of horribly messing things up even out of benign motives.
All of this is forgiven if said government is democratically elected, right?
Phil, perhaps you could turn it down a notch on Brett, please?
I don’t have time to mediate between you guys, but I actually think you’re both saying things that have legitimate points, and I’ll say that Brett is right about government being a dangerous institution, that CT is right that it can do great good, that while politics and government are not the same thing, they overlap inextricably, that Gaddafi is as worth shooting as anyone is, if we believe in shooting people, which I basically don’t save in self defense (I’m not going down the road of discussing where the line is, here and now, thanks), that Brett takes, in my view — and forgive me, please, Brett, for using some rather inappropriate psychological terms here, which I mean more metaphorically than literally — a somewhat austic “rules lawyer” approach to the Constitution, which is the whole basis of Strict Constructionism, which is more or less the idea that because, maybe, the folks in the late 1700s had one idea, that we’re limited to as literal interpretation as possible — and my own reading of history is that this wasn’t, for the most part, what they had in mind, which was a flexible document, but this is the whole difference of political philosophy and judicial philosophy between taking a liberal view of the document and its history, and a constructionist one — and that, in short, you’re all making, actually, some quite reasonable points, if you listen to the other person’s view more carefully and charitably, and look for the possible agreements, rather than the ways to disagree, something to which we’re all prone, and which I certainly do, because it’s easiest, as I was just saying to Marty, so, in the end, gentlemen, a bit more conversation, please, and a bit less accusation, and a lot fewer claims to be able to look into the hearts and souls of others, please?
Thanks. Think Of What Hilzoy Would Say. 🙂
Phil, perhaps you could turn it down a notch on Brett, please?
I don’t have time to mediate between you guys, but I actually think you’re both saying things that have legitimate points, and I’ll say that Brett is right about government being a dangerous institution, that CT is right that it can do great good, that while politics and government are not the same thing, they overlap inextricably, that Gaddafi is as worth shooting as anyone is, if we believe in shooting people, which I basically don’t save in self defense (I’m not going down the road of discussing where the line is, here and now, thanks), that Brett takes, in my view — and forgive me, please, Brett, for using some rather inappropriate psychological terms here, which I mean more metaphorically than literally — a somewhat austic “rules lawyer” approach to the Constitution, which is the whole basis of Strict Constructionism, which is more or less the idea that because, maybe, the folks in the late 1700s had one idea, that we’re limited to as literal interpretation as possible — and my own reading of history is that this wasn’t, for the most part, what they had in mind, which was a flexible document, but this is the whole difference of political philosophy and judicial philosophy between taking a liberal view of the document and its history, and a constructionist one — and that, in short, you’re all making, actually, some quite reasonable points, if you listen to the other person’s view more carefully and charitably, and look for the possible agreements, rather than the ways to disagree, something to which we’re all prone, and which I certainly do, because it’s easiest, as I was just saying to Marty, so, in the end, gentlemen, a bit more conversation, please, and a bit less accusation, and a lot fewer claims to be able to look into the hearts and souls of others, please?
Thanks. Think Of What Hilzoy Would Say. 🙂
I would still like to know how Brett in particular feels about the Sanctity of Contracts in relation to The Rule of Law.
He’s big on The Rule of Law when it comes to protests, but I get no sense that he sees any problem with The Government of a state reneging on contracts that unions made with The Government of that state in the past. It’s as if “we’re broke” and “elections have consequences” are perfectly adequate arguments against the Sanctity of Contracts — the one pillar of The Rule of Law which I would have thought No True Libertarian would ever deny.
When a freshly-elected government asserts that it is not bound by the contracts made under its predecessor government “because we’re broke”, that’s not adherence to The Rule of Law in my book. Maybe not in Brett’s either, but I wish he’d take a clear stand on that particular point.
–TP
I would still like to know how Brett in particular feels about the Sanctity of Contracts in relation to The Rule of Law.
He’s big on The Rule of Law when it comes to protests, but I get no sense that he sees any problem with The Government of a state reneging on contracts that unions made with The Government of that state in the past. It’s as if “we’re broke” and “elections have consequences” are perfectly adequate arguments against the Sanctity of Contracts — the one pillar of The Rule of Law which I would have thought No True Libertarian would ever deny.
When a freshly-elected government asserts that it is not bound by the contracts made under its predecessor government “because we’re broke”, that’s not adherence to The Rule of Law in my book. Maybe not in Brett’s either, but I wish he’d take a clear stand on that particular point.
–TP
I would still like to know how Brett in particular feels about the Sanctity of Contracts in relation to The Rule of Law.
TP: I think this is a very good question. I thought Walker was not planning on reneging on contracts. That’s why he was upset when the Dems tried to lame duck in new contracts only to be betrayed by the Senate President (aside: lj, sheds some new light on the Republican “vote issue” no?). Those contracts would have gone until June. I guess right now most state workers are out of contract? I don’t know about locals.
In scanning SB11, it looks to me like the new provisions go into effect as soon as the previous CBA is out:
[various changes and new provisions]of the statutes first apply to employees who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement under subchapter V of chapter 111 of the statutes that contains provisions inconsistent with those sections on the day on which the agreement expires or is terminated, extended, modified, or renewed, whichever occurs first.
So I don’t think there is an issue of violating the Sanctity of Contracts here.
General comment:
I though Walker did a good job of defending his position on Meet the Press, especially the charge that collective bargaining won’t affect the budget and countering the argument that the “unions” had offered to meet the pay cuts. He pointed out that the “unions” did not include those in municipalities and that the local unions have in fact been trying to rush through contracts that do not include those pay cuts.
And, Gary, are you supportive of an occupation of the U.S. Capitol? I mean, shoot, those TSA employess can’t bargain for wages or benefits. Only awards and shift bids, for heaven’s sake. Serious human rights violations going on there.
I would still like to know how Brett in particular feels about the Sanctity of Contracts in relation to The Rule of Law.
TP: I think this is a very good question. I thought Walker was not planning on reneging on contracts. That’s why he was upset when the Dems tried to lame duck in new contracts only to be betrayed by the Senate President (aside: lj, sheds some new light on the Republican “vote issue” no?). Those contracts would have gone until June. I guess right now most state workers are out of contract? I don’t know about locals.
In scanning SB11, it looks to me like the new provisions go into effect as soon as the previous CBA is out:
[various changes and new provisions]of the statutes first apply to employees who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement under subchapter V of chapter 111 of the statutes that contains provisions inconsistent with those sections on the day on which the agreement expires or is terminated, extended, modified, or renewed, whichever occurs first.
So I don’t think there is an issue of violating the Sanctity of Contracts here.
General comment:
I though Walker did a good job of defending his position on Meet the Press, especially the charge that collective bargaining won’t affect the budget and countering the argument that the “unions” had offered to meet the pay cuts. He pointed out that the “unions” did not include those in municipalities and that the local unions have in fact been trying to rush through contracts that do not include those pay cuts.
And, Gary, are you supportive of an occupation of the U.S. Capitol? I mean, shoot, those TSA employess can’t bargain for wages or benefits. Only awards and shift bids, for heaven’s sake. Serious human rights violations going on there.
Brett, you’re begging the question. Jury nullification. Your personal ideas, and those of people who agree with you, do not trump actual descriptivism, just as mine do not, no matter that this often makes us cranky when the world does not agree with our own beliefs.
Back in reality, the facts are that the legal record is mixed, and this is an unsettled question.
Anyone who asserts otherwise is asserting their personal preference for what the law should say, in their view, over what the law does actually say, which is that, in practice, it all depends on which judge you’re in front of, in which jurisdiction.
Notice I haven’t stated my own opinion. It’s irrelevant to the question of what happens in a courtroom, and what the current state of law is in regard to jury nullification in the United States.
This is a general tic of yours: the law isn’t what judges say, it’s what you say. The law isn’t what the Supreme Court says, it’s what you say. The law isn’t what Congress says, it’s what you say. The law isn’t what the President says, it’s what you say.
And all the people who agree with you are right, and that proves it.
Brett, you’re begging the question. Jury nullification. Your personal ideas, and those of people who agree with you, do not trump actual descriptivism, just as mine do not, no matter that this often makes us cranky when the world does not agree with our own beliefs.
Back in reality, the facts are that the legal record is mixed, and this is an unsettled question.
Anyone who asserts otherwise is asserting their personal preference for what the law should say, in their view, over what the law does actually say, which is that, in practice, it all depends on which judge you’re in front of, in which jurisdiction.
Notice I haven’t stated my own opinion. It’s irrelevant to the question of what happens in a courtroom, and what the current state of law is in regard to jury nullification in the United States.
This is a general tic of yours: the law isn’t what judges say, it’s what you say. The law isn’t what the Supreme Court says, it’s what you say. The law isn’t what Congress says, it’s what you say. The law isn’t what the President says, it’s what you say.
And all the people who agree with you are right, and that proves it.
I’m sorry, but the idea that any grouping of people is magically free of namecalling is simply ridiculous. This thread, and all political blogs refute the notion.
Namecalling is simply a human trait.
An unhelpful one, but common among any grouping of people. Ridicule is common. Asserting that other people are The Other is common. Dehumanizing people by making them The Other is common.
Every “side” does these things.
No “side” is immune.
“Sides” are made up of individuals. “Sides” are not homogenous. Q.E.Fragging.D.
I’m sorry, but the idea that any grouping of people is magically free of namecalling is simply ridiculous. This thread, and all political blogs refute the notion.
Namecalling is simply a human trait.
An unhelpful one, but common among any grouping of people. Ridicule is common. Asserting that other people are The Other is common. Dehumanizing people by making them The Other is common.
Every “side” does these things.
No “side” is immune.
“Sides” are made up of individuals. “Sides” are not homogenous. Q.E.Fragging.D.
Russell to Brett:
I’m going to agree with Brett on this. I don’t see anything wrong with his statement. It’s true of the most evil governments.
That we have vastly more benign governments is also true. There’s no contradiction between these views. Simply put, governments vary widely.
Mao’s government was not Sweden’s is not [Godwin]’s was not the Tsar’s is not America of 1800 is not America of 2011 is not Zimbabwe’s is not the Roman Republic’s was not the Roman Empire’s, and onwards upwards backwards and forward.
Government has force of law. That is indeed powerful, and powerful or not as the people allow it to be, or the government uses its power to help force the people to allow it to be.
These are neutral facts, in my view, and irrelevant to the goodness or badness of any particular form of government or iteration of government.
Brett used the word “capable.” I don’t see how that’s deniable.
When Brett is on a tear about how the government must be oppressive, he’s wrong. When he says it can be, he’s right.
Just my two cents. Thanks!
😉
Russell to Brett:
I’m going to agree with Brett on this. I don’t see anything wrong with his statement. It’s true of the most evil governments.
That we have vastly more benign governments is also true. There’s no contradiction between these views. Simply put, governments vary widely.
Mao’s government was not Sweden’s is not [Godwin]’s was not the Tsar’s is not America of 1800 is not America of 2011 is not Zimbabwe’s is not the Roman Republic’s was not the Roman Empire’s, and onwards upwards backwards and forward.
Government has force of law. That is indeed powerful, and powerful or not as the people allow it to be, or the government uses its power to help force the people to allow it to be.
These are neutral facts, in my view, and irrelevant to the goodness or badness of any particular form of government or iteration of government.
Brett used the word “capable.” I don’t see how that’s deniable.
When Brett is on a tear about how the government must be oppressive, he’s wrong. When he says it can be, he’s right.
Just my two cents. Thanks!
😉
I’d say that’s a quite fair statement. Mass. Gov. Romney’s health care plan says everyone pays.
Flashback with me to 7/4/2005:
This seems familiar, doesn’t it?
I’d say that’s a quite fair statement. Mass. Gov. Romney’s health care plan says everyone pays.
Flashback with me to 7/4/2005:
This seems familiar, doesn’t it?
novakant:
I agree entirely.
novakant:
I agree entirely.
Depends.
Depends.
You could think of my intervention between Phil and Brett, here, as a mostly failed attempt to minimize what I imagine to be hilzoy’s disappointment in our net behavior.
WWHS is something I try to keep in mind. But not being hilzoy, and almost completely lacking her flair for the diplomatic, I fail horribly.
You could think of my intervention between Phil and Brett, here, as a mostly failed attempt to minimize what I imagine to be hilzoy’s disappointment in our net behavior.
WWHS is something I try to keep in mind. But not being hilzoy, and almost completely lacking her flair for the diplomatic, I fail horribly.
“This seems familiar, doesn’t it?”
Yes, it does, and it should tell you why the idea of Romeny as a Republican candidate for President probably enthuses more Democrats than Republicans. It’s got less to do with Mormonism than stuff like … Romnycare.
None the less, there is a critical difference: At the state level, this is bad policy. At the federal level, it’s bad policy, AND unconstitutional. States can do things, constitutionally, that the federal government can’t. That’s basic to our system of “federalism”, for all that federal officeholders are desperate to undo this basic feature of our form of government.
“When Brett is on a tear about how the government must be oppressive, he’s wrong. When he says it can be, he’s right.”
Government can be oppressive on the level of Pol Pot, or worse. Government must be oppressive on the level of, at least, Sweden, or maybe slightly less. Failing to acknowledge the degree to which, yes, Sweden, is oppressive, enables higher degrees of oppression. It delays the pushback which is really the only thing keeping government from reaching higher levels of oppression. And, yes, even Sweden would be worse, if there weren’t a substantial number of Swedes who regard their government as oppressive, and push back against it.
“This is a general tic of yours: the law isn’t what judges say, it’s what you say. The law isn’t what the Supreme Court says, it’s what you say. The law isn’t what Congress says, it’s what you say. The law isn’t what the President says, it’s what you say.”
Rather, the law is what it is, and judges, Justices, Congress, the President, are all as capable of being wrong as I. They’re as capable of exhibiting bad faith as I. When they say the Constitution means one thing, and my lying eyes and basic grammar say it means another, they will roll over me like a Sherman tank over a bug, but they’ll roll over a bug observing that they’re full of it.
But, in a country where the public legitimatcy of the government, as much as many liberals are annoyed by it, rests on that Constitution, it’s a serious problem when a lot of people can read the Constitution, and see that the government isn’t obeying it. And complaining that we ought to desist from reading it, and leave that to government employees, don’t really do much to help the problem.
“This seems familiar, doesn’t it?”
Yes, it does, and it should tell you why the idea of Romeny as a Republican candidate for President probably enthuses more Democrats than Republicans. It’s got less to do with Mormonism than stuff like … Romnycare.
None the less, there is a critical difference: At the state level, this is bad policy. At the federal level, it’s bad policy, AND unconstitutional. States can do things, constitutionally, that the federal government can’t. That’s basic to our system of “federalism”, for all that federal officeholders are desperate to undo this basic feature of our form of government.
“When Brett is on a tear about how the government must be oppressive, he’s wrong. When he says it can be, he’s right.”
Government can be oppressive on the level of Pol Pot, or worse. Government must be oppressive on the level of, at least, Sweden, or maybe slightly less. Failing to acknowledge the degree to which, yes, Sweden, is oppressive, enables higher degrees of oppression. It delays the pushback which is really the only thing keeping government from reaching higher levels of oppression. And, yes, even Sweden would be worse, if there weren’t a substantial number of Swedes who regard their government as oppressive, and push back against it.
“This is a general tic of yours: the law isn’t what judges say, it’s what you say. The law isn’t what the Supreme Court says, it’s what you say. The law isn’t what Congress says, it’s what you say. The law isn’t what the President says, it’s what you say.”
Rather, the law is what it is, and judges, Justices, Congress, the President, are all as capable of being wrong as I. They’re as capable of exhibiting bad faith as I. When they say the Constitution means one thing, and my lying eyes and basic grammar say it means another, they will roll over me like a Sherman tank over a bug, but they’ll roll over a bug observing that they’re full of it.
But, in a country where the public legitimatcy of the government, as much as many liberals are annoyed by it, rests on that Constitution, it’s a serious problem when a lot of people can read the Constitution, and see that the government isn’t obeying it. And complaining that we ought to desist from reading it, and leave that to government employees, don’t really do much to help the problem.
Hey bc,
(aside: lj, sheds some new light on the Republican “vote issue” no?
Sorry, real life has been kicking my butt and taking my name, so I’m not sure what you are referencing here. The lame duck thing, I think I understand, but the “betrayed by the Senate President”, I’m not sure. So if you could toss some of your thoughts and/or some links, that would be helpful, but I’m in transit, so I’m not sure if I will be able to respond, so if you’d rather not, no worries.
I have written a post about a thought I had that was prompted from the open thread (nothing to do with Wisconsin), and I’m trying the scheduled post thing, so it may look like I am here, but I’m really not.
Hey bc,
(aside: lj, sheds some new light on the Republican “vote issue” no?
Sorry, real life has been kicking my butt and taking my name, so I’m not sure what you are referencing here. The lame duck thing, I think I understand, but the “betrayed by the Senate President”, I’m not sure. So if you could toss some of your thoughts and/or some links, that would be helpful, but I’m in transit, so I’m not sure if I will be able to respond, so if you’d rather not, no worries.
I have written a post about a thought I had that was prompted from the open thread (nothing to do with Wisconsin), and I’m trying the scheduled post thing, so it may look like I am here, but I’m really not.
States can do things, constitutionally, that the federal government can’t.
So, then, given an instance in which there’s a law on the books under which the federal government attempts to do something which is not a delegated power and is reserved to the states — let’s, for the sake of argument, call it the Defense of Marriage Act — what is the obligation of the US Department of Justice in regards to that law when it is challenged in US district and circuit courts?
I’m laying very, very good odds that you’re about to give a different answer than you did a week ago.
States can do things, constitutionally, that the federal government can’t.
So, then, given an instance in which there’s a law on the books under which the federal government attempts to do something which is not a delegated power and is reserved to the states — let’s, for the sake of argument, call it the Defense of Marriage Act — what is the obligation of the US Department of Justice in regards to that law when it is challenged in US district and circuit courts?
I’m laying very, very good odds that you’re about to give a different answer than you did a week ago.
At the state level, this is bad policy. At the federal level, it’s bad policy, AND unconstitutional.
This is what we call “proof by vigorous assertion.” I’d throw in something about it being “socialism”, too.
At the state level, this is bad policy. At the federal level, it’s bad policy, AND unconstitutional.
This is what we call “proof by vigorous assertion.” I’d throw in something about it being “socialism”, too.
Government must be oppressive on the level of, at least, Sweden, or maybe slightly less. Failing to acknowledge the degree to which, yes, Sweden, is oppressive, enables higher degrees of oppression. It delays the pushback which is really the only thing keeping government from reaching higher levels of oppression.
So it’s a good thing that they’re pushing back against government oppression of workers in Wisconsin? And it’s a good thing that the police have decided not to oppress the protestors?
I think you need to be a bit more specific about what you think constitutes oppression, Brett, if you think that government is inherently oppressive to some degree. Is it about taxation, at the very least? Do you weigh the takings and restrictions by government against the good it provides and the evils of anarchy it prevents?
Government must be oppressive on the level of, at least, Sweden, or maybe slightly less. Failing to acknowledge the degree to which, yes, Sweden, is oppressive, enables higher degrees of oppression. It delays the pushback which is really the only thing keeping government from reaching higher levels of oppression.
So it’s a good thing that they’re pushing back against government oppression of workers in Wisconsin? And it’s a good thing that the police have decided not to oppress the protestors?
I think you need to be a bit more specific about what you think constitutes oppression, Brett, if you think that government is inherently oppressive to some degree. Is it about taxation, at the very least? Do you weigh the takings and restrictions by government against the good it provides and the evils of anarchy it prevents?
lj:
Hey bc,
(aside: lj, sheds some new light on the Republican “vote issue” no?
Basics here. . Apparently the lame duck session was only the second in Wisconsin history and the first in 36 years. The Dems had to get an independent who caucuses with them out of jail (reportedly his 4th DUI). Nice, huh? The special session was approved on December 14th, went in on the 16th after some reportedly secretive negotiations between the outgoing governor and the unions. The contracts were in fact released just the Friday before. Note that 30 public employees were roaming the halls trying to get the contracts passed.
Also note Walker’s reference to abolishing public employee unions the month prior(November?). No secret that he was going to do do something that affected public unions.
So the context is this: Outgoing Dems try to ram through contracts affecting 2009-2011 in a lame duck session virtually unheard of in Wisconsin. They wait until everyone is about to go on vacation, only get the contracts out days before approving the lame duck session, and are only thwarted in their plan by a Senate President who has a conscience.
THEN the rest happens.
lj:
Hey bc,
(aside: lj, sheds some new light on the Republican “vote issue” no?
Basics here. . Apparently the lame duck session was only the second in Wisconsin history and the first in 36 years. The Dems had to get an independent who caucuses with them out of jail (reportedly his 4th DUI). Nice, huh? The special session was approved on December 14th, went in on the 16th after some reportedly secretive negotiations between the outgoing governor and the unions. The contracts were in fact released just the Friday before. Note that 30 public employees were roaming the halls trying to get the contracts passed.
Also note Walker’s reference to abolishing public employee unions the month prior(November?). No secret that he was going to do do something that affected public unions.
So the context is this: Outgoing Dems try to ram through contracts affecting 2009-2011 in a lame duck session virtually unheard of in Wisconsin. They wait until everyone is about to go on vacation, only get the contracts out days before approving the lame duck session, and are only thwarted in their plan by a Senate President who has a conscience.
THEN the rest happens.
Ur, Brett, sorry to beat up on you here, though it truly isn’t my intention – but exactly how is Sweden a “repressive” government? It seems that the thread of this logic dictates that any government anywhere is repressive, at least incipiently so; and that it seeks to be unless either yahoos with guns, or lackey governors who lick moneyed boots, are deployed to stop it.
This is ludicrous. The notion that a state governor is going to rescue his/her citizens from government only makes sense if you convince yourself that somehow, state government constitutes somehow lesser or even no government, or that the overreach of such a governor isn’t really overreach – which too-numerous examples in our history betray.
Sweden has hardly a perfect government, but its citizens actually believe in a concept of good governance which I don’t see being expressed, when satisfaction is less than met, by concealed weapons, musings on when the leader of their country is going to be assassinated, or betrayal of public pledges by elected officials.
By contrast, we somehow have convinced ourselves that the corrosion of moneyed interests isn’t in itself a form of oppression, or that corporate diktats on government don’t amount to a greater threat against freedom because they’re unaccountable.
There’s a reason why our concept of government isn’t such a hot model in most advanced countries. It’s because it’s incomprehensible. An elected official liberating people from government? This is just idiotic, because he is the government. He wields governmental power, however localized; he is acting not from a mandate of most of his state’s citizens, but from the whims of moneyed interests that have no respect for rank-and-file voters, and appear to come from outside the state; and his defiance of the protesters comes across as only a toned-down, slightly more honey-voiced version of Gaddafi (or however you spell his frigging name) on his rampart.
So please. If someone like Scott Walker is your government dragon slayer, you’re setting the bar pathetically low.
Ur, Brett, sorry to beat up on you here, though it truly isn’t my intention – but exactly how is Sweden a “repressive” government? It seems that the thread of this logic dictates that any government anywhere is repressive, at least incipiently so; and that it seeks to be unless either yahoos with guns, or lackey governors who lick moneyed boots, are deployed to stop it.
This is ludicrous. The notion that a state governor is going to rescue his/her citizens from government only makes sense if you convince yourself that somehow, state government constitutes somehow lesser or even no government, or that the overreach of such a governor isn’t really overreach – which too-numerous examples in our history betray.
Sweden has hardly a perfect government, but its citizens actually believe in a concept of good governance which I don’t see being expressed, when satisfaction is less than met, by concealed weapons, musings on when the leader of their country is going to be assassinated, or betrayal of public pledges by elected officials.
By contrast, we somehow have convinced ourselves that the corrosion of moneyed interests isn’t in itself a form of oppression, or that corporate diktats on government don’t amount to a greater threat against freedom because they’re unaccountable.
There’s a reason why our concept of government isn’t such a hot model in most advanced countries. It’s because it’s incomprehensible. An elected official liberating people from government? This is just idiotic, because he is the government. He wields governmental power, however localized; he is acting not from a mandate of most of his state’s citizens, but from the whims of moneyed interests that have no respect for rank-and-file voters, and appear to come from outside the state; and his defiance of the protesters comes across as only a toned-down, slightly more honey-voiced version of Gaddafi (or however you spell his frigging name) on his rampart.
So please. If someone like Scott Walker is your government dragon slayer, you’re setting the bar pathetically low.
I don’t see anything wrong with his statement. It’s true of the most evil governments.
It’s true of the most evil human institutions of every kind. It’s even true of lots of human institutions that fall short of the “most evil” mark.
The Catholic Church has, at times, been responsible for the wholesale extermination of thousands upon thousands of people who simply chose to believe something other than Catholic dogma. Clearly, any religious organization has the potential to do the same, and we must therefore require all religious bodies to observe a purely congregational polity.
The various East India companies subjugated vast regions and populations of Asia to bondage, in order to enrich their shareholders. Likewise, the public stock corporations that sponsored and implemented the slave trade and plantation economies of South America, the Caribbean, and the south-east United States. In the latter example, we’re talking about tens of millions of people, treated as property and systematically worked to death. Clearly, any publicly traded corporation has the potential to do exactly the same. We must require corporations to be limited in size and scope, and to never do business outside of the country or state in which they are incorporated, so that they can be effectively brought under public control.
I think you see where I’m going with this.
Brett is not just making the obvious and unarguable observation that government is *capable* of acting badly, he is arguing from that obvious point to state this:
I’m in favor of having government do very little.
Which, to me, is a pretty freaking huge leap. To say nothing of the fact that “very little” is not particularly well defined here.
Brett sees Sweden as a tyrranical regime, and insists that our failure to recognize it as such enables the encroachment of greater oppression, presumably both there and here.
So, long story short, I find Brett’s position to be overwrought.
Yes, government is capable of great evil. It shares that trait with every single human institution that has ever existed. And, like those institutions, it comes by that trait honestly, by virtue of being composed of humans.
I don’t see anything wrong with his statement. It’s true of the most evil governments.
It’s true of the most evil human institutions of every kind. It’s even true of lots of human institutions that fall short of the “most evil” mark.
The Catholic Church has, at times, been responsible for the wholesale extermination of thousands upon thousands of people who simply chose to believe something other than Catholic dogma. Clearly, any religious organization has the potential to do the same, and we must therefore require all religious bodies to observe a purely congregational polity.
The various East India companies subjugated vast regions and populations of Asia to bondage, in order to enrich their shareholders. Likewise, the public stock corporations that sponsored and implemented the slave trade and plantation economies of South America, the Caribbean, and the south-east United States. In the latter example, we’re talking about tens of millions of people, treated as property and systematically worked to death. Clearly, any publicly traded corporation has the potential to do exactly the same. We must require corporations to be limited in size and scope, and to never do business outside of the country or state in which they are incorporated, so that they can be effectively brought under public control.
I think you see where I’m going with this.
Brett is not just making the obvious and unarguable observation that government is *capable* of acting badly, he is arguing from that obvious point to state this:
I’m in favor of having government do very little.
Which, to me, is a pretty freaking huge leap. To say nothing of the fact that “very little” is not particularly well defined here.
Brett sees Sweden as a tyrranical regime, and insists that our failure to recognize it as such enables the encroachment of greater oppression, presumably both there and here.
So, long story short, I find Brett’s position to be overwrought.
Yes, government is capable of great evil. It shares that trait with every single human institution that has ever existed. And, like those institutions, it comes by that trait honestly, by virtue of being composed of humans.
Really the bottom line here is whose side are you on? Bc and Brett seem to be hellbent o n rationalizing policies which have the effect of harming their fellow citizens, people who work, pay taxes, support their families, do all the stuff conservatives are supposed to care about. And why? So far as I can see the justification is 2. ideological or 2. attempts to make the Democratic party out as the villian.
Ideologies are like fundamentalist religion: they provide all the easy answers for people who want to feel intellectally superior without having to actually think. I also have an increasingly short fuse with people who try to impose their ideology on others to the detriment of others from the smug safety of not having to experience the consequences of the application of the ideology themselves. The Koch brothers will never have to suffer themselves for having foisted their Social Darwinism on the rest of us.
Republican rhetoric about limiting government power if mostly just a platitude. The little bit of actual meaning behind the platitude government concerns responsibility; they don’t see the government as being responsible to or for anyone but them.
This is evident from the sorts of policies Republican politicians promote: “limiting big government” by supporting polluters, subsidizing the exploitation of federal lands by special interests, and so on. The Republicans of Missouri “limited big goverment” by eviscerating an anit-puppymill initiatve on behalf of puppy millers, one of whom is a Republican state legislator. The calim that Republican are for limiting big government goes back to the days when Republicans were exploiting racims by framing Civil Rights legislation as big government.
One of the intersting aspects of the Republican assualt on uinons is that is shows the limits of divde and conquer as a political technique. Back when unmions were being integrated Repubicans were right there, canvassing for the racist union vote by presennting themselves as the opponents of the big government that was forcing the uinons to integrate. It worked. For a number of years a hunk of union votes started going to the Repubican party. OF course the goal here was to electe Repubicdans,not to pursue any policies that mighht actually be beneficial to the union members or people of the same economic class. It ws exploitatin, jus tlike the pretense of being “pro-family” was a ploy to get votes by demonizing gays, not set of policies that would actually benefit families in any way.
But now that the Republicans have run the federal deficit up enough to move to the next step–bust the unions,turn Social Securty inot a wellfare program and defund it, defund medicaid, “reform” Medicare, defund everything else except the military and red state special interests–the Republican party has to start attacking their own base: the union voters who voted R but are no longer racist and are used to integrated unions, the older people who voted R, the religous people who vogted R but are in either a union or on SS, Medicare or Medicaid, the people who voted R but have relatives or friends in a union or on one of the big three programs…
So the divide and conquer is being reframed as the Repubicans defending the taxpares against…all of us other tax payers, I guess.
It’s really time for this divde and conquer crap to stop working.
Really the bottom line here is whose side are you on? Bc and Brett seem to be hellbent o n rationalizing policies which have the effect of harming their fellow citizens, people who work, pay taxes, support their families, do all the stuff conservatives are supposed to care about. And why? So far as I can see the justification is 2. ideological or 2. attempts to make the Democratic party out as the villian.
Ideologies are like fundamentalist religion: they provide all the easy answers for people who want to feel intellectally superior without having to actually think. I also have an increasingly short fuse with people who try to impose their ideology on others to the detriment of others from the smug safety of not having to experience the consequences of the application of the ideology themselves. The Koch brothers will never have to suffer themselves for having foisted their Social Darwinism on the rest of us.
Republican rhetoric about limiting government power if mostly just a platitude. The little bit of actual meaning behind the platitude government concerns responsibility; they don’t see the government as being responsible to or for anyone but them.
This is evident from the sorts of policies Republican politicians promote: “limiting big government” by supporting polluters, subsidizing the exploitation of federal lands by special interests, and so on. The Republicans of Missouri “limited big goverment” by eviscerating an anit-puppymill initiatve on behalf of puppy millers, one of whom is a Republican state legislator. The calim that Republican are for limiting big government goes back to the days when Republicans were exploiting racims by framing Civil Rights legislation as big government.
One of the intersting aspects of the Republican assualt on uinons is that is shows the limits of divde and conquer as a political technique. Back when unmions were being integrated Repubicans were right there, canvassing for the racist union vote by presennting themselves as the opponents of the big government that was forcing the uinons to integrate. It worked. For a number of years a hunk of union votes started going to the Repubican party. OF course the goal here was to electe Repubicdans,not to pursue any policies that mighht actually be beneficial to the union members or people of the same economic class. It ws exploitatin, jus tlike the pretense of being “pro-family” was a ploy to get votes by demonizing gays, not set of policies that would actually benefit families in any way.
But now that the Republicans have run the federal deficit up enough to move to the next step–bust the unions,turn Social Securty inot a wellfare program and defund it, defund medicaid, “reform” Medicare, defund everything else except the military and red state special interests–the Republican party has to start attacking their own base: the union voters who voted R but are no longer racist and are used to integrated unions, the older people who voted R, the religous people who vogted R but are in either a union or on SS, Medicare or Medicaid, the people who voted R but have relatives or friends in a union or on one of the big three programs…
So the divide and conquer is being reframed as the Repubicans defending the taxpares against…all of us other tax payers, I guess.
It’s really time for this divde and conquer crap to stop working.
I don’t think that’s justifiable. All Brett is saying, as I see it, is that the government of Sweden is too oppressive for his tastes, in some respects. Just to refresh y’all’s collective memories:
Saying a government is too oppressive, in some respects, for your taste is not the same as saying that government should be considered oppressive in some major way. What he’s saying is even Sweden can be oppressive.
Probably not in any alarming way, would be my guess.
That’s how I read it, anyway. I certainly could be wrong about that, and await Brett’s response.
I don’t think that’s justifiable. All Brett is saying, as I see it, is that the government of Sweden is too oppressive for his tastes, in some respects. Just to refresh y’all’s collective memories:
Saying a government is too oppressive, in some respects, for your taste is not the same as saying that government should be considered oppressive in some major way. What he’s saying is even Sweden can be oppressive.
