|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Are the republican neoconservatives really anarchists?
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
Serious question. Grover Norquist famously wants to starve the government until it's small enough to drown it in the bathtub. He's had plenty of people sign on to his pledge (although a few have renounced it lately). If you don't want a government, you're an anarchist, aren't you? Do the neoconservatives who support the Norquist Pledge really want anarchy? Or do they not understand the implications of not having a government? Or is there some other way to see this?
[ 27. September 2012, 17:42: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
Actually, I would characterize them more as neo-feudalists. In the same way that medieval barons wanted to reduce the power of the monarchy so that they could assert their local power, our conservative plutocrats want the government out of the way so they can dominate their serfs (workers and consumers) without interference. Their fiefdoms are not so geographically based, of course.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I saw an interview with Norquist. Will try to track it down later this week. He's one scary dude.
My understanding from the interview is that the people who signed the pledge didn't necessarily believe in it. Norquist has enough power to wreck their political careers--which he's promised to do to anyone who tries to back out. Seemed to me like an old-fashioned king maker. He's not going to hold office himself--but, by gum, he's going to control who *does*.
IMHO, not wanting government doesn't necessarily mean you want anarchy. You might just think that we could get on a lot better without it, and everyone could just quietly go about their lives. Then there are the black-hooded, self-proclaimed anarchists who infest peaceful rallies and turn them to destruction, with no other known purpose. Then you get folks like Norquist, who--I think--aren't so much against gov't as they are against a) a gov't that doesn't reflect their vision, and b) a gov't that they aren't personally controlling.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Unless at the same time they're planning to dismantle all the powers and dominions (including power of corporations, power from wealth etc), I don't think they can really be described as anarchists.
I agree with other posters that they're much more likely to be looking for a feudal system whereby the rich get to decide on what happens to everyone else without reference to a government. Which seems to happen in places where there is weak government - I'm thinking of India, where the levels of government are strong-on-paper but have little impact on most of their massive population.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
He's not going to hold office himself--but, by gum, he's going to control who *does*.
Which seems terribly ironic if your intention is to not have a government.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Since corporations do not exist in nature, they depend on government for their capacity to be.
Never heard of Grover Norquist, by the way. Who is he?
If one ever meets a real anarchist, by the way, their credo is very different, though equally implausible, and very left wing.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Never heard of Grover Norquist, by the way. Who is he?
Meet Grover Norquist.
Certainly, I recognize that he and the people who call themselves anarchists would not consider themselves kindred souls. But I was wondering if his positions were nevertheless positions that tend towards anarchy.
Feudalism does make more sense.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
Norquist's main heroine is Ayn Rand, who preached strict dog-eat-dog ethics.
Funnily enough, she suffered a debilitating illness and ended up with nobody... and guess what kept her alive?
Socialised medicine. The nearest thing the States have to the NHS...
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
[QB] Serious question. Grover Norquist famously wants to starve the government until it's small enough to drown it in the bathtub.
But does that mean he wants to drown it or just keep it at what he considers the proper size? I want my cat to stay small enough to drown in the bathtub. I don't want to drown my cat, though. It needs to be a healthy size so it can properly function and not a danger to my wife or me.
quote:
If you don't want a government, you're an anarchist, aren't you?
Sounds close enough for purposes of discussion.
quote:
Do the neoconservatives who support the Norquist Pledge really want anarchy?
It's either a no or those that do could hold a convention in a Waffle House booth.
quote:
Or is there some other way to see this?
It appears to me that Norquist is wanting to limit the federal government to funding that would allow it to do only those things specifically authorized by the constitution.
There are Christian libertarians and Christian anarchists, so I don't see the reason to get all worked up just over Norquist.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
They certainly aren't anarchists. Well noit any kind of anarchist I've ever come across. I know a lot of anarchists. Some of my best friends are anarchists. Their politics bears little resemblance to neoconservatives.
I think this is a better take on it:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
In the same way that medieval barons wanted to reduce the power of the monarchy so that they could assert their local power, our conservative plutocrats want the government out of the way so they can dominate their serfs (workers and consumers) without interference.
