David Brubeck has Died.

[Blankbeard]

A Great theory, and like Shylock's "Pound of flesh" it overlooks the "not a drop of blood" retort. In other words, the theory bumps up against the reality that individual acts often adversely affect people other than the individual. (such as nine children who didn't ask to be born, and the state tax payers who will have to pay the costs to raise them to adulthood, and the costs to society for a fatherless child. )

So stop socializing the costs. The United States worked just fine for the first 190 years of its existence. Safety nets were local. Churches, neighborhoods, and local governments took care of orphaned children. And because the costs were kept local, they had incentive to keep those costs low. It's only been since the Great Society "reforms" that these things have moved to being primarily taken care of at the state and federal levels. And it's only been since the embrace of progressive values by "compassionate conservatives" that they've been accepted as belonging there.

Also, that graph doesn't show what you think it shows. Plot the increase in fatherless rates against it and see what you get. Aside from the fact that no government in the world has ever had enough power to make someone be a good father if they don't want to be.

And there is obviously an infinite chasm between the one thing and another. And now I am again at the point where I have to say "Are you f****** kidding me? " How am I supposed to reason with an individual that does not recognize even the very most basic of facts? The man's irresponsible sex life is the direct proximate CAUSE of those nine children.

Sure, and I'm sure his terrible upbringing and lack of love are the real root. The whole "root cause" bit is a progressive power grab. Children aren't a symptom of something else.

nd then you want to try to put the blame on me? Again, "are you f****** kidding me? "

Both parties have voted to expand governmental power and size since the Carter Administration.

You have cause and effect reversed. The people's bedrooms voted to be in my business. Their hands ended up in my pocket, not the other way around.

Yeah, remember Medicare Part D? The largest entitlement in history until the Democrats bested it with Obamacare? Who did that again? Who's declared Social Security and Medicare off the table? This isn't a party issue, this is a governance issue.

Again, are you f***** kidding me? You can't get blood out of a turnip.

Again, it doesn't matter. When costs were localized, men like this found themselves out of doors quickly. What happened when someone fathered children they couldn't afford prior to Progressivism? They didn't just die in the street did they? The locals took care of them. And they spread the word. If you took in the father, you might have his creditors at your door. You could be sure you'd be a pariah for doing so. This isn't some radical notion. This is American tradition. It worked for 190 years.

I regard this scenario as nonsensical, and only capable of being conceived by a mind that has little contact with real world experience. Now your name makes sense. Someone too young to have grown a beard or learned much about life.

No, I just don't hate my fellow Americans and regard them as idiot children to be ruled.

Yes, it is the fault of the people who have been fighting against it ever since Lyndon Johnson started the system. Again, Are you F****** kidding me?

Republicans have been expanding government for the last 40 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GAO_Slide.png
Social spending has gone up each decade, regardless of who controls what. The only time we've ran a surplus was when the government was too busy trying to impeach Clinton to do anything else.

And now for some typical "sky is falling" caterwauling from an outraged libertarian worried that someone might miss a nut.

It's hyperbole. At least if they had ordered him castrated, that would have been an enforceable order. Not a good order, but enforceable.

Once you get over your hyperventilating, I will point out that the judge told him not to "reproduce". The judge didn't tell him not to have sex. Presumably he can still do that. As for where the Judge gets the power to issue such a ruling, it comes from the fact that he can throw the man in prison for cause, and therefore the man can chose to obey the judges extra-legal demand, or the man can chose to be imprisoned by the judges all too legal ruling for cause.

Again, how is that enforceable? If he was jailed over that order, the appeals court would reverse it so fast his sperm would swim backwards.

Not at all, but that's because it emanated from your imagination, rather than conservative principles. (Edmund Burke is a good source to learn about conservative principles. )

What did I make up? The order? You seem to be approving of it.

GOD FORBID that someone should tell them to control themselves!!!!! Pray tell, what is the "libertarian" solution? That the rest of us should pay for this? I would love to hear an answer.

After having nine children with six different women, don't you think that ship has long sailed? Again, are you f***** kidding me?

No, stop letting him spread the costs of his behavior around. In Wisconsin you can go to jail for unpaid child support or contempt of the order. The judge could sentence him to prison for contempt of the child support order and suspend the sentence on condition of him maintaining a job where his wages are garnished. Failing that, he will presumably find it hard to reproduce in prison.

The children should be cared for with local funds, not state or federal funds. This provides an incentive for local governments to intervene early rather than waiting until the situation has become a reality show on TLC.