Probably not in any alarming way, would be my guess.
That’s how I read it, anyway. I certainly could be wrong about that, and await Brett’s response.
I’m guessing that Brett has something like this relative ranking in mind. Or possibly this.
I don’t know enough about Sweden to suspect what might be objectionable.
I’m guessing that Brett has something like this relative ranking in mind. Or possibly this.
I don’t know enough about Sweden to suspect what might be objectionable.
All Brett is saying, as I see it, is that the government of Sweden is too oppressive for his tastes, in some respects.
My apologies. For “tyrannical” in my comment, please substitute “oppressive”.
Brett sees Sweden as an oppressive government, not least because Brett sees *all* government as oppressive. Inherently so.
If it’s government, it’s oppressive. Ipso facto. That is the Brett Bellmore position.
The floor is open for Brett to correct me if I am wrong on that point.
I’m guessing that Brett has something like this relative ranking in mind. Or possibly this.
I have no idea what specific things Brett has in mind.
Speaking for myself only, I would say that a Heritage Foundation or Fraser Institute ranking of the economic freedom of various nations is an extremely narrow lens for measuring “oppression”.
It’s not my understanding that the primary purpose of government is to support capitalist enterprise. Nor is it my understanding that a government’s support for capitalist enterprise is the most useful or meaningful measure of how oppressive or non-oppressive it is.
Other folks’ MMV, obviously.
All Brett is saying, as I see it, is that the government of Sweden is too oppressive for his tastes, in some respects.
My apologies. For “tyrannical” in my comment, please substitute “oppressive”.
Brett sees Sweden as an oppressive government, not least because Brett sees *all* government as oppressive. Inherently so.
If it’s government, it’s oppressive. Ipso facto. That is the Brett Bellmore position.
The floor is open for Brett to correct me if I am wrong on that point.
I’m guessing that Brett has something like this relative ranking in mind. Or possibly this.
I have no idea what specific things Brett has in mind.
Speaking for myself only, I would say that a Heritage Foundation or Fraser Institute ranking of the economic freedom of various nations is an extremely narrow lens for measuring “oppression”.
It’s not my understanding that the primary purpose of government is to support capitalist enterprise. Nor is it my understanding that a government’s support for capitalist enterprise is the most useful or meaningful measure of how oppressive or non-oppressive it is.
Other folks’ MMV, obviously.
Look, I’ll put a point on this.
Our – the United States of America’s – understanding of what the purpose of government is sounds like this:
That is the purpose, the reason for being, of government. As we understand and practice it.
For some people, the “pursuit of happiness” includes being able to bargain collectively for the compensation they will receive for their labor.
There’s nothing in the freaking Constitution that excludes that. Nothing that speaks for it, or against it. Nothing.
Walker wants to take that privilege away. Folks who value it object, and are assembling, peaceably, to express their objection.
Brett objects because they are not confining their assembly to only those places and times allowed by “the rules”.
That is known as an act of non-violent civil disobedience, and it also has an extremely long and valuable heritage in our political and social tradition.
Walker wants to remove the privilege of collective bargaining. Folks who hold that privilege don’t want to give it up, and are expressing their objection. Because it’s part of their particular path to pursuing their own personal happiness.
That is what is going on here. Nothing more and nothing less.
Look, I’ll put a point on this.
Our – the United States of America’s – understanding of what the purpose of government is sounds like this:
That is the purpose, the reason for being, of government. As we understand and practice it.
For some people, the “pursuit of happiness” includes being able to bargain collectively for the compensation they will receive for their labor.
There’s nothing in the freaking Constitution that excludes that. Nothing that speaks for it, or against it. Nothing.
Walker wants to take that privilege away. Folks who value it object, and are assembling, peaceably, to express their objection.
Brett objects because they are not confining their assembly to only those places and times allowed by “the rules”.
That is known as an act of non-violent civil disobedience, and it also has an extremely long and valuable heritage in our political and social tradition.
Walker wants to remove the privilege of collective bargaining. Folks who hold that privilege don’t want to give it up, and are expressing their objection. Because it’s part of their particular path to pursuing their own personal happiness.
That is what is going on here. Nothing more and nothing less.
Current situation :
about fifty protestors overnighted in Statehouse
All but a handful complied with requests to move to a particular area.
The handful apparently refuses to leave the floor of the rotunda
No more protestors will be allowed into the Statehouse until the holdouts comply with requests to move.
(local reporting by local television station NBC15, Madison
Current situation :
about fifty protestors overnighted in Statehouse
All but a handful complied with requests to move to a particular area.
The handful apparently refuses to leave the floor of the rotunda
No more protestors will be allowed into the Statehouse until the holdouts comply with requests to move.
(local reporting by local television station NBC15, Madison
Bc and Brett seem to be hellbent o n rationalizing policies which have the effect of harming their fellow citizens, . . .
Wow. “Hellbent?” No, I have repeatedly said that while I see a role for unions in the private sector, I do not in the public. IMHO, public unions harm fellow citizens, although not the member employees. I think you need to look at the citizenry as a whole. We have a difference of opinion on who is getting harmed.
That is what is going on here. Nothing more and nothing less.
Well, that’s not all that’s going on here. There’s more than a simple protest. If that’s all it was, I wouldn’t have a bit of a problem. No, protest all you want. Even stay in the rotunda into the wee hours. No problem here.
Bringing students in? Teachers lying about sick notes? Fleeing the state to avoid the results of an election? Different story.
Bc and Brett seem to be hellbent o n rationalizing policies which have the effect of harming their fellow citizens, . . .
Wow. “Hellbent?” No, I have repeatedly said that while I see a role for unions in the private sector, I do not in the public. IMHO, public unions harm fellow citizens, although not the member employees. I think you need to look at the citizenry as a whole. We have a difference of opinion on who is getting harmed.
That is what is going on here. Nothing more and nothing less.
Well, that’s not all that’s going on here. There’s more than a simple protest. If that’s all it was, I wouldn’t have a bit of a problem. No, protest all you want. Even stay in the rotunda into the wee hours. No problem here.
Bringing students in? Teachers lying about sick notes? Fleeing the state to avoid the results of an election? Different story.
Bringing students in? Teachers lying about sick notes? Fleeing the state to avoid the results of an election? Different story.
Yeah, the kids should stay home unless they themselves want to join in the action. The teachers shouldn’t be bringing the kids in just to load the place up with warm bodies. My guess is that some of kids are legitimately into it, some are having a fun day of no school, and some are a mix of both.
Yeah, people shouldn’t lie and make up excuses to not go to work in order to force a work stoppage. They should just say “I’m on strike and I’m not coming in”.
Yeah, the spectacle of Democratic legislators leaving the state to deny a quorum is kinda weird.
Here is my point of view on this whole thing:
If public workers in WI want to protest losing the privilege of collective bargaining, they have every right to do so. Including the right to do so by peaceably assembling. Even if they do so in ways that break the law, because sometimes that’s the right thing to do.
If squirrely stuff like “they brought the high school kids in” and “they lied about why they were staying home” incline you toward a negative view of the substance of their case, so be it, I guess. Chalk it up to an own goal on their part. They’ve lost one heart and mind. It’s no better or worse than any of the other ten million examples of dodgy political theater that happen every day.
Bringing students in? Teachers lying about sick notes? Fleeing the state to avoid the results of an election? Different story.
Yeah, the kids should stay home unless they themselves want to join in the action. The teachers shouldn’t be bringing the kids in just to load the place up with warm bodies. My guess is that some of kids are legitimately into it, some are having a fun day of no school, and some are a mix of both.
Yeah, people shouldn’t lie and make up excuses to not go to work in order to force a work stoppage. They should just say “I’m on strike and I’m not coming in”.
Yeah, the spectacle of Democratic legislators leaving the state to deny a quorum is kinda weird.
Here is my point of view on this whole thing:
If public workers in WI want to protest losing the privilege of collective bargaining, they have every right to do so. Including the right to do so by peaceably assembling. Even if they do so in ways that break the law, because sometimes that’s the right thing to do.
If squirrely stuff like “they brought the high school kids in” and “they lied about why they were staying home” incline you toward a negative view of the substance of their case, so be it, I guess. Chalk it up to an own goal on their part. They’ve lost one heart and mind. It’s no better or worse than any of the other ten million examples of dodgy political theater that happen every day.
I’m not too worried about the demonstrations, either. Nor am I worried about the state declining to enter labor contracts with the union, if that’s an accurate summary of things. Lots of people work without a contract. Lots and lots and LOTS of people. I don’t expect people to agree with me on this, but collective bargaining isn’t exactly de rigeur for salaried employees.
If the state is declining collective bargaining, and not doing something considerably more far-reaching (such as making it illegal to organize), I’m ok with that.
The sick notes are just petty. Laughable, even. Like russell, I’m not highly bothered by them.
I’m not too worried about the demonstrations, either. Nor am I worried about the state declining to enter labor contracts with the union, if that’s an accurate summary of things. Lots of people work without a contract. Lots and lots and LOTS of people. I don’t expect people to agree with me on this, but collective bargaining isn’t exactly de rigeur for salaried employees.
If the state is declining collective bargaining, and not doing something considerably more far-reaching (such as making it illegal to organize), I’m ok with that.
The sick notes are just petty. Laughable, even. Like russell, I’m not highly bothered by them.
Political Theory, circa Brett: Freedom in a condition of government will inexorably lessen under the increasing weight of oppression, much like a frog in a slowly heated pot of water is boiled without even realizing its danger, and those who push back against this must first observe at least halfway boiledness (by necessity in a land far, far away) before the realization of the danger they face is recognized.
Political Theory, circa Brett: Freedom in a condition of government will inexorably lessen under the increasing weight of oppression, much like a frog in a slowly heated pot of water is boiled without even realizing its danger, and those who push back against this must first observe at least halfway boiledness (by necessity in a land far, far away) before the realization of the danger they face is recognized.
No. It’s only true if you play along with the semantic sleight of hand necessary to make it true.
The problem is one of agency. “Government” is an organization composed of individuals, and what government “does” results from the decisions of those individuals. Government doesn’t commit genocide or cause society to collapse, human beings make bad decisions or commit crimes that cause those things to happen while holding positions of power in government.
In other words, government is a tool, not an entity capable of agency. Brett is assigning human agency to government because it allows him to shift the burden of responsibility from the individuals in government who commit these wrongs onto the tool they use to do so, which in turn fits his preferred narrative of scaremongering about the dangers of government.
This doesn’t mean the use of government should be unfettered by checks and balances, or that such power should be employed carelessly. Like corporations, motor vehicles and firearms, the misuse of government can result in great tragedy. But this isn’t an argument against government or even an argument about the appropriate size or amount of government–it’s simply a recognition that human beings are flawed and that all tools can be misused, and that the regulatory structure we erect around those tools should be directly proportionate to their potential for misuse.
No. It’s only true if you play along with the semantic sleight of hand necessary to make it true.
The problem is one of agency. “Government” is an organization composed of individuals, and what government “does” results from the decisions of those individuals. Government doesn’t commit genocide or cause society to collapse, human beings make bad decisions or commit crimes that cause those things to happen while holding positions of power in government.
In other words, government is a tool, not an entity capable of agency. Brett is assigning human agency to government because it allows him to shift the burden of responsibility from the individuals in government who commit these wrongs onto the tool they use to do so, which in turn fits his preferred narrative of scaremongering about the dangers of government.
This doesn’t mean the use of government should be unfettered by checks and balances, or that such power should be employed carelessly. Like corporations, motor vehicles and firearms, the misuse of government can result in great tragedy. But this isn’t an argument against government or even an argument about the appropriate size or amount of government–it’s simply a recognition that human beings are flawed and that all tools can be misused, and that the regulatory structure we erect around those tools should be directly proportionate to their potential for misuse.
Not that this diminishes your point, but this metaphor isn’t actually one that holds IRL.
Interesting tidbit from the Wikipedia entry:
Which…I’m not going there. No way.
Not that this diminishes your point, but this metaphor isn’t actually one that holds IRL.
Interesting tidbit from the Wikipedia entry:
Which…I’m not going there. No way.
If the state is declining collective bargaining, and not doing something considerably more far-reaching (such as making it illegal to organize), I’m ok with that.
“Declining” is a curious choice of words here.
What Walker has proposed is changing the existing law so that workers MAY NOT engage in collective bargaining for any aspect of their compensation other than base salary. Further, any increase in their base salary MAY NOT exceed the rise in the CPI.
So, I’m not sure “decline” is the right word for the case at hand.
Yes, many people work without access to collective bargaining. WI public employees do have such access, and have had for decades. The state is not “declining” to engage in bargaining with them going forward, it is either denying or severely limiting access to bargaining.
The two sides will have it out, in the various ways that folks have these things out. I have no idea where it will land.
If the state is declining collective bargaining, and not doing something considerably more far-reaching (such as making it illegal to organize), I’m ok with that.
“Declining” is a curious choice of words here.
What Walker has proposed is changing the existing law so that workers MAY NOT engage in collective bargaining for any aspect of their compensation other than base salary. Further, any increase in their base salary MAY NOT exceed the rise in the CPI.
So, I’m not sure “decline” is the right word for the case at hand.
Yes, many people work without access to collective bargaining. WI public employees do have such access, and have had for decades. The state is not “declining” to engage in bargaining with them going forward, it is either denying or severely limiting access to bargaining.
The two sides will have it out, in the various ways that folks have these things out. I have no idea where it will land.
“Lots and lots and LOTS of people.”
If you submerge live frogs or lobsters in white wine and slowly bring them to boil, they relax into being dinner.
“Lots and lots and LOTS of people.”
If you submerge live frogs or lobsters in white wine and slowly bring them to boil, they relax into being dinner.
Well said Catsy. I’ve never seen a good explanation of why government institutions are inherently less trustworthy or more prone to abuse than corporations. Governments are, after all, just organizations of humans. I think the scope and number of bad things that have been done by governments is a consequence of how much governments do, and not necessarily indicative of being worse than corporations. The libertarian counterargument, as far as I understand it, seems to be that government is special bad and that if we just let humans get together in large groups of PRIVATE entities, everything would be dandy. I don’t see what historical or experimental evidence there is for that.
Well said Catsy. I’ve never seen a good explanation of why government institutions are inherently less trustworthy or more prone to abuse than corporations. Governments are, after all, just organizations of humans. I think the scope and number of bad things that have been done by governments is a consequence of how much governments do, and not necessarily indicative of being worse than corporations. The libertarian counterargument, as far as I understand it, seems to be that government is special bad and that if we just let humans get together in large groups of PRIVATE entities, everything would be dandy. I don’t see what historical or experimental evidence there is for that.
Slarti @ 4:31:
Clueless frogs: Point taken.
An interesting corollary to the Brett theorem of government viz oppression is that at the extreme, the most oppressive government will, of necessity, maximize oppression, i.e., snuff out first the citizenry and then itself out so as to ????achieve some kind of synthesis? So we have:
1. Government
2. Inexorable oppression
3. Universal death, destruction
4. ????
5. No government = paradise.
Moral: What? Me worry?
Slarti @ 4:31:
Clueless frogs: Point taken.
An interesting corollary to the Brett theorem of government viz oppression is that at the extreme, the most oppressive government will, of necessity, maximize oppression, i.e., snuff out first the citizenry and then itself out so as to ????achieve some kind of synthesis? So we have:
1. Government
2. Inexorable oppression
3. Universal death, destruction
4. ????
5. No government = paradise.
Moral: What? Me worry?
You can point out whatever you want; that doesn’t make it a true statement.
The phrase “Bush tax cuts” is purely descriptive. It is the term by which the tax cuts in question are actually referred to by both supporters and detractors, including the Bush administration itself. It is the title of the Wikipedia article that describes them. It is the name by which Bush supporters were more than happy to refer to them when they were popular. If you look at a timeline of Google search results and drill down into it by year, it is overwhelmingly clear that over the last ten years “Bush tax cuts” has been the standard shorthand description–again, tellingly, among both supporters and detractors–for Bush’s tax cut policies passed in 2001 and 2003.
Contrast this with an examination of “Obamacare”, which is almost exclusively used as a pejorative term by the law’s opponents.
Your false equivalency is utterly without basis in fact, and I think you know it.
You can point out whatever you want; that doesn’t make it a true statement.
The phrase “Bush tax cuts” is purely descriptive. It is the term by which the tax cuts in question are actually referred to by both supporters and detractors, including the Bush administration itself. It is the title of the Wikipedia article that describes them. It is the name by which Bush supporters were more than happy to refer to them when they were popular. If you look at a timeline of Google search results and drill down into it by year, it is overwhelmingly clear that over the last ten years “Bush tax cuts” has been the standard shorthand description–again, tellingly, among both supporters and detractors–for Bush’s tax cut policies passed in 2001 and 2003.
Contrast this with an examination of “Obamacare”, which is almost exclusively used as a pejorative term by the law’s opponents.
Your false equivalency is utterly without basis in fact, and I think you know it.
I’ve never seen a good explanation of why government institutions are inherently less trustworthy or more prone to abuse than corporations.
Well, to start, gov’ts exist for the purpose of exercising power over individuals, an inherently coercive undertaking. That’s why we have ‘limited’ gov’t, and a constitution that enumerates and limits national power. Ours is a relatively benign form of coercion. Still, it functions by proscribing and mandating behaviors, all backed by police power and the power to fine and imprison. So far as I know, except for consensual relations, no corporation has anything like that kind of power over me.
I’ve never seen a good explanation of why government institutions are inherently less trustworthy or more prone to abuse than corporations.
Well, to start, gov’ts exist for the purpose of exercising power over individuals, an inherently coercive undertaking. That’s why we have ‘limited’ gov’t, and a constitution that enumerates and limits national power. Ours is a relatively benign form of coercion. Still, it functions by proscribing and mandating behaviors, all backed by police power and the power to fine and imprison. So far as I know, except for consensual relations, no corporation has anything like that kind of power over me.
Which is much like saying that corporations exist for the purpose of enriching their owners at society’s expense. Which is a true statement, but a loaded one that elides a number of relevant and nontrivial details to the point where it loses value as anything other than bulshytt.
To whatever extent it is true that the purpose of government is “inherently coercive”, this has nothing at all to say about whether public institutions are less trustworthy or more prone to abuse than private institutions. Rather it bears on the scope of the damage that misuse of government can cause. This aspect of conservative anti-government dogma is without value because it conflates two completely different factors in risk management: probability and severity.
It is one thing to say: misuse of government can have severe consequences, and therefore requires a rigorous system of checks and balances in order to mitigate the risk of those consequences. This is a statement that is well-grounded in fact, and one with which I doubt either conservatives or liberals would take issue.
It is entirely different to say: government is more likely to be misused than private institutions, and therefore we must use government as little as possible and prefer private solutions. This seems to be the dominant conservative attitude towards government, and I would take issue with how defensible it is (or isn’t, as the case may be).
This is a failure of imagination with which the residents of the Gulf Coast might take issue.
The fact that most corporations have no direct “coercive” authority over you does not mean that they are incapable of causing harm to you and the environment in which you live in any of a thousand different ways when left to their own devices.
Which is much like saying that corporations exist for the purpose of enriching their owners at society’s expense. Which is a true statement, but a loaded one that elides a number of relevant and nontrivial details to the point where it loses value as anything other than bulshytt.
To whatever extent it is true that the purpose of government is “inherently coercive”, this has nothing at all to say about whether public institutions are less trustworthy or more prone to abuse than private institutions. Rather it bears on the scope of the damage that misuse of government can cause. This aspect of conservative anti-government dogma is without value because it conflates two completely different factors in risk management: probability and severity.
It is one thing to say: misuse of government can have severe consequences, and therefore requires a rigorous system of checks and balances in order to mitigate the risk of those consequences. This is a statement that is well-grounded in fact, and one with which I doubt either conservatives or liberals would take issue.
It is entirely different to say: government is more likely to be misused than private institutions, and therefore we must use government as little as possible and prefer private solutions. This seems to be the dominant conservative attitude towards government, and I would take issue with how defensible it is (or isn’t, as the case may be).
This is a failure of imagination with which the residents of the Gulf Coast might take issue.
The fact that most corporations have no direct “coercive” authority over you does not mean that they are incapable of causing harm to you and the environment in which you live in any of a thousand different ways when left to their own devices.
I agree with you re: the power government has, especially about the monopoly on violence that it has.
However, though you (correctly) point out that no corporation has anything like that power over you, you don’t say what you think it is that is preventing corporations from seizing that power over you. Are they just benevolently inclined?
I would say that what prevents such a takeover is government.
I agree with you re: the power government has, especially about the monopoly on violence that it has.
However, though you (correctly) point out that no corporation has anything like that power over you, you don’t say what you think it is that is preventing corporations from seizing that power over you. Are they just benevolently inclined?
I would say that what prevents such a takeover is government.
Any time I want to post, I should just wait five minutes and watch Catsy say it better.
Any time I want to post, I should just wait five minutes and watch Catsy say it better.
When the majority of Wisconsinites voted for a Republican Governor, didn’t they know that he would move against labor unions? Why do people vote for Republicans and then act surprised when they do what comes natural to them (support the rich at the expense of the middle class)?
Good luck to the protesters, but not sure that they are going to win this battle. Republicans are going to do whatever the hell they want now that they have the majority.
When the majority of Wisconsinites voted for a Republican Governor, didn’t they know that he would move against labor unions? Why do people vote for Republicans and then act surprised when they do what comes natural to them (support the rich at the expense of the middle class)?
Good luck to the protesters, but not sure that they are going to win this battle. Republicans are going to do whatever the hell they want now that they have the majority.
This is a failure of imagination with which the residents of the Gulf Coast might take issue.
Not really. Stupidity is not a conscious exercise of power. Surely, any company like BP can do something really stupid and cause a lot of harm. I make my living off of private acts of stupidity.
Gov’t, even our gov’t, can be consciously oppressive. I have a client who, at this moment, is on the receiving end of very onerous regulatory bullying. Details are confidential, but when they get into the public domain, I am likely to bring it up here in some detail.
what you think it is that is preventing corporations from seizing that power over you
Julian, the notion that a group of corporations is going to take over is one that, outside of Hollywood, is the worst kind of fantasy. They can barely run their own operations. Yes, they can screw things up, but screwing up is the polar opposite of seizing control of a mostly armed population of 300 million people.
This is a failure of imagination with which the residents of the Gulf Coast might take issue.
Not really. Stupidity is not a conscious exercise of power. Surely, any company like BP can do something really stupid and cause a lot of harm. I make my living off of private acts of stupidity.
Gov’t, even our gov’t, can be consciously oppressive. I have a client who, at this moment, is on the receiving end of very onerous regulatory bullying. Details are confidential, but when they get into the public domain, I am likely to bring it up here in some detail.
what you think it is that is preventing corporations from seizing that power over you
Julian, the notion that a group of corporations is going to take over is one that, outside of Hollywood, is the worst kind of fantasy. They can barely run their own operations. Yes, they can screw things up, but screwing up is the polar opposite of seizing control of a mostly armed population of 300 million people.
McKinney: I make my living off of private acts of stupidity.
Ah, but HOW do you do that? Absent “government”, you’d have to earn an honest living 🙂
–TP
McKinney: I make my living off of private acts of stupidity.
Ah, but HOW do you do that? Absent “government”, you’d have to earn an honest living 🙂
–TP
“It is one thing to say: misuse of government can have severe consequences, and therefore requires a rigorous system of checks and balances in order to mitigate the risk of those consequences.”
Like to big to fail corporations, too big to manage government is immune to checks and balances. Despite the areas that conservatives like to point to, the best example of this today is in the defense budget.
It is simply too big to audit. Let me be very clear, it is not unauditable simply because of size. It is not organized well and is not transparent enough, even in the areas where it can be, to allow for a proper regular audit.
So we chip away at the edges, announce cuts that everyone takes credit for, and the House budget still increases defense spending.
This gets replicated all across government in smaller chunks, a billion here, a billion there, each with it’s own vocal constituency until the answer is to beg for inflation to cover our sins once again.
And those are just the abuses of the budget, not to start on the abuses of the DOJ by every President in my lifetime to achieve his political goals, and the Congresses abuses of the power of Advise and Consent to try and block that.
The difference in each of them has only been in in scope, not kind.
So, I completely agree with the accuracy of this statement and submit that size is one of those things that we should have a valid set of checks and balances on.
The discussion that takes the teeth out of the far right rhetoric is the one where we all agree that it is in fact a reasonable goal to limit the size of government, and then have the discussion as to what reasonable size small is.
“It is one thing to say: misuse of government can have severe consequences, and therefore requires a rigorous system of checks and balances in order to mitigate the risk of those consequences.”
Like to big to fail corporations, too big to manage government is immune to checks and balances. Despite the areas that conservatives like to point to, the best example of this today is in the defense budget.
It is simply too big to audit. Let me be very clear, it is not unauditable simply because of size. It is not organized well and is not transparent enough, even in the areas where it can be, to allow for a proper regular audit.
So we chip away at the edges, announce cuts that everyone takes credit for, and the House budget still increases defense spending.
This gets replicated all across government in smaller chunks, a billion here, a billion there, each with it’s own vocal constituency until the answer is to beg for inflation to cover our sins once again.
And those are just the abuses of the budget, not to start on the abuses of the DOJ by every President in my lifetime to achieve his political goals, and the Congresses abuses of the power of Advise and Consent to try and block that.
The difference in each of them has only been in in scope, not kind.
So, I completely agree with the accuracy of this statement and submit that size is one of those things that we should have a valid set of checks and balances on.
The discussion that takes the teeth out of the far right rhetoric is the one where we all agree that it is in fact a reasonable goal to limit the size of government, and then have the discussion as to what reasonable size small is.
It is a pleasure for me to agree with McKinneyTexas — having a monopoly on the {legitimate; authorized; legal} (take your pick) use of force is practically the definition of government.
My favorite discussion of the hazards of privatization of this function is Brad DeLong’s No Libertarians in the Seventeenth-Century Highlands. I also love it because it links to the origin of “and a pony.”
The punch line:
It is a pleasure for me to agree with McKinneyTexas — having a monopoly on the {legitimate; authorized; legal} (take your pick) use of force is practically the definition of government.
My favorite discussion of the hazards of privatization of this function is Brad DeLong’s No Libertarians in the Seventeenth-Century Highlands. I also love it because it links to the origin of “and a pony.”
The punch line:
Julian: I get that way about people like russell all the time. After today I’ll probably return to my regularly scheduled program of lurking for the next few months.
One thing that I’d like to add, though: it is really striking to take the conservative arguments about government and imagine them as applied to, say, guns.
Like government, guns are tools. They are physical tools rather than an institution employed as a tool in a metaphorical sense, but like government they have no agency of their own: any effects that occur from their use occur as a result of choices made by the person using them. And it is interesting that McK chose to describe government’s function as inherently coercive: guns are among the most inherently coercive of all tools. Their purpose is to cause injury or death, or to compel compliance under threat of such.
Yet to most conservatives, guns are a symbol of freedom, their ownership a nearly unfettered right secured by the vague and archaic 2nd Amendment. The slightest move towards any kind of restraints on or regulation of gun ownership is met with hysteria and fearmongering from the right-wing gun lobbies. Gun violence is regrettable, but a matter of individual responsibility and enforcement of existing laws rather than something about which the government might reasonably concern itself with limiting.
There are places where the analogy rather obviously breaks down, but it is sufficiently apt to point out that the logic and risk management reasoning employed by conservatives in support of firearms are diametrically opposed to the logic and reasoning used to undermine the legitimacy and scaremonger about the dangers of government.
It’s almost as if some of them start with a foregone conclusion and work backwards to the justification. And by “almost as if”, I mean “an awful lot like”.
Julian: I get that way about people like russell all the time. After today I’ll probably return to my regularly scheduled program of lurking for the next few months.
One thing that I’d like to add, though: it is really striking to take the conservative arguments about government and imagine them as applied to, say, guns.
Like government, guns are tools. They are physical tools rather than an institution employed as a tool in a metaphorical sense, but like government they have no agency of their own: any effects that occur from their use occur as a result of choices made by the person using them. And it is interesting that McK chose to describe government’s function as inherently coercive: guns are among the most inherently coercive of all tools. Their purpose is to cause injury or death, or to compel compliance under threat of such.
Yet to most conservatives, guns are a symbol of freedom, their ownership a nearly unfettered right secured by the vague and archaic 2nd Amendment. The slightest move towards any kind of restraints on or regulation of gun ownership is met with hysteria and fearmongering from the right-wing gun lobbies. Gun violence is regrettable, but a matter of individual responsibility and enforcement of existing laws rather than something about which the government might reasonably concern itself with limiting.
There are places where the analogy rather obviously breaks down, but it is sufficiently apt to point out that the logic and risk management reasoning employed by conservatives in support of firearms are diametrically opposed to the logic and reasoning used to undermine the legitimacy and scaremonger about the dangers of government.
It’s almost as if some of them start with a foregone conclusion and work backwards to the justification. And by “almost as if”, I mean “an awful lot like”.
Well, to start, gov’ts exist for the purpose of exercising power over individuals, an inherently coercive undertaking.
I don’t accept this framing. The purpose of government is to assist in, expedite or even cause the orderly operation of certain aspects of society that it is impractical for individuals or private entities to do on their own. The exercise of power is a tool we grant it to accomplish that purpose.
I have a client who, at this moment, is on the receiving end of very onerous regulatory bullying.
Obviously we can’t take on this topic without knowing details that you clearly aren’t at liberty to divulge, but one man’s “onerous regulatory bullying” is another man’s “sensible regulation.” I’m sure ALL regulation is onerous to the person or firm who simply doesn’t want to follow it.
Julian, the notion that a group of corporations is going to take over is one that, outside of Hollywood, is the worst kind of fantasy.
Uhhhhhh . . . do you know why banana republics are called “banana republics?”
Well, to start, gov’ts exist for the purpose of exercising power over individuals, an inherently coercive undertaking.
I don’t accept this framing. The purpose of government is to assist in, expedite or even cause the orderly operation of certain aspects of society that it is impractical for individuals or private entities to do on their own. The exercise of power is a tool we grant it to accomplish that purpose.
I have a client who, at this moment, is on the receiving end of very onerous regulatory bullying.
Obviously we can’t take on this topic without knowing details that you clearly aren’t at liberty to divulge, but one man’s “onerous regulatory bullying” is another man’s “sensible regulation.” I’m sure ALL regulation is onerous to the person or firm who simply doesn’t want to follow it.
Julian, the notion that a group of corporations is going to take over is one that, outside of Hollywood, is the worst kind of fantasy.
Uhhhhhh . . . do you know why banana republics are called “banana republics?”
Ral, it is a pleasure to be in agreement with you.
Catsy, gov’t is not an inanimate object to be used wisely or not. And the issue I originally addressed was the difference between power held by gov’t and that held by corporations.
Gov’t has agency, as you term it. It acts of its own volition and, for the most part, it is inherently coercive. It would also be true that, for the most part, the majority if not the vast majority of US citizens consent in general to gov’t coercion. We want bad people arrested, tried and, if guilty, imprisoned.
And where did this rant on gun ownership come from?
TP–yep, I need gov’t coercion just like everyone else, up to a point.
Ral, it is a pleasure to be in agreement with you.
Catsy, gov’t is not an inanimate object to be used wisely or not. And the issue I originally addressed was the difference between power held by gov’t and that held by corporations.
Gov’t has agency, as you term it. It acts of its own volition and, for the most part, it is inherently coercive. It would also be true that, for the most part, the majority if not the vast majority of US citizens consent in general to gov’t coercion. We want bad people arrested, tried and, if guilty, imprisoned.
And where did this rant on gun ownership come from?
TP–yep, I need gov’t coercion just like everyone else, up to a point.
I would be happy to utterly defund every bit of police power, including the entire military, now possessed by governments at every level in the United States.
If only to observe the full flowering of coercive private, corporate power.
Joe Arpaio – there’s one example of a coercive f*ck I want defunded and then I want to catch him alone — defunded, disarmed of his gummint ordnance, and without his filthy government there to protect him from me.
By the way, the country rankings regarding relative freedom mentioned above leave out a few things.
Try taking a dump in a Singapore public toilet and not flushing and see what happens to you. Or take a leak in any elevator. The freedom-loving Singapore constabulary will be watching via spy cams and they will lock the doors of that elevator and take you away.*
And it’s gotta be coercion from somewhere or other that keeps the streets and outdoor parking lot food courts in Singapore clean enough to eat off of.
And there ought to be someone coercing me to never again end a sentence with “off of”, but since the long arm of the government will not and I’m outta time, too bad.
*And I do mean “you” (“you” being the folks who have a little problem with run-of-the mill gummint coercion, and who might piss on an elevator just to thwart a little gummint coercion), not me. I’ve been coerced all my life to not foul the public toilets, elevators, and streets.
So call me a boiled frog.
I would be happy to utterly defund every bit of police power, including the entire military, now possessed by governments at every level in the United States.
If only to observe the full flowering of coercive private, corporate power.
Joe Arpaio – there’s one example of a coercive f*ck I want defunded and then I want to catch him alone — defunded, disarmed of his gummint ordnance, and without his filthy government there to protect him from me.
