<<
>>


Unemployment SOLVED! Gubbermint creates jobs! Sure, maybe the gubbermint can give people “jobs” watching MSNBC and reporting back on what was said. That’s much better than having them on unemployment.

Contributed on February 29, 2012 by Bonfire of the Absurdities, who has submitted 1409 posts.

{ 72 comments… read them below or add one }

andre February 29, 2012 at 10:00 am

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0

The economic ignorance is staggering.

Yes, there’s debt, spending, taxation, printing money, redistribution of income, etc. All bad things. But if you want to point to one underlying, fundamental problem in economics, it’s the ignorance. That is the reason why idiots are elected over and over and over again, who borrow like drug addicts, tax and spend, and buy votes as if the money grew on trees.

A robust, growing economy is NOT created by jobs, or lack of unemployment. It is created through the creation of wealth. The creation of wealth in turn creates jobs. A job means nothing unless it contributes to the creation of wealth. Otherwise, it’s nothing more than redistribution of income. And 99.999% of the population does not understand that, and that includes our esteemed leaders.

One of my favorite quotes:

“The problem in Washington is not so much that no one understands Econ101. It’s that everyone is totally clueless in Intro to Econ101.”

Reply to this specific comment

sa_rose March 1, 2012 at 1:13 am

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

I think our leaders understand it just fine. They just don’t care. And the general populace is stupid and ignorant both, so THEY don’t get it and keep approving the same behaviours from both parties. Will it ever stop? Not likely/

Reply to this specific comment

jukin February 29, 2012 at 10:04 am

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0

1+1=POTATO, now in red again.

According to Nanzi Pelousi and the demokrat party, for every 1 dollar of unemployment payments creates 2.35 dollars in economic activity. This means that the government could hand out $1 and then tax the $2.35 at $1.50 producing a 50% increase on their investment and still put $.85 into the economy.

Reply to this specific comment

andre February 29, 2012 at 10:20 am

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0

“Nanzi Pelousi and the demokrat party”

I am so totally stealing that.

Reply to this specific comment

flashingscotsman February 29, 2012 at 8:09 pm

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

Wait. Using that math, couldn’t Nazi Pelosi pump a billion dollars into the economy, tax the $2.35 billion in economic activity at $1.5 billion,………..

How about if we replaced billion with trillion, wouldn’t that just bounce us right out of the recession? I’m a freakin’ genius! I just solved the problem, and I never even took an economics class!

Reply to this specific comment

jukin March 1, 2012 at 8:05 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

Now you are getting it. Give out a quadrillion and….

Reply to this specific comment

flashingscotsman March 1, 2012 at 11:13 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

And throw in a couple of Brazilians for extra spice.

Reply to this specific comment

MGAP February 29, 2012 at 10:42 am

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

Ahhh, new catch phrase at the end of the clip ya’ll ; “lean forward.” Watch for it to pop up everywhere to replace our old favorites: hope and change, left wing, socialism, nazism and of course Obamunism.

Reply to this specific comment

flashingscotsman February 29, 2012 at 8:10 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

Does that mean they land on their face when they fall?

Reply to this specific comment

FormerlyDeanH February 29, 2012 at 10:47 am

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

Izzat laddee maconno in the pic? I hate that fakker so much I cannot start even a 15 second video if he’s in it. If its someone else, I pity him for looking like one of the most arrogant tools ever put to use by the commies.

Reply to this specific comment

sa_rose March 1, 2012 at 1:15 am

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

Formerly Dean: I can’t stand it any more. What IS your new avatar?

Reply to this specific comment

drb March 1, 2012 at 5:27 am

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

Looks like ice cream with chocolate sauce…kinda creepy though…Dean can you go back to the fully expanded bullet/brass flower??

Reply to this specific comment

FormerlyDeanH March 1, 2012 at 5:42 am

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

Go back to one old hat picture already used here? I could, but I am always looking for new material. My criteria usually involves being readily identifiable blot color so I can see it while scrolling at high speed thru the pages. This one works pretty good. The saw blade slug worked okay. Imna look for something else.