They aren't anarchists, they are one-dimensional authoritarians. They want money to rule, because they have the money. They don't want democracy, because they know that people without money can get to vote.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
IMHO, not wanting government doesn't necessarily mean you want anarchy. You might just think that we could get on a lot better without it, and everyone could just quietly go about their lives.
Which is exactly what most real anarchists think, except that they tend not to like the hijacking of the word "anarchy" to mean chaos and violence.
Most self-described anarchists are very left-wing. Some of them call themselves "libertarian socialists" or "libertarian communists". Sure, there are right-wing anarchists and libertarians, but most of these Randists and so-called "libertarians" aren't like that at all. They are authoritarians who want to reduce the State to nothing but its coercive function. Police, army, border guards, courts, jailers. All iron fist and no velvet glove. All big stick and no helping hand.
Genuine anarchists and libertarians, left and right, tend to want a society governed only by voluntary agreement (or at least fantasise about wanting it). No-one should be subject to any government to which they do not in some manner consent. These big-business fake libertarians and Randists want the opposite. They want the rest of us to have no escape from their rules and their laws, and no say in deciding what they should be.
To be fair, I know nothign at all about Grover Norquist. He's not on our political radar here. So for all I know he might be a genuine libertarian. Its just that pretty much everyone I do know anything about who called themselves "libertarian" and who also associated themselves with the Republicans in the USA or the Tories over here and their great-property-owning friends turns out to be an authoritarian in disguise. Like Ayn Rand.
[ 26. September 2012, 16:07: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Ken, I followed the link to Grover Norquist that Josephine kindly provided, and, if it's helpful, he's clearly a fruitcake.
It does look though that he's one whose taken far too seriously in his homeland.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
They are authoritarians who want to reduce the State to nothing but its coercive function. Police, army, border guards, courts, jailers. All iron fist and no velvet glove. All big stick and no helping hand.
With the exception that Enoch very wisely mentioned: the government must be generous, complaisant, and helpful (and not ask too many questions) when it comes to awarding and defending corporate charters.
I used to be an American-style libertarian. It might seem a small, niggling point, but we can't (1) award artificial advantages to certain participants in the market but not others; (2) maintain that we still have a "free market" or continue to laud it as an ideal. When one questions the self-consistency or honesty of holding both these values, American libertarianism comes apart at the seams. Or so it appears to me.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine: Or is there some other way to see this?
It appears to me that Norquist is wanting to limit the federal government to funding that would allow it to do only those things specifically authorized by the constitution.
Wait, you didn't get the memo where we all secretly agreed that we want lead in food?
Norquist is an anarchist in the same way that Obama is a socialist: he's not, but it makes for a good scare tactic to call him one. The no new taxes pledge isn't particularly responsible in my view. We really need to have a conversation about how much revenue we can realistically raise in this country, and how to spend that revenue. Maybe we could bring in more money than we currently do without harming productivity or stunting the already anemic recovery. But especially as baby boomers retire, the amount that we can raise is going to shrink, as demands on the funds we can raise will increase. So something has to be done to balance things out. It is disheartening to see people opposed to bringing in more revenue at any cost. It is also disheartening to see people accusing anyone who sees cuts in spending as necessary of wanting to end all government services.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Most self-described anarchists are very left-wing. Some of them call themselves "libertarian socialists" or "libertarian communists". Sure, there are right-wing anarchists and libertarians, but most of these Randists and so-called "libertarians" aren't like that at all. They are authoritarians who want to reduce the State to nothing but its coercive function.
I've never met a libertarian who disagrees with Rand. Not that I go out looking, though. I've never heard of a libertarian socialist or libertarian communist. Sounds about like a celibate serial rapist.
quote:
Police, army, border guards, courts, jailers. All iron fist and no velvet glove. All big stick and no helping hand.