By the way, the country rankings regarding relative freedom mentioned above leave out a few things.
Try taking a dump in a Singapore public toilet and not flushing and see what happens to you. Or take a leak in any elevator. The freedom-loving Singapore constabulary will be watching via spy cams and they will lock the doors of that elevator and take you away.*
And it’s gotta be coercion from somewhere or other that keeps the streets and outdoor parking lot food courts in Singapore clean enough to eat off of.
And there ought to be someone coercing me to never again end a sentence with “off of”, but since the long arm of the government will not and I’m outta time, too bad.
*And I do mean “you” (“you” being the folks who have a little problem with run-of-the mill gummint coercion, and who might piss on an elevator just to thwart a little gummint coercion), not me. I’ve been coerced all my life to not foul the public toilets, elevators, and streets.
So call me a boiled frog.
You’re a boiled frog.
😉
You’re a boiled frog.
😉
Beat me to it, jimminies 🙂
Beat me to it, jimminies 🙂
mmmmm…. boiled frogs.
mmmmm…. boiled frogs.
I’ll bite, Phil; because they offer a timeless and yet affordable design sensibility.
“Julian, the notion that a group of corporations is going to take over is one that, outside of Hollywood, is the worst kind of fantasy. They can barely run their own operations. Yes, they can screw things up, but screwing up is the polar opposite of seizing control of a mostly armed population of 300 million people.”
I will learn my lesson and wait to see if this gets more effectively rebutted by someone else before I give it a shot, but I would ask that you seriously reconsider your assertion, since though it certainly applies to some corporations, it plainly does not apply to all of them.
I’ll bite, Phil; because they offer a timeless and yet affordable design sensibility.
“Julian, the notion that a group of corporations is going to take over is one that, outside of Hollywood, is the worst kind of fantasy. They can barely run their own operations. Yes, they can screw things up, but screwing up is the polar opposite of seizing control of a mostly armed population of 300 million people.”
I will learn my lesson and wait to see if this gets more effectively rebutted by someone else before I give it a shot, but I would ask that you seriously reconsider your assertion, since though it certainly applies to some corporations, it plainly does not apply to all of them.
but I would ask that you seriously reconsider your assertion
Keeping in mind my assertion refers to corporations today, in the US–not Russia and not Central America 80 years ago–I’d be interested to know where we part company.
BTW, good one on the timeless yet affordable design sensibility.
but I would ask that you seriously reconsider your assertion
Keeping in mind my assertion refers to corporations today, in the US–not Russia and not Central America 80 years ago–I’d be interested to know where we part company.
BTW, good one on the timeless yet affordable design sensibility.
Actually, I can think of one private corporation, or maybe a handful, that can exert ENORMOUS control over your life without your voluntary consent: Fair Isaac Corp., Experian, Transunion and Equifax.
Actually, I can think of one private corporation, or maybe a handful, that can exert ENORMOUS control over your life without your voluntary consent: Fair Isaac Corp., Experian, Transunion and Equifax.
One thing to keep in mind about the perhaps reasonable-sounding part of the demand: “any increase in their base salary MAY NOT exceed the rise in the CPI”
Bear in mind that this means a public workforce that will be progressively more underpaid with every passing year.
Why? Because if wages only track the CPI, they never earn enough to buy anything they couldn’t buy today, even though the amount of stuff being produced in the economy (per capita) continues to increase.
In other words, and this consequence may come as a surprise only to those who have been asleep in a ditch for the past 30 years, it is a recipe for wage repression of ordinary workers and the continuing diversion of all productivity gains towards management and owners.
Workers would be perfectly justified in refusing to implement any and all productivity increases given that the rewards from those increases never reach them – they just get to lose their jobs.
Why do people vote for Republicans and then act surprised when they do what comes natural to them (support the rich at the expense of the middle class)?
Cassie, you may have noticed that Republicans, like Democrats, offer politicians with a range of views. Perhaps not a huge range, from your perspective, but a range nevertheless. So when deciding whom to vote for, a reasonable idea is to see what the politician in question says he intends to do. He may do something else, but then you have a legitimate greivance.
In the case in Wisconsin, the new governor said he would demand certain consessions from the public unions. All of which they agreed to. At which point he added more demands — which occassioned the current dust up. Now regardless of whether someone agrees with his latest postion (and I actually incline that way), it is difficult to argue that he has played fair with the voters.
One thing to keep in mind about the perhaps reasonable-sounding part of the demand: “any increase in their base salary MAY NOT exceed the rise in the CPI”
Bear in mind that this means a public workforce that will be progressively more underpaid with every passing year.
Why? Because if wages only track the CPI, they never earn enough to buy anything they couldn’t buy today, even though the amount of stuff being produced in the economy (per capita) continues to increase.
In other words, and this consequence may come as a surprise only to those who have been asleep in a ditch for the past 30 years, it is a recipe for wage repression of ordinary workers and the continuing diversion of all productivity gains towards management and owners.
Workers would be perfectly justified in refusing to implement any and all productivity increases given that the rewards from those increases never reach them – they just get to lose their jobs.
Why do people vote for Republicans and then act surprised when they do what comes natural to them (support the rich at the expense of the middle class)?
Cassie, you may have noticed that Republicans, like Democrats, offer politicians with a range of views. Perhaps not a huge range, from your perspective, but a range nevertheless. So when deciding whom to vote for, a reasonable idea is to see what the politician in question says he intends to do. He may do something else, but then you have a legitimate greivance.
In the case in Wisconsin, the new governor said he would demand certain consessions from the public unions. All of which they agreed to. At which point he added more demands — which occassioned the current dust up. Now regardless of whether someone agrees with his latest postion (and I actually incline that way), it is difficult to argue that he has played fair with the voters.
But that’s precisely the problem with your argument. You’re attempting to create an artificial distinction between the potential harms of governments and the potential harms of corporations by focusing on the risks of coercive use of force and authority on the part of the former, and the risks of market manipulation, environmental damage and other non-coercive harms on the part of the latter.
Those distinctions aren’t imaginary, but for the purposes of the discussion we’re having they are utterly without relevance. In the end, harm caused by government coercion and harm caused by corporate misconduct are both harms, and the non-coercive nature of corporate misconduct is likely to be a distinction lost on those with toxic chemicals in their drinking water.
Point being: whether the harm caused by governments and corporations is coercive or not has nothing–nothing at all, not even a little bit–to do with the question of whether public or private institutions are more or less likely to be corrupt, misused, or otherwise cause harm. It is relevant to the structure of the checks and balances necessary to mitigate the risks, and to a certain extent on the scope of those risks, but it is not relevant to the probability of their occurrence.
Are you seriously asserting that a government is a living, breathing, animate organism–literally, not metaphorically–that is capable of making its own conscious decisions?
Think about it.
No, it emphatically and factually does not. And if you think it does, you truly do not understand the concept of agency as it applies here, and it is critical that you do in order for us to have a meaningful conversation about it.
Every single activity of government occurs because of the actions of a human agent. Humans created the government as an institution. Humans wrote the laws that define the details of the government’s activities. Humans execute those laws. Humans hold positions of influence within the institution and make the day-to-day decisions about how that institution will, in a broad sense, “act”. Even the functions of government that occur without a direct human trigger, or which occur in accordance with pre-defined laws and regulations, are that way precisely because one or more humans made the decision that they should function that way.
Government is, in every respect, exactly what humans make it to be. It is neither inherently good nor evil–it is a tool employed by humans in order to organize society.
It is, as I described, an analogy between the way conservatives evaluate the probability and scope of the risks of gun ownership and the way they evaluate the same about government.
But that’s precisely the problem with your argument. You’re attempting to create an artificial distinction between the potential harms of governments and the potential harms of corporations by focusing on the risks of coercive use of force and authority on the part of the former, and the risks of market manipulation, environmental damage and other non-coercive harms on the part of the latter.
Those distinctions aren’t imaginary, but for the purposes of the discussion we’re having they are utterly without relevance. In the end, harm caused by government coercion and harm caused by corporate misconduct are both harms, and the non-coercive nature of corporate misconduct is likely to be a distinction lost on those with toxic chemicals in their drinking water.
Point being: whether the harm caused by governments and corporations is coercive or not has nothing–nothing at all, not even a little bit–to do with the question of whether public or private institutions are more or less likely to be corrupt, misused, or otherwise cause harm. It is relevant to the structure of the checks and balances necessary to mitigate the risks, and to a certain extent on the scope of those risks, but it is not relevant to the probability of their occurrence.
Are you seriously asserting that a government is a living, breathing, animate organism–literally, not metaphorically–that is capable of making its own conscious decisions?
Think about it.
No, it emphatically and factually does not. And if you think it does, you truly do not understand the concept of agency as it applies here, and it is critical that you do in order for us to have a meaningful conversation about it.
Every single activity of government occurs because of the actions of a human agent. Humans created the government as an institution. Humans wrote the laws that define the details of the government’s activities. Humans execute those laws. Humans hold positions of influence within the institution and make the day-to-day decisions about how that institution will, in a broad sense, “act”. Even the functions of government that occur without a direct human trigger, or which occur in accordance with pre-defined laws and regulations, are that way precisely because one or more humans made the decision that they should function that way.
Government is, in every respect, exactly what humans make it to be. It is neither inherently good nor evil–it is a tool employed by humans in order to organize society.
It is, as I described, an analogy between the way conservatives evaluate the probability and scope of the risks of gun ownership and the way they evaluate the same about government.
Actually, I can think of one private corporation, or maybe a handful, that can exert ENORMOUS control over your life without your voluntary consent: Fair Isaac Corp., Experian, Transunion and Equifax.
Well, this gets down to whether inaccurate credit report “controls” what you do or limits who will lend you money. I’d go with the latter. Also, having done a case or two in the area, the creditor that posts inaccurate information can be sued. I haven’t looked at remedies available against reporting agencies. All of that said, I agree that credit reporting agencies can do a lot of harm. I am unaware of any agency setting out to destroy someone. My guess is that people who, through identity theft, mistaken identity or just crappy luck, fall into credit reporting hell have a very difficult time extracting themselves. If there isn’t a solid remedy, there should be.
Actually, I can think of one private corporation, or maybe a handful, that can exert ENORMOUS control over your life without your voluntary consent: Fair Isaac Corp., Experian, Transunion and Equifax.
Well, this gets down to whether inaccurate credit report “controls” what you do or limits who will lend you money. I’d go with the latter. Also, having done a case or two in the area, the creditor that posts inaccurate information can be sued. I haven’t looked at remedies available against reporting agencies. All of that said, I agree that credit reporting agencies can do a lot of harm. I am unaware of any agency setting out to destroy someone. My guess is that people who, through identity theft, mistaken identity or just crappy luck, fall into credit reporting hell have a very difficult time extracting themselves. If there isn’t a solid remedy, there should be.
• There are 7.7 million fewer payroll jobs now than before the recession started in December 2007.
• Almost 14 million Americans are unemployed.
• Of those unemployed, 6.2 million have been unemployed for six months or more.
• Another 8.4 million are working part time for economic reasons,
• About 4 million more have left the labor force since the start of the recession (we can see this in the dramatic drop in the labor force participation rate),
• of those who have left the labor force, about 1 million are available for work, but are discouraged and have given up.
Most of the unemployed are coerced into unemployment. Yeah, I know, market coercion is such a dream.
The odd thing is, the unemployed are coerced through various gummint carrots and sticks to seek work (true, starvation and lack of health care are NOT coerced upon the unemployed by gummint, but you’ve got to admit, such coercion is in the very air we breathe; oh, natural coercion is A O.K.), but employers are not coerced to hire them, or pay them all a decent wage if they do hire them.
May we at least have a little equality in the coercion area?
• There are 7.7 million fewer payroll jobs now than before the recession started in December 2007.
• Almost 14 million Americans are unemployed.
• Of those unemployed, 6.2 million have been unemployed for six months or more.
• Another 8.4 million are working part time for economic reasons,
• About 4 million more have left the labor force since the start of the recession (we can see this in the dramatic drop in the labor force participation rate),
• of those who have left the labor force, about 1 million are available for work, but are discouraged and have given up.
Most of the unemployed are coerced into unemployment. Yeah, I know, market coercion is such a dream.
The odd thing is, the unemployed are coerced through various gummint carrots and sticks to seek work (true, starvation and lack of health care are NOT coerced upon the unemployed by gummint, but you’ve got to admit, such coercion is in the very air we breathe; oh, natural coercion is A O.K.), but employers are not coerced to hire them, or pay them all a decent wage if they do hire them.
May we at least have a little equality in the coercion area?
Jacob,
You have stated this several times in several threads. But it really is not the case. What it really says is that the average wage should not exceed the average price increase. Within that wage there will always be people who get promoted, get higher raises because they perform better, work more efficiently etc.
There is no market theory that says that wage inflation won’t eventually be reflected in the price of goods sold. So if wages overall keep up with consumer costs that is a good economic model.
Productivity gains tend to drive prices down, as long as the converse is not true, that wages go down if the cpi falls, then adding productivity is still a good thing for the worker.
Or hadn’t you noticed how many more people have flat screen tv’s these days than five years ago? and cell phones? and pc’s? etc.
Jacob,
You have stated this several times in several threads. But it really is not the case. What it really says is that the average wage should not exceed the average price increase. Within that wage there will always be people who get promoted, get higher raises because they perform better, work more efficiently etc.
There is no market theory that says that wage inflation won’t eventually be reflected in the price of goods sold. So if wages overall keep up with consumer costs that is a good economic model.
Productivity gains tend to drive prices down, as long as the converse is not true, that wages go down if the cpi falls, then adding productivity is still a good thing for the worker.
Or hadn’t you noticed how many more people have flat screen tv’s these days than five years ago? and cell phones? and pc’s? etc.
whether the harm caused by governments and corporations is coercive or not has nothing–nothing at all, not even a little bit–to do with the question of whether public or private institutions are more or less likely to be corrupt, misused, or otherwise cause harm.
So you are saying that the power to coerce is equal to the power to screw up, and thus both gov’t and a private entity are equally prone to cause harm? I’ll pass on that one. I can choose not to deal with pretty much any private entity. That choice as to gov’t does not exist.
Catsy, we just see this differently. If gov’t has no agency–I don’t agree with this–then the same is true for corporations, which is a statement I would never make either. Both are human enterprises, one has police power, the other does not. These are material differences, at least in the eyes of most people. And, as I pointed out upthread, we consent to most of gov’ts police powers. In many cases, we demand them.
whether the harm caused by governments and corporations is coercive or not has nothing–nothing at all, not even a little bit–to do with the question of whether public or private institutions are more or less likely to be corrupt, misused, or otherwise cause harm.
So you are saying that the power to coerce is equal to the power to screw up, and thus both gov’t and a private entity are equally prone to cause harm? I’ll pass on that one. I can choose not to deal with pretty much any private entity. That choice as to gov’t does not exist.
Catsy, we just see this differently. If gov’t has no agency–I don’t agree with this–then the same is true for corporations, which is a statement I would never make either. Both are human enterprises, one has police power, the other does not. These are material differences, at least in the eyes of most people. And, as I pointed out upthread, we consent to most of gov’ts police powers. In many cases, we demand them.
TP–yep, I need gov’t coercion just like everyone else, up to a point.
Not “just like everyone else”, though. A friend of mine earns his living doing things for people like plowing their driveways, cleaning their gutters, fixing their lawnmowers. It’s not a great living, but he could still earn it if the courts shut down or legislatures stopped making laws.
Incidentally, that guy is a thoroughgoing libertarian. He’d shrink government small enough to flush down the toilet, let alone drown in the bathtub. You might like his philosophy in the abstract; you might find it a threat to your livelihood in practice.
–TP
TP–yep, I need gov’t coercion just like everyone else, up to a point.
Not “just like everyone else”, though. A friend of mine earns his living doing things for people like plowing their driveways, cleaning their gutters, fixing their lawnmowers. It’s not a great living, but he could still earn it if the courts shut down or legislatures stopped making laws.
Incidentally, that guy is a thoroughgoing libertarian. He’d shrink government small enough to flush down the toilet, let alone drown in the bathtub. You might like his philosophy in the abstract; you might find it a threat to your livelihood in practice.
–TP
Yes, they can screw things up, but screwing up is the polar opposite of seizing control of a mostly armed population of 300 million people.
I don’t know that anyone asserted that a corporation (or corporations – all or some) might take control over the entire population, which the government doesn’t even have right now. (But, if that’s what you do think the government has, I guess you have more faith in the government’s abilities than most libertarians and conservatives, who seem to think government can’t do much at all very well.)
But on the scale of individuals, whose freedom I assume we all value, corporations are quite capable of killing people, even on purpose. That’s coercive, I think.
Pinkertons, anyone?
Yes, they can screw things up, but screwing up is the polar opposite of seizing control of a mostly armed population of 300 million people.
I don’t know that anyone asserted that a corporation (or corporations – all or some) might take control over the entire population, which the government doesn’t even have right now. (But, if that’s what you do think the government has, I guess you have more faith in the government’s abilities than most libertarians and conservatives, who seem to think government can’t do much at all very well.)
But on the scale of individuals, whose freedom I assume we all value, corporations are quite capable of killing people, even on purpose. That’s coercive, I think.
Pinkertons, anyone?
MCKT:
“If there isn’t a solid remedy, there should be.”
Agreed. I’ll take up crocheting while we await the private remedies.
I’ll concede, too, that this just isn’t a private problem and that convincing the Social Security Administration who you are after your identity has been stolen is a fresh hell, too.
Brett, however, might view the word “should” in your formulation as a little backdoor, passive-voiced Swedish slippery slope into some sort of Khaddafy (one difference between the U.S. Government and the current Libyan government is that the former won’t drag me out of my house and hack me to death for misspelling the Colonel’s name) government-induced, freedom-sucking maelstrom.
MCKT:
“If there isn’t a solid remedy, there should be.”
Agreed. I’ll take up crocheting while we await the private remedies.
I’ll concede, too, that this just isn’t a private problem and that convincing the Social Security Administration who you are after your identity has been stolen is a fresh hell, too.
Brett, however, might view the word “should” in your formulation as a little backdoor, passive-voiced Swedish slippery slope into some sort of Khaddafy (one difference between the U.S. Government and the current Libyan government is that the former won’t drag me out of my house and hack me to death for misspelling the Colonel’s name) government-induced, freedom-sucking maelstrom.
Well, this gets down to whether inaccurate credit report “controls” what you do or limits who will lend you money. I’d go with the latter.
These days they can also control, in part, whether you get a job. Running credit checks is a pretty standard part of pre-employment HR duties now. And potential employees with poor credit histories as reported by the three major bureaus are higher risks for employee theft, so it’s said. Can’t have that!
Well, this gets down to whether inaccurate credit report “controls” what you do or limits who will lend you money. I’d go with the latter.
These days they can also control, in part, whether you get a job. Running credit checks is a pretty standard part of pre-employment HR duties now. And potential employees with poor credit histories as reported by the three major bureaus are higher risks for employee theft, so it’s said. Can’t have that!
Well, this gets down to whether inaccurate credit report “controls” what you do or limits who will lend you money. I’d go with the latter.
It also controls whether you can rent an apartment and obviously whether you can buy a house. So sure, except for controlling whether you can acquire shelter or a job, they have no control over you.
Well, this gets down to whether inaccurate credit report “controls” what you do or limits who will lend you money. I’d go with the latter.
It also controls whether you can rent an apartment and obviously whether you can buy a house. So sure, except for controlling whether you can acquire shelter or a job, they have no control over you.
It’s positively hilarious watching you guys freak over my referring to Sweden’s level of oppression. It’s just as though I referred to the temperature of ice, and got confronted with a screaming fit about how I was mad to think ice was “hot”. Anything below 273K just blows your minds, doesn’t it?
The scale of oppression doesn’t go to zero at whatever level of oppression *you* happen to be comfortable with, folks. Yes, the government of Sweden “oppresses” people. Not as much as the government of North Korea, or even, in some ways, the government of the US. But it does oppress.
It’s positively hilarious watching you guys freak over my referring to Sweden’s level of oppression. It’s just as though I referred to the temperature of ice, and got confronted with a screaming fit about how I was mad to think ice was “hot”. Anything below 273K just blows your minds, doesn’t it?
The scale of oppression doesn’t go to zero at whatever level of oppression *you* happen to be comfortable with, folks. Yes, the government of Sweden “oppresses” people. Not as much as the government of North Korea, or even, in some ways, the government of the US. But it does oppress.
CCDG writes: You (T.P.) have stated this several times in several threads. But it really is not the case
T.P. is exactly precisely correct. Classical economic theory posits exactly what Tony says. If wage increases were limited by the price level and did not take into account productivity increases, then you effectively have cut wages. Rising productivity means a rising standard of living. To get that higher standard of living, wages must rise faster than inflation for workers to maintain their share of the wealth (output) derived from that productivity growth.
When this doesn’t happen what you usually see is the rich and powerful capturing the added wealth. That’s what we have witnessed in the US since the 70’s. Wages have stagnated, barely keeping up with inflation, and wealth has been transferred to the rich.
In classical theory this is a market failure….or boiled frog syndrome.
CCDG writes: You (T.P.) have stated this several times in several threads. But it really is not the case
T.P. is exactly precisely correct. Classical economic theory posits exactly what Tony says. If wage increases were limited by the price level and did not take into account productivity increases, then you effectively have cut wages. Rising productivity means a rising standard of living. To get that higher standard of living, wages must rise faster than inflation for workers to maintain their share of the wealth (output) derived from that productivity growth.
When this doesn’t happen what you usually see is the rich and powerful capturing the added wealth. That’s what we have witnessed in the US since the 70’s. Wages have stagnated, barely keeping up with inflation, and wealth has been transferred to the rich.
In classical theory this is a market failure….or boiled frog syndrome.
Anything below 273K just blows your minds, doesn’t it?
I always thought it was just a joke about the engineer arguing that a person with one foot in a bucket of ice water and another in one that was boiling is perfectly comfortable, but Brett proves me wrong.
Anything below 273K just blows your minds, doesn’t it?
I always thought it was just a joke about the engineer arguing that a person with one foot in a bucket of ice water and another in one that was boiling is perfectly comfortable, but Brett proves me wrong.
This is kind of a potential cavalcade of cascading coercion:
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2011/02/man_booked_with_masturbating_a.html
I do think there should be a law that a guy should use a different hand to hold his bullhorn than the one he uses to ….. but he should be able to choose which hand does which.
Brett: Yes, North Korea would shoot the bullhorn ejaculator on the spot. And, in Sweden, they would probably make him do a little community service and then release him so he pursue a career in the porn industry, depending on the relative size of his bullhorn.
Thanks for the relative ratings.
This is kind of a potential cavalcade of cascading coercion:
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2011/02/man_booked_with_masturbating_a.html
I do think there should be a law that a guy should use a different hand to hold his bullhorn than the one he uses to ….. but he should be able to choose which hand does which.
Brett: Yes, North Korea would shoot the bullhorn ejaculator on the spot. And, in Sweden, they would probably make him do a little community service and then release him so he pursue a career in the porn industry, depending on the relative size of his bullhorn.
Thanks for the relative ratings.
Actually bobbyp, it was Jacob and you are right, and not really. Productivity tends to reduce prices, squeeze margins, and reduce profits.
The tracking of wages and prices in equilibrium is a fine economic model, of course barring a whole bunch of other macroeconomic factors that aren’t in our equation with those three.
Actually bobbyp, it was Jacob and you are right, and not really. Productivity tends to reduce prices, squeeze margins, and reduce profits.
The tracking of wages and prices in equilibrium is a fine economic model, of course barring a whole bunch of other macroeconomic factors that aren’t in our equation with those three.
No.
I am saying that it is essential to understand that that whether a harm originates from coercive power or some manner of manfeasance is a completely different question than the severity of that harm or the probability that it might occur.
To put things in perspective: if someone takes my property, the harm is that I have lost that property. Whether it is the result of the police seizing that property during a drug raid on the wrong house, or the result of the bank fraudulently foreclosing on my home, either way I have wrongfully been deprived of my property.
The checks and balances needed to prevent this harm are, of course, completely different between the two scenarios. Their respective probabilities are hard to gauge, but the specific statistics aren’t important here. The core point is that both government and private institutions are capable of inflicting the same wrongful harm–the government through excess in the service of public safety, the corporation through corruption in the pursuit of profits–and from the perspective of evaluating and mitigating risk, it really makes no difference at all whether the source of the harm was coercion or malfeasance. This is a philosophical distinction, not one that has any relevance to evaluating risk.
This is absurd. You cannot choose not to breathe air that a private entity has polluted. You cannot choose not to be poisoned by chemicals in your water that you didn’t know were there. The residents of the Gulf didn’t get to choose whether or not their fishing industry was devastated, and you don’t get to choose whether or not to crash if an airline skimps on maintenance.
This impression you seem to have–that you can opt out of the harms caused by private entities in a way you cannot with government–is a fantasy.
This isn’t a matter of an opinion to which you’re entitled. If you assert that government–or corporations–have agency, you are using the word in an objectively incorrect way.
No.
I am saying that it is essential to understand that that whether a harm originates from coercive power or some manner of manfeasance is a completely different question than the severity of that harm or the probability that it might occur.
To put things in perspective: if someone takes my property, the harm is that I have lost that property. Whether it is the result of the police seizing that property during a drug raid on the wrong house, or the result of the bank fraudulently foreclosing on my home, either way I have wrongfully been deprived of my property.
The checks and balances needed to prevent this harm are, of course, completely different between the two scenarios. Their respective probabilities are hard to gauge, but the specific statistics aren’t important here. The core point is that both government and private institutions are capable of inflicting the same wrongful harm–the government through excess in the service of public safety, the corporation through corruption in the pursuit of profits–and from the perspective of evaluating and mitigating risk, it really makes no difference at all whether the source of the harm was coercion or malfeasance. This is a philosophical distinction, not one that has any relevance to evaluating risk.
This is absurd. You cannot choose not to breathe air that a private entity has polluted. You cannot choose not to be poisoned by chemicals in your water that you didn’t know were there. The residents of the Gulf didn’t get to choose whether or not their fishing industry was devastated, and you don’t get to choose whether or not to crash if an airline skimps on maintenance.
This impression you seem to have–that you can opt out of the harms caused by private entities in a way you cannot with government–is a fantasy.
This isn’t a matter of an opinion to which you’re entitled. If you assert that government–or corporations–have agency, you are using the word in an objectively incorrect way.
Never have an illiterate non-unionized roofer teach spelling, even to his own home-schooled little reptiles.
It’s “Democratic” Party, not “Democrat” Party.
By the way, once you’ve fired the union thugs and the immigrant cash (legal and illegal) labor, you can kiss my a*s and then roof my buildings.
Never have an illiterate non-unionized roofer teach spelling, even to his own home-schooled little reptiles.
It’s “Democratic” Party, not “Democrat” Party.
By the way, once you’ve fired the union thugs and the immigrant cash (legal and illegal) labor, you can kiss my a*s and then roof my buildings.
Yes. Deep stuff there, Brett.
The continuum of oppression is…
wider than the light spectrum.
as inexorable as entropy
as mysterious as Schrodinger’s cat
and magically measurable only by those able to see Sweden from their front porch.
Yes. Deep stuff there, Brett.
The continuum of oppression is…
wider than the light spectrum.
as inexorable as entropy
as mysterious as Schrodinger’s cat
and magically measurable only by those able to see Sweden from their front porch.
I was wondering what happens when government is taken over by people, and what happens when it is taken over by corporations?
Is there examples in history when people took over the government?
I was wondering what happens when government is taken over by people, and what happens when it is taken over by corporations?
Is there examples in history when people took over the government?
Actually bobbyp, it was Jacob and you are right, and not really. Productivity tends to reduce prices, squeeze margins, and reduce profits.
Well, actually, CCDG, you are dead wrong on the theory and the facts. Productivity increases wealth and returns to economic factors of production are supposed to be commensurate with their marginal productivity.
But hey, this is the theory conservative say they worship, but then maybe not.
Actually bobbyp, it was Jacob and you are right, and not really. Productivity tends to reduce prices, squeeze margins, and reduce profits.
Well, actually, CCDG, you are dead wrong on the theory and the facts. Productivity increases wealth and returns to economic factors of production are supposed to be commensurate with their marginal productivity.
But hey, this is the theory conservative say they worship, but then maybe not.
I have some questions about “productivity”.
How do we define “productivity”? Is it widgets produced per hour per worker? Or is it “value” produced per hour per worker?
Picture a 100-person company that makes 1000 widgets/hour, selling them for $10 apiece. The 100 workers include a receptionist, an IT guy, some assemblers, a few design engineers, a couple of accountants, a marketing lady, and a CEO. Whose “productivity” can we express as either 10 widgets/hour or as $100/hour?
Picture the same factory increasing output to 1100 widgets/hour. That’s a 10% increase in productivity, right? Well, suppose that instead the factory keeps producing 1000 widgets/hour, but it gets $11 apiece for them. Is THAT a 10% increase in productivity?
Note that I’m not talking about “inflation”. In this example, the GENERAL price level in the economy doesn’t change; only the price these particular widgets fetch has increased.
Note too that it cannot possibly be true to say that the price of the widgets is irrelevant in figuring “productivity”. To say it is irrelevant would be to say that if the price dropped to ZERO, the factory would still be “productive”.
So what’s the deal here? What IS “productivity” and how do we attribute it (or increases in it) to particular individuals?
–TP
I have some questions about “productivity”.
How do we define “productivity”? Is it widgets produced per hour per worker? Or is it “value” produced per hour per worker?
Picture a 100-person company that makes 1000 widgets/hour, selling them for $10 apiece. The 100 workers include a receptionist, an IT guy, some assemblers, a few design engineers, a couple of accountants, a marketing lady, and a CEO. Whose “productivity” can we express as either 10 widgets/hour or as $100/hour?
Picture the same factory increasing output to 1100 widgets/hour. That’s a 10% increase in productivity, right? Well, suppose that instead the factory keeps producing 1000 widgets/hour, but it gets $11 apiece for them. Is THAT a 10% increase in productivity?
Note that I’m not talking about “inflation”. In this example, the GENERAL price level in the economy doesn’t change; only the price these particular widgets fetch has increased.
Note too that it cannot possibly be true to say that the price of the widgets is irrelevant in figuring “productivity”. To say it is irrelevant would be to say that if the price dropped to ZERO, the factory would still be “productive”.
So what’s the deal here? What IS “productivity” and how do we attribute it (or increases in it) to particular individuals?
–TP
TP, the second example is not a productivity increase, it is price inflation by definition,you can’t really just redefine it.
TP, the second example is not a productivity increase, it is price inflation by definition,you can’t really just redefine it.
You mean, like the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution?
But there are probably some better examples; ones that don’t involve pogroms and guillotines. The American Revolution isn’t precisely that, but it might qualify.
I’m just dithering until someone with a working knowledge of history comes along and rescues me.
You mean, like the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution?
But there are probably some better examples; ones that don’t involve pogroms and guillotines. The American Revolution isn’t precisely that, but it might qualify.
I’m just dithering until someone with a working knowledge of history comes along and rescues me.
“How do we define “productivity”? Is it widgets produced per hour per worker? Or is it “value” produced per hour per worker?”
That “per worker” is where you go wrong, right at the start. That’s because a factory does not produce widgets by virtue of having a bunch of workers standing around in an empty field. They need capital, equipment, to produce widgets. If you take the exact same workers, place them in a factory with improved equipment, and production doubles, why the heck would you attribute that increased production to the workers, rather than the equipment?
The fact is that, in most fields, the contribution of labor to production is dropping. No, not greater worker productivity, greater capital productivity. Nothing in principle prevents this trend from going to completion, from arriving at “lights out” factories running full speed without anybody in them.
And are you going to marvel at the “productivity” of a janitor sweeping the floors in an automated factory?
That’s the greatest economic challenge ahead of us, how to manage an economy where a growing percentage of the population are incapable of contributing anything to the economy that’s actually needed.
Refraining from tossing bombs isn’t a very good contribution, we need to find something better. Ideally, we need to find a way to start improving people, not just equipment. Because the day will come when even the brightest of us have nothing to contribute, otherwise.
“How do we define “productivity”? Is it widgets produced per hour per worker? Or is it “value” produced per hour per worker?”
That “per worker” is where you go wrong, right at the start. That’s because a factory does not produce widgets by virtue of having a bunch of workers standing around in an empty field. They need capital, equipment, to produce widgets. If you take the exact same workers, place them in a factory with improved equipment, and production doubles, why the heck would you attribute that increased production to the workers, rather than the equipment?
The fact is that, in most fields, the contribution of labor to production is dropping. No, not greater worker productivity, greater capital productivity. Nothing in principle prevents this trend from going to completion, from arriving at “lights out” factories running full speed without anybody in them.
And are you going to marvel at the “productivity” of a janitor sweeping the floors in an automated factory?
That’s the greatest economic challenge ahead of us, how to manage an economy where a growing percentage of the population are incapable of contributing anything to the economy that’s actually needed.
Refraining from tossing bombs isn’t a very good contribution, we need to find something better. Ideally, we need to find a way to start improving people, not just equipment. Because the day will come when even the brightest of us have nothing to contribute, otherwise.