Reply to this specific comment

FormerlyDeanH March 1, 2012 at 5:38 am

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

It is an artsy barista’s job on a mocha latte. Here, have a look at the poster I nikked it from – http://demotivationalpost.com/805/coffee

Reply to this specific comment

Babydoll102187 March 1, 2012 at 9:06 am

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

I think it makes me crave a cappuccino. Very pretty tho. :)

Reply to this specific comment

FormerlyDeanH March 1, 2012 at 9:16 am

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

I hadn’t given thought to digging out my old espresso boiler for a few years now, but with travel costs to the nearest shop that has one being more than a big cup would be, I’m gonna go head on and pull it out. I do know right where it is and it doesn’t need but a few minutes clean up to use. Counter space will be the hardest part to ready! Yep, espresso and foamed milk, maybe even chocolate syrup! Sweet calorie overload, here I come!

Reply to this specific comment

Babydoll102187 March 1, 2012 at 9:18 am

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

Be sure to have one for me! Enjoy :)

Reply to this specific comment

sa_rose March 1, 2012 at 11:25 am

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

Oh, ok. Kinda creepy though!

Reply to this specific comment

Jim Stewart February 29, 2012 at 11:34 am

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

Geezus, that promo illustrates why O’Donnell is perfectly qualified to “work” at MSNBC.

Reply to this specific comment

Joe February 29, 2012 at 11:36 am

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

Wait, isn’t Ron Paul the only one of them with a government job currently. Also, is he saying the creation of more politicians is the answer to all our problems?

Reply to this specific comment

andre February 29, 2012 at 11:46 am

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

There was an interesting paradox pointed out by Jonah Goldberg, I think – that if elected, the only way Ron Paul could enact any part of his agenda is to do it by executive fiat of one sort or another. In other words, do it by circumventing the constitution.

Reply to this specific comment

Joe February 29, 2012 at 5:20 pm

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

None of us are for circumventing the Constitution, that’s for sure, unfortunately I honestly don’t see the Constitution applying to our country anymore. It’s routine to circumvent it in the name of ideology, and both sides are responsible.

I like Jonah Goldberg (Liberal Fascism is one of my go-to books that is sitting across the room from me on my bookshelf as I write this). The thing you need to realize about what Ron Paul talks about is, when people finally get serious about restoring freedom, it will be when the Constitution is completely thrown out the window and replaced with things like “the right to free contraception” instead of the right to freedom of religion.

If I were a bettin’ man (and I am as it turns out) Ron Paul won’t be elected POTUS. What us Paul supporters are trying to do is save the damned Republican party (and country) by getting a Constitutional message in the ears of your establishment at the convention, and every other chance we get.

The reason Paul’s ideas would have to circumvent the Constitution is because the Constitution has not seriously applied to the American people in a long time.

Reply to this specific comment

hisham February 29, 2012 at 6:38 pm

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

I gave you a thumbs up because you’re thinking outside the box, but anytime we start thinking The Constitution of The United States is just some old musty piece of paper and no longer relevant, we’re in deep doo-doo!

Reply to this specific comment

sa_rose March 1, 2012 at 1:22 am

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

I son’t think he was saying that. I think he was pointing out that so many in Government think it is outdate and “just some old musty piece of paper. . . no longer relevant,” yhat it has sort of tracked that way. The Supreme Court “interprets” the Constitution, and crosses into lawmaking, clearly the realm of Congress. The President isn’t happy with Congress so he issues an Executive order to do what ever he wants. The Congress works to line its Members’ pockets and cares little if at all about the people who put them in offce. There are so many layers of beuracracy in the Government, that no one is answerable to the people anymore.

Reply to this specific comment

Alien February 29, 2012 at 1:08 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

the phrase “government doesn’t create jobs” is a tricky one..

Government hires people, so you have to explain that. It takes some time and knowledge to do so credibly, I expect

Government doesn’t create wealth. I think this is more palatable to a far greater number of people. Government must divert wealth creation in order to fund its various agencies. Smart government may help facilitate the creation of wealth, by securing platforms (first a nation’s territories, later other sorts of platforms: A King’s Market, an Interstate or an Autobahn). Bad government may waste diverted wealth through blind largesse, anti-competitive cronyism or corruption, etc..

Reply to this specific comment

andre February 29, 2012 at 2:18 pm

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

When it comes to economics, gov’t really does one thing. Sure you can split hairs and call each nuance something different. But when you boil it down, the only thing gov’t does is use force (or the threat thereof, which is really the same thing), to take money from one person and give it to another.