Genuine anarchists and libertarians, left and right, tend to want a society governed only by voluntary agreement (or at least fantasise about wanting it). No-one should be subject to any government to which they do not in some manner consent.
To the libertarian, the only roll of government is to protect us from force and fraud. Since it is by voluntary agreement, the only economic system is the free market.
quote:
These big-business fake libertarians and Randists want the opposite. They want the rest of us to have no escape from their rules and their laws, and no say in deciding what they should be.
So, they are like what we have now, then?
quote:
To be fair, I know nothign at all about Grover Norquist. He's not on our political radar here. So for all I know he might be a genuine libertarian. Its just that pretty much everyone I do know anything about who called themselves "libertarian" and who also associated themselves with the Republicans in the USA or the Tories over here and their great-property-owning friends turns out to be an authoritarian in disguise. Like Ayn Rand.
I suspect he could not take this quiz and score as a libertarian.
From my experience, about the only folks in who would not be authoritarian would be libertarians (who can pass that quiz) and children.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] quote:
Originally posted by Josephine: Or is there some other way to see this?
It appears to me that Norquist is wanting to limit the federal government to funding that would allow it to do only those things specifically authorized by the constitution.
Wait, you didn't get the memo where we all secretly agreed that we want lead in food?
No, but I might get it later on today when I stop by the convenience store. The lady behind the counter is my contact.
quote:
Norquist is an anarchist in the same way that Obama is a socialist: he's not, but it makes for a good scare tactic to call him one.
It doesn't have to be scary. My oldest daughter has graduated from a university named after a Christian anarchist and my youngest daughter will in May, Lord willin'. It isn't hard, it seems to me, to make the argument that the two things governments are best at is squandering blood and wealth and Christians might be more than hesitant to get close to that.
quote:
The no new taxes pledge isn't particularly responsible in my view.
I don't see anything that is particularly irresponsible about it, especially when compared with other things that pols do and say. But then, I won't even let any of my own kids carry a debit or credit card with my name on it.
quote:
We really need to have a conversation about how much revenue we can realistically raise in this country, and how to spend that revenue.
Oh, you must be wanting to throw grandma off a cliff, or something.
quote:
Maybe we could bring in more money than we currently do without harming productivity or stunting the already anemic recovery. But especially as baby boomers retire, the amount that we can raise is going to shrink, as demands on the funds we can raise will increase. So something has to be done to balance things out. It is disheartening to see people opposed to bringing in more revenue at any cost.
I believe Jack Kemp was right when he said that people respond to incentives. When a store has a sale, is it because they are giving the folks who count the receipts some time off or is it to increase receipts? Raising tax rates may just be telling folks to move away. We have certain clients that have moved to other states to avoid state income tax on certain transactions. Many of us buy over the internet to avoid state sales tax. Like certain businesses, governments are probably going to find it harder to get money out of people. With faster travel, the internet, etc., folks can be far more selective in the country they will live in than in the past.
quote:
It is also disheartening to see people accusing anyone who sees cuts in spending as necessary of wanting to end all government services.
I'm hip. With the changing demographics it seems my age group should probably have to wait a little longer for social security and medicare but to suggest it would have people screaming like they are gut shot.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
To the libertarian, the only roll of government is to protect us from force and fraud. Since it is by voluntary agreement, the only economic system is the free market.
Yes, that's the party line, but it doesn't hold water. Fraudulent advertising and promotion (including, we might note, job vacancy notices that fail to state all the characteristics on which applicants will in fact be evaluated) would be rife without government vigilance, and is bad enough even with it. A government small enough to drown in a bathtub will probably be incapable of preventing it.
Please address my objection a few posts above. How can you talk about a free market when artificial persons enjoy advantages in it that are unavailable to flesh and blood?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] To the libertarian, the only roll of government is to protect us from force and fraud. Since it is by voluntary agreement, the only economic system is the free market.
Yes, that's the party line, but it doesn't hold water. Fraudulent advertising and promotion (including, we might note, job vacancy notices that fail to state all the characteristics on which applicants will in fact be evaluated) would be rife without government vigilance, and is bad enough even with it.