Certainly this is not such a bad thing, but why is capital productivity so bad? And why do you assign all productivity increases that come with acquisition of better “tooling” to the capital itself?
I know from personal experience that supplying a worker with a better, more capable computer has some limited amount of productivity increase. When the worker harnesses that increased processing power to do more work, even more results.
From my POV, better machines are better, but there’s limits to what better machines all by themselves can do. But if I have better machines, I can make them do things that had not previously been feasible. I can get answers with more confidence. I can run hours of flight data back through my algorithms and accomplish a kind of on-the-fly improvement.
New equipment is a good thing. Figuring out how to use the new equipment to best advantage is even better.
Certainly this is not such a bad thing, but why is capital productivity so bad? And why do you assign all productivity increases that come with acquisition of better “tooling” to the capital itself?
I know from personal experience that supplying a worker with a better, more capable computer has some limited amount of productivity increase. When the worker harnesses that increased processing power to do more work, even more results.
From my POV, better machines are better, but there’s limits to what better machines all by themselves can do. But if I have better machines, I can make them do things that had not previously been feasible. I can get answers with more confidence. I can run hours of flight data back through my algorithms and accomplish a kind of on-the-fly improvement.
New equipment is a good thing. Figuring out how to use the new equipment to best advantage is even better.
“How do we define “productivity”? Is it widgets produced per hour per worker? Or is it “value” produced per hour per worker?”
What matters is how is calculated. Considering what Slarti and Brett said about it i take it that productivity is calculated per company as a unit. Total output (measured in sales to include service industry) over total employees. this number is easy to manipulate. By firing some dispensable analysis employees, you can increase productivity (which happened in latest crisis, or freeze wages. That is a way to increase productivity in short run.
By getting a better computer and improving handling of its processing power you actually increase a demand for more analysis in order to give you the edge over the competition for sales purposes. But competition also has the same capability so there is no increase in productivity.
What was happening over the years is in the long run of increasing productivity.
To manipulate productivity numbers, you can outsource some part of production to small businesses that do not provide health and pension benefits. This will increase productivity trough smaller cost of production and decrease wages +benefits on the other side. Difference in wages is split between owners of companies, while at the same time there are overlapping costs in both companies. Outsourcing to small businesses lowers the living standard while providing more jobs(because of overlapping). Outsourcing to small businesses solely for purposes of savings for shareholders is destroying the living standards and economy of the nation as a whole since lower wages=worse consumers.
There are kind of small businesses that can not work as big company, but this is about outsourcing to small business that has been so glorified as job creators last few decades, but i never heard from anyone about how destructive they can be.
“How do we define “productivity”? Is it widgets produced per hour per worker? Or is it “value” produced per hour per worker?”
What matters is how is calculated. Considering what Slarti and Brett said about it i take it that productivity is calculated per company as a unit. Total output (measured in sales to include service industry) over total employees. this number is easy to manipulate. By firing some dispensable analysis employees, you can increase productivity (which happened in latest crisis, or freeze wages. That is a way to increase productivity in short run.
By getting a better computer and improving handling of its processing power you actually increase a demand for more analysis in order to give you the edge over the competition for sales purposes. But competition also has the same capability so there is no increase in productivity.
What was happening over the years is in the long run of increasing productivity.
To manipulate productivity numbers, you can outsource some part of production to small businesses that do not provide health and pension benefits. This will increase productivity trough smaller cost of production and decrease wages +benefits on the other side. Difference in wages is split between owners of companies, while at the same time there are overlapping costs in both companies. Outsourcing to small businesses lowers the living standard while providing more jobs(because of overlapping). Outsourcing to small businesses solely for purposes of savings for shareholders is destroying the living standards and economy of the nation as a whole since lower wages=worse consumers.
There are kind of small businesses that can not work as big company, but this is about outsourcing to small business that has been so glorified as job creators last few decades, but i never heard from anyone about how destructive they can be.
So far as I know, except for consensual relations, no corporation has anything like that kind of power over me.
What Catsy said, I have nothing to add.
Stupidity is not a conscious exercise of power.
Venality, on the other hand, most certainly is. Or perhaps you are thinking that all bad behavior is unconscious.
So you are saying that the power to coerce is equal to the power to screw up, and thus both gov’t and a private entity are equally prone to cause harm?
Again, “screw up” doesn’t begin to cover the issue with either the government or private organizations.
You also fail to address the issues of transparency and accountability. You also fail to address the question of who government works for, and who corporations work for.
I can choose not to deal with pretty much any private entity. That choice as to gov’t does not exist.
There are large number of private entities you will be very hard pressed to avoid dealing with if you participate in any meaningful way in the economy or society at large.
If you want to be a hermit, not so, but then you can pretty much avoid interacting with government as well.
There are folks that live that way, I know some. I’m thinking you are not among them.
Also, having done a case or two in the area, the creditor that posts inaccurate information can be sued.
OK, a piece of cake, then. No worries.
It’s positively hilarious watching you guys freak over my referring to Sweden’s level of oppression.
For “freak”, please read “roll our eyes”.
What it really says is that the average wage should not exceed the average price increase.
From the text of the bill:
So, if I read this correctly, it’s not a zero-sum average increase, it’s per employee. Nobody gets a raise greater than the percent increase in the CPI.
There is no market theory that says that wage inflation won’t eventually be reflected in the price of goods sold.
Why the bloody f**k should anyone in this country or the world put any credence in what “market theory” says? Even Alan freaking Greenspan doesn’t believe that stuff anymore.
People should accept the loss of collective bargaining rights because “market theory” says it will turn out OK for them in the end?
No thank you.
Two very good points from the dexter side:
Like to big to fail corporations, too big to manage government is immune to checks and balances.
A very apt observation, one which I am going to take away and ponder for a while. Well said.
The fact is that, in most fields, the contribution of labor to production is dropping. No, not greater worker productivity, greater capital productivity.
This point is a significant part of why the middle class is going away in this country. Going away, and maybe not coming back.
A guy I used to with used to say, “People should think, and machines should work”. Which is, IMO, an excellent concept.
The only problems are (a) some ways in which machines are used make not only certain kinds of work, but certain kinds of thinking, superfluous, and (b) the wealth created by the increased productivity flows almost exclusively to whoever owns the machine.
If we don’t solve that, 10% unemployment and a 15% poverty rate are going to look like the good old days.
Get ready for the new normal, y’all.
So far as I know, except for consensual relations, no corporation has anything like that kind of power over me.
What Catsy said, I have nothing to add.
Stupidity is not a conscious exercise of power.
Venality, on the other hand, most certainly is. Or perhaps you are thinking that all bad behavior is unconscious.
So you are saying that the power to coerce is equal to the power to screw up, and thus both gov’t and a private entity are equally prone to cause harm?
Again, “screw up” doesn’t begin to cover the issue with either the government or private organizations.
You also fail to address the issues of transparency and accountability. You also fail to address the question of who government works for, and who corporations work for.
I can choose not to deal with pretty much any private entity. That choice as to gov’t does not exist.
There are large number of private entities you will be very hard pressed to avoid dealing with if you participate in any meaningful way in the economy or society at large.
If you want to be a hermit, not so, but then you can pretty much avoid interacting with government as well.
There are folks that live that way, I know some. I’m thinking you are not among them.
Also, having done a case or two in the area, the creditor that posts inaccurate information can be sued.
OK, a piece of cake, then. No worries.
It’s positively hilarious watching you guys freak over my referring to Sweden’s level of oppression.
For “freak”, please read “roll our eyes”.
What it really says is that the average wage should not exceed the average price increase.
From the text of the bill:
So, if I read this correctly, it’s not a zero-sum average increase, it’s per employee. Nobody gets a raise greater than the percent increase in the CPI.
There is no market theory that says that wage inflation won’t eventually be reflected in the price of goods sold.
Why the bloody f**k should anyone in this country or the world put any credence in what “market theory” says? Even Alan freaking Greenspan doesn’t believe that stuff anymore.
People should accept the loss of collective bargaining rights because “market theory” says it will turn out OK for them in the end?
No thank you.
Two very good points from the dexter side:
Like to big to fail corporations, too big to manage government is immune to checks and balances.
A very apt observation, one which I am going to take away and ponder for a while. Well said.
The fact is that, in most fields, the contribution of labor to production is dropping. No, not greater worker productivity, greater capital productivity.
This point is a significant part of why the middle class is going away in this country. Going away, and maybe not coming back.
A guy I used to with used to say, “People should think, and machines should work”. Which is, IMO, an excellent concept.
The only problems are (a) some ways in which machines are used make not only certain kinds of work, but certain kinds of thinking, superfluous, and (b) the wealth created by the increased productivity flows almost exclusively to whoever owns the machine.
If we don’t solve that, 10% unemployment and a 15% poverty rate are going to look like the good old days.
Get ready for the new normal, y’all.
if someone takes my property, the harm is that I have lost that property. Whether it is the result of the police seizing that property during a drug raid on the wrong house, or the result of the bank fraudulently foreclosing on my home, either way I have wrongfully been deprived of my property.
One has a remedy and the other does not.
The core point is that both government and private institutions are capable of inflicting the same wrongful harm–the government through excess in the service of public safety, the corporation through corruption in the pursuit of profits–and from the perspective of evaluating and mitigating risk, it really makes no difference at all whether the source of the harm was coercion or malfeasance.
There are many ways that gov’t can cause harm apart from excessive force. Regulated industries can be, and to my personal knowledge, are subject to capricious and pointless bullying by idealogues. More on that later, when the dust settles and what I know in confidence can be discussed.
This is absurd. You cannot choose not to breathe air that a private entity has polluted. You cannot choose not to be poisoned by chemicals in your water that you didn’t know were there. The residents of the Gulf didn’t get to choose whether or not their fishing industry was devastated, and you don’t get to choose whether or not to crash if an airline skimps on maintenance.
This impression you seem to have–that you can opt out of the harms caused by private entities in a way you cannot with government–is a fantasy.
No, this is you re-framing the debate. No one anywhere is free from human error, regardless of its source. What distinguishes a private entity from gov’t is that the former is largely, almost entirely, a matter of consensual dealing, the latter, not so much.
This isn’t a matter of an opinion to which you’re entitled. If you assert that government–or corporations–have agency, you are using the word in an objectively incorrect way.
This is a pointless discussion. By my definition and view of agency, I can say either we disagree or you are completely, objectively wrong. I go with the former because you see the issue differently. Believe what you want.
Venality, on the other hand, most certainly is. Or perhaps you are thinking that all bad behavior is unconscious.
Venality is not unique to private endeavors.
You also fail to address the issues of transparency and accountability. You also fail to address the question of who government works for, and who corporations work for.
Transparency in gov’t? Really? Private institutions are just that, private. Accountability? What is your remedy when gov’t crosses the line? You are far more likely to have a remedy if wronged by a private entity. No guarantee of success, but far more likely to have a remedy.
The next time you run into a bureaucratic wall, remind them who they work for.
There are large number of private entities you will be very hard pressed to avoid dealing with if you participate in any meaningful way in the economy or society at large.
If you want to be a hermit, not so, but then you can pretty much avoid interacting with government as well.
There are folks that live that way, I know some. I’m thinking you are not among them.
Of course I interact with private and public agencies. On the private side, it’s usually by contract or the product I purchase has a warranty. On the gov’t side, I think our state court system in the greater Houston area is pretty good on the civil side. In outlying counties, some are good, others openly political and corrupt.
Another example of recent gov’t overreach. A client of mine is a large, non-profit ambulance service. A police officer, using a grand jury subpoena, demanded records with no redactions on 700 patients treated and transported by my client. No probable cause, no privacy concerns, just turn over the records at your expense instanter. The reaction when we raised the above issues was to threaten with contempt of court etc. We’ll win this eventually, at a cost of 15K or so, maybe more. Recourse? None. Oh, and to be clear, my client is in no way the grand jury’s target. They are looking into a murder that occurred at one of the addresses serviced by my client. That record was produced immediately in response to the subpoena.
if someone takes my property, the harm is that I have lost that property. Whether it is the result of the police seizing that property during a drug raid on the wrong house, or the result of the bank fraudulently foreclosing on my home, either way I have wrongfully been deprived of my property.
One has a remedy and the other does not.
The core point is that both government and private institutions are capable of inflicting the same wrongful harm–the government through excess in the service of public safety, the corporation through corruption in the pursuit of profits–and from the perspective of evaluating and mitigating risk, it really makes no difference at all whether the source of the harm was coercion or malfeasance.
There are many ways that gov’t can cause harm apart from excessive force. Regulated industries can be, and to my personal knowledge, are subject to capricious and pointless bullying by idealogues. More on that later, when the dust settles and what I know in confidence can be discussed.
This is absurd. You cannot choose not to breathe air that a private entity has polluted. You cannot choose not to be poisoned by chemicals in your water that you didn’t know were there. The residents of the Gulf didn’t get to choose whether or not their fishing industry was devastated, and you don’t get to choose whether or not to crash if an airline skimps on maintenance.
This impression you seem to have–that you can opt out of the harms caused by private entities in a way you cannot with government–is a fantasy.
No, this is you re-framing the debate. No one anywhere is free from human error, regardless of its source. What distinguishes a private entity from gov’t is that the former is largely, almost entirely, a matter of consensual dealing, the latter, not so much.
This isn’t a matter of an opinion to which you’re entitled. If you assert that government–or corporations–have agency, you are using the word in an objectively incorrect way.
This is a pointless discussion. By my definition and view of agency, I can say either we disagree or you are completely, objectively wrong. I go with the former because you see the issue differently. Believe what you want.
Venality, on the other hand, most certainly is. Or perhaps you are thinking that all bad behavior is unconscious.
Venality is not unique to private endeavors.
You also fail to address the issues of transparency and accountability. You also fail to address the question of who government works for, and who corporations work for.
Transparency in gov’t? Really? Private institutions are just that, private. Accountability? What is your remedy when gov’t crosses the line? You are far more likely to have a remedy if wronged by a private entity. No guarantee of success, but far more likely to have a remedy.
The next time you run into a bureaucratic wall, remind them who they work for.
There are large number of private entities you will be very hard pressed to avoid dealing with if you participate in any meaningful way in the economy or society at large.
If you want to be a hermit, not so, but then you can pretty much avoid interacting with government as well.
There are folks that live that way, I know some. I’m thinking you are not among them.
Of course I interact with private and public agencies. On the private side, it’s usually by contract or the product I purchase has a warranty. On the gov’t side, I think our state court system in the greater Houston area is pretty good on the civil side. In outlying counties, some are good, others openly political and corrupt.
Another example of recent gov’t overreach. A client of mine is a large, non-profit ambulance service. A police officer, using a grand jury subpoena, demanded records with no redactions on 700 patients treated and transported by my client. No probable cause, no privacy concerns, just turn over the records at your expense instanter. The reaction when we raised the above issues was to threaten with contempt of court etc. We’ll win this eventually, at a cost of 15K or so, maybe more. Recourse? None. Oh, and to be clear, my client is in no way the grand jury’s target. They are looking into a murder that occurred at one of the addresses serviced by my client. That record was produced immediately in response to the subpoena.
McKinney, your comment would be more relevant if someone were advocating unrestrained government – you know, the kind that can take collective-bargaining rights away from workers.
I’m not even sure what the issue is anymore. Are the participants in this discussion arguing anarcho-capitalism versus some sort of socialist totalitarianism, or what?
What’s the freaking point?
McKinney, your comment would be more relevant if someone were advocating unrestrained government – you know, the kind that can take collective-bargaining rights away from workers.
I’m not even sure what the issue is anymore. Are the participants in this discussion arguing anarcho-capitalism versus some sort of socialist totalitarianism, or what?
What’s the freaking point?
“Regulated industries can be, and to my personal knowledge, are subject to capricious and pointless bullying by idealogues.”
“You are far more likely to have a remedy if wronged by a private entity.”
The reason industries are regulated and subject to capricious bullying is that we have a government which constrains them. The reason you are more likely to have a remedy (that’s an assertion I don’t have the data to dispute now, but I’ll argue it as given) from a private entity is because of enforcement by government.
What you see as the relatively swell state of things w/r/t corporations is due (solely, in my opinion) to government restriction of corporations.
Brett’s theory that government oppression is worse than corporate oppression ignores the possibility (likelihood, certainty, whatever) that if we reduce government power, corporate power will grow to replace it and will be even less accountable to us.
Criticism of how bad government is must answer the question of whether corporations would become worse than government is if government were reduced. I can’t think of a simpler way to put my objection.
“This is a pointless discussion. By my definition and view of agency, I can say either we disagree or you are completely, objectively wrong.”
Then you should share you definition and view of agency, because based on the consensus definition, you are wrong. Baased on your definition, if someone throws a rock at your window, the rock had agency. Government is an abstract concept. It is an organization of human beings. Without human beings government does not exist and can do nothing. If all humans vanished, the Capitol would not be a government, it would be a pile of rock. If that pile of rock collapsed and killed a mouse, it would not be “government” killing the mouse.
“Regulated industries can be, and to my personal knowledge, are subject to capricious and pointless bullying by idealogues.”
“You are far more likely to have a remedy if wronged by a private entity.”
The reason industries are regulated and subject to capricious bullying is that we have a government which constrains them. The reason you are more likely to have a remedy (that’s an assertion I don’t have the data to dispute now, but I’ll argue it as given) from a private entity is because of enforcement by government.
What you see as the relatively swell state of things w/r/t corporations is due (solely, in my opinion) to government restriction of corporations.
Brett’s theory that government oppression is worse than corporate oppression ignores the possibility (likelihood, certainty, whatever) that if we reduce government power, corporate power will grow to replace it and will be even less accountable to us.
Criticism of how bad government is must answer the question of whether corporations would become worse than government is if government were reduced. I can’t think of a simpler way to put my objection.
“This is a pointless discussion. By my definition and view of agency, I can say either we disagree or you are completely, objectively wrong.”
Then you should share you definition and view of agency, because based on the consensus definition, you are wrong. Baased on your definition, if someone throws a rock at your window, the rock had agency. Government is an abstract concept. It is an organization of human beings. Without human beings government does not exist and can do nothing. If all humans vanished, the Capitol would not be a government, it would be a pile of rock. If that pile of rock collapsed and killed a mouse, it would not be “government” killing the mouse.
I’ll add to my WTF that I think just about everyone can agree with the general principle that Brett expressed earlier – that we should be vigilant against government oppression, even when things are generally good in that regard. But the issue usually isn’t one of general principle, rather one of application.
If you think the removal of collective-bargaining rights from public workers in Wisconsin is a form of oppression, you’re going to come down on the side of the workers. If you think the workers are getting more than they deserve in compensation at the expense of the tax payers and see that as a form of oppression, you’re going to come down on the side of the governor. In either case, you are not in favor of oppression, so there’s really no point in arguing that “oppression is bad.” IMO.
I’ll add to my WTF that I think just about everyone can agree with the general principle that Brett expressed earlier – that we should be vigilant against government oppression, even when things are generally good in that regard. But the issue usually isn’t one of general principle, rather one of application.
If you think the removal of collective-bargaining rights from public workers in Wisconsin is a form of oppression, you’re going to come down on the side of the workers. If you think the workers are getting more than they deserve in compensation at the expense of the tax payers and see that as a form of oppression, you’re going to come down on the side of the governor. In either case, you are not in favor of oppression, so there’s really no point in arguing that “oppression is bad.” IMO.
Governments don’t throw rocks, people do. 😉
I’ll 2nd your comments on government forcing corporations to be more accountable than they otherwise would be. If not via regulation, certainly via tort law (which, oddly enough, is something conservatives often take aim at… though that would appear to be the best protector of individual rights in existance, particularly if you remove regulations).
…
I’m pretty surprised to see you write this Brett:
“That’s the greatest economic challenge ahead of us, how to manage an economy where a growing percentage of the population are incapable of contributing anything to the economy that’s actually needed.”
Given what I know of your politics. To see that problem (however overstated it might be) and yet to generally be against any external (to the market) remedies…
Governments don’t throw rocks, people do. 😉
I’ll 2nd your comments on government forcing corporations to be more accountable than they otherwise would be. If not via regulation, certainly via tort law (which, oddly enough, is something conservatives often take aim at… though that would appear to be the best protector of individual rights in existance, particularly if you remove regulations).
…
I’m pretty surprised to see you write this Brett:
“That’s the greatest economic challenge ahead of us, how to manage an economy where a growing percentage of the population are incapable of contributing anything to the economy that’s actually needed.”
Given what I know of your politics. To see that problem (however overstated it might be) and yet to generally be against any external (to the market) remedies…
What’s the freaking point?
HSH
everyone is arguing for their side.Democrats are giving arguments to defend New Deal programs and policies that created middle class, while republicans are giving arguments for progressively dismantling the New Deal programs.
If you are interested to know more about whats at the center of it and what is at stake i would recommend this by Wallerstein
What’s the freaking point?
HSH
everyone is arguing for their side.Democrats are giving arguments to defend New Deal programs and policies that created middle class, while republicans are giving arguments for progressively dismantling the New Deal programs.
If you are interested to know more about whats at the center of it and what is at stake i would recommend this by Wallerstein
Democrats are giving arguments to defend New Deal programs and policies that created middle class, while republicans are giving arguments for progressively dismantling the New Deal programs.
Sure, or maybe, or not. But what’s the freaking point of the specifics in some of the comments? I’m seeing anecdota that can only refute extreme general propositions that no one has made. I don’t see it going anywhere.
The problem I have isn’t related to my having just crawled out from under a rock with no idea what the political context is.
Democrats are giving arguments to defend New Deal programs and policies that created middle class, while republicans are giving arguments for progressively dismantling the New Deal programs.
Sure, or maybe, or not. But what’s the freaking point of the specifics in some of the comments? I’m seeing anecdota that can only refute extreme general propositions that no one has made. I don’t see it going anywhere.
The problem I have isn’t related to my having just crawled out from under a rock with no idea what the political context is.
Left is for increasing power to the people by educating, social safety nets and providing for the poor and disabled.
Right is for giving more power to corporations. Both work trough the government that creates laws and enforces them. Liberaterians are extreme right giving absolute power to corporations trough the ruse of small government (which limits the power of corporations which easily can organize behind closed doors against population) and freedom(which translates into freedom of corporations to be encumbered by any law)
Earlier i asked about examples of people overtaking the government and corporations overtaking the government. There are few examples of people taking government: Russian rev, French rev, American rev, Cuba and Yugoslavia. While numerous examples when corporations took total control: many banana republics, Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and many more.
My point was to ask what the present situation in US is? are we closer to people controlling the government or corporations controlling it, comparing to historical indications?
I lived in all kinds of systems: communist(Yugoslavia), socialist(Germany), capitalist(US) and fascist(Croatia between 1994-2002).
The most basic condition for long term existence of any of them is the way the laws are applied. Is the law applied same to the rich and poor, to weak and strong politically. That determines who control the government and its enforcement arm.
Did the rich bankers get persecuted under the law for fraud in the economic collapse in 2008? Did Bush administration even being investigated for war crimes? Where we are in who controls it?
Left is for increasing power to the people by educating, social safety nets and providing for the poor and disabled.
Right is for giving more power to corporations. Both work trough the government that creates laws and enforces them. Liberaterians are extreme right giving absolute power to corporations trough the ruse of small government (which limits the power of corporations which easily can organize behind closed doors against population) and freedom(which translates into freedom of corporations to be encumbered by any law)
Earlier i asked about examples of people overtaking the government and corporations overtaking the government. There are few examples of people taking government: Russian rev, French rev, American rev, Cuba and Yugoslavia. While numerous examples when corporations took total control: many banana republics, Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and many more.
My point was to ask what the present situation in US is? are we closer to people controlling the government or corporations controlling it, comparing to historical indications?
I lived in all kinds of systems: communist(Yugoslavia), socialist(Germany), capitalist(US) and fascist(Croatia between 1994-2002).
The most basic condition for long term existence of any of them is the way the laws are applied. Is the law applied same to the rich and poor, to weak and strong politically. That determines who control the government and its enforcement arm.
Did the rich bankers get persecuted under the law for fraud in the economic collapse in 2008? Did Bush administration even being investigated for war crimes? Where we are in who controls it?
“But what’s the freaking point of the specifics in some of the comments?”
All of the discussion we and public at large is having is defensive from left’s point of view, left is trying to defend all policies previously argued over and already established in the system. Republicans are on the offense restarting all the discussions on policies previously won by left before 1970. For example: corporate regulations, civil rights(marriage, abortion, woman equality…) All success works trough the government, hence a discussion of the role of the government.
“But what’s the freaking point of the specifics in some of the comments?”
All of the discussion we and public at large is having is defensive from left’s point of view, left is trying to defend all policies previously argued over and already established in the system. Republicans are on the offense restarting all the discussions on policies previously won by left before 1970. For example: corporate regulations, civil rights(marriage, abortion, woman equality…) All success works trough the government, hence a discussion of the role of the government.
That’s a description, right or wrong, of the very general inpetus for the discussion. It’s not the point of what anyone is writing, specifically, on this blog in this thread.
If I wrote something about how helpful the people in the state tax office were to me the other day (or whatever), my point would not be that the left is arguing X and the right is arguing Y about the New Deal. I would be, presumably, trying to support a specific argument of some sort or another, a point, if you will. But I might be doing so to little effect, responding poorly to the arguments other people were making and not furthering the discussion in a significant way.
That’s a description, right or wrong, of the very general inpetus for the discussion. It’s not the point of what anyone is writing, specifically, on this blog in this thread.
If I wrote something about how helpful the people in the state tax office were to me the other day (or whatever), my point would not be that the left is arguing X and the right is arguing Y about the New Deal. I would be, presumably, trying to support a specific argument of some sort or another, a point, if you will. But I might be doing so to little effect, responding poorly to the arguments other people were making and not furthering the discussion in a significant way.
I forgot to mention of why the application of the law equally is important to long term existence of the system is. It works on the sense of the population about equality and equal opportunity or oppression by the government. Discussion about oppression in Sweden is relevant to the feeling of oppression, feeling to be oppressed by government. But that feeling is extremely subjective, depending on previous conditions, changes in it, what friends and family experience and if there is a hope for change for better.
I forgot to mention of why the application of the law equally is important to long term existence of the system is. It works on the sense of the population about equality and equal opportunity or oppression by the government. Discussion about oppression in Sweden is relevant to the feeling of oppression, feeling to be oppressed by government. But that feeling is extremely subjective, depending on previous conditions, changes in it, what friends and family experience and if there is a hope for change for better.
While true, this is due not to any inherent difference between public and private institutions, but rather due to the current law as implemented. Which goes back to my point that the issue isn’t one of public vs. private, but of evaluating the risks and erecting the appropriate set of checks and balances for each.
This is simply force by another name, and is beside the point.
Nonsense. As I said, this idea you have, that you can opt out of the harms caused by private entities simply by not doing business with them, is a complete and utter fantasy; just another flavor of market worship. Go back and re-read the very examples you just quoted: is breathing polluted air a matter of “consensual dealing”? Do you consent to drinking poisoned groundwater? Is there anything at all consensual about discovering that a corporation buried toxic waste under the site where your kid’s school was built?
The fact that no one anywhere is free from human error is the very point here. You have manufactured this artificial and nonexistent distinction between government and the private sector based around the mistaken idea that you can opt out of dealing with the latter in order to avoid its set of risks, when this is by your own admission simply not true.
This isn’t re-framing the debate, it’s an explanation of how your entire argument rests on a false premise.
You are right about one thing and one thing only here: this is apparently a pointless discussion. Agency in this context has a specific and discrete meaning that is a matter of fact, not opinion–one that you can look up just as easily as anyone else, if you have any interest in understanding it rather than stubbornly asserting that the word means something that it doesn’t. I even linked it for you.
While true, this is due not to any inherent difference between public and private institutions, but rather due to the current law as implemented. Which goes back to my point that the issue isn’t one of public vs. private, but of evaluating the risks and erecting the appropriate set of checks and balances for each.
This is simply force by another name, and is beside the point.
Nonsense. As I said, this idea you have, that you can opt out of the harms caused by private entities simply by not doing business with them, is a complete and utter fantasy; just another flavor of market worship. Go back and re-read the very examples you just quoted: is breathing polluted air a matter of “consensual dealing”? Do you consent to drinking poisoned groundwater? Is there anything at all consensual about discovering that a corporation buried toxic waste under the site where your kid’s school was built?
The fact that no one anywhere is free from human error is the very point here. You have manufactured this artificial and nonexistent distinction between government and the private sector based around the mistaken idea that you can opt out of dealing with the latter in order to avoid its set of risks, when this is by your own admission simply not true.
This isn’t re-framing the debate, it’s an explanation of how your entire argument rests on a false premise.
You are right about one thing and one thing only here: this is apparently a pointless discussion. Agency in this context has a specific and discrete meaning that is a matter of fact, not opinion–one that you can look up just as easily as anyone else, if you have any interest in understanding it rather than stubbornly asserting that the word means something that it doesn’t. I even linked it for you.
“If I wrote something about how helpful the people in the state tax office were to me the other day (or whatever), my point would not be that the left is arguing X and the right is arguing Y about the New Deal.”
HSH
There is no need for you to try to make a point in order for someone to take it as if you were trying to in present very emotional divide.
Someone can take it as you are giving the positive argument for government(state tax office) because that is the talk of the day, week, month, year.. on the national media about and with your peers.
Economic crash always causes emotions to flare, pessimism and lost hope if lasts too long (consumer confidence) and politicians that caused the crash try to stay in power by division since they lost the arguments by leading into crash. I have seen it couple of times in my travels.
“If I wrote something about how helpful the people in the state tax office were to me the other day (or whatever), my point would not be that the left is arguing X and the right is arguing Y about the New Deal.”
HSH
There is no need for you to try to make a point in order for someone to take it as if you were trying to in present very emotional divide.
Someone can take it as you are giving the positive argument for government(state tax office) because that is the talk of the day, week, month, year.. on the national media about and with your peers.
Economic crash always causes emotions to flare, pessimism and lost hope if lasts too long (consumer confidence) and politicians that caused the crash try to stay in power by division since they lost the arguments by leading into crash. I have seen it couple of times in my travels.
Are the participants in this discussion arguing anarcho-capitalism versus some sort of socialist totalitarianism, or what?
No, the discussion got started by Julian raising the question of the differences between gov’t and corporations. The main difference is that gov’t is inherently coercive. It spun out of control from there.
If you think the removal of collective-bargaining rights from public workers in Wisconsin is a form of oppression, you’re going to come down on the side of the workers.
I wasn’t addressing the topic at hand, rather responding to a comment from Julian, as noted above. I have stayed away from the main debate because I have nothing to add that wouldn’t be redundant.
I’ll 2nd your comments on government forcing corporations to be more accountable than they otherwise would be. If not via regulation, certainly via tort law (which, oddly enough, is something conservatives often take aim at… though that would appear to be the best protector of individual rights in existance, particularly if you remove regulations).
Tort law and gov’t regulations sometimes overlap, sometimes not. Many remedies lie in contract. It is absolutely true that, but for the rule of law–a feature of some but not all govt’s– coupled with a viable enforcement mechanism, remedies against corporate or individual bad acting would not exist. But, the only reason the remedy exists is because gov’t, even the most benign, brings with it the power to coerce, i.e. to enforce a judgment, to enjoin certain conduct. The remedies available for gov’t bad acting, however, are much fewer than those for private bad acting. It’s called sovereign immunity.
While true, this is due not to any inherent difference between public and private institutions, but rather due to the current law as implemented.
No, it is due to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. See the 11th Amendment.
You have manufactured this artificial and nonexistent distinction between government and the private sector based around the mistaken idea that you can opt out of dealing with the latter in order to avoid its set of risks, when this is by your own admission simply not true.
This is your qualifier, not mine. It is re-framing the debate. I can choose, for the most part, which companies or people I associate/do business with. Not so gov’t. Outside of a contract, no private entity can control or coerce me into doing something I don’t want to do. Not so gov’t. Gov’t has the power to coerce its citizens, private entities, absent a contract, do not.
That private entities cause harm that impacts others is a given and is beside the point.
Without human beings government does not exist and can do nothing.
Hence it has agency, i.e. it acts, often with volition, other times by inertia. But, without human agency, gov’t is inert, inanimate. As are corporations.
Are the participants in this discussion arguing anarcho-capitalism versus some sort of socialist totalitarianism, or what?
No, the discussion got started by Julian raising the question of the differences between gov’t and corporations. The main difference is that gov’t is inherently coercive. It spun out of control from there.
If you think the removal of collective-bargaining rights from public workers in Wisconsin is a form of oppression, you’re going to come down on the side of the workers.
I wasn’t addressing the topic at hand, rather responding to a comment from Julian, as noted above. I have stayed away from the main debate because I have nothing to add that wouldn’t be redundant.
I’ll 2nd your comments on government forcing corporations to be more accountable than they otherwise would be. If not via regulation, certainly via tort law (which, oddly enough, is something conservatives often take aim at… though that would appear to be the best protector of individual rights in existance, particularly if you remove regulations).