Corporations are abstract entities. Corporations having money is an abstract concept. People have money. The entity we call corporations are just roundabout legal concepts that give the apparency of separation (which laws in themselves are a money transfer, from producers to accountants and lawyers).

So even when the gov’t is “just promoting” the interests of one business or another, or one group vs another, what they are really doing is preventing some people from making money in favor of someone else. The bottom line is always the same – they took money from some people, and gave it to others.

Every single meddling that the gov’t does in the economy really amounts to that.

Another example – the idea of “saving jobs”. Why do jobs need to be saved? Because the market (another abstract concept – the market is people), has decided that one thing or method of making something is more desirable than another. Someone invented a better product, or better way of making a product. This necessarily means that the old guys’ jobs are in danger. So the gov’t steps in and “saves jobs”. And we all consider that a good thing.

What about those new jobs that were not created? Is that good? So what did the gov’t really do? Besides preventing progress, they forcibly took money from someone (the new people who would have made money) and forcibly transferred it to the someone else (the old people with enough political influence).

So in reality, the best thing the gov’t can do for the economy is nothing. From there, it’s only downhill. When gov’t policy is “successful” it is because the gov’t meddled less, or someone created wealth over which the gov’t did not yet have control (e.g., the internet).

Reply to this specific comment

Sidekick February 29, 2012 at 5:05 pm

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

Hazlitt would give you wild applause. You are right of course. Government creates shortages (higher costs) in every market in which they meddle because they pick winners and losers at the expense of the free market. They also violate Hazlitt’s concept of the “unseen” which goes directly to your point about new jobs not being created because others were “saved”.

Reply to this specific comment

andre February 29, 2012 at 5:23 pm

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

Not familiar with Hazlitt’s work directly, but I’m sure that both Sowell and Williams are. And I’ve read quite a bit of both.

This statement

“Hazlitt would give you wild applause.”

can be construed as a sad commentary on people. A guy does some observation of reality and puts it down on paper for others to read. Later, when someone indicates that they understand what was written, we’re popping the champagne. So understanding is that rare? Wow. It sure is.

People don’t seem to grasp the concept of cause and effect being a chain. They think that they can look at a problem, propose a bill, pass a law, and presto! Problem solved.

They never consider that what they do will have its own effects, which in turn will serve as cause for yet more effects, and that’s even without more gov’t meddling along the way.

Sure we can make cars safer (“if it can save one life …” usually ending with some form of costs be damned). We can make cars as safe as what’s on the NASCAR track. Of course half the people will not be able to afford one at all. And most of those will be poor people, who will then be standing around at bus stops and walking to and from them in high crime neighborhoods, where undoubtedly some will be victims of crimes …

oh you know the drill. I don’t have to tell you.

But things that don’t happen in the future can not be quantified. I think the only people who ever understood that on a gov’t level were the Israelis, at least in terms of handling hostage situations.

Reply to this specific comment

Sidekick February 29, 2012 at 5:32 pm

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

“Hazlitt would give you wild applause.”

can be construed as a sad commentary on people. A guy does some observation of reality and puts it down on paper for others to read. Later, when someone indicates that they understand what was written, we’re popping the champagne. So understanding is that rare? Wow. It sure is.

It certainly is a sad commentary. Hazlitt wrote “Economics in One Lesson” many years ago and his ideas have been advanced by people like Sowell. Friedman was a contemporary. The problem is that these economists and their theories do not get the attention that they deserve. I took a lot of economics classes in college and I have a MBA yet I barely was aware of the Austrian School until recently when I began reading Von Mises, Hayek, and Hazlitt. I think you would appreciate their work. I also recommend Mamet’s “A Secret Knowledge” an excellent primer on this and other conservative thought.

Reply to this specific comment

andre February 29, 2012 at 5:59 pm

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

“…these economists and their theories do not get the attention that they deserve.”

Of course not. It gets in the way of redistribution of wealth. It’s tough to embrace a school of thought that says gov’t screws everything up (yes, an oversimplification, I know), when your goal in life is to screw everything up.

So you have an MBA AND studied Russian stuff too (exactly what I don’t now recall)?

Impressive.

