Someone else who knows what feedback is.

[kcdodd]

So when a law is passed banning the dumping of toxic chemicals in a river, it was really to help (who exactly?), and not keep unwitting people from getting cancer?

Such new legislation could be to forestall worse legislation for the polluters, or, more likely, as a barrier to competitive entry. New smaller competitors may be more harmed by the legislation thus providing just such a barrier.

That is not a self consistent line of reasoning. Legislation to prevent legislation? But then by that the prevented legislation would have only been there to prevent other legislation. So then why would it need to be prevented? Doesn't follow.

One company would only be affected more if there was some reason they have to pollute more. If the two companies do the same job with the same technology, they would both be affected the same. New competitors, however, tend to innovate and so it is reasonable to say they would pollute less, thus they would actually have an advantage to compete.

[choff]

property is theft

well, thats the way i like to see it, in the global historical scheme of things.

@MSimon re your plug for the 'Libertarians' - they look just like the normal Republican party to me. are you sure you haven't been sold a dud there, or inadvertently been brainwashed into joining some religous sect by mistake?

I'm a poor man in America and live like a rich one 100 years ago

well, i feel like i'm living like a poor man, 100 years ago, and i consider myself to be relatively rich, in the global scheme of things.

there are just so many of us. and so many even poorer. something has to give. historically.

i propose not jetpacks, but free replicator rations, for everyone! hara!

(.. this an example of why i so rarely post under 'general').

One of the risks that any new political party faces is being infiltrated by operators from the old parties, who will use divide and conquer plus disinformation tactics to subvert the aims.
Do the membership of either the Libertarians or Tea Party movement have a clear and concise consensus on who or what they oppose, or what they would institute if elected. Is the platform reasonable for at least a solid minority of the electorate.
If all they do is say they're angry about how things are going, and make speechs and protests without creating concrete proposals the old parties just wait for the anger to dissipate.
Nothing is more unsettling to established parties than when the new party comes out with realistic, innovative policies. Then their own supporters look at them and say, 'why didn't we think of that.' Then they learn to respect you.

[Diogenes]

property is theft

well, thats the way i like to see it, in the global historical scheme of things.

@MSimon re your plug for the 'Libertarians' - they look just like the normal Republican party to me. are you sure you haven't been sold a dud there, or inadvertently been brainwashed into joining some religous sect by mistake?

I'm a poor man in America and live like a rich one 100 years ago

well, i feel like i'm living like a poor man, 100 years ago, and i consider myself to be relatively rich, in the global scheme of things.

there are just so many of us. and so many even poorer. something has to give. historically.

i propose not jetpacks, but free replicator rations, for everyone! hara!

(.. this an example of why i so rarely post under 'general').

One of the risks that any new political party faces is being infiltrated by operators from the old parties, who will use divide and conquer plus disinformation tactics to subvert the aims.
Do the membership of either the Libertarians or Tea Party movement have a clear and concise consensus on who or what they oppose, or what they would institute if elected. Is the platform reasonable for at least a solid minority of the electorate.
If all they do is say they're angry about how things are going, and make speechs and protests without creating concrete proposals the old parties just wait for the anger to dissipate.
Nothing is more unsettling to established parties than when the new party comes out with realistic, innovative policies. Then their own supporters look at them and say, 'why didn't we think of that.' Then they learn to respect you.

The unifying consensus of Tea Party folk is that they want to survive.

Current Federal spending practices are thought by many to be a threat to the survival of the country. If they are not stopped, a lot of people (myself included) fear a financial collapse.

I have long pointed out (20 years or so) that the Americans of 1930 were Hardy, independent, capable, and willing to tolerate austerity and sacrifice to survive. 3/4ths of the population lived on farms, and could grow their own food.

Nowadays, the American population is whiny, self absorbed, petulant, and lack seriousness when faced with serious problems.(California) Likewise, 3/4ths of the population now lives in Cities and are heavily dependent upon the remaining 1/4 to grow food for them.

Collapse the financial system, and things are likely to get very ugly, and It wouldn't surprise me to find millions dying as a result.