Tort law and gov’t regulations sometimes overlap, sometimes not. Many remedies lie in contract. It is absolutely true that, but for the rule of law–a feature of some but not all govt’s– coupled with a viable enforcement mechanism, remedies against corporate or individual bad acting would not exist. But, the only reason the remedy exists is because gov’t, even the most benign, brings with it the power to coerce, i.e. to enforce a judgment, to enjoin certain conduct. The remedies available for gov’t bad acting, however, are much fewer than those for private bad acting. It’s called sovereign immunity.
While true, this is due not to any inherent difference between public and private institutions, but rather due to the current law as implemented.
No, it is due to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. See the 11th Amendment.
You have manufactured this artificial and nonexistent distinction between government and the private sector based around the mistaken idea that you can opt out of dealing with the latter in order to avoid its set of risks, when this is by your own admission simply not true.
This is your qualifier, not mine. It is re-framing the debate. I can choose, for the most part, which companies or people I associate/do business with. Not so gov’t. Outside of a contract, no private entity can control or coerce me into doing something I don’t want to do. Not so gov’t. Gov’t has the power to coerce its citizens, private entities, absent a contract, do not.
That private entities cause harm that impacts others is a given and is beside the point.
Without human beings government does not exist and can do nothing.
Hence it has agency, i.e. it acts, often with volition, other times by inertia. But, without human agency, gov’t is inert, inanimate. As are corporations.
I said
“Without human beings government … can do nothing.”
and you said
“Hence it has agency, i.e. it acts”
But what if I’d said
“Without human beings flip-flips can do nothing?”
Would you also say they have agency? The ability to act independently is part of the definition of agency, and you explicitly agreed that governments, like corporations, cannot act independently of humans and thus do not possess agency.
I said
“Without human beings government … can do nothing.”
and you said
“Hence it has agency, i.e. it acts”
But what if I’d said
“Without human beings flip-flips can do nothing?”
Would you also say they have agency? The ability to act independently is part of the definition of agency, and you explicitly agreed that governments, like corporations, cannot act independently of humans and thus do not possess agency.
Julian, perhaps we are talking semantics. A gov’t cannot exist without people. Period. So, anytime I refer to gov’t doing something, it does so because of the people working for it or directing it executing gov’t policy. This is agency.
Julian, perhaps we are talking semantics. A gov’t cannot exist without people. Period. So, anytime I refer to gov’t doing something, it does so because of the people working for it or directing it executing gov’t policy. This is agency.
I wasn’t addressing the topic at hand, rather responding to a comment from Julian, as noted above.
The comment of mine you quoted was not directed at you, McKinney. The “you” was the general you, any you. It was really more in response to Brett’s comments about government being inherently oppressive to some degree or another, and that we should always be resistant to that oppression, even in Sweden. Which is fine, but not crucial to the argument about how to apply that (presumably uncontroversial) general rule.
I wasn’t addressing the topic at hand, rather responding to a comment from Julian, as noted above.
The comment of mine you quoted was not directed at you, McKinney. The “you” was the general you, any you. It was really more in response to Brett’s comments about government being inherently oppressive to some degree or another, and that we should always be resistant to that oppression, even in Sweden. Which is fine, but not crucial to the argument about how to apply that (presumably uncontroversial) general rule.
The fact that no one anywhere is free from human error is the very point here.
I think the truth of this statement is what keeps me from understanding where some of the comments are going here (lately some of McKinney’s, for the most part, but not exclusively).
The fact that no one anywhere is free from human error is the very point here.
I think the truth of this statement is what keeps me from understanding where some of the comments are going here (lately some of McKinney’s, for the most part, but not exclusively).
“I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.”
Jay Gould
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/arts/18grim.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print
Given productivity improvements over the intervening century or so, I’d say we can do much more with less.
“I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.”
Jay Gould
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/arts/18grim.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print
Given productivity improvements over the intervening century or so, I’d say we can do much more with less.
That isn’t reframing the debate, that is the debate.
This entire thing started as a discussion of the reasons why conservatives think government solutions are worse than private solutions. Our exchange began with you quoting Julian as saying this: I’ve never seen a good explanation of why government institutions are inherently less trustworthy or more prone to abuse than corporations.
To which you responded: Well, to start, gov’ts exist for the purpose of exercising power over individuals, an inherently coercive undertaking … except for consensual relations, no corporation has anything like that kind of power over me.
Think this through logically. When presented with a question of why you think government solutions are “inherently less trustworthy or more prone to abuse than corporations”, your response was that this is at least in part because of the “inherently coercive” nature of government authority–the upshot of which is that you cannot choose to opt out of dealing with government, whereas you can choose not to deal with a corporation.
The problem with this argument is that its premise is false: you can’t choose to opt out of dealing with the societal and environmental consequences of corporate misconduct, either. You can’t avoid being sickened by toxic chemicals dumped in your environment or any of the countless other examples simply by choosing not to do business with Acme Petrol.
You perceive this as reframing the debate because it doesn’t fit into the narrow frame of your argument. In comparing the relative merits and risks of private vs. public institutions, you’ve chosen to examine only one kind of potential harm: the kind that results from the monopoly of force that government enjoys. You compare that to the private sector, note that no such monopoly of force exists in the private sector, and conclude that the private sector is better. This is akin to comparing the risks of living in Hawaii to the risks of living in downtown New York, and declaring New York better because it doesn’t have the unavoidable risk of living near active volcanoes. While true, this isn’t a fair comparison because it ignores a laundry list of equally serious risks of living in downtown New York that don’t exist in Hawaii.
What I am doing is pointing out that there are more risks and potential harms to be weighed than just the non-consensual, coercive authority of government, and that private corporations have their own set of very real and very serious risks for which consent is just as nonexistent.
NO.
Government, as an organizational entity, has no “volition” of any sort. It is not sentient.
That was, incidentally, part of the reason for the rant about gun rights. Guns have no agency of their own. When a human fires a gun, he does not transfer his agency to the bullet. It is a tool, utterly incapable in any way, shape or form of having agency of its own. And when a gun is misused by a person, it does not become the gun’s fault. That doesn’t mean they aren’t dangerous tools and shouldn’t be regulated in proportion to their risks–but it does mean they are not inherently good or bad.
Conservatives seem to understand this concept just fine when it applies to firearms. It’s absolutely amazing that they seem to lose the ability to make that distinction when it comes to demonizing government, which is no more or less capable of agency or conscious decisions than a gun.
That isn’t reframing the debate, that is the debate.
This entire thing started as a discussion of the reasons why conservatives think government solutions are worse than private solutions. Our exchange began with you quoting Julian as saying this: I’ve never seen a good explanation of why government institutions are inherently less trustworthy or more prone to abuse than corporations.
To which you responded: Well, to start, gov’ts exist for the purpose of exercising power over individuals, an inherently coercive undertaking … except for consensual relations, no corporation has anything like that kind of power over me.
Think this through logically. When presented with a question of why you think government solutions are “inherently less trustworthy or more prone to abuse than corporations”, your response was that this is at least in part because of the “inherently coercive” nature of government authority–the upshot of which is that you cannot choose to opt out of dealing with government, whereas you can choose not to deal with a corporation.
The problem with this argument is that its premise is false: you can’t choose to opt out of dealing with the societal and environmental consequences of corporate misconduct, either. You can’t avoid being sickened by toxic chemicals dumped in your environment or any of the countless other examples simply by choosing not to do business with Acme Petrol.
You perceive this as reframing the debate because it doesn’t fit into the narrow frame of your argument. In comparing the relative merits and risks of private vs. public institutions, you’ve chosen to examine only one kind of potential harm: the kind that results from the monopoly of force that government enjoys. You compare that to the private sector, note that no such monopoly of force exists in the private sector, and conclude that the private sector is better. This is akin to comparing the risks of living in Hawaii to the risks of living in downtown New York, and declaring New York better because it doesn’t have the unavoidable risk of living near active volcanoes. While true, this isn’t a fair comparison because it ignores a laundry list of equally serious risks of living in downtown New York that don’t exist in Hawaii.
What I am doing is pointing out that there are more risks and potential harms to be weighed than just the non-consensual, coercive authority of government, and that private corporations have their own set of very real and very serious risks for which consent is just as nonexistent.
NO.
Government, as an organizational entity, has no “volition” of any sort. It is not sentient.
That was, incidentally, part of the reason for the rant about gun rights. Guns have no agency of their own. When a human fires a gun, he does not transfer his agency to the bullet. It is a tool, utterly incapable in any way, shape or form of having agency of its own. And when a gun is misused by a person, it does not become the gun’s fault. That doesn’t mean they aren’t dangerous tools and shouldn’t be regulated in proportion to their risks–but it does mean they are not inherently good or bad.
Conservatives seem to understand this concept just fine when it applies to firearms. It’s absolutely amazing that they seem to lose the ability to make that distinction when it comes to demonizing government, which is no more or less capable of agency or conscious decisions than a gun.
A bit of ketchup. Russell:
Agree.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
The rest of it: yes.
A bit of ketchup. Russell:
Agree.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
The rest of it: yes.
The next time you run into a bureaucratic wall, remind them who they work for.
In my experience, I’ve been done less harm, and have found a more responsive counterparty, when dealing with government as compared to private industry.
I’ve been straight up screwed by private actors and given the time-honored remedy of “take it or leave it”. Quite a number of times, actually.
I haven’t had that experience when dealing with public sector actors. On the contrary, I’ve found public sector folks to be pretty damned helpful.
Imagine that. I must just be a lucky guy.
When I lived in NY, bureaucratic BS seemed more common than here where I am now in MA. But I could usually find a way to get what I needed done.
I know my quaint anecdota flies in the face of “market theory”, but it’s pretty freaking real to me, whereas market theory is something somebody wrote in a book.
I find your story about your buddy who had to provide tons of docs with no subpoena etc pretty compelling. I’ve had my sorry @ss at various times in the street, in front of folks in my town, and engaged in debate with folks from the DOJ to try to change stuff like that. Also, on the horn with my House Rep and Senators’ offices. Also, I’ve written checks.
So far no joy, I’ll try harder. Maybe you’d like to lend a hand.
But straight up, I will in general take my chances with government before pretty much any private actor larger than my local (and locally owned) hardware store or grocery.
I know, personally, people that have died from the harmful effects of commercial industrial activity. I don’t really know anyone who’s been inadvertently killed by the government. I know those people exist, but leaving aside actual warfare my sense is that more have been killed by commercial sloppiness or outright bad behavior, intended or unintended.
Chacun son gout.
The next time you run into a bureaucratic wall, remind them who they work for.
In my experience, I’ve been done less harm, and have found a more responsive counterparty, when dealing with government as compared to private industry.
I’ve been straight up screwed by private actors and given the time-honored remedy of “take it or leave it”. Quite a number of times, actually.
I haven’t had that experience when dealing with public sector actors. On the contrary, I’ve found public sector folks to be pretty damned helpful.
Imagine that. I must just be a lucky guy.
When I lived in NY, bureaucratic BS seemed more common than here where I am now in MA. But I could usually find a way to get what I needed done.
I know my quaint anecdota flies in the face of “market theory”, but it’s pretty freaking real to me, whereas market theory is something somebody wrote in a book.
I find your story about your buddy who had to provide tons of docs with no subpoena etc pretty compelling. I’ve had my sorry @ss at various times in the street, in front of folks in my town, and engaged in debate with folks from the DOJ to try to change stuff like that. Also, on the horn with my House Rep and Senators’ offices. Also, I’ve written checks.
So far no joy, I’ll try harder. Maybe you’d like to lend a hand.
But straight up, I will in general take my chances with government before pretty much any private actor larger than my local (and locally owned) hardware store or grocery.
I know, personally, people that have died from the harmful effects of commercial industrial activity. I don’t really know anyone who’s been inadvertently killed by the government. I know those people exist, but leaving aside actual warfare my sense is that more have been killed by commercial sloppiness or outright bad behavior, intended or unintended.
Chacun son gout.
Didn’t see this:
Yes. The agency of the people who are taking those actions and making those decisions. And to a larger extent, the agency of those who establish the laws and processes themselves. Not the agency of the social organization we call “government”.
This may seem like semantic nitpicking, but it is a critical distinction. Remember, this discussion of agency arose from this statement by Brett:
The problem with this statement is that it is assigning agency–responsibility for choices and actions–to the amorphous concept of “government”, as if “government” itself were capable of making these choices. The problem with his assertion is that all of these risks he cites come not from any inherent quality of government, but from the choices made by human beings while holding positions of power and the failure or nonexistence of the necessary checks on their power. They would not have the ability to cause these harms without the power granted to them by government, but the power itself isn’t the cause of the harm–the responsibility lies with the human actors who made those decisions.
This is a sound reason for establishing strong checks and balances on the power of government, but it is not any kind of an argument about the inherent merits or appropriate size of government the way Brett is using it.
Didn’t see this:
Yes. The agency of the people who are taking those actions and making those decisions. And to a larger extent, the agency of those who establish the laws and processes themselves. Not the agency of the social organization we call “government”.
This may seem like semantic nitpicking, but it is a critical distinction. Remember, this discussion of agency arose from this statement by Brett:
The problem with this statement is that it is assigning agency–responsibility for choices and actions–to the amorphous concept of “government”, as if “government” itself were capable of making these choices. The problem with his assertion is that all of these risks he cites come not from any inherent quality of government, but from the choices made by human beings while holding positions of power and the failure or nonexistence of the necessary checks on their power. They would not have the ability to cause these harms without the power granted to them by government, but the power itself isn’t the cause of the harm–the responsibility lies with the human actors who made those decisions.
This is a sound reason for establishing strong checks and balances on the power of government, but it is not any kind of an argument about the inherent merits or appropriate size of government the way Brett is using it.
Just a followup on comments from a ways back on wage/CPI tracking. If public sector wages had tracked the CPI since e.g. 1930 then the average public worker would only be able to buy the same goods a public worker could then. So, probably not a 3 bedroom house, or a car, certainly not two cars, no TV, no air travel, no computers or Internet, no modern appliances – or at least, for any of those they were able to buy, they’d have to give up some of the very basics of life from back then.
We can measure this. We have the CPI deflator since 1930 and we know how much teachers made back then. The average eacher salary was $1420 in 1930, and if it had only increased at the CPI since then it would be $18,200 now.
A link between CPI and wages is to force an ever-decreasing share of total income to go to those workers.
Of course what would happen before that is that nobody would go into teaching, or there would be massive labor unrest.
You can tell that teachers are not overpaid by the fact that there are not hordes of college graduates lined up to become teachers. If it was an easy job with a high salary they would be. Collective bargaining doesn’t have a damn thing to do with it.
Just a followup on comments from a ways back on wage/CPI tracking. If public sector wages had tracked the CPI since e.g. 1930 then the average public worker would only be able to buy the same goods a public worker could then. So, probably not a 3 bedroom house, or a car, certainly not two cars, no TV, no air travel, no computers or Internet, no modern appliances – or at least, for any of those they were able to buy, they’d have to give up some of the very basics of life from back then.
We can measure this. We have the CPI deflator since 1930 and we know how much teachers made back then. The average eacher salary was $1420 in 1930, and if it had only increased at the CPI since then it would be $18,200 now.
A link between CPI and wages is to force an ever-decreasing share of total income to go to those workers.
Of course what would happen before that is that nobody would go into teaching, or there would be massive labor unrest.
You can tell that teachers are not overpaid by the fact that there are not hordes of college graduates lined up to become teachers. If it was an easy job with a high salary they would be. Collective bargaining doesn’t have a damn thing to do with it.
you can’t choose to opt out of dealing with the societal and environmental consequences of corporate misconduct, either.
Catsy, I never said I could opt out of consequences. That is your word, not mine. I said, and this is getting very repetitive, that I can chose who I deal with, who I buy from, whose service I hire, etc. I said that corporations cannot, absent a contract, compel me to do anything I don’t want to do. Which is why gov’t is more prone to abuse: it has the power to coerce. Now, whether that power is used in a good or a bad way depends on a variety of factors. But, discussing the issue in the abstract, gov’t is more prone to widespread mayhem that the private sector–not necessarily our gov’t, but gov’ts past and present around the world. “More” is a comparative term, not an exclusive term. Companies do bad things too.
Imagine that. I must just be a lucky guy.
I have had many of the same experiences, plus a number of not so great experiences, for years.
I have personal experience with being intentionally misled by an IRS person hoping I wouldn’t file an appeal of an adverse–and wrong–ruling.
I’ve had multiple bad experiences with law enforcement literally making stuff up to nail someone they thought needed nailing. And I’m a conservative, pro-death penalty (kind of) law and order guy.
I’ve had more than multiple experiences with dishonest judges.
I’ve seen regulatory types (OSHA, Pipeline) throw their weight around in ways that should be an embarrassment to anyone who cares about good government.
An afterthought on voluntary association in the private sector: if you have to get from Point A to Point B by air and there is only one service provider, the voluntary aspect of that relationship is only theoretical. And it can be unpleasant and without recourse. So, I correct myself.
I know, personally, people that have died from the harmful effects of commercial industrial activity.
Sure, me too. But people do die everyday as a result of gov’t action or, perhaps more often, inaction. Criminals let out on parole or probation who should be behind bars, indifferent CPS personnel not following up on child abuse cases, poorly designed and maintained roads, drunk drivers let loose to drink and drive again. I don’t consider private or gov’t incompetence to be a significant defining or distinguishing mark, probably because I’ve made my living off of human error. Human error is ubiquitous.
Look, government is an incredibly dangerous institution. It’s capable of genocide, of ruining a society, of horrific evils. It’s capable of horribly messing things up even out of benign motives.
The problem with this statement is that it is assigning agency–responsibility for choices and actions–to the amorphous concept of “government”, as if “government” itself were capable of making these choices.
Ok, as a matter of semantics, yes, you are correct. It isn’t gov’t per se that engages in genocide, it is the particular gov’t as led and staffed by humans willing to perpetrate genocide. But, that is not the counter to Brett’s argument, which is true, but incomplete. Yes, bad gov’ts do bad things. The only effective responses to that level of bad gov’t are (1) revolution, which may or may not work, or (2) a better gov’t opposing the bad gov’t, e.g. the US/UK et al vs. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
you can’t choose to opt out of dealing with the societal and environmental consequences of corporate misconduct, either.
Catsy, I never said I could opt out of consequences. That is your word, not mine. I said, and this is getting very repetitive, that I can chose who I deal with, who I buy from, whose service I hire, etc. I said that corporations cannot, absent a contract, compel me to do anything I don’t want to do. Which is why gov’t is more prone to abuse: it has the power to coerce. Now, whether that power is used in a good or a bad way depends on a variety of factors. But, discussing the issue in the abstract, gov’t is more prone to widespread mayhem that the private sector–not necessarily our gov’t, but gov’ts past and present around the world. “More” is a comparative term, not an exclusive term. Companies do bad things too.
Imagine that. I must just be a lucky guy.
I have had many of the same experiences, plus a number of not so great experiences, for years.
I have personal experience with being intentionally misled by an IRS person hoping I wouldn’t file an appeal of an adverse–and wrong–ruling.
I’ve had multiple bad experiences with law enforcement literally making stuff up to nail someone they thought needed nailing. And I’m a conservative, pro-death penalty (kind of) law and order guy.
I’ve had more than multiple experiences with dishonest judges.
I’ve seen regulatory types (OSHA, Pipeline) throw their weight around in ways that should be an embarrassment to anyone who cares about good government.
An afterthought on voluntary association in the private sector: if you have to get from Point A to Point B by air and there is only one service provider, the voluntary aspect of that relationship is only theoretical. And it can be unpleasant and without recourse. So, I correct myself.
I know, personally, people that have died from the harmful effects of commercial industrial activity.
Sure, me too. But people do die everyday as a result of gov’t action or, perhaps more often, inaction. Criminals let out on parole or probation who should be behind bars, indifferent CPS personnel not following up on child abuse cases, poorly designed and maintained roads, drunk drivers let loose to drink and drive again. I don’t consider private or gov’t incompetence to be a significant defining or distinguishing mark, probably because I’ve made my living off of human error. Human error is ubiquitous.
Look, government is an incredibly dangerous institution. It’s capable of genocide, of ruining a society, of horrific evils. It’s capable of horribly messing things up even out of benign motives.
The problem with this statement is that it is assigning agency–responsibility for choices and actions–to the amorphous concept of “government”, as if “government” itself were capable of making these choices.
Ok, as a matter of semantics, yes, you are correct. It isn’t gov’t per se that engages in genocide, it is the particular gov’t as led and staffed by humans willing to perpetrate genocide. But, that is not the counter to Brett’s argument, which is true, but incomplete. Yes, bad gov’ts do bad things. The only effective responses to that level of bad gov’t are (1) revolution, which may or may not work, or (2) a better gov’t opposing the bad gov’t, e.g. the US/UK et al vs. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
Rob in CT: I’m pretty surprised to see you write this Brett:
Given what I know of your politics. To see that problem (however overstated it might be) and yet to generally be against any external (to the market) remedies…
Well, Brett does speak of managing the economy, which sounds like socialist talk to me. Maybe his politics are not what we (or maybe even he) think(s) they are.
Consider this paragraph earlier in that same comment of Brett’s:
Brett seems to acknowledge (nay, proclaim) that “productivity” is not attributable to workers, i.e. to sovereign individual human beings who love liberty and hate oppression and so forth. He points out, correctly, that the very same sovereign individual human beings can produce more or less depending on the “capital” they have to work with. “Capital” is not just machinery; it includes “infrastructure”, both physical (e.g. highways, sewers) and social (e.g. patent laws, money) that, by Brett’s analysis, deserves much of the credit for any sovereign individual human being’s “productivity”. This is a collectivist notion, is it not?
–TP
Rob in CT: I’m pretty surprised to see you write this Brett:
Given what I know of your politics. To see that problem (however overstated it might be) and yet to generally be against any external (to the market) remedies…
Well, Brett does speak of managing the economy, which sounds like socialist talk to me. Maybe his politics are not what we (or maybe even he) think(s) they are.
Consider this paragraph earlier in that same comment of Brett’s:
Brett seems to acknowledge (nay, proclaim) that “productivity” is not attributable to workers, i.e. to sovereign individual human beings who love liberty and hate oppression and so forth. He points out, correctly, that the very same sovereign individual human beings can produce more or less depending on the “capital” they have to work with. “Capital” is not just machinery; it includes “infrastructure”, both physical (e.g. highways, sewers) and social (e.g. patent laws, money) that, by Brett’s analysis, deserves much of the credit for any sovereign individual human being’s “productivity”. This is a collectivist notion, is it not?
–TP
McKinneyTX: Outside of a contract, no private entity can control or coerce me into doing something I don’t want to do.
I should gather up all the links from Consumerist.com of, for example, lenders foreclosing on people who don’t even have mortgages with them, or foreclosing on the house next door to the correct property because of a misprint; and in some cases removing all the property from the home and destroying it, or even tearing the house to the ground.
russell:I don’t really know anyone who’s been inadvertently killed by the government. I know those people exist, but leaving aside actual warfare my sense is that more have been killed by commercial sloppiness or outright bad behavior, intended or unintended.
Not to get into body counts, but the escalation of the War On Some Drugs, combined with increased police militarization, no knock warrants, and taking the dumbest dummies they can get to graduate from the academy, has led to lots and lots and lots of straight-up executions. See, i.e., this, in which, like a FPS video game, the cops barge into the house and simply lay flat every breathing object they lay eyes on — in this case, a man with a golf club in his hands, awakened by someone breaking into his home, who never even got a chance to ask “Who’s there?”
I know people killed as a result of industrial accidents and malfeasance and well, but instances of the police just stone cold killing people in more-or-less cold blood (see also the man shot in the back while being held down by police on a subway platform in SF) seem to be on the rise, not the wane.
McKinneyTX: Outside of a contract, no private entity can control or coerce me into doing something I don’t want to do.
I should gather up all the links from Consumerist.com of, for example, lenders foreclosing on people who don’t even have mortgages with them, or foreclosing on the house next door to the correct property because of a misprint; and in some cases removing all the property from the home and destroying it, or even tearing the house to the ground.
russell:I don’t really know anyone who’s been inadvertently killed by the government. I know those people exist, but leaving aside actual warfare my sense is that more have been killed by commercial sloppiness or outright bad behavior, intended or unintended.
Not to get into body counts, but the escalation of the War On Some Drugs, combined with increased police militarization, no knock warrants, and taking the dumbest dummies they can get to graduate from the academy, has led to lots and lots and lots of straight-up executions. See, i.e., this, in which, like a FPS video game, the cops barge into the house and simply lay flat every breathing object they lay eyes on — in this case, a man with a golf club in his hands, awakened by someone breaking into his home, who never even got a chance to ask “Who’s there?”
I know people killed as a result of industrial accidents and malfeasance and well, but instances of the police just stone cold killing people in more-or-less cold blood (see also the man shot in the back while being held down by police on a subway platform in SF) seem to be on the rise, not the wane.
I should gather up all the links from Consumerist.com of, for example, lenders foreclosing on people who don’t even have mortgages with them, or foreclosing on the house next door to the correct property because of a misprint; and in some cases removing all the property from the home and destroying it, or even tearing the house to the ground.
Phil, the genesis of these things are contracts. Granted, contracts coupled with gross stupidity, but contracts. And, at least in Texas, I can block enforcement of anything you describe fairly cheaply (10K or less) and get my client’s attys fees back from the bad actor.
No private entity can barge into your house, arrest you, ransack your possessions and put you in jail without violating any number of criminal and civil laws. The police, well, that’s different.
I should gather up all the links from Consumerist.com of, for example, lenders foreclosing on people who don’t even have mortgages with them, or foreclosing on the house next door to the correct property because of a misprint; and in some cases removing all the property from the home and destroying it, or even tearing the house to the ground.
Phil, the genesis of these things are contracts. Granted, contracts coupled with gross stupidity, but contracts. And, at least in Texas, I can block enforcement of anything you describe fairly cheaply (10K or less) and get my client’s attys fees back from the bad actor.
No private entity can barge into your house, arrest you, ransack your possessions and put you in jail without violating any number of criminal and civil laws. The police, well, that’s different.
Which is why gov’t is more prone to abuse: it has the power to coerce.
You state this as a fact, as though it is proven, McKinney, when it isn’t (because of the “more” part). And whether “abuse” is the relevant metric is unclear, not to mention that large corporations have the power to coerce (and that the main thing stopping them is government).
The power to coerce is certainly something that can be abused, which is why, as Catsy stated several times, we need checks on government power. No one is denying that, I don’t think. But I don’t see any basis for the more-prone-to-abuse-than-private-corporations assertion, or what specifically we should be doing based on it.
But people do die everyday as a result of gov’t action or, perhaps more often, inaction. (emphasis mine)
So you’re arguing for more government action then, McKinney? 😉
Which is why gov’t is more prone to abuse: it has the power to coerce.
You state this as a fact, as though it is proven, McKinney, when it isn’t (because of the “more” part). And whether “abuse” is the relevant metric is unclear, not to mention that large corporations have the power to coerce (and that the main thing stopping them is government).
The power to coerce is certainly something that can be abused, which is why, as Catsy stated several times, we need checks on government power. No one is denying that, I don’t think. But I don’t see any basis for the more-prone-to-abuse-than-private-corporations assertion, or what specifically we should be doing based on it.
But people do die everyday as a result of gov’t action or, perhaps more often, inaction. (emphasis mine)
So you’re arguing for more government action then, McKinney? 😉
Which is why gov’t is more prone to abuse: it has the power to coerce.
You state this as a fact, as though it is proven, McKinney, when it isn’t (because of the “more” part). And whether “abuse” is the relevant metric is unclear, not to mention that large corporations have the power to coerce (and that the main thing stopping them is government).
The coercive aspect of gov’t generally is far more prone to abuse than any private enterprise in recent history, e.g. the PRC, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Imperial Japan, etc.
what specifically we should be doing based on it.
I wasn’t calling out a problem in need of a solution, I was responding to a comment by Julian: gov’t or corporations, which are more prone to abuse? I chose gov’t because of (1) history and (2) the inherent power of gov’t to coerce its citizens.
Which is why gov’t is more prone to abuse: it has the power to coerce.
You state this as a fact, as though it is proven, McKinney, when it isn’t (because of the “more” part). And whether “abuse” is the relevant metric is unclear, not to mention that large corporations have the power to coerce (and that the main thing stopping them is government).
The coercive aspect of gov’t generally is far more prone to abuse than any private enterprise in recent history, e.g. the PRC, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Imperial Japan, etc.
what specifically we should be doing based on it.
I wasn’t calling out a problem in need of a solution, I was responding to a comment by Julian: gov’t or corporations, which are more prone to abuse? I chose gov’t because of (1) history and (2) the inherent power of gov’t to coerce its citizens.
I have had many of the same experiences, plus a number of not so great experiences, for years.
We all have our stories.
My point is that it’s absurd to state that folks have no meaningful recourse or remedy when dealing with the public sector, and equally absurd to state that a meaningful recourse is always available when dealing with the private sector.
There’s good and bad behavior in both. Neither is more or less prone to malfeasance.
Not to get into body counts, but the escalation of the War On Some Drugs, …
The war on drugs is a stupid, pointless, money-wasting, steaming crock of crap, and prior to the advent of the War On Terror was the primary vehicle for rolling back individual civil rights in this country.
Now, of course, we have the War On Terror, which gave the DOJ and intelligence communities the juice they needed to get the freaking Patriot Act rammed through.
Not to mention the gaping bottomless money pit known as the Department of Homeland Security. We should just take a couple of 18-wheelers full of $100 bills, light them on fire down by the Capitol Mall, and call it a day.
So, no argument from me on any of that.
People should stop voting for boneheads. Wherever and whenever possible.
I have had many of the same experiences, plus a number of not so great experiences, for years.
We all have our stories.
My point is that it’s absurd to state that folks have no meaningful recourse or remedy when dealing with the public sector, and equally absurd to state that a meaningful recourse is always available when dealing with the private sector.
There’s good and bad behavior in both. Neither is more or less prone to malfeasance.
Not to get into body counts, but the escalation of the War On Some Drugs, …
The war on drugs is a stupid, pointless, money-wasting, steaming crock of crap, and prior to the advent of the War On Terror was the primary vehicle for rolling back individual civil rights in this country.
Now, of course, we have the War On Terror, which gave the DOJ and intelligence communities the juice they needed to get the freaking Patriot Act rammed through.
Not to mention the gaping bottomless money pit known as the Department of Homeland Security. We should just take a couple of 18-wheelers full of $100 bills, light them on fire down by the Capitol Mall, and call it a day.
So, no argument from me on any of that.
People should stop voting for boneheads. Wherever and whenever possible.
Phil, the genesis of these things are contracts.
What part of “foreclosing on people who don’t have mortgages with them” was the part that you didn’t understand? What part of “removing all the property from the wrong home and destroying it” was I not properly describing? That’s an absolute, clear-cut, plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face case of a private actor forcing you to do something you don’t want to do.
No private entity can barge into your house, arrest you, ransack your possessions and put you in jail without violating any number of criminal and civil laws.
I’ll bet you $50 that, for every case I can find as described above, not a single person has ever gone to jail, and I further bet that fewer than 10% have ever paid a criminal fine of any sort.
Phil, the genesis of these things are contracts.
What part of “foreclosing on people who don’t have mortgages with them” was the part that you didn’t understand? What part of “removing all the property from the wrong home and destroying it” was I not properly describing? That’s an absolute, clear-cut, plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face case of a private actor forcing you to do something you don’t want to do.
No private entity can barge into your house, arrest you, ransack your possessions and put you in jail without violating any number of criminal and civil laws.
I’ll bet you $50 that, for every case I can find as described above, not a single person has ever gone to jail, and I further bet that fewer than 10% have ever paid a criminal fine of any sort.
I wasn’t calling out a problem in need of a solution, I was responding to a comment by Julian: gov’t or corporations, which are more prone to abuse?
Nevermind. (Way to go, Julian!)
I wasn’t calling out a problem in need of a solution, I was responding to a comment by Julian: gov’t or corporations, which are more prone to abuse?
Nevermind. (Way to go, Julian!)
I think part of the problem, here, is that the police and the banks can just point fingers at each other. Sure, we gave the police the wrong information, but it wasn’t us that tossed them out. Sure, we tossed them out, but based on information that the bank gave us.
And, somehow, that’s allowed to stand.
Again, and again.
But maybe I’ve got some misapprehension about how this kind of thing works.
I think part of the problem, here, is that the police and the banks can just point fingers at each other. Sure, we gave the police the wrong information, but it wasn’t us that tossed them out. Sure, we tossed them out, but based on information that the bank gave us.
And, somehow, that’s allowed to stand.
Again, and again.
But maybe I’ve got some misapprehension about how this kind of thing works.
You have got to be fscking kidding me.
No, you did not use the specific word “consequences” while weighing the consequences of government and corporate abuses. What that has to do with this discussion escapes me. Please don’t waste my time by nitpicking at synonyms that don’t affect the substance of the argument.
Yes, you can; no, they can’t.
Great, we agree on that point, and we’ve been agreeing on it for two pages now. The problem is that you are cherry-picking one single metric by which you can evaluate the relative potential of gov’t and corps for bad outcomes–whether or not the entity in question has the ability to lawfully compel or coerce you to do something–and declaring that because gov’t has that power and corps don’t, that government is less trustworthy and more prone to abuse.