My favorite book to recommend to people who do not generally read a lot of political/economic stuff – “Parliament of Whores” by P.J. O’Rourke. Funny as all hell, and really cuts right to the chase. That one book can give a person more understanding of the workings of gov’t than 12 years of public school ever will.

Reply to this specific comment

Sidekick February 29, 2012 at 6:10 pm

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

“So you have an MBA AND studied Russian stuff too (exactly what I don’t now recall”

My background is pretty varied. My undergraduate degree is in Russian/Soviet Studies. While that was fun and interesting it also led to limited job prospects. This was in 1984. I decided to apply to army OCS and was fortunate enough to be accepted and did a four-year stint as an infantry officer. I got
out in late 1988 and went into business and ultimately returned to school and got the MBA. Wouldn’t trade any of it.

Reply to this specific comment

sa_rose March 1, 2012 at 1:24 am

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

But you know NOTHING about economics because you don’t agree with Obama. Or so Olivia thinks.

Reply to this specific comment

andre March 4, 2012 at 5:20 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

Sidekick (and sa rose)

The “went into business” might make you more qualified to comment on economics than even the MBA (not to imply the MBA is on the level of a master’s in Mayan Art)

And I’m not like many of my classmates in NCE (now NJIT), who basically considered that studying ANYTHING that is not immediately applicable in the real world in a real career to be a waste of time. You like ancient Egyptian literature, hey, knock yourself out.

In the cold war days, it would sure seem like a good idea to study Russian/USSR stuff. But it would also seem to me that unless you also learned some Russian language, your prospects might be limited. Although both of my parents grew up speaking Ukranian (though my father was born and raised in Russia), they taught my bro and me Russian. Ukranian just didn’t seem like it would ever be of much use in the big picture.

Reply to this specific comment

Sidekick March 4, 2012 at 5:30 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

My original career goal was to join the foreign service – I wanted to be a Kremlinologist/cold warrior. I missed the exam by four points at age 22. It was then that I applied to OCS. I hoped to go into military intelligence but wound up in the infantry. Later, as I was getting close to my end date, the CIA and FBI both recruited me and many others who were also leaving active duty. I declined to pursue either ones because I was offered a job with GM. That career choice marked the end of my involvement with the Cold War or anything else related to Russia. Still, the country fascinates me.

Reply to this specific comment

Sidekick March 4, 2012 at 5:33 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

I should add (to your point, Andre) that I took three years of Russian language and studied at Leningrad State University in 1983 so I did have a good language background. Today, though, I remember very little of it.

Alien March 4, 2012 at 10:44 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

I took one semester of Russian in college. I loved it. Our teacher was gorgeous being words. Cyrillic looks amazing when you can write it out, and I was proud I could learn it. I had a cat named Koshka because of this, and I loved saying the word for Sunday to people because it was such a beautiful sounding thing (meaning Resurrection). It was useful, for a year, to drop phrases and impress the girls

I don’t remember a damn thing about it now. My old homework looks like the work of a possessed alien hand

andre March 4, 2012 at 12:52 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Sidekick -

yes you have to use it – or lose it. A couple I am acquainted with lived in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn. He’s from Trinidad (back) and she’s Jewish with a Russian background from 100 years ago (left b/c of 1905 revolution attempt). They had a kid, who being of mixed race, basically could pass for Puerto Rican. And because of the masses of Russian kids in the neighborhood and the Russian babysitters, he spoke fluent Russian (as fluent as you’d expect from a 6 year old). 2 years after they moved to NJ, he didn’t remember a single word.

When Tower Records still existed, a guy worked in their classical store in Paramus, NJ. He studied Russian decades earlier, and all he knew how to say was

Ya vsyo zabill (Literally, “I everything forgot” – yes, that’s the correct way to say it).

Sidekick March 4, 2012 at 12:57 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Da, ya ponimaio. I clearly remember the word order differences. I recall that asking someone how old they are is literally asking him how many years he has.

andre March 4, 2012 at 12:59 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Alien -

And if you recall, “koshka” is specifically a female cat. The male is a “kot” (kawt, like a New Yorker says “cawffee”). So if you see a cat, it’s incumbent on you to know whether it’s a female or a male.

With cats, you could at least guess by the size. Try that with “voron” or “vorona” (male & female crow, respectively). At least a whale is a “keet” and a shark is an “akula” either way, b/c I sure as heck don’t want to be swimming around checking.

