Some election observations (long winded)

Government is like a high friction driveline... everything that flows through it has substantial frictional losses.

So for every Government job that's created, it's likely that it takes the resources that would provide 1.5 jobs in the private sector.

Whenever I tell a teacher that I think the Dept of Education should be eliminated, they immediately accuse me of being anti-education because they get soem funding from DoE. But when I propose taking the DoE budget and distributing it directly to the schools instead (massively increasing the pittance they get after paying for the bureacracy), suddenly they tend to think it's a pretty darn good idea...

wcelliot wrote: Every expansion of government reduces individual liberty.

I just cannot get past this statement. This is your belief, but most certainly not mine.

How did the Eisenhower highway system reduce individual liberty?

wcelliot wrote: But when I propose taking the DoE budget and distributing it directly to the schools instead (massively increasing the pittance they get after paying for the bureacracy), suddenly they tend to think it's a pretty darn good idea...

I want to believe this could work. I really do. However, you have much more faith in human nature than I do.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Government, as a machine, and regardless of who's in power, has a predisposition to acquire more power for itself. This is so that it may more efficiently exert influence as a government.

Such that, a government levies a tax law to fund itself. But it can't collect that tax unless it increases its power to the point that it can compel such collection by some means, the most obvious being by physical force. So the government expands its powers to include provisions for having agents allowed to use physical force to exert government's tax influence more efficiently.

This is true of all government. This happens without prejudice by itself, but the participants in government give it prejudices. Just the same as capitalism, where a company's job is to make money above all else and regardless of any prejudice.

The founding fathers recognised this in their view of political science and the Bill of Rights is supposed to be limits placed on the directions the federal government is allowed to acquire more power for itself.

ignorant wrote:

wcelliot wrote: Every expansion of government reduces individual liberty.

I just cannot get past this statement. This is your belief, but most certainly not mine. How did the Eisenhower highway system reduce individual liberty?

what about all the govt. designed highways that cut through cities in the middle of the last century creating instant ghettoes?

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: I think the Tea Party was a Carl Rove invention...

Then you haven't been paying attention.

It started as a nonpartisan grassroots movement.

It was co-opted by a bunch of republicans.

Rove wasn't one of them.

ignorant wrote:

MrJoshua wrote:

ignorant wrote:

madmallard wrote: 2: I already made my point on facts in an attempt to persuade you, which I failed to do because your perspective doesn't seem to be congruous with ideas on how individual wealth in a free economy works and moves thru a cycle. To go any further would require a ridiculous volume of explanation for a car forum to analyse why this isn't a "new" job.

Never said anything about new.. You said government cannot create jobs. This is incorrect. The government can easily create jobs by hiring someone for a position that has never been in existence before. Simple as that. Please be more careful with your language.

Orrrrrrr-you could just argue the point instead of trying to win arguments by picking on grammar errors.

winning is winning

Been changing diapers lately, Ig? You should wash your hands before typing; that crap shows up everywhere.

DILYSI Dave wrote: It started as a nonpartisan grassroots movement.

Not so sure about that.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

I think the Kochs are pulling at least a few of the strings.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

wcelliot wrote: Every expansion of government reduces individual liberty. Every new tax, every new regulation, every new Government expenditure reduces individual liberties, property, etc.

Wait, I get your point, but i don't think this is true. The second amendment. The Thirteenth amendment. That's just off the top of my head. But many new "expansions of government" were enacted specifically to expand liberty.

It's unarguably true. It's a simple rule of politics. Any expansion of government necessarily reduces individual liberties.

Even the example of the highway system took private property (taxes) from individuals and turned them into a benefit for society as a whole. That's reducing the individual freedoms of the individuals that the property was taken from. I happen to think that it was a reasonable trade-off and resulted in a net gain to society overall, but then that's the excuse that collectivists make for ALL expansions of Government.

The second and thirteen amendments did not expand Government; they both did the inverse... they limited Government expansion in those areas. (Slavery was a private institution, but was done only by Government willingly allowing the infringement of slaves' natural rights and by using the force of Government to enforce their enslavment. The 13th Amendment no longer allowed the government to do either. Without the active involvement of Govenrment slavery could not have exisited as long as it did.)