I am thinking that further discussion with you is going to result in a lot of commentary along the lines of "Are you f***** kidding me? "

I fear you are all too serious in your distorted world view. All in all, I believe you have given a completely non-serious response to a legitimate question. (Just as you did regarding the spread of drug addiction. )

You're welcome to your belief. I'm simply pointing out you'll never get people to be responsible if you remove all responsibility from their lives. You don't learn to handle failure until you fail at least once. Responsibility comes from handing the failure. If you don't handle the failure, you pay the costs. This worked for 190 years here in America and it would still work today if it were allowed to.

And I don't make you respond to me. If you'd like to ignore me, it won't hurt my feelings at all.

[Diogenes]

RIP Dave Brubeck: 5 Things You Might Not Know About the Jazz Legend

Legendary jazz musician Dave Brubeck passed away this morning in Connecticut, one day short of his 92nd birthday. Here are five things you might not have known about the Kennedy Center Honoree, jazz standards composer, and leader of the Dave Brubeck Quartet.

Read the full text here: http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archiv ... z2ElSVRiyw

[Diogenes]

A Great theory, and like Shylock's "Pound of flesh" it overlooks the "not a drop of blood" retort. In other words, the theory bumps up against the reality that individual acts often adversely affect people other than the individual. (such as nine children who didn't ask to be born, and the state tax payers who will have to pay the costs to raise them to adulthood, and the costs to society for a fatherless child. )

So stop socializing the costs. The United States worked just fine for the first 190 years of its existence. Safety nets were local. Churches, neighborhoods, and local governments took care of orphaned children. And because the costs were kept local, they had incentive to keep those costs low. It's only been since the Great Society "reforms" that these things have moved to being primarily taken care of at the state and federal levels. And it's only been since the embrace of progressive values by "compassionate conservatives" that they've been accepted as belonging there.

I agree that consideration for the individual should be a state, or local, rather than a Federal Issue, except in the case of Americans in Foreign countries, or any other issue pertinent to Federal citizenship, but for the purpose of this discussion it is merely shifting the burden without resolving the point. If it is a state or local issue, it is still reaching into the taxpayers pocket.

As most people believe that our compact with government (state and local) includes the historically accepted notion (going back thousands of years) that our government should make reasonable efforts to deal with incidents of disaster which may befall the citizenry from time to time, it is not reasonable to believe that the people will accept a completely hands off approach to citizens starving or dying of exposure.

As the public will expects some sort of governmental intervention in the case of starving children, it is a foregone conclusion that the impetus for government to "do something" will always be with us. In that light, how can a Libertarian laissez faire approach work?

Also, that graph doesn't show what you think it shows. Plot the increase in fatherless rates against it and see what you get. Aside from the fact that no government in the world has ever had enough power to make someone be a good father if they don't want to be.

The point is not to MAKE someone a good father. The Point is to not incentivize people to be bad fathers. Current governmental policy is to encourage and tolerate behavior which has the end result of creating BAD fathers.

And there is obviously an infinite chasm between the one thing and another. And now I am again at the point where I have to say "Are you f****** kidding me? " How am I supposed to reason with an individual that does not recognize even the very most basic of facts? The man's irresponsible sex life is the direct proximate CAUSE of those nine children.

Sure, and I'm sure his terrible upbringing and lack of love are the real root.

Don't care. It's like the condition of a rabid dog. It is irrelevant how the dog became rabid. The only relevant priority is dealing with the fact that it is. When deterring crime, (the basic function of our legal system.) we don't grant special dispensations to a thief, murderer or rapist because they lacked love when they grew up. We set forth the boundaries of what constitutes illegal activity, and we imprison or kill those who cross those boundaries.

The whole "root cause" bit is a progressive power grab. Children aren't a symptom of something else.

They are a consequence.

nd then you want to try to put the blame on me? Again, "are you f****** kidding me? "

Both parties have voted to expand governmental power and size since the Carter Administration.

Just as Liberals will claim their country does not always represent their beliefs or interests, I will point out that the Republican party does not always represent the beliefs or interests of conservatives. In fact, it seldom does. Reagan was the closest to match governmental policies with Conservative principles and interests, and even he did not always succeed. Subsequent Republicans have done more damage to the promotion of conservative principles than they have helped them.

For Republicans to expand government, it is a violation of their supposed principles. For Democrats to expand government, it is perfectly in accordance with their stated principles.

You have cause and effect reversed. The people's bedrooms voted to be in my business. Their hands ended up in my pocket, not the other way around.

Yeah, remember Medicare Part D? The largest entitlement in history until the Democrats bested it with Obamacare? Who did that again? Who's declared Social Security and Medicare off the table? This isn't a party issue, this is a governance issue.