Sunday = Voskresenye, yes, literally meaning “resurrection”. Must have really irritated the Soviets.

andre March 4, 2012 at 1:02 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Sidekick -

that’s right. And the common expression was to say what year you are now living. So when you turn 30, it was normal to say

Q “how many years?”

A “thirty-first”

And time is another one. Growing up, it was never “it’s six-forty”. It would be “forty minutes of the seventh”.

Alien March 1, 2012 at 11:22 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

I like to boil things down too. Reductionism is a fine tool for identifying component-interactions of complex systems, but cannot be the only lens through which we study phenomena. I’d love if we could smash economies into one another in some great cyclotron, just to see what falls out (Good news everyone! Next week, we deliver high-velocity payload of 18th Century Prussian Conscriptionism into a swiftly decaying stationary globule of 1970s Soviet Gigantism. Prepare your detectors!)

I also like to split hairs though, and pay heed to the devilish details that emerge out of baser components.

You’ve identified the core government interaction in economics as that of taking money from one person and giving to another. Not only is it core, its the Singular Activity. I can imagine lots of scenarios

Under Threat of Force:
- A Robber Baron sends out vassal knights to support his tax collectors. They are kicking down peasant’s doors and passing chickens to their lord’s porters
- Legions exact tribute from Provinces, which slowly feed the maw of the Imperial City
- A Central Government extracts tax monies from a million citizens, in order to quell an indolent minority, which claims it cannot find reliable work.
- A Central Government extracts tax monies from two million citizens, supporting the conscription, training and readiness of a large standing army.
- A Town places levy against rum sales, and diverts a significant fraction of resultant revenue to construction of a small library near the town school (ironically, books therein help fuel a prohibition movement decades later)

Reducing each case here can be useful for some analyses, but you lose information. Like lossy compression, its a shorthand from which you cannot again derive the more detailed image. Person A takes money from Person B and gives it to Person C. Is Person A a thief, or a Robin Hood (yes a different sort of thief), or a cleric passing the collection bowl around the flock? Its easy to imagine a re-cast of the model as Government Is Thief getting set in stone in many minds.

I also understand that the Austrian School has determined that modeling economies is generally fruitless. I fall somewhere in the middle (as usual). Modeling is just another tool. Reductionism is but one tool for generating models. The Austrian School deduces that governments should never interfere in economies, because it cannot sufficiently model their complexity. I can dig that to a point. But they are then left with unblemished faith in superiority of another approach: Laissez-Faire, which incorporates its own models (there’s even an Invisible Hand!) And what Great Powers, nowadays, actually unleash the Laissez-Faire?

China’s state capitalism can hardly be called Laissez-Faire. Its true that its regulatory regime offers some relative freedoms compared to Western states, however its also plain to see that they’ve purposed the national economy for increasing power of the sovereign state. Doing so, they enjoy nearly untrammeled growth. And they don’t seek to increase state power in order to better subjugate their peoples: Chairman Mao had this well in hand while they remained essentially backward. Instead, China does it in order to exert more power over US.
In this vein, I am a nationalist. I am leery of relying completely on free market dynamics to increase our power. If we want to drill and frack for more of our own oil, for example, we should consider intervening against market forces that export it all to other nations. Did any of the Keystone Pipeline proposals involve tapping a chunk of it to set aside in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? I’m trying to find examples but am only seeing some Republican effort to restrict Obama Administration’s ability to tap it, unless he’d approved the Pipeline in the first place.

This entry is getting out-of-hand.. I wanted to discuss state monopoly on Force a bit but totally missed.. My boss demands code

Reply to this specific comment

andre March 2, 2012 at 12:20 pm

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

Allien -

Not a whole lot of time right now – can’t read all of that.

But one thing -

“reductionism” is a most valuable tool to determine if there is any point in looking at the intricacies of something.

If I believe that the federal gov’t has no constitutional authority to run any aspect of education, it would be a waste of time for me to engage in discussion of the details of the Dept of Education’s spending. If I believe in free trade, then there is no point in arguing what the percentage of any tariff should be.