Well, I said that the libertarian view of the purpose of government is to protect us from force and fraud and you seem to believe that means it isn't to protect against fraud. And you mention advertising. I find it a bit ironic that I am on the national do not call registry and politicians have exempted themselves from it. Your business can't call me. Some jerk wanting a vote still can.
quote:
A government small enough to drown in a bathtub will probably be incapable of preventing it.
How did ours make it past the Washington administration?
quote:
Please address my objection a few posts above.
Will you explain your objection? It seems a bit of a pig in a poke.
quote:
How can you talk about a free market when artificial persons enjoy advantages in it that are unavailable to flesh and blood?
I'm wrapping up a tax return for a client. That client is a corporation owned by one person. What advantages does that corporation have that the owner does not have it be an advantage I should let keep me awake tonight?
If you and a few folks want to join in together and form a business and organize it as a corporation, what's the problem?
I can see the cop show now. A SWAT team raids a building based upon a tip that a group of people are having a corporation and it turns out to just be an orgy.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I find it a bit ironic that I am on the national do not call registry and politicians have exempted themselves from it. Your business can't call me. Some jerk wanting a vote still can.
Which way do you want it? Everyone being able to call, or no one being able to call? If Libertarians favor the almost unlimited corporate funding of political campaigns (anonymously, if possible) that enables these political jerks to shout at you, even through your telephone, you have no room to complain.
quote:
If you and a few folks want to join in together and form a business and organize it as a corporation, what's the problem?
The problem is that due to limited liability, we no longer have a free market, because A can sue B into total destitution for some damage real or imagined, but not vice versa. That's obviously an advantage, otherwise it would not so often be sought.
I'm not a quixotic Luddite proposing that we should therefore abolish corporations. They're a practical necessity. The honest alternative is to stop with the free-market bullshit. This American economy that we (usually) praise is mixed.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
If you and a few folks want to join in together and form a business and organize it as a corporation, what's the problem?
You can call yourselves a corporation or a people's republic or a dictatorship for life as much as you like.
As soon as you start to force other people to treat you as a people's republic or a corporation or a dictatorship for life you're using coercion.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
scuffleball
Shipmate
# 16480
|
Posted
No. Anarchists don't believe in property or money. Libertarians take property as a fundamental right.
--------------------
SPK: I also plan to create ... a Calvinist Ordinariate
ken: I thought it was called Taize?
Posts: 272 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
If you don't want a government, you're an anarchist, aren't you? Do the neoconservatives who support the Norquist Pledge really want anarchy? Or do they not understand the implications of not having a government? Or is there some other way to see this?
The other question to ask is whether or not some of these people are primarily opposed to the federal government taking certain actions, as opposed to state or local governments. I regularly have an argument with older friends and relatives about how the Democrats are the Republicans of yesterday, and the Republicans are just nuts (as they tend to favor all kinds of corporate welfare and government interference with the free market that favors those who already hold the wealth). But IME a lot of the regular people who support Republicans really distrust the federal government.
quote:
Originally posted by ken
They aren't anarchists, they are one-dimensional authoritarians. They want money to rule, because they have the money. They don't want democracy, because they know that people without money can get to vote.
I don't know. I think at this point a lot of people simply want a return to hierarchy.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
... I don't know. I think at this point a lot of people simply want a return to hierarchy.
Evidence for this? What exactly is "a lot" and "hierarchy"?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
To the libertarian, the only role of government is to protect us from force and fraud.
You make that sound like such a small task.
I would imagine it depends on what you think "force" and "fraud" consist of. Because, for instance, there are lots of laws that are designed to protect people from lack of information, as the people WITH the information don't seem especially keen to share it unless compelled to do so. Or are you confining 'fraud' to cases of actualy lying?
By the way, the free market doesn't work the way the theorists want it to precisely because of imperfect information.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
"A lot" would be most of the people I have reason to talk to, most of whom see our political choices as being a choice between getting ground down under a jackboot or a birkenstock - either way, you're ground under.