This is a tautological argument. You’ve chosen as your sole metric a trait that is inherent to government by its very definition–one of the core attributes that defines government is the monopoly of force! It would be like me declaring that corps are less trustworthy and more prone to abuse because they are driven by profit motives. While there is ample evidence that yes, profit motives create an enormous potential for abuse and environmental harm, this isn’t a metric that allows an apples-to-apples comparison, because the government is not driven by the quest for profits. In order to do an apples-to-apples comparison, you have to step back to a higher-level discussion: what are the relative harms, and their severity and probability? What aspects of public and private institutions create the potential for harm, for abuse and misconduct?
Yours would be a valid argument if the question was, “which is more likely to compel you to do something against your will, corps or gov’t?” It’s not. The question was, “why do you think government institutions are inherently less trustworthy or more prone to abuse than corporations?” To return to my previous analogy, you keep saying that NYC is safer than Hawaii because NYC doesn’t have volcanoes, and I keep pointing out that volcanoes aren’t the only way to compare the relative safety of these two locations, that for example you have to compare the rates of violent crime, local ordinances, and weather-related hazards as well.
It is a fact that the ability to compel behavior under color of law is not the sole measure by which you can evaluate the relative trustworthiness and potential for abuse of public and private institutions. You keep arguing as if it is, and when I point out that there are many other factors to be weighed, you accuse me of reframing the debate, twisting your words, or changing the subject. What I am doing is refusing to accept the arbitrarily narrow criteria you’ve decided is the only acceptable way to answer the question, criteria that just happens to result in an answer you like.
You have got to be fscking kidding me.
No, you did not use the specific word “consequences” while weighing the consequences of government and corporate abuses. What that has to do with this discussion escapes me. Please don’t waste my time by nitpicking at synonyms that don’t affect the substance of the argument.
Yes, you can; no, they can’t.
Great, we agree on that point, and we’ve been agreeing on it for two pages now. The problem is that you are cherry-picking one single metric by which you can evaluate the relative potential of gov’t and corps for bad outcomes–whether or not the entity in question has the ability to lawfully compel or coerce you to do something–and declaring that because gov’t has that power and corps don’t, that government is less trustworthy and more prone to abuse.
This is a tautological argument. You’ve chosen as your sole metric a trait that is inherent to government by its very definition–one of the core attributes that defines government is the monopoly of force! It would be like me declaring that corps are less trustworthy and more prone to abuse because they are driven by profit motives. While there is ample evidence that yes, profit motives create an enormous potential for abuse and environmental harm, this isn’t a metric that allows an apples-to-apples comparison, because the government is not driven by the quest for profits. In order to do an apples-to-apples comparison, you have to step back to a higher-level discussion: what are the relative harms, and their severity and probability? What aspects of public and private institutions create the potential for harm, for abuse and misconduct?
Yours would be a valid argument if the question was, “which is more likely to compel you to do something against your will, corps or gov’t?” It’s not. The question was, “why do you think government institutions are inherently less trustworthy or more prone to abuse than corporations?” To return to my previous analogy, you keep saying that NYC is safer than Hawaii because NYC doesn’t have volcanoes, and I keep pointing out that volcanoes aren’t the only way to compare the relative safety of these two locations, that for example you have to compare the rates of violent crime, local ordinances, and weather-related hazards as well.
It is a fact that the ability to compel behavior under color of law is not the sole measure by which you can evaluate the relative trustworthiness and potential for abuse of public and private institutions. You keep arguing as if it is, and when I point out that there are many other factors to be weighed, you accuse me of reframing the debate, twisting your words, or changing the subject. What I am doing is refusing to accept the arbitrarily narrow criteria you’ve decided is the only acceptable way to answer the question, criteria that just happens to result in an answer you like.
You almost got there.
Brett isn’t making a descriptive argument about government, he’s making a prescriptive one: in other words he’s not just asserting that X Y and Z are true of government, he is asserting these things as support for an argument about the inherent badness of government.
The failure in this argument is that these are not traits that are inherent to government as an institution, but traits that are specific to individual governments and their policies at that time. Genocide, evil, the ruin of society–these arise not from something inherent in the very structure or nature of government, but from choices made by individuals.
In order to make them an inherent flaw in government, Brett has to assign agency to government as an institution–he has to say, in other words, that government does this or government is capable of that, shifting the blame for these crimes from the humans who perpetrated them onto the institution they employed to do so.
It is blaming the tool rather than the user because you don’t like the tool. This same broken logic damns all corporations for the sins of BP and Blackwater. This same broken logic lies behind the argument to outlaw all firearms. It is a bad argument regardless of who is making it or to what end.
You almost got there.
Brett isn’t making a descriptive argument about government, he’s making a prescriptive one: in other words he’s not just asserting that X Y and Z are true of government, he is asserting these things as support for an argument about the inherent badness of government.
The failure in this argument is that these are not traits that are inherent to government as an institution, but traits that are specific to individual governments and their policies at that time. Genocide, evil, the ruin of society–these arise not from something inherent in the very structure or nature of government, but from choices made by individuals.
In order to make them an inherent flaw in government, Brett has to assign agency to government as an institution–he has to say, in other words, that government does this or government is capable of that, shifting the blame for these crimes from the humans who perpetrated them onto the institution they employed to do so.
It is blaming the tool rather than the user because you don’t like the tool. This same broken logic damns all corporations for the sins of BP and Blackwater. This same broken logic lies behind the argument to outlaw all firearms. It is a bad argument regardless of who is making it or to what end.
My point is that it’s absurd to state that folks have no meaningful recourse or remedy when dealing with the public sector, and equally absurd to state that a meaningful recourse is always available when dealing with the private sector.
You have the first part of my contention mostly right–there is seldom a meaningful remedy when dealing with gov’t mis/malfeasance. Saying so is not absurd. However, I did not say a meaningful recourse is always available when dealing with the private sector. A shorter version of what I have been trying to get across is that a wrong committed by a private entity is far more likely to have recourse than one committed by gov’t. And, when recourse is available on the private side, it is usually intended to compensate, to make the aggrieved party whole.
That’s an absolute, clear-cut, plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face case of a private actor forcing you to do something you don’t want to do.
Well, not really and not without a contract of some kind. Foreclosure requires, at least foreclosure in Texas, a series of events: default, notice, a waiting period, public sale. A homeowner that gets notice and fails to act is partly at fault. Foreclosure without notice is wrongful and can be set aside, plus damages.
You are describing, I think, either a foreclosure without default, or without documentation or foreclosure on the wrong house. The beginning of any of these is a contract. Or, you have a trespass by the foreclosing entity. In the last example, foreclosure on the wrong house, you have a trespass, plus damages, etc. I never said private entities could not do wrong and few of us consent to being victims.
Private entities perpetrate all manner of civil and criminal wrongs on unwilling victims. No one consents or volunteers for that. Everything you describe is a private entity acting outside the law.
You’ve chosen as your sole metric a trait that is inherent to government by its very definition–one of the core attributes that defines government is the monopoly of force!
It is precisely the governmental monopoly on the lawful use of force that makes it more prone to abuse than any corporate entity I can think of.
It is a fact that the ability to compel behavior under color of law is not the sole measure by which you can evaluate the relative trustworthiness and potential for abuse of public and private institutions.
I never said it was the sole measure, but it is certainly the leading measure and it leads by a lot. Autocracies rule by force and the threat of force. Their pronouncements are untrustworthy. In western liberal democracies, the use of force is much more subtle and restrained and relatively much more rare, for the most part. The level of trust is higher, but still, do you really believe what your gov’t tells you?
My point is that it’s absurd to state that folks have no meaningful recourse or remedy when dealing with the public sector, and equally absurd to state that a meaningful recourse is always available when dealing with the private sector.
You have the first part of my contention mostly right–there is seldom a meaningful remedy when dealing with gov’t mis/malfeasance. Saying so is not absurd. However, I did not say a meaningful recourse is always available when dealing with the private sector. A shorter version of what I have been trying to get across is that a wrong committed by a private entity is far more likely to have recourse than one committed by gov’t. And, when recourse is available on the private side, it is usually intended to compensate, to make the aggrieved party whole.
That’s an absolute, clear-cut, plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face case of a private actor forcing you to do something you don’t want to do.
Well, not really and not without a contract of some kind. Foreclosure requires, at least foreclosure in Texas, a series of events: default, notice, a waiting period, public sale. A homeowner that gets notice and fails to act is partly at fault. Foreclosure without notice is wrongful and can be set aside, plus damages.
You are describing, I think, either a foreclosure without default, or without documentation or foreclosure on the wrong house. The beginning of any of these is a contract. Or, you have a trespass by the foreclosing entity. In the last example, foreclosure on the wrong house, you have a trespass, plus damages, etc. I never said private entities could not do wrong and few of us consent to being victims.
Private entities perpetrate all manner of civil and criminal wrongs on unwilling victims. No one consents or volunteers for that. Everything you describe is a private entity acting outside the law.
You’ve chosen as your sole metric a trait that is inherent to government by its very definition–one of the core attributes that defines government is the monopoly of force!
It is precisely the governmental monopoly on the lawful use of force that makes it more prone to abuse than any corporate entity I can think of.
It is a fact that the ability to compel behavior under color of law is not the sole measure by which you can evaluate the relative trustworthiness and potential for abuse of public and private institutions.
I never said it was the sole measure, but it is certainly the leading measure and it leads by a lot. Autocracies rule by force and the threat of force. Their pronouncements are untrustworthy. In western liberal democracies, the use of force is much more subtle and restrained and relatively much more rare, for the most part. The level of trust is higher, but still, do you really believe what your gov’t tells you?
You almost got there.
Then I am making progress and am humbled to have done so. 🙂
You almost got there.
Then I am making progress and am humbled to have done so. 🙂
And what is genocide? I’m sure there are despots who think it’s within their rights, but that really has nothing to do with the merits or flaws of government per se.
Now we’re getting somewhere. Previously you’ve rejected any of my attempts to point out that corporations have their own set of factors that create the potential for abuse as “reframing”. This is a discussion that we can have.
Hardly.
The government has the unique power to compel and coerce under color of law, it is true. This is inherent to its purpose. Without the appropriate checks and balances, it is accountable to no one, and this has the potential for great harm. Fortunately, we do have a number of checks and balances on that power that the government accountable to voters. Not enough, in my opinion, but the accountability is not nonexistent.
Corporations, on the other hand, are driven by the accumulation of ever greater profits, which create a demonstrable and exhaustively-documented motive for corruption and abuse which simply has no equal in the public sector. While abuses driven by financial gain do occur in the government, and corporations do lack the coercive power of government, it is government regulation itself that serves as the sole meainingful check on the power of corporations–beyond that, they are accountable only to their shareholders, whose overwhelming motivation tends to be the very accumulation of profit that drives the worst corporate abuses.
It is really not as straightforward a question as you make it out to be, and in order to give a meaningful answer you have to move beyond the excessive simplicity of “government is dangerous because it alone can make you do stuff” and evaluate the respective drawbacks of public and private solutions from the higher-level perspective of risk mitigation and harm reduction than from the overly specific and simplistic question of who has the most coercive power.
And what is genocide? I’m sure there are despots who think it’s within their rights, but that really has nothing to do with the merits or flaws of government per se.
Now we’re getting somewhere. Previously you’ve rejected any of my attempts to point out that corporations have their own set of factors that create the potential for abuse as “reframing”. This is a discussion that we can have.
Hardly.
The government has the unique power to compel and coerce under color of law, it is true. This is inherent to its purpose. Without the appropriate checks and balances, it is accountable to no one, and this has the potential for great harm. Fortunately, we do have a number of checks and balances on that power that the government accountable to voters. Not enough, in my opinion, but the accountability is not nonexistent.
Corporations, on the other hand, are driven by the accumulation of ever greater profits, which create a demonstrable and exhaustively-documented motive for corruption and abuse which simply has no equal in the public sector. While abuses driven by financial gain do occur in the government, and corporations do lack the coercive power of government, it is government regulation itself that serves as the sole meainingful check on the power of corporations–beyond that, they are accountable only to their shareholders, whose overwhelming motivation tends to be the very accumulation of profit that drives the worst corporate abuses.
It is really not as straightforward a question as you make it out to be, and in order to give a meaningful answer you have to move beyond the excessive simplicity of “government is dangerous because it alone can make you do stuff” and evaluate the respective drawbacks of public and private solutions from the higher-level perspective of risk mitigation and harm reduction than from the overly specific and simplistic question of who has the most coercive power.
A shorter version of what I have been trying to get across is that a wrong committed by a private entity is far more likely to have recourse than one committed by gov’t. And, when recourse is available on the private side, it is usually intended to compensate, to make the aggrieved party whole.
And where does this recourse come from? And doesn’t one also need to consider not just in which case recourse is more likely, but also how likely it is that such recourse will be necessary in the first place?
A shorter version of what I have been trying to get across is that a wrong committed by a private entity is far more likely to have recourse than one committed by gov’t. And, when recourse is available on the private side, it is usually intended to compensate, to make the aggrieved party whole.
And where does this recourse come from? And doesn’t one also need to consider not just in which case recourse is more likely, but also how likely it is that such recourse will be necessary in the first place?
“Corporations, on the other hand, are driven by the accumulation of ever greater profits, which create a demonstrable and exhaustively-documented motive for corruption and abuse which simply has no equal in the public sector”
I disagree, example is Confederate government in Civil War
“Corporations, on the other hand, are driven by the accumulation of ever greater profits, which create a demonstrable and exhaustively-documented motive for corruption and abuse which simply has no equal in the public sector”
I disagree, example is Confederate government in Civil War
do you really believe what
your gov’tcorporations tellsyou?You don’t watch many commercials, do you? I must admit, if that’s the case, bully for you.
do you really believe what
your gov’tcorporations tellsyou?You don’t watch many commercials, do you? I must admit, if that’s the case, bully for you.
Catsy, if you would be okay with it, could you please send me an email address I could reach you at to gary underscore farber at yahoo dot com?
I merely wish to pay you a compliment in private, but I’d seriously like to do it.
Thanks, if so, please.
Don’t expect an immediate response.
Catsy, if you would be okay with it, could you please send me an email address I could reach you at to gary underscore farber at yahoo dot com?
I merely wish to pay you a compliment in private, but I’d seriously like to do it.
Thanks, if so, please.
Don’t expect an immediate response.
crithical tinkerer:
Given that English is your fifth language, you’ve said — and that’s extremely impressive, by the way; I can barely manage one — I think you may not be aware that the connotations of your phrasing repeatedly suggest that you, and you alone, are privileged to some special knowledge that you are revealing to us.
Yet you keep doing it about stuff that has been commonly assumed on this blog for many years, and by many commenters on this blog for many decades, and this includes facts, beliefs, opinions, points of view, and a variety of manner of subjects.
I’m sure this is not an effect you desire to imply.
And goodness knows, I’m the last person in the world who should ever suggest to anyone that they might seem to be coming across as condescending: I’m terrible about not seeming so, and I have an endlessly history of either sounding condescending, or worse, actually being so at times.
So I’m hardly saying it’s a terrible flaw, and I’m also saying that it’s something that I’m sure you don’t wish to come across as, and that you’re unaware of it, but I hope I might gently suggest that your phrasing does, repeatedly, consistently, come across that way to at least one reader.
Many of us might know what’s at stake, be aware of facts you announce, events you present as news, articles you seem to think we’ve never read, people you seem to think we’ve never heard of, opinions we in fact have held for decades, and so on.
Many of us do, and if you might make an effort to read some of the past blog, which has been here since 2003, you might better avoid that kind of accidental effect.
Reading older stuff would be an effort, and I’m not at all suggesting that that’s required. Not at all. But I do suggest that perhaps you might pause to consider your phrasing a bit more, and whether or not you might leave the reader with an impression that you think you’re announcing news to people who are very very very familiar with what you’re saying, and have agreed with it for decades, lived their lives on such a basis, and written, perhaps, hundreds of thousands of words about such at topic or fact, for decades, or even just for years.
Just a suggestion.
Thanks for any consideration of it!
crithical tinkerer:
Given that English is your fifth language, you’ve said — and that’s extremely impressive, by the way; I can barely manage one — I think you may not be aware that the connotations of your phrasing repeatedly suggest that you, and you alone, are privileged to some special knowledge that you are revealing to us.
Yet you keep doing it about stuff that has been commonly assumed on this blog for many years, and by many commenters on this blog for many decades, and this includes facts, beliefs, opinions, points of view, and a variety of manner of subjects.
I’m sure this is not an effect you desire to imply.
And goodness knows, I’m the last person in the world who should ever suggest to anyone that they might seem to be coming across as condescending: I’m terrible about not seeming so, and I have an endlessly history of either sounding condescending, or worse, actually being so at times.
So I’m hardly saying it’s a terrible flaw, and I’m also saying that it’s something that I’m sure you don’t wish to come across as, and that you’re unaware of it, but I hope I might gently suggest that your phrasing does, repeatedly, consistently, come across that way to at least one reader.
Many of us might know what’s at stake, be aware of facts you announce, events you present as news, articles you seem to think we’ve never read, people you seem to think we’ve never heard of, opinions we in fact have held for decades, and so on.
Many of us do, and if you might make an effort to read some of the past blog, which has been here since 2003, you might better avoid that kind of accidental effect.
Reading older stuff would be an effort, and I’m not at all suggesting that that’s required. Not at all. But I do suggest that perhaps you might pause to consider your phrasing a bit more, and whether or not you might leave the reader with an impression that you think you’re announcing news to people who are very very very familiar with what you’re saying, and have agreed with it for decades, lived their lives on such a basis, and written, perhaps, hundreds of thousands of words about such at topic or fact, for decades, or even just for years.
Just a suggestion.
Thanks for any consideration of it!
It’s extremely difficult to make a case that corporations, be they Krupp, Siemens, Bayer, IBM, Volkswagen, Hugo Boss, Thyssen & Co, I. G. Farben, United Steel Works of Germany (Vereinigte Stahlwerke AG, the Reich Association of German Industry, and I could keep going through several books worth of names, given that I’ve read hundreds literally thousands, of books on the topic of the evolution of the Nazi Party, and used to work as an editor on a line of military history books, etc., “took total control” of the Nazi Party.
I would say that, in fact, it’s quite impossible, and that you’re wildly over-stating to the point of taking a valid point and turning into a nonsensical claim.
You may not want to do that.
You may not want to do that general, and in repeated specifics, as a repeated pattern.
Ditto as regards Mussolini and the Italian Fascist Party. We can dig into the specifics, but I seriously won’t bother.
You’re not talking to “left” or “right.”
You’re writing to specific people, who are individuals, who have names. If you wish to discuss what they say, please address them by name. If you wish to analyze what specific organizations do, please name them. If you wish to discuss what movements of people do, try to be as specific as possible.
If you wish to speak in vast generalities, don’t be surprised when people object, take issue with you, or mock you within the Posting Rules.
These are The Posting Rules of Obsidian Wings.
You can reread them as many times as you like via the link on the top left sidebar of the blog, under the picture of the kitty, where you’ll see:
They include this:
Please keep this in mind. Thanks.
Don’t be surprised, by the way, anyone, when a revised set of these Rules possibly appears in the future.
If so, there won’t be any significant changes; merely clarification of the various additions there as “UPDATE,” repeatedly, which haven’t been updated since 2007, and and otherwise will be mere clarification of wording, with possibly some slightly greater explication.
But this is all an “if”; such revisions haven’t yet been submitted to the Collective, let alone discussed, so I’m merely mentioned this seems a likely event at some point in the not infinite future. Maybe.
It’s extremely difficult to make a case that corporations, be they Krupp, Siemens, Bayer, IBM, Volkswagen, Hugo Boss, Thyssen & Co, I. G. Farben, United Steel Works of Germany (Vereinigte Stahlwerke AG, the Reich Association of German Industry, and I could keep going through several books worth of names, given that I’ve read hundreds literally thousands, of books on the topic of the evolution of the Nazi Party, and used to work as an editor on a line of military history books, etc., “took total control” of the Nazi Party.
I would say that, in fact, it’s quite impossible, and that you’re wildly over-stating to the point of taking a valid point and turning into a nonsensical claim.
You may not want to do that.
You may not want to do that general, and in repeated specifics, as a repeated pattern.
Ditto as regards Mussolini and the Italian Fascist Party. We can dig into the specifics, but I seriously won’t bother.
You’re not talking to “left” or “right.”
You’re writing to specific people, who are individuals, who have names. If you wish to discuss what they say, please address them by name. If you wish to analyze what specific organizations do, please name them. If you wish to discuss what movements of people do, try to be as specific as possible.
If you wish to speak in vast generalities, don’t be surprised when people object, take issue with you, or mock you within the Posting Rules.
These are The Posting Rules of Obsidian Wings.
You can reread them as many times as you like via the link on the top left sidebar of the blog, under the picture of the kitty, where you’ll see:
They include this:
Please keep this in mind. Thanks.
Don’t be surprised, by the way, anyone, when a revised set of these Rules possibly appears in the future.
If so, there won’t be any significant changes; merely clarification of the various additions there as “UPDATE,” repeatedly, which haven’t been updated since 2007, and and otherwise will be mere clarification of wording, with possibly some slightly greater explication.
But this is all an “if”; such revisions haven’t yet been submitted to the Collective, let alone discussed, so I’m merely mentioned this seems a likely event at some point in the not infinite future. Maybe.
C’mon Gary, if you could hear intonation of my thoughts while writing nobody would think that 🙂
I believe that it is the lack of sophisticated, sensitive vocabulary that makes my writing harsh and definitive. And my points are directed mostly to republicans and trying to give them the bottom line, because thats where they started to stray away from logic. Today, there was a discussion on the role of the government which was clearly discussed by Founding Fathers, but they do not get it.
C’mon Gary, if you could hear intonation of my thoughts while writing nobody would think that 🙂
I believe that it is the lack of sophisticated, sensitive vocabulary that makes my writing harsh and definitive. And my points are directed mostly to republicans and trying to give them the bottom line, because thats where they started to stray away from logic. Today, there was a discussion on the role of the government which was clearly discussed by Founding Fathers, but they do not get it.
We like people commenting on ObWi to have points, and make them.
There’s no rule about it. But you’ll find that people tend to be more interested in comments and commenters who are making a point.
Someone can do anything. I suggest writing in the first person, about how you take something, or writing in the third person about how some some specific person or set of named groupings, take something, rather than announcing that “someone” can do something, anything.
Because anyone, indeed, can do anything. This is very much not an interesting point. Someone can sit and read such comments forever, and there would be no point to reading such pointless comments.
It’s perhaps best if you try to restrain yourself from assertions about what “someone” might do, given that “someone” “can” do anything human beings are capable of doing, and the claim would be both true and completely meaningless.
Examples of what “someone can” do are literally infinite.
Perhaps someone can make a point.
Perhaps most commenters on this blog do try to make points, however silly or badly argued.
This is perhaps a point of English usage that may be obscure coming from someone whose native language is possibly Croatian, but nonetheless, we’re communicating in English, so it seems necessary for someone to draw this point.
It’s possibly just me who has absolutely no idea what you mean here. What is the Confederate government an example of? What are you disagreeing with, exactly? Which part of the statements you quote?
We like people commenting on ObWi to have points, and make them.
There’s no rule about it. But you’ll find that people tend to be more interested in comments and commenters who are making a point.
Someone can do anything. I suggest writing in the first person, about how you take something, or writing in the third person about how some some specific person or set of named groupings, take something, rather than announcing that “someone” can do something, anything.
Because anyone, indeed, can do anything. This is very much not an interesting point. Someone can sit and read such comments forever, and there would be no point to reading such pointless comments.
It’s perhaps best if you try to restrain yourself from assertions about what “someone” might do, given that “someone” “can” do anything human beings are capable of doing, and the claim would be both true and completely meaningless.
Examples of what “someone can” do are literally infinite.
Perhaps someone can make a point.
Perhaps most commenters on this blog do try to make points, however silly or badly argued.
This is perhaps a point of English usage that may be obscure coming from someone whose native language is possibly Croatian, but nonetheless, we’re communicating in English, so it seems necessary for someone to draw this point.
It’s possibly just me who has absolutely no idea what you mean here. What is the Confederate government an example of? What are you disagreeing with, exactly? Which part of the statements you quote?
McKinneyTexas:
I suggest that this is because you are economically well off.
If you, say, have little education, few opportunities, little income, or not enough to match your subsistence needs, or use mass transit, let alone own your own car, as many people so exist, or are otherwise more poorly economicatlly situated, or simply otherwise limited by circumstances, they may have few or no such opportunities.
This is in fact the case for many tens of millions of Americans. I draw your attention to the fact that many people live lives different than yours, and not by choice.
If, say, you only make $7.25 per hour, can find only part-time work, and on temp jobs, and yet still need to eat, feed your family, ahave money to get to your job, and so on, you may have no alternative to, say, dealing with a check-cashing service you can walk to, because there are no banks in walking distance, and they’ll only loan you money at exorbitant rates, you may have no choice but to either deal with them, go to an illegal loan shark, beg money from a family you perhaps don’t have or which also has no money, turn to crime, or watch your baby cry for lack of food, and so on.
Tens of millions of people live in poverty, but we can give endless examples of other types of lack of choice, as has been mentioned to you in the case of laws not restraining pollutors, or, say, when there was only Bell Telephone, and you had no choice as to where to go to have a telephone.
It’s great that you, yourself, and people like you, have so many options. Not everyone does.
McKinneyTexas:
I suggest that this is because you are economically well off.
If you, say, have little education, few opportunities, little income, or not enough to match your subsistence needs, or use mass transit, let alone own your own car, as many people so exist, or are otherwise more poorly economicatlly situated, or simply otherwise limited by circumstances, they may have few or no such opportunities.
This is in fact the case for many tens of millions of Americans. I draw your attention to the fact that many people live lives different than yours, and not by choice.
If, say, you only make $7.25 per hour, can find only part-time work, and on temp jobs, and yet still need to eat, feed your family, ahave money to get to your job, and so on, you may have no alternative to, say, dealing with a check-cashing service you can walk to, because there are no banks in walking distance, and they’ll only loan you money at exorbitant rates, you may have no choice but to either deal with them, go to an illegal loan shark, beg money from a family you perhaps don’t have or which also has no money, turn to crime, or watch your baby cry for lack of food, and so on.
Tens of millions of people live in poverty, but we can give endless examples of other types of lack of choice, as has been mentioned to you in the case of laws not restraining pollutors, or, say, when there was only Bell Telephone, and you had no choice as to where to go to have a telephone.
It’s great that you, yourself, and people like you, have so many options. Not everyone does.
The good people of Wisconsin strike me as strong and smart and, better yet, pro-union.
That said, how in the hell did they elect this Scott Walker a-hole in the first place?
The good people of Wisconsin strike me as strong and smart and, better yet, pro-union.
That said, how in the hell did they elect this Scott Walker a-hole in the first place?
Just read The People of the Abyss by Jack London (his non-fiction book).
Amazing how similar the world is 110 years later, for undocumented workers in the US, but I imagine also for emerging capitalist societies on a vast scale.
A painful read (both because of the topic and the data heavy style), but one that seems on topic for the basic issue of security that the unions exist to promote.
Just read The People of the Abyss by Jack London (his non-fiction book).
Amazing how similar the world is 110 years later, for undocumented workers in the US, but I imagine also for emerging capitalist societies on a vast scale.
A painful read (both because of the topic and the data heavy style), but one that seems on topic for the basic issue of security that the unions exist to promote.
Boggle.
Feel free to spare me $5/month, then, or $50/month, if it’s such small change to you.
Or more appropriately, toss these folks a K, or $100, if $10,000 is “fairly cheaply” to you.
Homeless people:
There’s info on methodology and sources on that page, if you’re interested.
Boggle.
Feel free to spare me $5/month, then, or $50/month, if it’s such small change to you.
Or more appropriately, toss these folks a K, or $100, if $10,000 is “fairly cheaply” to you.
Homeless people:
There’s info on methodology and sources on that page, if you’re interested.
I am a little late to this party but the discussion on agency and government versus corporation reminded of a lecture I had heard about 10 years back which I thought made some points that were relevant here. Googling came up with this article that captures the essence of the analysis, it is a bit pedantic but not too bad and the lead author even got a positive response from Richard Feynman which is saying something.
While Catsy made some very good points, I do not think that you can compare an organization to a physical tool in any meaningful way. A group of people has its own dynamic, while it is not an individual it is comprised of people interacting and the one of the key points in the article is that an organization can be structured so that each individual can behave in a very understandable, pragmatic, and dare I say moral fashion but the sum total can be immoral because that is how the organizational structure is devised or, perhaps more correctly, evolves.
The organization can be a corporation or a government but I think the analysis does explain how people can function while involved in inherently immoral endeavors due to the fact that they are insulated from the totality of what the organization is doing and the more complex the organization the more likely the phenomenon is likely to arise.
So the take home lesson for me is that it is vital to step back and take the wider view of things because if you do not then you are more liable to get sucked into a system that could be working against your own interests and even antithetical to your beliefs.
I am a little late to this party but the discussion on agency and government versus corporation reminded of a lecture I had heard about 10 years back which I thought made some points that were relevant here. Googling came up with this article that captures the essence of the analysis, it is a bit pedantic but not too bad and the lead author even got a positive response from Richard Feynman which is saying something.
While Catsy made some very good points, I do not think that you can compare an organization to a physical tool in any meaningful way. A group of people has its own dynamic, while it is not an individual it is comprised of people interacting and the one of the key points in the article is that an organization can be structured so that each individual can behave in a very understandable, pragmatic, and dare I say moral fashion but the sum total can be immoral because that is how the organizational structure is devised or, perhaps more correctly, evolves.
The organization can be a corporation or a government but I think the analysis does explain how people can function while involved in inherently immoral endeavors due to the fact that they are insulated from the totality of what the organization is doing and the more complex the organization the more likely the phenomenon is likely to arise.
So the take home lesson for me is that it is vital to step back and take the wider view of things because if you do not then you are more liable to get sucked into a system that could be working against your own interests and even antithetical to your beliefs.
While this ground has been fairly pounded down by now, one thread I see having emerged here is the conception of government we have.
I wonder just why it is that in a nominally advanced country such as ours, we are indeed having this debate, and especially in one that highlights its constitution with “we the people.”
I also realize this analogy’s been rubbed in the dirt, but it’s still a handy one that I will now retire – I don`t see, say, Swedish people ever wondering how their government can be tyrannical, because (and to some, this is pretty thin gruel, I admit) it’s taken on face value that they would never allow their country to fall into the extremist thinking that leads to tyranny, or let their public institutions and services be reframed as oppressive organs.
So I have a question for Brett, McKinney, and the others who seem terrified by the “government oppression” they think lurks in such organs and services: when you go to your local DMV to renew your driver’s license, are you being oppressed? When you pop your tax return into the mail (or send it off via e-tax), are you being oppressed? If you have to follow, say, a building code for some business expansion you’re planning, are you being oppressed?
I cite examples such as these because I find, when you ferret out the bullshit, that this is what corporations and other business owners are really on about. They find the prospect that they are subject to the law like the rest of us to be an act of oppression.
When it comes down to it, governments are only as good as the people in them. There’s nothing profound in saying that they can be oppressive. But it says a lot about how we see the role of government if we’re worried about things that, in a lot of other countries, are taken at face value, even (gasp! choke!) as common sense, and must wring our hands over. We never seem to countenance that lack of law might just lead to a vacuum that no amount of homespun civility, or rafts of gentlemen’s agreements, will suffice to fill.
The irony is that if we were genuinely worried about government oppression, why have we allowed it to take place in our country over our history? If you were a black person in the southeastern part of our country up to the 1960s or so, I think you can genuinely talk about government oppression. If you were a Japanese-American onion farmer in Idaho circa 1942, you could genuinely talk about government oppression. If you were Hispanic and living in Los Angeles in the immediate post-WWII years, you can genuinely talk about government oppression.
We could go even further back – if you had been a mineworker in West Virginia at the turn of the 20th century, you could genuinely talk about government (and corporate, for that matter) oppression.
I could go on and on, and I’ve droned on for far too long. Nuf sed.
While this ground has been fairly pounded down by now, one thread I see having emerged here is the conception of government we have.
I wonder just why it is that in a nominally advanced country such as ours, we are indeed having this debate, and especially in one that highlights its constitution with “we the people.”
I also realize this analogy’s been rubbed in the dirt, but it’s still a handy one that I will now retire – I don`t see, say, Swedish people ever wondering how their government can be tyrannical, because (and to some, this is pretty thin gruel, I admit) it’s taken on face value that they would never allow their country to fall into the extremist thinking that leads to tyranny, or let their public institutions and services be reframed as oppressive organs.
So I have a question for Brett, McKinney, and the others who seem terrified by the “government oppression” they think lurks in such organs and services: when you go to your local DMV to renew your driver’s license, are you being oppressed? When you pop your tax return into the mail (or send it off via e-tax), are you being oppressed? If you have to follow, say, a building code for some business expansion you’re planning, are you being oppressed?
I cite examples such as these because I find, when you ferret out the bullshit, that this is what corporations and other business owners are really on about. They find the prospect that they are subject to the law like the rest of us to be an act of oppression.