Reply to this specific comment

Alien March 2, 2012 at 1:10 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

quite all right sir.. yesterday I utterly lacked the soul of wit that is brevity

if you mean to restrict scope of “gov’t” to U.S. federal, then that alters my understanding of what you boiled us down to initially (sole action of gov’t is to “take money from one person and give it to another”)

Beyond that, we have little say in Constitutionality, save for that of input by Presidents we elect and their judicial appointments, and the grueling Ammendment process

Reply to this specific comment

andre March 3, 2012 at 3:19 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

Alien -

I read it. We drove all around town. In a really nice car. Enjoyed the sights. But I’m still not totally certain where we were going.

Not to say I didn’t appreciate the eloquence. But gawd, man, make the point eventually. And also not to say I didn’t get a hint of where you’re going.

Take this test

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi

Let me know what you scored. There is no right answer. I’m not out to “prove” anything, nor holding it against you. I’m just curious where you stand.

Reply to this specific comment

Alien March 3, 2012 at 3:36 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

LOL you don’t have to read my stuff.. If its too long, there’s always “tl;dr”. The thread itself was fairly verbose and interesting

Its kind of amusing that you respond to me with a 64 question test though. Homework??!

In all seriousness though, i’ve taken this test before. I’ve mentioned this elsewhere. It is precisely the vehicle through which i realized i wasn’t as Libertarian as I thought. For me the big WHOAH moments were privatization of law, disbanding of military, etc.. I believe it approaches Anarchy, which cannot ever last

I am Unpure, sir

Reply to this specific comment

andre March 4, 2012 at 5:08 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

Alien -

It is what it is (the score). I score in the 100′s (100-110).

The interesting thing in this Q-aire is that some of the questions do not make the distinction between how things ought to be vs what things can realistically be done now, in the world we have. So I have some difficulties answering some of those Q’s. Should all schools and roads be privatized? Ideally, yes. Can it realistically be done in this world today? No way.

So just like the libs, who see some idealistic utopian world and strive for it, human nature be damned, many of the extreme libertarians tend to do the same thing. Given the nature of the human race and the responsibility level of most people, it’s tough to imagine the law and enforcement thereof be completely shifted out of the gov’t’s hands.

It’s pretty much the same thing with the economy. Complete and total laissez faire? Probably not. But a lot less regualtion than we have now? Most definitely. A good part of our differences lie in viewpoint. I tend to idealize in the libertarian direction, and you focus on the realities with a “let’s make it work here and now” viewpoint, at least as I see it. But it’s not that I don’t understand where you’re coming from. It’s always my argument with my staunch Tea Party friends – sure the republicans are big gov’t people (esp the RINOs in NJ). But today, it’s the best choice we have. So this “principled libertarian” hasn’t voted for a libertarian since about 1984 (for potus/US senate – there has been a smattering of local candidates, a luxury I can afford in a very republican county).

Another thing about schools and roads that uber-libertarians overlook is the 10th amendment. Yes, the feds are doing all sorts of things that gov’t should not do. But that does not mean that local and state gov’t can’t do it. If the people decide that is how they want the things done, then that should be it. On the other hand, the basic libertarian principle is the non-initiation of force doctrine. So if the people in my town want to have a (local) gov’t school system, nothing in the constitution prohibits that. But then I am forced to pay for it despite having no children. That’s one of those things I have not yet worked out in my own head.

Reply to this specific comment

Alien March 4, 2012 at 10:36 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

I agree, its a fascinating aspect of resolving these questions: are we motivated to answer them according to ideology or realism?

I might glibly and triumphantly pronounce I seek a purely realistic outcome, like nearly every liberal does (“reality-based” outlooks being core to their creed, as they snarkily remind everyone)

I believe I find an ideological core, however, if I delve into individual questions. Take public roads, for instance. I quickly decided we can’t privatize roads, because we will necessarily end up with roads that certain people cannot afford to travel on. THIS CANNOT BE!!!!1 :) Peasants used to be bound to their regions, in some cases, because they couldn’t afford tolls. I remember reading of a system of toll gates being used in Jamaica to try and bottle up ex-slaves into sugar producing parts of the island (it didn’t really work in the long run)

So I decide it won’t work–road privatization–because some people will be restricted. But obviously it can work, I just don’t agree with the ideological outcome. I believe that people ought to have unrestricted access to roads and all they afford us.

So if someone tells us they are engaged in realism, its often because their idealistic goals have been generally implemented. I’ll admit that

Reply to this specific comment

Sidekick March 4, 2012 at 12:59 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

I’m good with public roads. They are actually constitutional.

