I'm less concerened about the UN than I am Pelosi. There already have been several interviews with BOB and Pelosi where there is strong indication of their desire to bring the ASW ban back. They'll probably want to "improve" it as well, so part of your title, I think, is correct. Perhaps "they WILL be comming" is more correct. :)
So, start with just markets, without the qualifier “free.” What is a market? Blaise P. claims
"markets exist only because regulation makes them possible,"
I lol-ed.
A market suggests to me more than two individuals. After all, prices (even in barter) generally come from many transactions, but I think that's a bit of a quibble as I generally concur with your line of reasoning.
In general I'm a beleiver in most folks being rationale in the economic decisions, so this story, does ofc, seem a bit screwy, but, anectodeally, I met some folks who had a complete lack of understanding of the financial impact to various decisions on their life.
Case in point: worked with a guy who had no car and was taking the bus becuase he got into an accident and coudn't afford any insurance. This guy also smoked, and bought cigs from vending machines. I did the math on how much money he could save baesd upon his habit and the price he was paying. I then asked him if that was enough money to afford the car insurance. He was amazed.
100Hrs in a week. I've done more, once. It was a bitch. It's not sustainable over any length of time.
"Let’s start with the second of these propositions. As Jaybird has already noted, Tuesday night was in one respect a huge win for individual liberty: Colorado and Washington states both passed initiatives that would legalize, tax, and regulate recreational marijuana for adults. "
The jury is still out on that. Is it liberty if the state police doesn't arrest you but ATF does? We'll have to see what the Feds do first before calling it.
I'm all for legalization of ALL currently illegal drugs, not just ganja.
However, do you really think the Feds are going to cave on this? Look what they did / are doing in Cali. The Feds can still raid a place and seize the assets of the owners. Additionally, the WOD has too many players feeding at the trough to go quietly. What do you expect the gov of Wash State to do when the Feds seize some property and throw some folks into jail that were operating in accordance with state law? How much money does the state get in various funding from the Feds that they can use to pressure the state?
Tod,
In general, I think you're correct in this post. As much as it annoys me, the American populace that votes is moving to the left, away from self-sufficiency and independence, and more towards dependence upon the state. The Repubs will need to move left and get on board with some of this if they are to remain viable because it doesn't look like this trend will be reversed anytime soon.
I do have one quibble. A quick google search gave me a stat of 57.5% of voters voting this week. Mandate? Please.
The gay marriage amendment
The gambling referendum
The redistricting referendum
Probably more-but I stopped paying attention.
Enough has been said on the marriage thing. I'm curious as to why the voters actually believed that the gambling money would actually go to schools (the ostensible purpose) when the state looted the education fund to pay other bills, to the tune of 300M+, in prior years. Hell, even the comptroller said it was a stupid plan. Maybe the subsidy to the casinos will allow the state to refill the education fund (so they can loot it again)
And, finally, showing that MDers are 100% blue, MDers approved a grotesquely gerrymandered redistricting plan, ensuring that they'll get all the "representation" they have coming.
Mike,
I too had a similar "awareness" albeit a bit earlier. I never changed my affiliation, in part because I could never be bothered too, but mostly, because of the revenge I could take on the fund raising callers post Bush 2. When asked for money to defeat the "blah blah blah", I'd simply retort. "You've spent money like drunken Democrats and lost an election, now you want my money to get back into power after demonstrating you had no fiscal control? Why should I trust you again? I'll cut you a check for 10K when you start walking the walk." That usually shut the pissers up and maybe it was communicated back to the party. (doubtful though)
After looking at both sides and what policies they advocated and actually implemented, I concluded that whole system is a smokescreen and that the problem is the system itself.
I've always been an advocate of transparency, for the reasons you've mentioned Erik. If this cause, candidate, whatever, is so important for you to put your money where your mouth is, then surly you have no reason NOT to disclose.
Given that the ostensible reason for a bill, position, etc. often is different from the true reason, "following the money" provides a good clue as to what the true motives are. That's why transparency is resisted.
Essentially the same comments can be attributed to Mitt's positions, which is why I'm not voting for him either. The overlap between the two candidates essentially provides no significant difference. I will not vote for either.
This seems a good location and time for me to clarify my comments, given so much has been said about what I said (wow) and various interpretations...
I expect the American Empire WILL collapse. It's a matter of time. All things come to an end and the current fiscal / debt / economic path leads to that end. I have no faith that politics will "fix" this, because politicians are only focused on the short term (re-election) and kicking the can of difficult problems down the road. At some point, that will not be possible. I do not know when this collapse will happen but I'm more convinced that it will come sooner rather than later, if only because of the existing trajectory. Side note: this thinking is no way religious.