Any actual "expansion of Government" that you think was done to "expand liberty" actually do so for one party at the expense of taking liberty from another party. You can even argue that the net result was a gain for society overall... but that still doesn't change the cost. In some cases that it an appropriate tradeoff, but it's always a trade-off.

If you think Government can expand in ANY area without doing so at the expense of individual liberties, you aren't looking at the situation carefully enough....

ignorant wrote:

wcelliot wrote: Every expansion of government reduces individual liberty.

I just cannot get past this statement. This is your belief, but most certainly not mine.

Then you are wrong. It's not an opinion.

ignorant wrote:

wcelliot wrote: Every expansion of government reduces individual liberty.

I just cannot get past this statement. This is your belief, but most certainly not mine. How did the Eisenhower highway system reduce individual liberty?

You have to stay on the paved parts

wcelliot wrote: Then you are wrong. It's not an opinion.

It most certainly is an opinion brought on by your specific belief system about how a government is run, the purpose of that government, and its outcome.

Seriously, how does a library system decrease my personal liberty? Please explain this to me.

Wally wrote:

ignorant wrote:

wcelliot wrote: Every expansion of government reduces individual liberty.

I just cannot get past this statement. This is your belief, but most certainly not mine. How did the Eisenhower highway system reduce individual liberty?

You have to stay on the paved parts

no you don't. http://www.transamtrail.com/

oldsaw wrote:

ignorant wrote:

MrJoshua wrote:

ignorant wrote:

madmallard wrote: 2: I already made my point on facts in an attempt to persuade you, which I failed to do because your perspective doesn't seem to be congruous with ideas on how individual wealth in a free economy works and moves thru a cycle. To go any further would require a ridiculous volume of explanation for a car forum to analyse why this isn't a "new" job.

Never said anything about new.. You said government cannot create jobs. This is incorrect. The government can easily create jobs by hiring someone for a position that has never been in existence before. Simple as that. Please be more careful with your language.

Orrrrrrr-you could just argue the point instead of trying to win arguments by picking on grammar errors.

winning is winning

Been changing diapers lately, Ig? You should wash your hands before typing; that crap shows up everywhere.

I'm practicing for my run for pres. Someone has to run against palin.

but to be fair to myself, the true definition of create implies that it is something new.. maybe you guys should have pushed me further.

ignorant wrote: I'm practicing for my run for pres. Someone has to run against palin. but to be fair to myself, the true definition of create implies that it is something new.. maybe you guys should have pushed me further.

There was speculation that Obama might face a primary challenge from somebody even more leftist than he is...

ignorant wrote: Seriously, how does a library system decrease my personal liberty? Please explain this to me.

I really don't want to get involved with this, but this one's too easy.

I have money to buy books. I buy what I want and read it. Liberty!

Government takes my money. They buy the library books that they deem proper for me to read. I no longer have the money to buy books. Decrease in liberty!

wcelliot wrote: Government is like a high friction driveline... everything that flows through it has substantial frictional losses. So for every Government job that's created, it's likely that it takes the resources that would provide 1.5 jobs in the private sector.

If you honestly really, really belive that- then you should stop living your life as one big hypocracy.

First and foremost- stop using the interenet, since it's clear government spending that has limited your freedom. How many jobs did the internet create??? Probably a min of 1000-1 vs. what the government spent to make it.

Second, you should stop using roads, since that's oppressive goverment that limits your mobility. How many billions in goods have been moved and how far can you live from your job?

Third- stop using electricity, since that was partially spawned by governemnt to reduce your qualty of life. I wont even go there....

And then, turn in your publicly funded education.

Finally, don't tell me that the founding fathers wanted unfettered capitolism- they didn't. Else the first control on business would not have been put into place- the US Patent Office. That limits my freedom to steal good ideas from you to make money- how is that not encroaching on my liberties... Oh- no it's a job creator, since it encourages people to be inventive, that their ideas will be protected and they can profit from those idea.

1988RedT2 wrote:

ignorant wrote: Seriously, how does a library system decrease my personal liberty? Please explain this to me.

I really don't want to get involved with this, but this one's too easy. I have money to buy books. I buy what I want and read it. Liberty! Government takes my money. They buy the library books that they deem proper for me to read. I no longer have the money to buy books. Decrease in liberty!

Or you can look at that as people who can't buy books can read them, thus leveling out liberty.