Reply to this specific comment

andre March 4, 2012 at 1:09 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

Sidekick -

As a land surveyor, I know that at least in the colonial states (the 13 + the divisions thereof (WV, VT, ME), and KY & TN) a landowner is presumed to own to the centerline of a local or county road unless it is expressly excluded. A state has fee simple ownership of their right of way.

So imagine what kind of pain in the ass it would be to have to get together with all the other landowners to repave the road. Or should we all do it on our particular piece whenever each landowner damn well pleases?

Even I draw the line with that kind of libertarianism.

Reply to this specific comment

Sidekick March 3, 2012 at 3:40 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

FWIW, I scored a 65

Reply to this specific comment

Alien March 3, 2012 at 3:42 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

This is what i got last time too

16-30 points: You are a soft-core libertarian. With effort, you may harden and become pure

Reply to this specific comment

john March 3, 2012 at 4:01 pm

Controversial. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5

54

Reply to this specific comment

Notsosilent March 3, 2012 at 7:11 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

Your I.Q. John?

Reply to this specific comment

FormerlyDeanH March 3, 2012 at 7:35 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

44. I find there were a dozen or more questions that were too cut and dried, encompassing more individually determinant factors to be yes or no.

Reply to this specific comment

andre March 4, 2012 at 5:26 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

Absolutely. I found myself thinking back at the test Q, esp in the latter parts – “do you mean ideally, or right now, in this world today?” But there is no option for that.

Reply to this specific comment

flashingscotsman March 4, 2012 at 11:12 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

Precisely why I only scored an 87, Andre and Dean.

Reply to this specific comment

drb March 4, 2012 at 11:20 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

I took it to mean “ideally”…70

Reply to this specific comment

Progressive Hemrrhoid February 29, 2012 at 1:36 pm

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

Spreading the propaganda a little thick with this video, these jobs that they are supposedly creating produce nothing in a way of a product. Without a product, then their is no profit, without profit then this is no income. And finally without income, then where does the employer come up with money to pay the employee?
Oh I know, we’ll just print more out of thin air…….

Reply to this specific comment

hisham February 29, 2012 at 2:37 pm

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

Ohhhhhhhh, listening to this guy makes my head hurt!!!!! :-(

Reply to this specific comment

Pittsburgh Z February 29, 2012 at 7:30 pm

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

So that was real?

Reply to this specific comment

flashingscotsman February 29, 2012 at 8:23 pm

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

After reading all the comments, I forced myself to watch the video. I can’t believe he said that. Who ties his shoes for him in the morning?

Reply to this specific comment

sa_rose March 1, 2012 at 1:25 am

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

He wears slip ons.

Reply to this specific comment

flashingscotsman March 1, 2012 at 11:18 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

And under his breath, if you listen very carefully, you can hear him repeating over and over, so he doesn’t forget, “breathe in,….breathe out.”

Reply to this specific comment

Alien March 1, 2012 at 11:30 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

What is it, exactly, that you think he’s missing? He’s obviously not so bone-headed that he can’t tie his shoes.

If he qualified it by saying “Government creates jobs from diverted wealth”, would that satisfy? I believe he’d agree with that statement.

In debate, you often have to argue positions with which you don’t agree. Its all about the skills. How would you argue his position (this would, i think, help to reveal the core flaws of his thinking)

Reply to this specific comment

flashingscotsman March 1, 2012 at 11:19 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

No, I wouldn’t be satisfied unless he made it clear enough that even liberals could understand. “Government takes money from the pockets of hard working individuals, at gunpoint, and squanders it on useless turds that don’t produce anything of value.” Yeah, I kind of like the ring of that. Of course, there’s still people who would vote for it.

Yes, in debate class, and in competition, you often have to argue positions you don’t agree with. I can do that to an extent. But I’m not in a debate class or a competition. So I only say what I believe.

Reply to this specific comment

Alien March 2, 2012 at 1:35 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

I agree that couch-locked recipients of welfare who do little but abuse the largesse of gov’t are useless. But I’ll set them aside since we’re talking about jobs.

For certain there is some number of bureaucrats in all magnitudes of government that are long past usefulness. They operate in systems that mainly exist to perpetuate themselves. It takes extreme vigilance to identify them and a fierce will to root them out.