Hierarchy "is an arrangement of items (objects, names, values, categories, etc.) in which the items are represented as being "above," "below," or "at the same level as" one another."
Evidence for my belief: the number of conversations I've had where people have asked me how to persuade others to believe in hierarchy again as arbitrary hierarchy may be horrible but hierarchy itself is not inherently bad.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
I was always under the impression what was meant was exactly what Mere Nick said in his first post on this thread - that Norquist (among others) wants to keep government small enough that it could be drowned in a bathtub. People here might know from some of my posts that I'm way over on the left side of the spectrum, so that's not a goal I personally endorse or admire, but I think it's an important distinction - he wants government, just a tiny, impoverished, easily-controlled government. For reasons others have pointed out here - the neo-cons want a government that will leave businesses to run wild, but enforce criminal laws (at least those crimes committed by the blue-collar folks) and defend our borders and interests worldwide with a strong military.
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Raising tax rates may just be telling folks to move away. We have certain clients that have moved to other states to avoid state income tax on certain transactions. Many of us buy over the internet to avoid state sales tax. Like certain businesses, governments are probably going to find it harder to get money out of people. With faster travel, the internet, etc., folks can be far more selective in the country they will live in than in the past.
Assuming all else is equal. While free-market capitalism requires both consumers and workers to be highly mobile, most people feel ties to places and people in those places. And beyond that, some places are so desirable to do business in that businesses do put up with lots of regulations and taxes. San Francisco is a prime example. The real estate is high, so rents are high, employees really should be paid commensurate with the cost of living, and sales tax is pretty high (in California cities are allowed to levy sales tax as well as the state, so sales tax varies when I move between Oakland, where I live, SF, where I work, and Berkeley, where I go to school). And San Francisco has passed a law that part-time employees must be given paid sick time. There was a little bit of a fuss over that when it was under consideration, but most business owners just shrugged it off as cost of doing business in a highly profitable city.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'm wrapping up a tax return for a client. That client is a corporation owned by one person. What advantages does that corporation have that the owner does not have it be an advantage I should let keep me awake tonight?
The IRS has no difficulty telling the difference between a corporation (of whatever type, owned by however many people), a partnership, and a sole proprietorship, and the advantages of each--not to mention distinguishing between corporate and personal assets. If you don't understand that (and I'm sure you do), I don't want you doing my taxes.
On the more general topic of "small government," it is notable that Norquist and his sort obviously don't count the Defense Department as part of the government, even though DOD is the largest chunk of discretionary spending (and along with the VA, the main bastion of creeping socialism in the US).
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
IME a lot of the regular people who support Republicans really distrust the federal government.
The third graph in this story shows something interesting.
quote:
... the graph shows that Republicans don’t trust government less than Democrats do, historically. The real difference is that Republicans are more sensitive to who controls the White House. When their man is in, they trust government more than Democrats do. When their man is out, they trust it less. Democrats hold steadier; they seem to identify “government” less with the presidency than Republicans do.
... Republicans showed an unprecedented plunge in trust when Obama took office. They were at a 40-year-high water mark under George W. Bush, and then cascaded to a 50-year-low point — an astonishing 5% — under Barack Obama. And it’s not just Tea Partiers, it’s nearly all Republicans who distrust government today.
I would really like to think that there's a reason for the drop, other than Obama being black. I've had trouble coming up with one.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
This is the Norquist interview I saw on "60 Minutes"--both transcript and video. (Long segment, IIRC.) It was recently rerun. He's a man of fury, which may come through more on video than in text. He needs anti-rage meds, IMNSHO.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Not quite on topic, but some of the Tea Party fundagelicals with whom I debate elsewhere seem to have, even more alarmingly, linked the rhetoric of ever-decreasing government to the Right to Arm Bears (or whatever it is): their heroes are Randy Weaver and the Waco whackos. Now, the combo of little or no government plus a heavily armed populace seems to me to point towards anarchy, with armed gangs warring with each other...welcome to Somalia! I'm sure that's not what the corporate neocons want, but they are effectively in bed with these loony-tuners...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I've never heard of a libertarian socialist or libertarian communist. Sounds about like a celibate serial rapist.