I do NOT look forward to this. Assuming I'm still alive when it starts, I doubt I'd live through it. I've got a comfortable life and I enjoy it. As to my comment about "we'll fix it after the collapse", well, I think most people, and what institutions that are left ,or are re-built, will have way more important things to worry about than who's "married" to who or not.
Final comment: My politics and general outlook are usually very different from most folks, certainly, on this site. However, I’d like to commend all participants here for raising excellent arguments, points, and the over positive tone. Having a dialogue and getting people to think about their positions and other peoples’ is much more enjoyable than reading diatribes and screeds full of insults like is so common on other sites. Kudos.
Jason, Polygamy perhaps, but not necessarily, polyamory.
Besides, if the law views all parties are legal and equal individuals with all the same rights, prior to entering into an agreement, any multiple group arrrangement, by definition, has to be equal as well.
At Ryan,
"It may be ignorance talking on my part, but the libertarian fantasy of having government completely uninvolved in marriage strikes me as some of the most serious pie-in-the-sky stuff."
Guess my libertarian desire to have the gov't out of public schools, firearm regulation, food regulation, "illegal" drugs, etc. is even MORE of a fantasy! :)
"Additionally, if we really want to get to the point of getting government out of marriage, SSM is more likely to be a step toward that, instead of a step away, because the more we break down those barriers the less reason our opponents have to fight for preservation of government’s role. Government involvement has given them what they want in marriage policy, so when it no longer gives them what they want they’ll lose a substantial amount of interest in it."
Complications be damned, the Poly have RIGHTS THAT ARE BEING IGNORED.
You may rest assured that I will take every argument to the logical absurity. :) But really, where does it end?
Frarnkly, I the particulars of gay marriage do not interest me. I don't see this as an improvment in society in terms of freedom. (I also don't see it as a negative, so am generally neutral). I'm just waiting for the collapse. Then we can fix all this when we start over.
"With Obama or Romney in power, your interests are ignored by elites who mock you and your values, and who are all too happy to give your hard-earned money to minorities and elites."
I fixed this for you so it covers both parties. :)
"The problem I have with leaving things at “the State should get out of this” is that it fails to deal with the existing options in play. " You are correct. I'm coming from a position "outside the box".
Yes, this is the argument I get. And 10 years from now, we'll be having this conversation about the "poly community" or whatever. What I'm saying is that narrowing the argument to "gays" and taking this approach, you exclude folks that would be on your side, like me, if the argument was slightly different. That's your call. I'd much prefer to end the whole problem in one fell swoop. Your position is to continually add folks onto the "preferred" inclusion list. I reject that.
I agree. I've gotten into this discussion with folks before in a similiar vein. Someone did me wrong and owes me a substantial amount of money. He never paid up. Folks said to "forgive him" and move on. I moved on but never did forgive. I don't belive in forgiving someone for them doing me wrong without a sincere, heartfealt apology. Everything else is a lie. It's not my job to make him feel better and I don't need to forgive him to "move on".
Is he an enemy? Not really. Would I think twice about breaking if he was in a cross walk crossing the street while I was in a car going through the intersection? Yes. Would I break? Probably yes. :)
I'm a big fan of most folks doing their own thang. I really see no need for the state to be involved in this issue. Yes it's easier to "ride on what's been done before", but I approach this argument from a different perspective. Since the state doesn't / shouldn't be involved in telling you who you can marry, there is no need for "allowing" you to marry. Remove the state's involvement from the start. Yes, it's more work, but the benefit is to a greater number of people, otherwise, we'll be having this conversation when the next group wants rights to legally recognized marriage.
On a more snarky note, I find it curious that on several pages on this site people have talked about how the "community" or "society" requires certain things from its citizens when I have pushed back (taxes, and the like) and have suggested that I have to pay this because, in essence, "the majority voted for it", but posters now come here on this thread and talk about they are ashamed this is being put to popular vote? So democracy is only ok when it gets your desired outcome not when it doesn't?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Sailing Away to Irrelevance, Part III: Obama and the United Nations are Coming to Take Away Your Guns”
I agree with that part of his commentary. Of couse I also think that the left does this same thing.
"
I'm less concerened about the UN than I am Pelosi. There already have been several interviews with BOB and Pelosi where there is strong indication of their desire to bring the ASW ban back. They'll probably want to "improve" it as well, so part of your title, I think, is correct. Perhaps "they WILL be comming" is more correct. :)
On “On Markets”
So, start with just markets, without the qualifier “free.” What is a market? Blaise P. claims
"markets exist only because regulation makes them possible,"
I lol-ed.