That God-D***** George W. Bush, who did as much or more than his father in wrecking conservative principles. Stupid jackass thought he would garner support by pushing some Democrat ideas, and just like his Father's "kinder gentler" Republican party, the media/liberals hated him anyway. Not only did he gain nothing, he lost much that wasn't his to lose.

Again, are you f***** kidding me? You can't get blood out of a turnip.

Again, it doesn't matter. When costs were localized, men like this found themselves out of doors quickly. What happened when someone fathered children they couldn't afford prior to Progressivism? They didn't just die in the street did they? The locals took care of them. And they spread the word. If you took in the father, you might have his creditors at your door. You could be sure you'd be a pariah for doing so. This isn't some radical notion. This is American tradition. It worked for 190 years.

You are oversimplifying. More was at work than just this. Firstly, if a woman knew that she would be in a desperate situation with young children and no way to feed them, she was far less likely to consent to the sex which would produce them. Fear of destitution and misery produced a beneficial deterrence effect. Likewise regarding the father, the notion that his children might starve and that he might be beaten, killed, or imprisoned for having left a woman in such a condition also served to deter this sort of irresponsible behavior.

Refusal to indulge such irresponsible behavior produced the effect of having far less of it. Even a New York Times Liberal has recently come to realize that our current system is a recipe for dysfunction and poverty.

I regard this scenario as nonsensical, and only capable of being conceived by a mind that has little contact with real world experience. Now your name makes sense. Someone too young to have grown a beard or learned much about life.

No, I just don't hate my fellow Americans and regard them as idiot children to be ruled.

Not regarding a huge portion of them as idiot children is exactly what I mean by not having an accurate perspective of the real world. There are far too many of them nowadays (Their numbers have been climbing for decades) to ignore their impact. Enforcing normal and proper laws is not "ruling", it is the necessary function of any government.

Yes, it is the fault of the people who have been fighting against it ever since Lyndon Johnson started the system. Again, Are you F****** kidding me?

Republicans have been expanding government for the last 40 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GAO_Slide.png
Social spending has gone up each decade, regardless of who controls what. The only time we've ran a surplus was when the government was too busy trying to impeach Clinton to do anything else.

As I mentioned, Republicans are not synonymous with conservatives. Far too many of those bastards are backstabbing little shits, and are effectively nothing but "Democrat lite." To get into the rest of your comment would simply take far too much time, so i'm just going to skip it.

And now for some typical "sky is falling" caterwauling from an outraged libertarian worried that someone might miss a nut.

It's hyperbole. At least if they had ordered him castrated, that would have been an enforceable order. Not a good order, but enforceable.

Once you get over your hyperventilating, I will point out that the judge told him not to "reproduce". The judge didn't tell him not to have sex. Presumably he can still do that. As for where the Judge gets the power to issue such a ruling, it comes from the fact that he can throw the man in prison for cause, and therefore the man can chose to obey the judges extra-legal demand, or the man can chose to be imprisoned by the judges all too legal ruling for cause.

Again, how is that enforceable? If he was jailed over that order, the appeals court would reverse it so fast his sperm would swim backwards.

Sure, if the man wants to go through a lot of miserable crap in his efforts to appeal the ruling. I am not disputing that the Judge wouldn't be overturned, i'm just saying that before that happens, that judge can make the man's life very miserable. The man can chose to obey the extra legal ruling, or chose to have the legal misery he will acquire if he doesn't.

Not at all, but that's because it emanated from your imagination, rather than conservative principles. (Edmund Burke is a good source to learn about conservative principles. )

What did I make up? The order? You seem to be approving of it.

You made up all that crap about the man being prohibited from sex, c*ck-locked, etc. and then attributed your nonsensical prattling to being the consequence of conservative principles, which it was not. As for approving of the order, I do not. I disapprove because no mechanism for enforcing it has been demonstrated. Now if the Judge ordered a (reversible) vasectomy, that I would approve.

My rule of thumb is that your bullets should not hit me in the pocket.

GOD FORBID that someone should tell them to control themselves!!!!! Pray tell, what is the "libertarian" solution? That the rest of us should pay for this? I would love to hear an answer.

After having nine children with six different women, don't you think that ship has long sailed? Again, are you f***** kidding me?

No, stop letting him spread the costs of his behavior around. In Wisconsin you can go to jail for unpaid child support or contempt of the order. The judge could sentence him to prison for contempt of the child support order and suspend the sentence on condition of him maintaining a job where his wages are garnished. Failing that, he will presumably find it hard to reproduce in prison.

You mean use deterrence? Great Idea! Why didn't *I* think of that?

And I don't make you respond to me. If you'd like to ignore me, it won't hurt my feelings at all.

But on the deficit side, it is contrary to the best interests of society to let false or deceptive memes survive and propagate.