There are loads of them. They mostly call themselves "anarchists".
And I bet you have heard of some of them.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
The problem is that due to limited liability, we no longer have a free market, because A can sue B into total destitution for some damage real or imagined, but not vice versa. That's obviously an advantage, otherwise it would not so often be sought.
I don't follow that. In a truly libertarian society, there is de facto limited liability for all the big boys, because they can arm themselves and terrify anybody fool enough to try and collect debts off them.
Just as only the little people pay taxes, so only the little people repay their debts.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Enoch, you're probably right. But in our society, the big boys don't need to resort to force. They only need to use the tools that they have obtained from the government to protect them from risks that most of us continue to face in the market. I hear no so-called libertarian pointing this out gratefully, because they want to convince us that government is bad and unnecessary.
I own some stock in an erstwhile profitable utility in Illinois that was eventually gobbled up by a conglomerate in Texas whose execs must have moved over from Enron. It is now being sacrificed as bankrupt, while the power-generating infrastructure in which I originally invested continues to be profitable. In other words, I believe that I'm being robbed, but no one is holding me up at gunpoint. A shell game of corporate manipulation by shysters is doing the trick in a more genteel (if not more efficient) manner.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
On the more general topic of "small government," it is notable that Norquist and his sort obviously don't count the Defense Department as part of the government, even though DOD is the largest chunk of discretionary spending (and along with the VA, the main bastion of creeping socialism in the US).
I can't believe I'm quoting Wikipedia as a source, but you can follow the footnote/reference:
quote:
Norquist has also called for reductions in defense spending as one way to reduce the size of government.[51]
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Which way do you want it? Everyone being able to call, or no one being able to call?
No one being able to call if I am on the do not call list.
quote:
If Libertarians favor the almost unlimited corporate funding of political campaigns (anonymously, if possible) that enables these political jerks to shout at you, even through your telephone, you have no room to complain.
I've been getting political telephone calls for a long time after going on the do not call list and before the court decision about corporate funding, so your comment really doesn't make much sense. But think about the raging arrogance of the political class. They appear to not realize just what pests they are.
quote:
The problem is that due to limited liability, we no longer have a free market, because A can sue B into total destitution for some damage real or imagined, but not vice versa. That's obviously an advantage, otherwise it would not so often be sought.
Just Walmart is sued several thousand times a year
but the government can hide behind sovereign immunity. A very good friend of mine had to pay $250,000 up front to retain a lawyer to help protect him from the federal government. Of course, the federal government came after him with a whole table full of lawyers paid for by the taxpayers.
quote:
I'm not a quixotic Luddite proposing that we should therefore abolish corporations. They're a practical necessity. The honest alternative is to stop with the free-market bullshit. This American economy that we (usually) praise is mixed.
It's not bullshit to aspire to the something better than you are even though you know you will never get there. Do you believe that or have you finally conquered all sin in your life and haven't missed the mark in years?
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] I've never heard of a libertarian socialist or libertarian communist. Sounds about like a celibate serial rapist.
There are loads of them. They mostly call themselves "anarchists".
Hence, they mostly don't call themselves libertarian socialists or libertarian communists.
quote:
And I bet you have heard of some of them.
Of course. They don't call themselves socialists or communists, though. They even have a facebook page, of all things.
The Asheville Anarchists.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I would really like to think that there's a reason for the drop, other than Obama being black. I've had trouble coming up with one.
A) The economy and B) Over-regulation of ordinary people and under-regulation of corporations as people.