When it comes down to it, governments are only as good as the people in them. There’s nothing profound in saying that they can be oppressive. But it says a lot about how we see the role of government if we’re worried about things that, in a lot of other countries, are taken at face value, even (gasp! choke!) as common sense, and must wring our hands over. We never seem to countenance that lack of law might just lead to a vacuum that no amount of homespun civility, or rafts of gentlemen’s agreements, will suffice to fill.
The irony is that if we were genuinely worried about government oppression, why have we allowed it to take place in our country over our history? If you were a black person in the southeastern part of our country up to the 1960s or so, I think you can genuinely talk about government oppression. If you were a Japanese-American onion farmer in Idaho circa 1942, you could genuinely talk about government oppression. If you were Hispanic and living in Los Angeles in the immediate post-WWII years, you can genuinely talk about government oppression.
We could go even further back – if you had been a mineworker in West Virginia at the turn of the 20th century, you could genuinely talk about government (and corporate, for that matter) oppression.
I could go on and on, and I’ve droned on for far too long. Nuf sed.
fairly cheaply (10K or less)
Boggle.
Feel free to spare me $5/month, then, or $50/month, if it’s such small change to you.
Or more appropriately, toss these folks a K, or $100, if $10,000 is “fairly cheaply” to you.
Gary, you can’t imagine what “reasonably” priced legal services go for these days. I didn’t mean to imply that 10K isn’t a lot of money. It is. Which is why I am a big fan of an established system that lets lay people get through the storm at a cost that, while objectively high, is nothing compared to litigating in uncharted waters. Also, FWIW, I am aware of the need for funding kids with no home or from broken homes and act on this.
So I have a question for Brett, McKinney, and the others who seem terrified by the “government oppression” they think lurks in such organs and services: when you go to your local DMV to renew your driver’s license, are you being oppressed? When you pop your tax return into the mail (or send it off via e-tax), are you being oppressed? If you have to follow, say, a building code for some business expansion you’re planning, are you being oppressed?
I’ve never made the blanket statement that all gov’t is oppressive. Coercive and oppressive are entirely different terms. Speed limits are coercive, but the support for speed limits is virtually universal. However, the point that coercion can lead to oppression in specific instances is hardly debatable. The oppression doesn’t have to be conscious policy. It can simply be inertia/default that is unresponsive to the citizenry’s vast and varied needs or desires.
fairly cheaply (10K or less)
Boggle.
Feel free to spare me $5/month, then, or $50/month, if it’s such small change to you.
Or more appropriately, toss these folks a K, or $100, if $10,000 is “fairly cheaply” to you.
Gary, you can’t imagine what “reasonably” priced legal services go for these days. I didn’t mean to imply that 10K isn’t a lot of money. It is. Which is why I am a big fan of an established system that lets lay people get through the storm at a cost that, while objectively high, is nothing compared to litigating in uncharted waters. Also, FWIW, I am aware of the need for funding kids with no home or from broken homes and act on this.
So I have a question for Brett, McKinney, and the others who seem terrified by the “government oppression” they think lurks in such organs and services: when you go to your local DMV to renew your driver’s license, are you being oppressed? When you pop your tax return into the mail (or send it off via e-tax), are you being oppressed? If you have to follow, say, a building code for some business expansion you’re planning, are you being oppressed?
I’ve never made the blanket statement that all gov’t is oppressive. Coercive and oppressive are entirely different terms. Speed limits are coercive, but the support for speed limits is virtually universal. However, the point that coercion can lead to oppression in specific instances is hardly debatable. The oppression doesn’t have to be conscious policy. It can simply be inertia/default that is unresponsive to the citizenry’s vast and varied needs or desires.
That’s a good point McT, and is probably why Brett raised so many hackles with his 212 degrees of oppression suggestion. But right after you make it, you create a seamless cline between coercion and oppression, which I think is problematic. So I think that a more detailed discussion of coercion and oppression would be really helpful. I’ll start off with a bit of anecdote.
As I’ve mentioned, I teach English as a second language. There are a lot of plaints about declining student ability, demographic problems yada yada yada. It’s forcing me and my colleagues to review any number of things that we used to do as a matter of course. I can’t speak for my colleagues, but I view the fact that my students are in the department of British and American studies, and the fact that their parents are paying a good sum of money for that privilege, along with the relative lack of forethought into what their lives are going to be invites me to use a lot of coercion in getting them to study and learn. A lot. Some of my colleagues are a bit horrified I demand preparation before classes begin (one colleague said it wasn’t authorized to give assignments to students while classes were finished), often collect phone numbers and email of students who I feel are high risk for not finishing the course and badgering them early and often. I’m not always comfortable with it, and I would much prefer that I could simply dispense my pearls of wisdom and then evaluate the quality at the end and give out grades. But, given the difficulties we are seeing in education here, to do that is to be ignorant of the root of many of the problems. So I coerce and coerce. Can it lead to oppression? I’m sure it could, and I have to be careful that I’m not simply trying to do some sort of Darwinian selection for the traits I like from a personal standpoint and deselect those that may help the students learn just as much even though I don’t like them. I’d like to think that I coerce students into doing things that they will, in the fullness of time, grow to appreciate.
What I don’t understand is that if one makes an argument that coercion leads to oppression, so we must treat coercion with some suspicion, how they justify existing as a social being? Everything becomes some from of coercion, from the dirty look at the guy trying to cut into your line of traffic, to asking for someone to submit information in order to ‘serve you better’. At certain points, if the information is used in a manner that doesn’t help you, but actually hurts you, then, the coercion becomes a problem, but that’s not the discussion we’ve been having, it’s been how government contains the seeds of oppression. The price of government is not simply eternal vigilance, it is eternal saying it is too big and trying to make it smaller. That makes not sense to me, given that a large majority of our improvements in our lives have come at the expansion of information technology. But rather than say ‘let’s examine all these things’, some on your ‘side’ argue that there is no way to separate the baby and the bathwater, so out it all goes.
I’d really appreciate, especially from your perch as a lawyer, where you see a line drawn between coercion and oppression, or perhaps acceptable coercion and unacceptable.
That’s a good point McT, and is probably why Brett raised so many hackles with his 212 degrees of oppression suggestion. But right after you make it, you create a seamless cline between coercion and oppression, which I think is problematic. So I think that a more detailed discussion of coercion and oppression would be really helpful. I’ll start off with a bit of anecdote.
As I’ve mentioned, I teach English as a second language. There are a lot of plaints about declining student ability, demographic problems yada yada yada. It’s forcing me and my colleagues to review any number of things that we used to do as a matter of course. I can’t speak for my colleagues, but I view the fact that my students are in the department of British and American studies, and the fact that their parents are paying a good sum of money for that privilege, along with the relative lack of forethought into what their lives are going to be invites me to use a lot of coercion in getting them to study and learn. A lot. Some of my colleagues are a bit horrified I demand preparation before classes begin (one colleague said it wasn’t authorized to give assignments to students while classes were finished), often collect phone numbers and email of students who I feel are high risk for not finishing the course and badgering them early and often. I’m not always comfortable with it, and I would much prefer that I could simply dispense my pearls of wisdom and then evaluate the quality at the end and give out grades. But, given the difficulties we are seeing in education here, to do that is to be ignorant of the root of many of the problems. So I coerce and coerce. Can it lead to oppression? I’m sure it could, and I have to be careful that I’m not simply trying to do some sort of Darwinian selection for the traits I like from a personal standpoint and deselect those that may help the students learn just as much even though I don’t like them. I’d like to think that I coerce students into doing things that they will, in the fullness of time, grow to appreciate.
What I don’t understand is that if one makes an argument that coercion leads to oppression, so we must treat coercion with some suspicion, how they justify existing as a social being? Everything becomes some from of coercion, from the dirty look at the guy trying to cut into your line of traffic, to asking for someone to submit information in order to ‘serve you better’. At certain points, if the information is used in a manner that doesn’t help you, but actually hurts you, then, the coercion becomes a problem, but that’s not the discussion we’ve been having, it’s been how government contains the seeds of oppression. The price of government is not simply eternal vigilance, it is eternal saying it is too big and trying to make it smaller. That makes not sense to me, given that a large majority of our improvements in our lives have come at the expansion of information technology. But rather than say ‘let’s examine all these things’, some on your ‘side’ argue that there is no way to separate the baby and the bathwater, so out it all goes.
I’d really appreciate, especially from your perch as a lawyer, where you see a line drawn between coercion and oppression, or perhaps acceptable coercion and unacceptable.
It could be that one or more of the observations in your first sentence is inaccurate. Or that Walker is attempting to do something other than what he promised to do on campaign. Or it could be that people are just thoroughly, predictably inconsistent.
I really don’t know one way or the other.
It could be that one or more of the observations in your first sentence is inaccurate. Or that Walker is attempting to do something other than what he promised to do on campaign. Or it could be that people are just thoroughly, predictably inconsistent.
I really don’t know one way or the other.
LJ, first, I think your comment has all the makings of a first class post. But, to respond, I think there are shades and degrees of the meaning of coercion, not to mention contexts, that produce vastly different outcomes., and I don’t mean in a sexual context.
Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a law or regulation that isn’t coercive to some degree. The same is true for customs and mores we impose on ourselves and others.
I don’t have a bright line demarcating coercion and oppression, but there are markers. Consensual coercion and even oppression are perfectly fine with me
You started an open thread on sports. I played football in high school (not well). By any objective standards, many of the coaches I played for were openly oppressive, particularly in practice. I signed on for that, even though I didn’t like a lot of it.
Military service is oppressive and so is trying lawsuits. Many employer/employee relationships are oppressive to some degree and this is mostly legal oppression, but too often not, e.g. sexual predation and harassment. In principle, the employer/employee relationship is fundamentally consensual, and the remedy for a bad boss is to seek employment elsewhere. The benefit of mandating work place civility and making incivility actionable is far outweighed by regulating and litigating human interaction on the granular level. It’s the human condition and not all people are nice.
Subjectivity permeates this discussion.
On the legal side, proscriptive coercion that limits what one person can do to another is on the “good” side of official coercion. Injunctive coercion (my term) in which one person is required to act in favor of another moves the analysis toward ‘neutral’ or even ‘undesirable’ although in many cases even injunctive coercion is appropriate, e.g. a parent is legally bound to materially support his/her child, to feed, cloth, attend to and protect the health of the child. It’s an obligation one assumes by bringing a child into the world. Paying taxes is injunctive coercion as is jury duty and a military draft. All necessary, at least at times, but still an infringement on complete personal liberty.
Most injunctive prescriptions flow from a privilege or license or undertaking individuals voluntarily assume, which is the source of the specific injunction’s legitimacy. Examples include, driving a car on a public highway, traveling to and from another country, starting a business, owning real property, engaging in commerce etc.
Some limited injunctions are imposed on citizens simply because they exist and hold a job: paying taxes, mandatory school attendance through age 16(?), certain vaccinations, etc.
The leading marker separating an injunctive prescription from merely coercive to oppressive is whether the individual is being compelled by law to act for him/herself or for another where the compelled act is unrelated to compliance with existing law. Even this is subjective, but an example would be the individual insurance mandate in HCR. Minimum wage laws are another example, but they are also an example of an injunction we all pretty much agree with. Mandatory education is another example. Again, we all pretty much agree with it. But what we wouldn’t agree with would be requiring adults to attend college. Another example would be taking away a recognized right: gun ownership or abortion. Minds differ on both of these, but the agency of gov’t enforcing either would be viewed by significant numbers of people as oppressive.
If I’ve completely missed the point of your request, I apologize for the babble.
LJ, first, I think your comment has all the makings of a first class post. But, to respond, I think there are shades and degrees of the meaning of coercion, not to mention contexts, that produce vastly different outcomes., and I don’t mean in a sexual context.
Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a law or regulation that isn’t coercive to some degree. The same is true for customs and mores we impose on ourselves and others.
I don’t have a bright line demarcating coercion and oppression, but there are markers. Consensual coercion and even oppression are perfectly fine with me
You started an open thread on sports. I played football in high school (not well). By any objective standards, many of the coaches I played for were openly oppressive, particularly in practice. I signed on for that, even though I didn’t like a lot of it.
Military service is oppressive and so is trying lawsuits. Many employer/employee relationships are oppressive to some degree and this is mostly legal oppression, but too often not, e.g. sexual predation and harassment. In principle, the employer/employee relationship is fundamentally consensual, and the remedy for a bad boss is to seek employment elsewhere. The benefit of mandating work place civility and making incivility actionable is far outweighed by regulating and litigating human interaction on the granular level. It’s the human condition and not all people are nice.
Subjectivity permeates this discussion.
On the legal side, proscriptive coercion that limits what one person can do to another is on the “good” side of official coercion. Injunctive coercion (my term) in which one person is required to act in favor of another moves the analysis toward ‘neutral’ or even ‘undesirable’ although in many cases even injunctive coercion is appropriate, e.g. a parent is legally bound to materially support his/her child, to feed, cloth, attend to and protect the health of the child. It’s an obligation one assumes by bringing a child into the world. Paying taxes is injunctive coercion as is jury duty and a military draft. All necessary, at least at times, but still an infringement on complete personal liberty.
Most injunctive prescriptions flow from a privilege or license or undertaking individuals voluntarily assume, which is the source of the specific injunction’s legitimacy. Examples include, driving a car on a public highway, traveling to and from another country, starting a business, owning real property, engaging in commerce etc.
Some limited injunctions are imposed on citizens simply because they exist and hold a job: paying taxes, mandatory school attendance through age 16(?), certain vaccinations, etc.
The leading marker separating an injunctive prescription from merely coercive to oppressive is whether the individual is being compelled by law to act for him/herself or for another where the compelled act is unrelated to compliance with existing law. Even this is subjective, but an example would be the individual insurance mandate in HCR. Minimum wage laws are another example, but they are also an example of an injunction we all pretty much agree with. Mandatory education is another example. Again, we all pretty much agree with it. But what we wouldn’t agree with would be requiring adults to attend college. Another example would be taking away a recognized right: gun ownership or abortion. Minds differ on both of these, but the agency of gov’t enforcing either would be viewed by significant numbers of people as oppressive.
If I’ve completely missed the point of your request, I apologize for the babble.
Sorry McT, I stopped reading after you said my comment would make a good post ;^)
You said injunctive coercion was your term, is proscriptive coercion your term or something that is recognized? I’m not promising a post, but I’ll certainly think about it. Thanks for the kind words
Sorry McT, I stopped reading after you said my comment would make a good post ;^)
You said injunctive coercion was your term, is proscriptive coercion your term or something that is recognized? I’m not promising a post, but I’ll certainly think about it. Thanks for the kind words
is proscriptive coercion your term or something that is recognized
Mine, I think.
is proscriptive coercion your term or something that is recognized
Mine, I think.
You make some good points, and I’ll have to delve deeper into that article when I have more time to read. But I would have to disagree that you can’t meaningfully compare an organization to a physical tool.
It’s true that there are any number of nontrivial differences–starting with the obvious fact that an organization is a social construct while a tool is a physical object. But the key commonality that was relevant to the point I was making is that like a physical tool, a government has no agency of its own–no consciousness or capacity for reasoning that allows it to make its own choices.
The context of that argument was that I was responding to someone who was trying to pin the blame for various historical wrongs on the institution of government–not just ours, but all governments–by asserting that “government” is dangerous because it is inherently capable of these wrongs. I reject this premise entirely because anything government “does” it does solely because of the decisions and actions of human beings, whether or not the outcome was the intended one. Humans can misuse government to perpetrate crimes like that when sufficient checks on their power do not exist or are not employed–however that is due not to any inherent quality of government as a generic institution, but rather due to the deicisons of those who failed to establish or enforce those checks.
To put it another way, government has only the powers and qualities given to it by the people who establish and maintain that government. Asserting that “government”–again, not just any specific form of government, but any government regardless of qualification–is dangerous because it is inherently capable of genocide et al is like asserting that a hammer is dangerous because it is inherently capable of caving in someone’s skull. You could say that, of course, but it would be true only in a very colloquial sense–and this is a usage that confuses, rather than clarifies, the source of agency for these actions.
Please don’t construe this as me arguing that government cannot be misused, or that we need not guard against such misuse. What I’m doing is pushing back against the broader conservative agenda that seeks to delegitimize government by scaremongering about its “inherent” dangers as if they were an inseparable facet of government per se, and as if private institutions don’t have an equally frightening potential for damage to our society and world when corrupted or misused by the people who run them.
You make some good points, and I’ll have to delve deeper into that article when I have more time to read. But I would have to disagree that you can’t meaningfully compare an organization to a physical tool.
It’s true that there are any number of nontrivial differences–starting with the obvious fact that an organization is a social construct while a tool is a physical object. But the key commonality that was relevant to the point I was making is that like a physical tool, a government has no agency of its own–no consciousness or capacity for reasoning that allows it to make its own choices.
The context of that argument was that I was responding to someone who was trying to pin the blame for various historical wrongs on the institution of government–not just ours, but all governments–by asserting that “government” is dangerous because it is inherently capable of these wrongs. I reject this premise entirely because anything government “does” it does solely because of the decisions and actions of human beings, whether or not the outcome was the intended one. Humans can misuse government to perpetrate crimes like that when sufficient checks on their power do not exist or are not employed–however that is due not to any inherent quality of government as a generic institution, but rather due to the deicisons of those who failed to establish or enforce those checks.
To put it another way, government has only the powers and qualities given to it by the people who establish and maintain that government. Asserting that “government”–again, not just any specific form of government, but any government regardless of qualification–is dangerous because it is inherently capable of genocide et al is like asserting that a hammer is dangerous because it is inherently capable of caving in someone’s skull. You could say that, of course, but it would be true only in a very colloquial sense–and this is a usage that confuses, rather than clarifies, the source of agency for these actions.
Please don’t construe this as me arguing that government cannot be misused, or that we need not guard against such misuse. What I’m doing is pushing back against the broader conservative agenda that seeks to delegitimize government by scaremongering about its “inherent” dangers as if they were an inseparable facet of government per se, and as if private institutions don’t have an equally frightening potential for damage to our society and world when corrupted or misused by the people who run them.
the broader conservative agenda that seeks to delegitimize government
So, are you saying that agendas have agency?
🙂
the broader conservative agenda that seeks to delegitimize government
So, are you saying that agendas have agency?
🙂
I had no time to find the origin of this cite from comments on another blog posted by a WI resident:
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE This story keeps getting better. Today, we hear about Charles and David Koch, but there’s a third Koch brother – William. William wasn’t the first to sue Charles and David for fraud, but his 1999 court action ended the most conclusively and dramatically. Ten years earlier, in 1989, William Koch was involved in a filing on the behalf of Native American Nations against Charles and David, but the interesting civil suit was when William sued his brothers personally for fraud in 1999.
And won.
William had ethical differences with Charles and David back in the ’80s over Charles’ “sociopathic management style”. His message on “60 Minutes II” in November 2000 was to tell the world that Koch Industries was a criminal enterprise.
It was – was my family company. I was out of it,” he says. “But that’s what appalled me so much… I did not want my family, my legacy, my father’s legacy to be based upon organized crime”. – William Koch, 27 Nov 2000, 60 Minutes II
The fraud was perpetrated by doctoring the oil measurements. If the oil depth on your lands were really 7’3″, Koch Industries guagers were told to report it as 7’1″, and Koch would pocket the remainder. Koch would perpetrate this fraud largely on Federal and Native American lands, and it added up to hundreds of millions of dollars a year. 50 former Koch gaugers testified against the company, some in video depositions.
Scooter to his Koch pal about Tim Cullen “He is not one of us.”
I had no time to find the origin of this cite from comments on another blog posted by a WI resident:
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE This story keeps getting better. Today, we hear about Charles and David Koch, but there’s a third Koch brother – William. William wasn’t the first to sue Charles and David for fraud, but his 1999 court action ended the most conclusively and dramatically. Ten years earlier, in 1989, William Koch was involved in a filing on the behalf of Native American Nations against Charles and David, but the interesting civil suit was when William sued his brothers personally for fraud in 1999.
And won.
William had ethical differences with Charles and David back in the ’80s over Charles’ “sociopathic management style”. His message on “60 Minutes II” in November 2000 was to tell the world that Koch Industries was a criminal enterprise.
It was – was my family company. I was out of it,” he says. “But that’s what appalled me so much… I did not want my family, my legacy, my father’s legacy to be based upon organized crime”. – William Koch, 27 Nov 2000, 60 Minutes II
The fraud was perpetrated by doctoring the oil measurements. If the oil depth on your lands were really 7’3″, Koch Industries guagers were told to report it as 7’1″, and Koch would pocket the remainder. Koch would perpetrate this fraud largely on Federal and Native American lands, and it added up to hundreds of millions of dollars a year. 50 former Koch gaugers testified against the company, some in video depositions.
Scooter to his Koch pal about Tim Cullen “He is not one of us.”
Citing blog comments as evidence of anything is absolutely acceptable. From which you can conclude that 9/11 really was an inside job, that Paul McCartney really has been dead since 1966, and that WMDs actually were in Iraq but were moved to Syria.
Citing blog comments as evidence of anything is absolutely acceptable. From which you can conclude that 9/11 really was an inside job, that Paul McCartney really has been dead since 1966, and that WMDs actually were in Iraq but were moved to Syria.
Also, Vince Foster was murdered.
Also, Vince Foster was murdered.
Citing blog comments as evidence of anything is absolutely acceptable
wikipedia’s pretty naff too, but Bill Koch’s entry there has a link to the cbsnews report of some of this, including details of the court case.
50 former Koch gaugers testified against the company. The jury found against Koch industries — oil theft and deception.
More at
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/27/60II/main252545.shtml
Citing blog comments as evidence of anything is absolutely acceptable
wikipedia’s pretty naff too, but Bill Koch’s entry there has a link to the cbsnews report of some of this, including details of the court case.
50 former Koch gaugers testified against the company. The jury found against Koch industries — oil theft and deception.
More at
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/27/60II/main252545.shtml
Foster wasn’t murdered? Cite?
Foster wasn’t murdered? Cite?
Ohio’s state senate has its own version of the Wisconsin union-busting bill in committee right now, and Republicans have found a great way to ensure its passage. Don’t have the votes? Just remove “no” voters from the committee! Democracy!
Ohio’s state senate has its own version of the Wisconsin union-busting bill in committee right now, and Republicans have found a great way to ensure its passage. Don’t have the votes? Just remove “no” voters from the committee! Democracy!
Now, you know I can’t prove a negative.
Now, you know I can’t prove a negative.
Also, Balloon Juice points out that one of the replacement committee members is, plain and simple, a liar, having promised firefighters’ union members during the campaign that he supported collective bargaining, then voting for the amendment to end collective bargaining.
But please, more Vince Foster jokes.
Also, Balloon Juice points out that one of the replacement committee members is, plain and simple, a liar, having promised firefighters’ union members during the campaign that he supported collective bargaining, then voting for the amendment to end collective bargaining.
But please, more Vince Foster jokes.
crithical tinkerer:
I had a cite on another thread this morning about the theft of oil from American Indians by Koch Industries.
But, this from Wikipedia, shows that ALL of brothers in the Koch Family, regardless of the differences among each other, are prime movers in the American oligarchy’s threat to the rest of the American population:
“U.S. Rep. John Salazar introduced a bill in April that would give energy magnate Bill Koch just over 1,840 acres (7.4 km2) of Bureau of Land Management land and a 3-acre (12,000 m2) sliver of Forest Service land in Gunnison County for Koch giving the National Park Service 991 acres (4.01 km2) in Dinosaur National Monument and the Curecanti National Recreation Area.
The trade was initiated more than two years ago by Koch — the world’s 316th richest man, according to Forbes, and Salazar’s most generous campaign contributor.
A representative of Salazar’s said the swap was initiated by Gunnison County officials and that it has garnered support from local officials as well as national politicians and agencies. The National Park Service supports the swap because it will ensure protection of two valuable pieces of land that otherwise could be developed. U.S. Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Udall of Colorado have filed a companion measure in the Senate.
But others, including some staffers at the Bureau of Land Management, worry that Koch will be getting land with much higher value because of its potential for energy development. They also complain that there was very little opportunity for public input and scrutiny of the deal. There were no public hearings specifically devoted to gathering public comment, as there are with most proposed government land swaps.”
What would you expect from the toxic spawn of John Birch vermin? It’s in their genes.
They use the instrument of government in bipartisan ways to circumvent the duty of government to consult (no public hearings?) all of us about the course of our country.
We are not represented.
They are.
Sometimes, the much-maligned bureaucracy represents the interests of the common American man and woman better than our “elected” representatives.
And when the “elected” representatives actually have a conscious, the oligarchy astro-turfs the ignorant among the common American men and women to find more malleable “representatives” for the oligarchy to puppeteer, and to destroy the inconvenient bureaucracy.
But I have a feeling that the Tea Party tiger the oligarchs have by the tail at the moment, and will use to remove gummint from between the oligarchs and the “people”, is going to turn into something more voracious and dangerous than a tiger when the “people” in the Tea Party (joined by teachers in Wisconsin, and Medicare and Medicaid patients death-paneled across the country, and women about to be murdered by the defunding of Planned Parenthood, and Tea Party folks in the Marcellus Shale region whose wells and lakes and rivers are going to be poisoned by the same folks who bankrolled the destruction of government and pensions and healthcare) wake up and find out what they fell for.
Here comes the Balrog.
Long live the Balrog.
May he burn it to the ground.
crithical tinkerer:
I had a cite on another thread this morning about the theft of oil from American Indians by Koch Industries.
But, this from Wikipedia, shows that ALL of brothers in the Koch Family, regardless of the differences among each other, are prime movers in the American oligarchy’s threat to the rest of the American population:
“U.S. Rep. John Salazar introduced a bill in April that would give energy magnate Bill Koch just over 1,840 acres (7.4 km2) of Bureau of Land Management land and a 3-acre (12,000 m2) sliver of Forest Service land in Gunnison County for Koch giving the National Park Service 991 acres (4.01 km2) in Dinosaur National Monument and the Curecanti National Recreation Area.
The trade was initiated more than two years ago by Koch — the world’s 316th richest man, according to Forbes, and Salazar’s most generous campaign contributor.
A representative of Salazar’s said the swap was initiated by Gunnison County officials and that it has garnered support from local officials as well as national politicians and agencies. The National Park Service supports the swap because it will ensure protection of two valuable pieces of land that otherwise could be developed. U.S. Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Udall of Colorado have filed a companion measure in the Senate.
But others, including some staffers at the Bureau of Land Management, worry that Koch will be getting land with much higher value because of its potential for energy development. They also complain that there was very little opportunity for public input and scrutiny of the deal. There were no public hearings specifically devoted to gathering public comment, as there are with most proposed government land swaps.”
What would you expect from the toxic spawn of John Birch vermin? It’s in their genes.
They use the instrument of government in bipartisan ways to circumvent the duty of government to consult (no public hearings?) all of us about the course of our country.
We are not represented.
They are.
Sometimes, the much-maligned bureaucracy represents the interests of the common American man and woman better than our “elected” representatives.
And when the “elected” representatives actually have a conscious, the oligarchy astro-turfs the ignorant among the common American men and women to find more malleable “representatives” for the oligarchy to puppeteer, and to destroy the inconvenient bureaucracy.
But I have a feeling that the Tea Party tiger the oligarchs have by the tail at the moment, and will use to remove gummint from between the oligarchs and the “people”, is going to turn into something more voracious and dangerous than a tiger when the “people” in the Tea Party (joined by teachers in Wisconsin, and Medicare and Medicaid patients death-paneled across the country, and women about to be murdered by the defunding of Planned Parenthood, and Tea Party folks in the Marcellus Shale region whose wells and lakes and rivers are going to be poisoned by the same folks who bankrolled the destruction of government and pensions and healthcare) wake up and find out what they fell for.
Here comes the Balrog.
Long live the Balrog.
May he burn it to the ground.
Links to the March archive, which although still small, contains a fair number of articles.
Can you link to the one you’re referring to, please?
Links to the March archive, which although still small, contains a fair number of articles.
Can you link to the one you’re referring to, please?
Nevermind; it’s here.
Nevermind; it’s here.
Phil, besides more Vince Foster jokes, I hope we also spend a good additional amount of time discussing whether or not the Republican rep practiced good faith or bad faith, because I always feel more secure with folks who tell me upfront that they are going to screw me, and then god#mned follow through.
Regarding Vince Foster, would it have been good or bad faith on his part to leave a well-shot-up casaba melon at the park ahead of time, as a head’s up for his suicide or murder (hey, under FOX, Limbaugh, etc rules, anything can be true, if repeated and believed)?
Would Dan Burton then have taken the real Vince Foster into his backyard and shot him in the head dozens of times to PROVE the malign fate of the aforesaid melon?
The sharron angle of the bullet’s trajectory into the melon could prove that second amendment remedies predate the 2010 election campaign, tracing back through the holes in JFK and Martin Luther King and even further back.
One bullet fired by one shooter about 235 years ago traveling through time and through Lincoln, Medger Evers, JFK, MLK, RFK, Vince Foster, untold numbers of melons, (oddly, just winging Reagan, McKinley, Wallace and others) and continuing on into the future to its next victim.
Phil, besides more Vince Foster jokes, I hope we also spend a good additional amount of time discussing whether or not the Republican rep practiced good faith or bad faith, because I always feel more secure with folks who tell me upfront that they are going to screw me, and then god#mned follow through.
Regarding Vince Foster, would it have been good or bad faith on his part to leave a well-shot-up casaba melon at the park ahead of time, as a head’s up for his suicide or murder (hey, under FOX, Limbaugh, etc rules, anything can be true, if repeated and believed)?
Would Dan Burton then have taken the real Vince Foster into his backyard and shot him in the head dozens of times to PROVE the malign fate of the aforesaid melon?
The sharron angle of the bullet’s trajectory into the melon could prove that second amendment remedies predate the 2010 election campaign, tracing back through the holes in JFK and Martin Luther King and even further back.
One bullet fired by one shooter about 235 years ago traveling through time and through Lincoln, Medger Evers, JFK, MLK, RFK, Vince Foster, untold numbers of melons, (oddly, just winging Reagan, McKinley, Wallace and others) and continuing on into the future to its next victim.
McKinley just died form his wounds, I’m sorry to report.
McKinley just died form his wounds, I’m sorry to report.
It wasn’t a Vince Foster joke any more than it was a 9/11 joke. But you already knew that.
It wasn’t a Vince Foster joke any more than it was a 9/11 joke. But you already knew that.
I’d hope, anyway.
I’d hope, anyway.
What do Republican politicians and tax cheats have in common that they cooperate so vigourously:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/01/AR2011030104721.html
Via Kevin Drum, and you should pop over and read his commentary as well.
Apparently, we’re going to have more 1990’s style dog and pony shows on Capitol Hill about the jack-booted thugs at the IRS collecting taxes from cheats.
Probably just when you grow bored of the union thugs who teach algebra to the kiddies in Wisconsin.
I figure if I’m going to be called a thug, that thuggery is in order.
What do Republican politicians and tax cheats have in common that they cooperate so vigourously:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/01/AR2011030104721.html
Via Kevin Drum, and you should pop over and read his commentary as well.
Apparently, we’re going to have more 1990’s style dog and pony shows on Capitol Hill about the jack-booted thugs at the IRS collecting taxes from cheats.
Probably just when you grow bored of the union thugs who teach algebra to the kiddies in Wisconsin.
I figure if I’m going to be called a thug, that thuggery is in order.
Off-topic, even for me:
Brett mentioned, and I paraphrase, on some thread in recent days that the human race may have trouble finding gainful employment for a good many of us, given technologiocal advances and other forms of outsourcing.
I thought it was an acute and interesting observation.
So, via Sullivan, I find this (below), which in some ways intimates that technology may even “relieve” us being ourselves in our daily interactions with other selves.
When all of the selves fashion a replacement bot for themselves, what will be left for the selves to do?
http://tomorrowmuseum.com/2011/02/24/my-cyber-twin-and-me/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TomorrowMuseum+%28Tomorrow+Museum%29
Off-topic, even for me:
Brett mentioned, and I paraphrase, on some thread in recent days that the human race may have trouble finding gainful employment for a good many of us, given technologiocal advances and other forms of outsourcing.
I thought it was an acute and interesting observation.
So, via Sullivan, I find this (below), which in some ways intimates that technology may even “relieve” us being ourselves in our daily interactions with other selves.
When all of the selves fashion a replacement bot for themselves, what will be left for the selves to do?
http://tomorrowmuseum.com/2011/02/24/my-cyber-twin-and-me/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TomorrowMuseum+%28Tomorrow+Museum%29
what will be left for the selves to do?
Go play with . . . never mind.
what will be left for the selves to do?
Go play with . . . never mind.
Otherwise known as shaking hands with the unemployed.
Maybe a good part of the human race is destined to sit around all day and entertain themselves on their Facebook and other media showcases like chimpanzees play with themselves in their cages at the zoo.
Boredom and exhibitionism combined into one stultifying big mess of loss of self.
Walker Percy wrote novels about this.
Otherwise known as shaking hands with the unemployed.
Maybe a good part of the human race is destined to sit around all day and entertain themselves on their Facebook and other media showcases like chimpanzees play with themselves in their cages at the zoo.