A market suggests to me more than two individuals. After all, prices (even in barter) generally come from many transactions, but I think that's a bit of a quibble as I generally concur with your line of reasoning.
On “On the perils of being willfully misinformed.”
In general I'm a beleiver in most folks being rationale in the economic decisions, so this story, does ofc, seem a bit screwy, but, anectodeally, I met some folks who had a complete lack of understanding of the financial impact to various decisions on their life.
Case in point: worked with a guy who had no car and was taking the bus becuase he got into an accident and coudn't afford any insurance. This guy also smoked, and bought cigs from vending machines. I did the math on how much money he could save baesd upon his habit and the price he was paying. I then asked him if that was enough money to afford the car insurance. He was amazed.
100Hrs in a week. I've done more, once. It was a bitch. It's not sustainable over any length of time.
On “Economic Liberty after Obama”
"Let’s start with the second of these propositions. As Jaybird has already noted, Tuesday night was in one respect a huge win for individual liberty: Colorado and Washington states both passed initiatives that would legalize, tax, and regulate recreational marijuana for adults. "
The jury is still out on that. Is it liberty if the state police doesn't arrest you but ATF does? We'll have to see what the Feds do first before calling it.
On “It’s the Party, Stupid: Despite what you might hear, the voters sent a clear mandate to Washington”
Correct. No one's had a mandate in decades.....
On “No, but it would help”
I'm all for legalization of ALL currently illegal drugs, not just ganja.
However, do you really think the Feds are going to cave on this? Look what they did / are doing in Cali. The Feds can still raid a place and seize the assets of the owners. Additionally, the WOD has too many players feeding at the trough to go quietly. What do you expect the gov of Wash State to do when the Feds seize some property and throw some folks into jail that were operating in accordance with state law? How much money does the state get in various funding from the Feds that they can use to pressure the state?
On “It’s the Party, Stupid: Despite what you might hear, the voters sent a clear mandate to Washington”
Tod,
In general, I think you're correct in this post. As much as it annoys me, the American populace that votes is moving to the left, away from self-sufficiency and independence, and more towards dependence upon the state. The Repubs will need to move left and get on board with some of this if they are to remain viable because it doesn't look like this trend will be reversed anytime soon.
I do have one quibble. A quick google search gave me a stat of 57.5% of voters voting this week. Mandate? Please.
On “Ballot Initiatives Open Thread”
Well, in MD, the voters passed:
The gay marriage amendment
The gambling referendum
The redistricting referendum
Probably more-but I stopped paying attention.
Enough has been said on the marriage thing. I'm curious as to why the voters actually believed that the gambling money would actually go to schools (the ostensible purpose) when the state looted the education fund to pay other bills, to the tune of 300M+, in prior years. Hell, even the comptroller said it was a stupid plan. Maybe the subsidy to the casinos will allow the state to refill the education fund (so they can loot it again)
And, finally, showing that MDers are 100% blue, MDers approved a grotesquely gerrymandered redistricting plan, ensuring that they'll get all the "representation" they have coming.
On “Pride Only Hurts”
Mike,
I too had a similar "awareness" albeit a bit earlier. I never changed my affiliation, in part because I could never be bothered too, but mostly, because of the revenge I could take on the fund raising callers post Bush 2. When asked for money to defeat the "blah blah blah", I'd simply retort. "You've spent money like drunken Democrats and lost an election, now you want my money to get back into power after demonstrating you had no fiscal control? Why should I trust you again? I'll cut you a check for 10K when you start walking the walk." That usually shut the pissers up and maybe it was communicated back to the party. (doubtful though)
After looking at both sides and what policies they advocated and actually implemented, I concluded that whole system is a smokescreen and that the problem is the system itself.
On “Turns Out Citizens United Only Changed the Volume”
I've always been an advocate of transparency, for the reasons you've mentioned Erik. If this cause, candidate, whatever, is so important for you to put your money where your mouth is, then surly you have no reason NOT to disclose.
Given that the ostensible reason for a bill, position, etc. often is different from the true reason, "following the money" provides a good clue as to what the true motives are. That's why transparency is resisted.
On “I’m Smart”
Mensa member level drinker here!
On “PSA”
Thanks be to God for them. The are willing to interact the general population. Something I'm loath to do. :)
On “Vote Your Conscience”
At Ethan
Essentially the same comments can be attributed to Mitt's positions, which is why I'm not voting for him either. The overlap between the two candidates essentially provides no significant difference. I will not vote for either.
On “If you happen to live in Maine (or Washington, Maryland or Minnesota)”
This seems a good location and time for me to clarify my comments, given so much has been said about what I said (wow) and various interpretations...