I'm firmly of the opinion that a lot of our current economic problems were caused by the previous administration spending money like drunken sailors while lying to the public about being fiscally responsible, and that there is in fact a limit to what the federal government can do to improve the situation at this point. However, it is hard to ignore the fact that a lot of people are in serious economic trouble, and any proposals for the government to spend more money (when they get their money from taxes on income, property, or sales that a lot of people simply don't have at this point) seem ridiculous. People are genuinely worried about their kids growing up in this culture where even if they do all the "right" things the opportunities for success and leading a successful life (however one defines that) simply aren't there. There's things like this. I've talked to people who have lost their homes not because they were irresponsible in buying a bigger house or taking out a bigger mortgage than they could afford but because they couldn't pay the property taxes. I'm of the opinion that some of these problems might be solved if we as individuals and as a culture simply spent money more sensibly, but I'm left with the lingering suspicion that many of those who have managed to acquire political power think that people's problems will be solved by simply throwing money at them.
That's paired with over-regulation of the little people. Granted, I have had some legal problems in the past couple years, so there may be a self-selection effect in terms of the people I talk to, but I've been talking to a lot of people who feel like the government (whether local or federal) is in fact prohibiting them from doing the things they need to do in order to take care of themselves. You can't fish or hunt or otherwise acquire meat without a (increasingly expensive) license; zoning restrictions mean that you can't raise chickens or rabbits on your property; Monsanto's virtual monopoly on the seed supply (and their influence on others) make it difficult to garden and raise your own food (again, assuming zoning or neighborhood restrictions don't prohibit it). The for-profit criminal injustice system is set up to reward both police and prosecutors for the simple numbers of convictions they obtain, never mind how they obtained them or whether or not justice in the abstract was served. Legislators who know nothing about child development or education have been setting educational policies in our schools (so there are lots of zero tolerance policies which result in things like kids bringing a GI Joe with a tiny plastic gun glued to his head being sent to "alternative" schools for troubled youth). You can't perform basic home improvement tasks on your own home without a government-issued permit. You can't sell extra food that you raise and package because it doesn't meet food industry standards. Etc.
I like Obama; I voted for him the first time, and I'll vote for him again (I have the usual complaints in terms of his record on civil liberties and some other issues). But the federal government in this country scares the living shit out of me, and I hate that. I hate that I'm terrified of the government, but I am.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Just Walmart is sued several thousand times a year but the government can hide behind sovereign immunity.
Do you have a non-talk-radio source for this? It strikes me as massively unlikely, but just the kind of claim that folks who want to rail against the culture of litigation would pull out of their ass.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
[QB] quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'm wrapping up a tax return for a client. That client is a corporation owned by one person. What advantages does that corporation have that the owner does not have it be an advantage I should let keep me awake tonight?
The IRS has no difficulty telling the difference between a corporation (of whatever type, owned by however many people), a partnership, and a sole proprietorship, and the advantages of each--not to mention distinguishing between corporate and personal assets. If you don't understand that (and I'm sure you do), I don't want you doing my taxes.
The question was put to Aloqon to see if he knew it. I would have thought that to be obvious to any reasonable person.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Just Walmart is sued several thousand times a year but the government can hide behind sovereign immunity.
Do you have a non-talk-radio source for this? It strikes me as massively unlikely, but just the kind of claim that folks who want to rail against the culture of litigation would pull out of their ass.
--Tom Clune
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/08/14/walmart-usat.htm
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Just Walmart is sued several thousand times a year but the government can hide behind sovereign immunity.
Do you have a non-talk-radio source for this? It strikes me as massively unlikely, but just the kind of claim that folks who want to rail against the culture of litigation would pull out of their ass.
--Tom Clune
It's not proof, but given that this exists in the world...
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
As for lawsuits against the government, this wikipedia entry might give you some background info if you want to talk to someone knowledgeable, such as a lawyer or a stranger who is slowly sipping coffee at the convenience store.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Just Walmart is sued several thousand times a year but the government can hide behind sovereign immunity.
Do you have a non-talk-radio source for this? It strikes me as massively unlikely, but just the kind of claim that folks who want to rail against the culture of litigation would pull out of their ass.
--Tom Clune
It's not proof, but given that this exists in the world...