Unless you really enjoy the fact that corporations enjoy a much more powerful freedom of speech than you do.... If that's the case, then I have no argument with you....

alfadriver wrote: Or you can look at that as people who can't buy books can read them, thus leveling out liberty.

Yikes! So you're saying that the job of government is to redistribute wealth--taking from those who are productive and giving to those who can't/won't produce? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Now where have I heard that before?

The purpose and thinking behind the American library system from the man who began it...

"I propos'd to render the benefit from books more common, by commencing a public subscription library. I drew a sketch of the plan and rules that would be necessary, and got a skilful conveyancer, Mr. Charles Brockden, to put the whole in form of articles of agreement to be subscribed, by which each subscriber engag'd to pay a certain sum down for the first purchase of books, and an annual contribution for increasing them. So few were the readers at that time in Philadelphia, and the majority of us so poor, that I was not able, with great industry, to find more than fifty persons, mostly young tradesmen, willing to pay down for this purpose forty shillings each, and ten shillings per annum. On this little fund we began. The books were imported; the library was opened one day in the week for lending to the subscribers, on their promissory notes to pay double the value if not duly returned. The institution soon manifested its utility, was imitated by other towns, and in other provinces. The libraries were augmented by donations; reading became fashionable; and our people, having no publick amusements to divert their attention from study, became better acquainted with books, and in a few years were observ'd by strangers to be better instructed and more intelligent than people of the same rank generally are in other countries." -- Ben Franklin.

So the purpose is to get the widest number of books in front of the widest number of people because books -- unlike "publick amusements" -- tend to help turn dumbasses into people who actually contribute to a working democracy.

I thought you tea party types knew all about the founding fathers.

Tim Baxter wrote: So the purpose is to get the widest number of books in front of the widest number of people because books -- unlike "publick amusements" -- tend to help turn dumbasses into people who actually contribute to a working democracy. I thought you tea party types knew all about the founding fathers.

I rather thoroughly read the article you posted. Did you? I noticed the part where it says such things as "each subscriber" and "willing to pay". Clearly this was a voluntary arrangement, and not one forced down everyone's throat by big government.

I have nothing against the public library system. As government programs go, it's one of the most beneficial. But it is instructive to see that the original concept was supported by voluntary contributions from library users and not a mandatory tax on all people, users and non-users alike.

I don't particularly feel like joining the circle jerk today, but here's my election observation:

You knew you'd be voting, which means being (at least at my polling place) packed in a small room with a bunch of your neighbors. I know you don't have a job, because you've said as much to the fifteen people you've talked to on your cell phone in the last 30 minutes.

So, for christ's sake if not your own and everyone around you, WASH YOUR MOTHER berkeleying ASS, AND BRUSH YOUR MOTHER berkeleying TEETH.

Thanks.

ignorant wrote: I'm practicing for my run for pres. Someone has to run against palin.

Well, you've got sanctimonious, self-righteous and arrogant bits nailed.

But you should stick with the internet intellectual-superiority campaign strategy; Americans like their politicians to honestly display a bit of humility.

alfadriver wrote:

wcelliot wrote: Government is like a high friction driveline... everything that flows through it has substantial frictional losses. So for every Government job that's created, it's likely that it takes the resources that would provide 1.5 jobs in the private sector.

If you honestly really, really belive that- then you should stop living your life as one big hypocracy. First and foremost- stop using the interenet, since it's clear government spending that has limited your freedom. How many jobs did the internet create??? Probably a min of 1000-1 vs. what the government spent to make it. Second, you should stop using roads, since that's oppressive goverment that limits your mobility. How many billions in goods have been moved and how far can you live from your job? Third- stop using electricity, since that was partially spawned by governemnt to reduce your qualty of life. I wont even go there.... And then, turn in your publicly funded education. Finally, don't tell me that the founding fathers wanted unfettered capitolism- they didn't. Else the first control on business would not have been put into place- the US Patent Office. That limits my freedom to steal good ideas from you to make money- how is that not encroaching on my liberties... Oh- no it's a job creator, since it encourages people to be inventive, that their ideas will be protected and they can profit from those idea.

Again, always good to see how collectivists think... thank you for your candor.

The Patent Office was created to protect intellectual property ownership rights - which is a legitimate function of government. Protection of rights is in fact the MAIN legitimate function of government.