Otherwise, a host of useful jobs arise out of government (yes, necessarily funded by diverted wealth). Cops, teachers, certain civil engineers, etc all contribute to public good.

Elsewhere you suggested we need regulation to compel shale drillers to identify the potentially dangerous compounds they use in fracking. Someone has to create the jobs necessary to enforce this.

I guarantee you, a lot of people don’t understand the line that “Government doesn’t create jobs”, and its not because they are idiots. Its because it is an ambiguous and over-generalized statement. It will not win elections or policy debates.

Myself, i understand where the statement comes from, and that’s mainly because i’ve been hanging around this site for 14-15 months. And i’m not saying you have to take the con position as in formal debate, i’m just noting the utility of it. Similarly, in War, we’ve long been told to Know Thy Enemy. Understanding why an otherwise non-idiot seems to hold such a divergent understanding can be powerful

Reply to this specific comment

Sidekick March 2, 2012 at 1:55 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

“Otherwise, a host of useful jobs arise out of government (yes, necessarily funded by diverted wealth). Cops, teachers, certain civil engineers, etc all contribute to public good.”

At the risk of playing devil’s advocate, with the possible exception of the police, the jobs you mentioned plus dozens jf not hundreds of others could be easily non governmental functions and in the case of educators should be, IMO. Government, at all levels, pushes aside the private sector with its legalized monopoly power. Let the market do its thing and education will improve and be cheaper. It is an idea out of Friedman’s book but I believe he is correct.

Reply to this specific comment

Alien March 3, 2012 at 5:37 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

Tis fine, advocate away

Policing is a great example. For a long time I wasn’t aware just how recent an institution municipal policing is, how corrupt and hopeless it looked through much of the 19th century, and how vociferous opposition to its very existence was, on the grounds of government’s role in daily matters. Yet here we have it. American culture is so remarkable that we enjoy a general lack of corruption in all our institutions, when compared to other nations (think of how little we hear the word ‘graft’ anymore)

As for teachers, and public education at large, I’m extremely leery of complete reliance on private market. I anticipate our literacy rate plummeting within a generation. We are not the highest rated on the planet, but still up around 98-99%, right?

The thing about public education is that its not only a matter of guaranteeing supply, its also creating demand. If we didn’t insist that every child is educated, some destructive number of parents would not even bother. If we turned over the whole enterprise to the market, would we still have an Individual Mandate enforced by government?

Reply to this specific comment

Sidekick March 3, 2012 at 7:05 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

Requiring kids to be educated is not the same as government (especially the federal government) bureaucrats and public sector unions institutionalizing kids for 12 to 16 years. We are just conditioned to government doing these kinds of things….policing being another example.

Reply to this specific comment

Alien March 4, 2012 at 11:06 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

Right, that’s why i asked about individual mandate. If we remove the “artificial” supply provided by Public Education, do we still “require kids to be educated”? Do we still mandate demand for the product? Given that some people will not be able to afford it, what do we do?

Reply to this specific comment

Sidekick March 4, 2012 at 12:35 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I was referring to the federal government not local government. Hypothetically, If the town of, say, Avon, CT. wants to create a local school system and the neighboring town of Canton also wants to do the same, then they should be able to do so independent of each other.

I personally do not believe that the federal government has the authority anywhere to require a citizen to purchase any commercial product nor does it have the authority to compel school attendance. Both are 10th Amendment questions, IMO.

Reply to this specific comment

Alien March 6, 2012 at 10:20 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

This has nagged me a bit so I read a little because i was fuzzy

I guess the Federal Government doesn’t actually compel school attendance. As ed.gov says, there’s a compelling national interest in sustaining an educated populace (I’d agree on principle). But they operate through state/local institutions.

In essence, the Federal Government showers cash over state/local, and with conditions attached (NCLB beefed up testing reqs, etc..)

So i wonder:
1) is that constitutional (insofar as we have any actual say in it)?
2) is this actually de facto compulsion (dangling carrot of Federal monies)?

On the other question–requiring citizen to purchase commercial product–yeah I agree totally sketchy, Constitutionally

Leave a Comment

No registration is required to comment. However, Registering and/or Logging In before posting comments saves you time in future comments posting.

CAPTCHA Image
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.