There's a FAQ in your link that offers an answer.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Just Walmart is sued several thousand times a year but the government can hide behind sovereign immunity.
Do you have a non-talk-radio source for this? It strikes me as massively unlikely, but just the kind of claim that folks who want to rail against the culture of litigation would pull out of their ass.
--Tom Clune
It's not proof, but given that this exists in the world...
From that site, the claim is made that WalMart is sued "two to five times a day." Now, that is an odd statement in its own right, but even if there is some way of parsing it that makes it less absurd than it appears on its face, that would not add up to "several thousand times a year."
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Just Walmart is sued several thousand times a year but the government can hide behind sovereign immunity.
Do you have a non-talk-radio source for this? It strikes me as massively unlikely, but just the kind of claim that folks who want to rail against the culture of litigation would pull out of their ass.
--Tom Clune
It's not proof, but given that this exists in the world...
From that site, the claim is made that WalMart is sued "two to five times a day." Now, that is an odd statement in its own right, but even if there is some way of parsing it that makes it less absurd than it appears on its face, that would not add up to "several thousand times a year."
--Tom Clune
My link from way back in 2001 gives right below 5k in a year.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
My link from way back in 2001 gives right below 5k in a year.
Yes, I missed your original post in response to what I had asked. Thanks for the source.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
But the federal government in this country scares the living shit out of me, and I hate that. I hate that I'm terrified of the government, but I am.
You are right to be afraid. I am, too. We are all criminals.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
Oh, unfortunately I know that all too well.
One of my disappointments with Obama has been the increasing number of medical marijuana raids during his administration.
And then you hear stories like this. I mean, seriously, we're jailing people for siding violations now?
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not quite on topic, but some of the Tea Party fundagelicals with whom I debate elsewhere seem to have, even more alarmingly, linked the rhetoric of ever-decreasing government to the Right to Arm Bears (or whatever it is): their heroes are Randy Weaver and the Waco whackos. Now, the combo of little or no government plus a heavily armed populace seems to me to point towards anarchy, with armed gangs warring with each other...welcome to Somalia! I'm sure that's not what the corporate neocons want, but they are effectively in bed with these loony-tuners...
The affinity for the Waco whackos may come from Janet Reno's involvement.
quote:
That a person who could believe this nonsense would be named the Attorney General of the United States tells us more about the state of American politicians than anything else. (Hillary Clinton claimed that Reno was good on “children’s issues.” Reno was so good that she managed to massacre a number of youngsters just a couple months after taking office.)
We actually already have armed gangs warring with each other in a lot of our cities, so it's not like we'd be losing a currently peaceful situation.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
On the more general topic of "small government," it is notable that Norquist and his sort obviously don't count the Defense Department as part of the government, even though DOD is the largest chunk of discretionary spending (and along with the VA, the main bastion of creeping socialism in the US).
I can't believe I'm quoting Wikipedia as a source, but you can follow the footnote/reference:
quote:
Norquist has also called for reductions in defense spending as one way to reduce the size of government.[51]
Ah well. He's more consistent than I gave him credit for. But in the GOP, he's lonely (WRT that point).
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Oh, unfortunately I know that all too well.
One of my disappointments with Obama has been the increasing number of medical marijuana raids during his administration.
And then you hear stories like this. I mean, seriously, we're jailing people for siding violations now?
It's hardly fair to blame your President for the actions of a selectively aggressive local authority that has gone rogue.
I don't know much about the US constitution, but surely even reigning in that sort of maladministration must be a state matter.
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon
In other words, I believe that I'm being robbed
No, Alogon. That is not a matter of belief. That sounds like fact - you have been robbed.
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick
I've been getting political telephone calls for a long time after going on the do not call list
Do these people claim that in a democracy, they have a right to demand that you listen to them whether you like it or not? Why not tell them,
"I do not wish your party to pester me again.
Remove me from your list.
If I get another call, I'll vote for your opponents.
And don't tell me you haven't got the systems to do that.
If that's your claim, you're telling me your party isn't competent to govern."
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