I expect the American Empire WILL collapse. It's a matter of time. All things come to an end and the current fiscal / debt / economic path leads to that end. I have no faith that politics will "fix" this, because politicians are only focused on the short term (re-election) and kicking the can of difficult problems down the road. At some point, that will not be possible. I do not know when this collapse will happen but I'm more convinced that it will come sooner rather than later, if only because of the existing trajectory. Side note: this thinking is no way religious.
I do NOT look forward to this. Assuming I'm still alive when it starts, I doubt I'd live through it. I've got a comfortable life and I enjoy it. As to my comment about "we'll fix it after the collapse", well, I think most people, and what institutions that are left ,or are re-built, will have way more important things to worry about than who's "married" to who or not.
Final comment: My politics and general outlook are usually very different from most folks, certainly, on this site. However, I’d like to commend all participants here for raising excellent arguments, points, and the over positive tone. Having a dialogue and getting people to think about their positions and other peoples’ is much more enjoyable than reading diatribes and screeds full of insults like is so common on other sites. Kudos.
"
Jason, Polygamy perhaps, but not necessarily, polyamory.
Besides, if the law views all parties are legal and equal individuals with all the same rights, prior to entering into an agreement, any multiple group arrrangement, by definition, has to be equal as well.
"
Rufus, I don't vote for statists of any flavor.
"
At Ryan,
"It may be ignorance talking on my part, but the libertarian fantasy of having government completely uninvolved in marriage strikes me as some of the most serious pie-in-the-sky stuff."
Guess my libertarian desire to have the gov't out of public schools, firearm regulation, food regulation, "illegal" drugs, etc. is even MORE of a fantasy! :)
"
"Additionally, if we really want to get to the point of getting government out of marriage, SSM is more likely to be a step toward that, instead of a step away, because the more we break down those barriers the less reason our opponents have to fight for preservation of government’s role. Government involvement has given them what they want in marriage policy, so when it no longer gives them what they want they’ll lose a substantial amount of interest in it."
You sir, get +1. Good point.
"
Complications be damned, the Poly have RIGHTS THAT ARE BEING IGNORED.
You may rest assured that I will take every argument to the logical absurity. :) But really, where does it end?
Frarnkly, I the particulars of gay marriage do not interest me. I don't see this as an improvment in society in terms of freedom. (I also don't see it as a negative, so am generally neutral). I'm just waiting for the collapse. Then we can fix all this when we start over.
On “An Emerging Staten Island Narrative”
"With Obama or Romney in power, your interests are ignored by elites who mock you and your values, and who are all too happy to give your hard-earned money to minorities and elites."
I fixed this for you so it covers both parties. :)
On “If you happen to live in Maine (or Washington, Maryland or Minnesota)”
"The problem I have with leaving things at “the State should get out of this” is that it fails to deal with the existing options in play. " You are correct. I'm coming from a position "outside the box".
"
Yes, this is the argument I get. And 10 years from now, we'll be having this conversation about the "poly community" or whatever. What I'm saying is that narrowing the argument to "gays" and taking this approach, you exclude folks that would be on your side, like me, if the argument was slightly different. That's your call. I'd much prefer to end the whole problem in one fell swoop. Your position is to continually add folks onto the "preferred" inclusion list. I reject that.
On “Falling out of Love with Hate, Part 3: Mending Fences”
I agree. I've gotten into this discussion with folks before in a similiar vein. Someone did me wrong and owes me a substantial amount of money. He never paid up. Folks said to "forgive him" and move on. I moved on but never did forgive. I don't belive in forgiving someone for them doing me wrong without a sincere, heartfealt apology. Everything else is a lie. It's not my job to make him feel better and I don't need to forgive him to "move on".
Is he an enemy? Not really. Would I think twice about breaking if he was in a cross walk crossing the street while I was in a car going through the intersection? Yes. Would I break? Probably yes. :)
On “If you happen to live in Maine (or Washington, Maryland or Minnesota)”
I'm a big fan of most folks doing their own thang. I really see no need for the state to be involved in this issue. Yes it's easier to "ride on what's been done before", but I approach this argument from a different perspective. Since the state doesn't / shouldn't be involved in telling you who you can marry, there is no need for "allowing" you to marry. Remove the state's involvement from the start. Yes, it's more work, but the benefit is to a greater number of people, otherwise, we'll be having this conversation when the next group wants rights to legally recognized marriage.
On a more snarky note, I find it curious that on several pages on this site people have talked about how the "community" or "society" requires certain things from its citizens when I have pushed back (taxes, and the like) and have suggested that I have to pay this because, in essence, "the majority voted for it", but posters now come here on this thread and talk about they are ashamed this is being put to popular vote? So democracy is only ok when it gets your desired outcome not when it doesn't?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.