Boredom and exhibitionism combined into one stultifying big mess of loss of self.
Walker Percy wrote novels about this.
idle hands are [… fill in the blank]
idle hands are [… fill in the blank]
…….. worth only one bird in the bush.
…….. the way to increase America’s productivity and let more profits fall to the bottom line
…….. (are) don’t kill people, busy hands with guns kill people
…….. have time to take on the enemy with one hand tied behind their back
…….. worth only one bird in the bush.
…….. the way to increase America’s productivity and let more profits fall to the bottom line
…….. (are) don’t kill people, busy hands with guns kill people
…….. have time to take on the enemy with one hand tied behind their back
hey, at least we’re holding our own.
hey, at least we’re holding our own.
It’s funny. I was going to bleg for a post on the labor economics of a world that is more and more capital driven and less and less labor driven over time and how to deal with that in a way that doesn’t result in something like feudalism, only without the backbreaking labor for the serfs. (I almost typed “surfs.”)
One way I can see it going is that there would be a very small (less than 1%) uber-wealthy oligarchy of hyper-capitalists; a somewhat larger (5 or 10%) second tier – a middle class of sorts, something like the upper-most of the middle class we now have – of technologists who design, build, operate and maintain (DBOM) the capital assets; a lower class (25 to 35%) mainly comprising servants (broadly defined, not necessarily “personal”) for the previous two classes, looking something like the rest of our current middle class, down to the bottom of what’s considered middle class today; and then the other 60% or so mostly unemployed (at least in terms of the “technological” economy – they might form their own) masses who will somehow have to be kept at bay or placated to prevent revolt.
(I’m pretty sure Gary knows of 20 or a hundred sci-fi pieces that ponder this in great detail.)
It’s funny. I was going to bleg for a post on the labor economics of a world that is more and more capital driven and less and less labor driven over time and how to deal with that in a way that doesn’t result in something like feudalism, only without the backbreaking labor for the serfs. (I almost typed “surfs.”)
One way I can see it going is that there would be a very small (less than 1%) uber-wealthy oligarchy of hyper-capitalists; a somewhat larger (5 or 10%) second tier – a middle class of sorts, something like the upper-most of the middle class we now have – of technologists who design, build, operate and maintain (DBOM) the capital assets; a lower class (25 to 35%) mainly comprising servants (broadly defined, not necessarily “personal”) for the previous two classes, looking something like the rest of our current middle class, down to the bottom of what’s considered middle class today; and then the other 60% or so mostly unemployed (at least in terms of the “technological” economy – they might form their own) masses who will somehow have to be kept at bay or placated to prevent revolt.
(I’m pretty sure Gary knows of 20 or a hundred sci-fi pieces that ponder this in great detail.)
Otherwise known as shaking hands with the unemployed.
hey, at least we’re holding our own
Someone needs to get a grip.
Otherwise known as shaking hands with the unemployed.
hey, at least we’re holding our own
Someone needs to get a grip.
An interesting piece on how we measure the economy wrong and see the next steps to maintaining a competitive economy differenty by Michael Mandel here
An interesting piece on how we measure the economy wrong and see the next steps to maintaining a competitive economy differenty by Michael Mandel here
‘An interesting piece on how we measure the economy wrong and see the next steps to maintaining a competitive economy differenty by Michael Mandel here’
I read through the docs at the link. They contain a lot of data that I suspect can enlighten if one has the ability to absorb and properly analyze and interpret. I tend to accept the premise that we measure using flawed metrics. How could this not be true? We have a government that is very deeply involved in major ways to influence economic activity in all of our major sectors of activities that compose our GDP, not to mention the outright criminal behavior of much of our private financial sector in recent decades. Both made significant contributions to the distortions in the housing market that raised ‘market values’ well beyond anything that could be viewed as ‘wealth’, (although it was), and resulted in the ‘crash’ of 2008. We have healthcare that is good but delivered unevenly at a cost much greater than it should be. We have too many people paying exorbitantly for advanced educations that they cannot put to profitable use. Similar major distortions exist in the marketplace for energy (focus of much of our current attention because of events in the middle east). One does not need to dig very deep to see the ubiquitous hands of government, (federal, state, and local), in all these distortions. And we have the deal-making between the big corporate businesses and government to add to this, and which is, of course, the origin of much of the distortions already mentioned.
No wonder no one has any notion of how to move policy in a way that will create jobs. I have no confidence that the numbers we hear regularly in an attempt to describe our economic situation have any relevance. We might have a new paradigm of work and leisure that replaces our existing notions about employment and unemployment and we might not.
We will likely have a great deal of aberrant political and social behavior as we work our way through this.
There will be ample opportunities for rants as well as reasoned thought.
‘An interesting piece on how we measure the economy wrong and see the next steps to maintaining a competitive economy differenty by Michael Mandel here’
I read through the docs at the link. They contain a lot of data that I suspect can enlighten if one has the ability to absorb and properly analyze and interpret. I tend to accept the premise that we measure using flawed metrics. How could this not be true? We have a government that is very deeply involved in major ways to influence economic activity in all of our major sectors of activities that compose our GDP, not to mention the outright criminal behavior of much of our private financial sector in recent decades. Both made significant contributions to the distortions in the housing market that raised ‘market values’ well beyond anything that could be viewed as ‘wealth’, (although it was), and resulted in the ‘crash’ of 2008. We have healthcare that is good but delivered unevenly at a cost much greater than it should be. We have too many people paying exorbitantly for advanced educations that they cannot put to profitable use. Similar major distortions exist in the marketplace for energy (focus of much of our current attention because of events in the middle east). One does not need to dig very deep to see the ubiquitous hands of government, (federal, state, and local), in all these distortions. And we have the deal-making between the big corporate businesses and government to add to this, and which is, of course, the origin of much of the distortions already mentioned.
No wonder no one has any notion of how to move policy in a way that will create jobs. I have no confidence that the numbers we hear regularly in an attempt to describe our economic situation have any relevance. We might have a new paradigm of work and leisure that replaces our existing notions about employment and unemployment and we might not.
We will likely have a great deal of aberrant political and social behavior as we work our way through this.
There will be ample opportunities for rants as well as reasoned thought.
“There will ample opportunities for rants as well as reasoned thought.”
Nah, I think times running out for both.
Mike Huckabee, of the Republican Party, which requires liquidation, before they liquidate me.
“If I run, I walk away from a pretty good income. I don’t want to walk away any sooner than I have to because frankly, I don’t have a lot of reserve built up….One thing I committed to myself, to my wife and God, was that if I do this I’m hopefully going to be in a position that I’m not so completely destitute at the end of it, that I have no idea what to do if I get sick.”
“There will ample opportunities for rants as well as reasoned thought.”
Nah, I think times running out for both.
Mike Huckabee, of the Republican Party, which requires liquidation, before they liquidate me.
“If I run, I walk away from a pretty good income. I don’t want to walk away any sooner than I have to because frankly, I don’t have a lot of reserve built up….One thing I committed to myself, to my wife and God, was that if I do this I’m hopefully going to be in a position that I’m not so completely destitute at the end of it, that I have no idea what to do if I get sick.”
Meanwhile, the murderous Republican vermin who showed up in Florida during Bush/Gore 2000 and who blacksuited their way into Joe Miller’s fascist f*ck filth Senate race in Alaska are coming out of the ground like alien bugs in Wisconsin.
Digby has it:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/joe-miller-republicans-remember-him.html
Meanwhile, the murderous Republican vermin who showed up in Florida during Bush/Gore 2000 and who blacksuited their way into Joe Miller’s fascist f*ck filth Senate race in Alaska are coming out of the ground like alien bugs in Wisconsin.
Digby has it:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/joe-miller-republicans-remember-him.html
GOB: No wonder no one has any notion of how to move policy in a way that will create jobs.
Knowing “how to move policy” is different from having some “notion” about what the right policy IS.
I don’t know how to “move” a practical policy at the national level when Republicans have a majority in the House and a filibuster in the Senate. Doesn’t mean I don’t have “any notion” of what the federal government could do to “create jobs”.
There’s a perfectly simple way to “create jobs”: hire people. There’s a straightforward way to raise the money to hire people with: raise taxes on those persons (natural and corporate) who HAVE lots of money and are NOT hiring people with it.
But no! The GOP would never stand for that. Instead, House Republicans vote unanimously to keep subsidizing oil companies. Oil companies!
Oh, well. The American electorate voted those clowns in. An electorate THAT stupid deserves all the unemployment it’s got coming to it.
–TP
GOB: No wonder no one has any notion of how to move policy in a way that will create jobs.
Knowing “how to move policy” is different from having some “notion” about what the right policy IS.
I don’t know how to “move” a practical policy at the national level when Republicans have a majority in the House and a filibuster in the Senate. Doesn’t mean I don’t have “any notion” of what the federal government could do to “create jobs”.
There’s a perfectly simple way to “create jobs”: hire people. There’s a straightforward way to raise the money to hire people with: raise taxes on those persons (natural and corporate) who HAVE lots of money and are NOT hiring people with it.
But no! The GOP would never stand for that. Instead, House Republicans vote unanimously to keep subsidizing oil companies. Oil companies!
Oh, well. The American electorate voted those clowns in. An electorate THAT stupid deserves all the unemployment it’s got coming to it.
–TP
Also meanwhile, callow punk Moe lane comes down in favor of armed insurrection In Wisconsin:
http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2011/03/02/collective-bargaining-reform-passes-ohio-senate/
Also meanwhile, callow punk Moe lane comes down in favor of armed insurrection In Wisconsin:
http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2011/03/02/collective-bargaining-reform-passes-ohio-senate/
‘Knowing “how to move policy” is different from having some “notion” about what the right policy IS.
Doesn’t mean I don’t have “any notion” of what the federal government could do to “create jobs”.
There’s a perfectly simple way to “create jobs”: hire people. There’s a straightforward way to raise the money to hire people with: raise taxes on those persons (natural and corporate) who HAVE lots of money and are NOT hiring people with it.
But no! The GOP would never stand for that.’
Tony P.:
The GOP is a small subset of Americans who would never stand for that. That being the confiscation of property from millions of Americans for the sole purpose of the government ‘hiring’ people and using the confiscated property to pay them.
Why not work to remove the distortions, such as subsidies to oil companies, and see if the sovereign people of this great nation actually have more savvy about jobs than the jerks we send to Washington, who appear to only be interested in their own jobs, which they think of as their careers, trying to manage and control our lives?
‘Knowing “how to move policy” is different from having some “notion” about what the right policy IS.
Doesn’t mean I don’t have “any notion” of what the federal government could do to “create jobs”.
There’s a perfectly simple way to “create jobs”: hire people. There’s a straightforward way to raise the money to hire people with: raise taxes on those persons (natural and corporate) who HAVE lots of money and are NOT hiring people with it.
But no! The GOP would never stand for that.’
Tony P.:
The GOP is a small subset of Americans who would never stand for that. That being the confiscation of property from millions of Americans for the sole purpose of the government ‘hiring’ people and using the confiscated property to pay them.
Why not work to remove the distortions, such as subsidies to oil companies, and see if the sovereign people of this great nation actually have more savvy about jobs than the jerks we send to Washington, who appear to only be interested in their own jobs, which they think of as their careers, trying to manage and control our lives?
“using the confiscated property to pay them.”
I don’t quite understand how a single cent of tax, demanded by any level of government, is going to be collected henceforth from me by believers in such crap without killing me first.
Those are the ground rules from now on.
“using the confiscated property to pay them.”
I don’t quite understand how a single cent of tax, demanded by any level of government, is going to be collected henceforth from me by believers in such crap without killing me first.
Those are the ground rules from now on.
This was a pretty good rant until you dropped this turd. It was especially jarring after you explicitly called out the criminal behavior of the financial sector (for which government is only responsible to the extent that it failed to regulate and prosecute), as well as our broken health care system which is itself primarily a market failure perpetrated by private sector for-profit health insurance.
It’s entirely possible, you know, to accurately identify so many of our current economic problems the way you did without struggling to blame them all on the heavy hand of the government–especially when so many of them have a lot more to do with being molested by the invisible hand of the market.
It is impossible to have a reasonable and constructive discussion of economic policy with people who insist on subscribing to indefensible nonsense like this. By this logic, the government also confiscates the property of millions of Americans for the sole purpose of the government waging unpopular wars in the middle east, or for the purpose of giving tax breaks to wealthy Americans, or for the purpose of giving churches a tax-free ride on the backs of taxpayers. Look, we can play that rhetorical game too! Just pick something you don’t like that the government pays for with your tax dollars, and you can delegitimize it by calling it “confiscation” of your property for X.
Or, instead, we can deal with taxes as exactly what they are: a legitimate power of the government that is the sole reason you and I actually have a civilization. From there we can argue about what needs to be done, which of those is an effective use of tax dollars, marginal utility, and how to minimize the impact on those least able to shoulder that tax burden. But that discussion is impossible to have with someone who rejects the very legitimacy of taxation itself.
You don’t have to like it, but it is a fact that an overwhelming majority of Americans–60% or more, depending on the poll (and there have been many–I can dig up a few links if you want, but these would be merely a sample rather than an exhaustive list)–support the kind of progressive tax policies advocated by the Democratic Party, or even more progressive policies than that.
See, when you make suggestions like this, you’re on ground I think many of us can agree on. It’s when you try tying them into the whole dogmatic “governement and taxes bad, argle bargle” routine that folks start rolling their eyes and looking for the back button.
This was a pretty good rant until you dropped this turd. It was especially jarring after you explicitly called out the criminal behavior of the financial sector (for which government is only responsible to the extent that it failed to regulate and prosecute), as well as our broken health care system which is itself primarily a market failure perpetrated by private sector for-profit health insurance.
It’s entirely possible, you know, to accurately identify so many of our current economic problems the way you did without struggling to blame them all on the heavy hand of the government–especially when so many of them have a lot more to do with being molested by the invisible hand of the market.
It is impossible to have a reasonable and constructive discussion of economic policy with people who insist on subscribing to indefensible nonsense like this. By this logic, the government also confiscates the property of millions of Americans for the sole purpose of the government waging unpopular wars in the middle east, or for the purpose of giving tax breaks to wealthy Americans, or for the purpose of giving churches a tax-free ride on the backs of taxpayers. Look, we can play that rhetorical game too! Just pick something you don’t like that the government pays for with your tax dollars, and you can delegitimize it by calling it “confiscation” of your property for X.
Or, instead, we can deal with taxes as exactly what they are: a legitimate power of the government that is the sole reason you and I actually have a civilization. From there we can argue about what needs to be done, which of those is an effective use of tax dollars, marginal utility, and how to minimize the impact on those least able to shoulder that tax burden. But that discussion is impossible to have with someone who rejects the very legitimacy of taxation itself.
You don’t have to like it, but it is a fact that an overwhelming majority of Americans–60% or more, depending on the poll (and there have been many–I can dig up a few links if you want, but these would be merely a sample rather than an exhaustive list)–support the kind of progressive tax policies advocated by the Democratic Party, or even more progressive policies than that.
See, when you make suggestions like this, you’re on ground I think many of us can agree on. It’s when you try tying them into the whole dogmatic “governement and taxes bad, argle bargle” routine that folks start rolling their eyes and looking for the back button.
‘This was a pretty good rant until you dropped this turd. It was especially jarring after you explicitly called out the criminal behavior of the financial sector (for which government is only responsible to the extent that it failed to regulate and prosecute), as well as our broken health care system which is itself primarily a market failure perpetrated by private sector for-profit health insurance.’
Catsy:
I must ask if you view Medicare and Medicaid not to be significant portions of our health care arena and if you do not view state regulation of health insurance offerings significant as well? This, IMO, is very profound government participation in the health care marketplace. There is also much participation by government in controlling hospitals and university medical education (or by occupational trade associations sanctioned by government). Neither did I absolve the private health insurance providers of their negative contributions through their compacts and deals with various state regulators. And the financial sectors misdeeds were also facilitated by government.
Did you comment on the following provided by Tony P.?
‘There’s a perfectly simple way to “create jobs”: hire people. There’s a straightforward way to raise the money to hire people with: raise taxes on those persons (natural and corporate) who HAVE lots of money and are NOT hiring people with it’
I am not against the idea of taxation. But I absolutely disagree with his statement and I do believe that the majority of American taxpayers would as well. When the use of taxes gets to this point, I consider it confiscation of private property.
‘This was a pretty good rant until you dropped this turd. It was especially jarring after you explicitly called out the criminal behavior of the financial sector (for which government is only responsible to the extent that it failed to regulate and prosecute), as well as our broken health care system which is itself primarily a market failure perpetrated by private sector for-profit health insurance.’
Catsy:
I must ask if you view Medicare and Medicaid not to be significant portions of our health care arena and if you do not view state regulation of health insurance offerings significant as well? This, IMO, is very profound government participation in the health care marketplace. There is also much participation by government in controlling hospitals and university medical education (or by occupational trade associations sanctioned by government). Neither did I absolve the private health insurance providers of their negative contributions through their compacts and deals with various state regulators. And the financial sectors misdeeds were also facilitated by government.
Did you comment on the following provided by Tony P.?
‘There’s a perfectly simple way to “create jobs”: hire people. There’s a straightforward way to raise the money to hire people with: raise taxes on those persons (natural and corporate) who HAVE lots of money and are NOT hiring people with it’
I am not against the idea of taxation. But I absolutely disagree with his statement and I do believe that the majority of American taxpayers would as well. When the use of taxes gets to this point, I consider it confiscation of private property.
We actually had a pretty good system for allocating resources to parts of the country that had higher unemployment, focusing that money on industries and projects that matched the local work force. We used local experts to champion local needs to ensuree the money would help the most people on a district by district basis and even allocated that money at the expense of broader national priorities.
Instead of investing more in that system we decided to deride and do away with it.
Earmarks.
We actually had a pretty good system for allocating resources to parts of the country that had higher unemployment, focusing that money on industries and projects that matched the local work force. We used local experts to champion local needs to ensuree the money would help the most people on a district by district basis and even allocated that money at the expense of broader national priorities.
Instead of investing more in that system we decided to deride and do away with it.
Earmarks.
First of all, I don’t really think you can lump Medicare and Medicaid into the same bucket in this context. They are different programs that work and are funded very differently from each other.
But no, I don’t consider them to be significant elements of why our health care system is so expensive and broken. That’s not to say that they’re insignificant; hardly. Nor are they perfect. Just that they’re really not the problem here.
At the risk of getting dragged off into a tangent, I think the aggressively for-profit nature of health care and health insurance in the United States is the single biggest problem with it. I think for-profit health insurance as an industry needs to be nearly or completely abolished: the accumulation of profits should have absolutely zero relationship to the delivery of essential health care services; the fact that it does is not only the source of much of the tragedy, waste, and cost in our system, it is morally repugnant on its face. We need a single-payer system where the provision of care remains a choice that is made between doctor and patient, with a review process as needed that is staffed by veteran medical professionals, funded by taxpayers. The minority who don’t think it’s appropriate that their taxes help ensure that everyone has access to essential health care can fscking get over it and come to terms with the fact that they live in a modern society where it is unacceptable and immoral that millions of people have no health care or go bankrupt just trying to keep themselves or their family alive.
But it’s more than just for-profit health insurance, far more than I really want to go into right now. There’s the shocking amount of personal debt that medical professions have to accumulate just to get the necessary training and education. This dramatically inflates the kind of salary medical professionals need in order to have a chance of paying their tuition debts in their lifetime while still supporting a family. There’s the corruption and moral hazard that comes from the too-cozy relationship between drug companies and health care providers.
State regulations, to whatever extent they even meaningfully effect the national farce that is our health care system as a whole, are a factor mainly in that their existence tends to prevent health insurance industry abuses from being even worse than they are. Again, I’m not saying that they’re perfect, just that pointing to them as an example of what’s broken is like complaining that the depth of the outfield at Safeco Field is killing the sport of baseball.
It’s a lot of things, really.
But at the center of most of them is the fact that health care is a for-profit industry rather than an essential public service. It’s wrong and it needs to change.
First of all, I don’t really think you can lump Medicare and Medicaid into the same bucket in this context. They are different programs that work and are funded very differently from each other.
But no, I don’t consider them to be significant elements of why our health care system is so expensive and broken. That’s not to say that they’re insignificant; hardly. Nor are they perfect. Just that they’re really not the problem here.
At the risk of getting dragged off into a tangent, I think the aggressively for-profit nature of health care and health insurance in the United States is the single biggest problem with it. I think for-profit health insurance as an industry needs to be nearly or completely abolished: the accumulation of profits should have absolutely zero relationship to the delivery of essential health care services; the fact that it does is not only the source of much of the tragedy, waste, and cost in our system, it is morally repugnant on its face. We need a single-payer system where the provision of care remains a choice that is made between doctor and patient, with a review process as needed that is staffed by veteran medical professionals, funded by taxpayers. The minority who don’t think it’s appropriate that their taxes help ensure that everyone has access to essential health care can fscking get over it and come to terms with the fact that they live in a modern society where it is unacceptable and immoral that millions of people have no health care or go bankrupt just trying to keep themselves or their family alive.
But it’s more than just for-profit health insurance, far more than I really want to go into right now. There’s the shocking amount of personal debt that medical professions have to accumulate just to get the necessary training and education. This dramatically inflates the kind of salary medical professionals need in order to have a chance of paying their tuition debts in their lifetime while still supporting a family. There’s the corruption and moral hazard that comes from the too-cozy relationship between drug companies and health care providers.
State regulations, to whatever extent they even meaningfully effect the national farce that is our health care system as a whole, are a factor mainly in that their existence tends to prevent health insurance industry abuses from being even worse than they are. Again, I’m not saying that they’re perfect, just that pointing to them as an example of what’s broken is like complaining that the depth of the outfield at Safeco Field is killing the sport of baseball.
It’s a lot of things, really.
But at the center of most of them is the fact that health care is a for-profit industry rather than an essential public service. It’s wrong and it needs to change.
Reaching way way back to the original topic, looks like Walker will be putting out the fire with gasoline tomorrow.
1,500 layoff notices, for which Walker expects to see $30M in savings on the state budget.
Reaching way way back to the original topic, looks like Walker will be putting out the fire with gasoline tomorrow.
1,500 layoff notices, for which Walker expects to see $30M in savings on the state budget.
“Look, we can play that rhetorical game too! Just pick something you don’t like that the government pays for with your tax dollars, and you can delegitimize it by calling it “confiscation” of your property for X.”
Well, why not? Enough people play the game of legitimizing confiscation by calling it “taxation”, as though using that word changed it’s fundamental nature.
I personally believe we’d think about these matters a lot more clearly, if we didn’t maintain parallel vocabularies for the same actions committed by private individuals and governments.
“Look, we can play that rhetorical game too! Just pick something you don’t like that the government pays for with your tax dollars, and you can delegitimize it by calling it “confiscation” of your property for X.”
Well, why not? Enough people play the game of legitimizing confiscation by calling it “taxation”, as though using that word changed it’s fundamental nature.
I personally believe we’d think about these matters a lot more clearly, if we didn’t maintain parallel vocabularies for the same actions committed by private individuals and governments.
Brett
As much as i can, i can see two other parallel vocabularies, democrat and republican ones. It adds a lot to miscommunication.
Brett
As much as i can, i can see two other parallel vocabularies, democrat and republican ones. It adds a lot to miscommunication.
Shorter (Revolutionary) Brett: Taxation With Or Without Representation Is Tyranny.
Sheesh.
Shorter (Revolutionary) Brett: Taxation With Or Without Representation Is Tyranny.
Sheesh.
Why would I have to imagine, assuming I wasn’t perfectly well familiar with what top lawyers earn?
Have I mentioned that I did a lot of work for law firms in the past, too? Probably not.
Also, there’s “reading.” Also, lots of friends who are lawyers. Also, “the internet.”
How Much Can You Expect to Pay?
I haven’t mentioned that I spent a few years in the past as a self-trained legal secretary, have I? Or ditto as a semi-demi paralegal?
I did. That was back in the early Eighties. I’ve always read a lot of law. I’m a fast study.
Good wages.
I also know very well how some lawyers treat the help well, how there are a great many who don’t, how associates are exploited, how work is handed off, how — a lot about the insides of how firms at all sorts of levels work, and I wouldn’t need to have any direct experience for this because I can read.
It’s quite odd that you’d say I “couldn’t imagine” this.
It’s not exactly secret information.
But probably you were just using a common expression, so I don’t take it personally, be assured.
However:
It’s really not obscure at all.
But, you know, anyone who reads a John Grisham novel could talk about this. Or any of a zilion better mystery fiction writers. Or anyone who reads a newspaper, or magazine, or who can work the internet for two minutes.
Agreed.
I actually didn’t think otherwise. It’s other kinds of poor people, such as adults, that I’m unclear if you think are worth “funding.”
But this is material better addressed in a post, than in comments.
Perhaps next week, or if not, in coming weeks.
Incidentally, McKinney, if you would like to write a guest post on a subject of your choice, write me, though I won’t be able to discuss it with you until at least next week, and possibly not much until the following week.
But I’m quite serious; I’m sure you could write an interesting and worth while post, or posts, and we like to vary points of view around here.
Why would I have to imagine, assuming I wasn’t perfectly well familiar with what top lawyers earn?
Have I mentioned that I did a lot of work for law firms in the past, too? Probably not.
Also, there’s “reading.” Also, lots of friends who are lawyers. Also, “the internet.”
How Much Can You Expect to Pay?
I haven’t mentioned that I spent a few years in the past as a self-trained legal secretary, have I? Or ditto as a semi-demi paralegal?
I did. That was back in the early Eighties. I’ve always read a lot of law. I’m a fast study.
Good wages.
I also know very well how some lawyers treat the help well, how there are a great many who don’t, how associates are exploited, how work is handed off, how — a lot about the insides of how firms at all sorts of levels work, and I wouldn’t need to have any direct experience for this because I can read.
It’s quite odd that you’d say I “couldn’t imagine” this.
It’s not exactly secret information.
But probably you were just using a common expression, so I don’t take it personally, be assured.
However:
It’s really not obscure at all.
But, you know, anyone who reads a John Grisham novel could talk about this. Or any of a zilion better mystery fiction writers. Or anyone who reads a newspaper, or magazine, or who can work the internet for two minutes.
Agreed.
I actually didn’t think otherwise. It’s other kinds of poor people, such as adults, that I’m unclear if you think are worth “funding.”
But this is material better addressed in a post, than in comments.
Perhaps next week, or if not, in coming weeks.
Incidentally, McKinney, if you would like to write a guest post on a subject of your choice, write me, though I won’t be able to discuss it with you until at least next week, and possibly not much until the following week.
But I’m quite serious; I’m sure you could write an interesting and worth while post, or posts, and we like to vary points of view around here.
I personally believe we’d think about these matters a lot more clearly, if we didn’t maintain parallel vocabularies for the same actions committed by private individuals and governments.
We might think about them more clearly, but our thoughts would not reflect reality.
Private individuals and governments are different. As are all private organizations and institutions, as compared to public ones. And we stand in different relations to each of them.
The relationship in which you stand to the actor affects the quality of the action. Some things that are unreasonable to demand of each other in certain contexts are quite reasonable in others.
We can sweat the details, but if we don’t agree on the above there’s not a lot of point in pursuing the discussion. As far as I can tell.
I personally believe we’d think about these matters a lot more clearly, if we didn’t maintain parallel vocabularies for the same actions committed by private individuals and governments.
We might think about them more clearly, but our thoughts would not reflect reality.
Private individuals and governments are different. As are all private organizations and institutions, as compared to public ones. And we stand in different relations to each of them.
The relationship in which you stand to the actor affects the quality of the action. Some things that are unreasonable to demand of each other in certain contexts are quite reasonable in others.
We can sweat the details, but if we don’t agree on the above there’s not a lot of point in pursuing the discussion. As far as I can tell.
dr ngo’s comment is the Tea Party philosophy in a nutshell.
(Although I believe they are now referred to as the Teacher-bashing Party.)
dr ngo’s comment is the Tea Party philosophy in a nutshell.
(Although I believe they are now referred to as the Teacher-bashing Party.)
For the simple reason that, as russell correctly points out, the usage you are employing reflects neither reality nor what the words actually mean. It is ideological spin, not a factual or even debatable use of terminology.
You might be using “confiscation” in a metaphorical sense to express your displeasure with the idea. That’s one thing, and that’s your prerogative, though it contributes little value to the debate and only serves to confuse the issue. But that’s really not what it sounds like you’re doing.
It sounds a lot more like you’re asserting that a given tax is literally an illegitimate “confiscation of property” because you don’t like the purpose of the tax. And that’s simply not a supportable argument.
Context and consent matter. If I steal your wallet or hack into your bank account and take your money, that is theft.
If you embezzle a great deal of money and buy a house with it, and the government takes that house when you are convicted, that is confiscation.
But when your elected representatives vote to enact a tax, that is taxation. Not theft, not confiscation. Taxation. It is a specific word with a specific meaning.
You consent to paying taxes by participating in this society as an American citizen. You elect representatives to make those decisions. And you do not get to say, after they do so, that this tax or the other is illegitimate because you have an ideological disagreement with the purpose of the tax. Not and be taken seriously, at any rate. It’s not a menu.
I do not like that my taxes pay for wars in the middle east. I do not like that they pay for mercenaries to fight those wars. When the Bush Administration spent my tax dollars on harmful religious boondoggles like abstinence-only sex “education”, it was incredibly offensive to me. And I have always found the free ride that churches and other religious institutions get on their taxes to be an incomprehensible government endorsement of religion at my expense.
But they are within the legitimate scope of government powers, and they were enacted by the representatives I elected to do so. If I don’t like it, my recourse is to advocate for their change because they are bad policies, not reject the government’s power to levy taxes.
For the simple reason that, as russell correctly points out, the usage you are employing reflects neither reality nor what the words actually mean. It is ideological spin, not a factual or even debatable use of terminology.
You might be using “confiscation” in a metaphorical sense to express your displeasure with the idea. That’s one thing, and that’s your prerogative, though it contributes little value to the debate and only serves to confuse the issue. But that’s really not what it sounds like you’re doing.
It sounds a lot more like you’re asserting that a given tax is literally an illegitimate “confiscation of property” because you don’t like the purpose of the tax. And that’s simply not a supportable argument.
Context and consent matter. If I steal your wallet or hack into your bank account and take your money, that is theft.
If you embezzle a great deal of money and buy a house with it, and the government takes that house when you are convicted, that is confiscation.
But when your elected representatives vote to enact a tax, that is taxation. Not theft, not confiscation. Taxation. It is a specific word with a specific meaning.
You consent to paying taxes by participating in this society as an American citizen. You elect representatives to make those decisions. And you do not get to say, after they do so, that this tax or the other is illegitimate because you have an ideological disagreement with the purpose of the tax. Not and be taken seriously, at any rate. It’s not a menu.
I do not like that my taxes pay for wars in the middle east. I do not like that they pay for mercenaries to fight those wars. When the Bush Administration spent my tax dollars on harmful religious boondoggles like abstinence-only sex “education”, it was incredibly offensive to me. And I have always found the free ride that churches and other religious institutions get on their taxes to be an incomprehensible government endorsement of religion at my expense.
But they are within the legitimate scope of government powers, and they were enacted by the representatives I elected to do so. If I don’t like it, my recourse is to advocate for their change because they are bad policies, not reject the government’s power to levy taxes.
Catsy, I’m afraid your well-presented argument is an exercise in futility, judging from past experience. You probably know this already, since I’m pretty sure you’ve had this very same exchange numerous times on this very blog. It seems to be a semi-monthly or so occurrence. Nice work, though. Again. Until next time.
Catsy, I’m afraid your well-presented argument is an exercise in futility, judging from past experience. You probably know this already, since I’m pretty sure you’ve had this very same exchange numerous times on this very blog. It seems to be a semi-monthly or so occurrence. Nice work, though. Again. Until next time.
Catsy, let me also thank you for insisting that words have specific meanings. I think part of the problem with our political discourse is deliberate misuse and relabeling that obscures rather than illuminates issues.
This is probably a good subject for another thread.
Catsy, let me also thank you for insisting that words have specific meanings. I think part of the problem with our political discourse is deliberate misuse and relabeling that obscures rather than illuminates issues.
This is probably a good subject for another thread.
The scale of oppression doesn’t go to zero at whatever level of oppression *you* happen to be comfortable with, folks. Yes, the government of Sweden “oppresses” people. Not as much as the government of North Korea, or even, in some ways, the government of the US. But it does oppress. As a benchmark, Brett, which are the top five least oppressive governments on the planet now? How about historically?
The scale of oppression doesn’t go to zero at whatever level of oppression *you* happen to be comfortable with, folks. Yes, the government of Sweden “oppresses” people. Not as much as the government of North Korea, or even, in some ways, the government of the US. But it does oppress. As a benchmark, Brett, which are the top five least oppressive governments on the planet now? How about historically?
THANKS FOR POSTING THIS! I always enjoy visiting your page!
Steve
Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
ps. We’re all over this on Common Cents!!!
THANKS FOR POSTING THIS! I always enjoy visiting your page!
Steve
Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
ps. We’re all over this on Common Cents!!!