There are other issues unifying the Tea Party, but it is my perception that FEAR for survival of the nation (and themselves) is the heaviest motivating factor. I've read that current unfunded liabilities is at least 60 trillion dollars. That's scary to anyone that comprehends what it means.

[Diogenes]

I also see conservatives do not look at the long sweep of history in making their judgments about the "wisdom of the ages."

That's funny. That is exactly my number one complaint regarding Libertarians. They don't seem to understand that various prohibitions were the RESULT of previous experience.

Drug prohibitions have never worked. Generally their lifetimes run about 50 years or so (my guess is that they live longer now because people live longer).

It worked in China after drug addiction virtually destroyed the nation making it easy pickins for an invading Japan. China was the experiment that demonstrated WHY drugs needed to be banned, and how they were a threat to the survival of a nation.

So the conservatives are quite happy (and irrational) to leave the "wisdom of the ages" when it suits their government and MSM induced prejudices. But of course the conservatives would never be fooled by the government and MSM. Conservatives know their enemies. Really?

As popular experience with drug addiction was rare prior to cocaine being distributed widely in America, people can be forgiven for not "Pre-Prohibiting" something they had no experience with. As the horrifying results of cocaine addiction became widely known, people wisely decided to outlaw it. While they were at it, they figured they'd do the same for other drugs. (This time with effects not widely known, before the fact, just in case.)

I consider it to be an evolved response to a heretofore relatively unknown condition. (drug addiction.)

Conservatives believe people ought not be allowed to wreck their own lives (as if government could stop it).

That is a mischaracterization. Conservatives don't want the disease to spread from carriers to uninfected. Infected people are most likely doomed already.

I'm of the opinion that the self wreckers leave sign posts for the rest of us. They perform a useful function. Wisdom of the ages.

Oh, I agree. I think most people underestimated the usefullness of negative examples for convincing other people to not follow their folly. Unwed Motherhood used to be rare because it was a HORRIBLE experience. Now that the government came in during the 1960s (Thank you Democrats!) and made bastard production easy as pie, we are now overrun with badly behaved criminally minded bastards. Back when the girls could see the poor unfortunate unwed mother struggling to survive, they could see a good reason to resolve to not let that happen to them.

[Diogenes]

I have nothing against people getting wealthy. My only issue is that the same laws should apply to everybody regardless. It's been argued that the whole financial meltdown could have been avoided if the existings laws were enforced, additional regulations are unnecessary.

http://www.longislandpress.com/2010/10/ ... nside-job/

It seems like one huge difference between Canada and US federal governments is the actual number of pages that take up any new bill or law up for debate in either the Parliament or Congress/Senate. I think American legislation takes up ten times as much paper, much easier for individual members to add in amendments, but also possibly the approach is different.

The better to hide bullshit, my dear.

[Diogenes]

What a moron the original writer is.

there is nothing wrong with collecting wealth because you have helped others to get things they want to do done.

The wrong comes in when you collect wealth by fraud or force.

Having wealth is NOT EVER a problem in and of itself.

I don't think that's entirely true, Or let me say I have an open mind about that. There is a theory which has been put forth from various sources (Leftism Revisited, e.g.) that suggests that Unearned wealth tends to move people towards socialistic mindsets. Author Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihin claims that all socialist movements in history were initiated and funded by the wives and children of Wealthy men.

Likewise, examining the legacy of Wealth in America, Families like the Kennedys (and other Limousine Liberal elites) tend to underscore this point.

I'm not suggesting that the generational transfer of wealth should be interfered with in any way, I'm just pointing out that It does apparently create a problematic mindset. But of course, this problem is better to put up with than the solution for it would be.

[choff]

The unifying consensus of Tea Party folk is that they want to survive.

There are other issues unifying the Tea Party, but it is my perception that FEAR for survival of the nation (and themselves) is the heaviest motivating factor. I've read that current unfunded liabilities is at least 60 trillion dollars. That's scary to anyone that comprehends what it means.[/quote]

It means if the US goes down the rest of the world gets pulled into the same financial black hole, so its everybodies problem. The only thing the current administration is in any position to do is print more money and pray for growth.(Pray the Polywell or FF works very soon!)
If they can capture the balance of districts in an election, the Tea Party could force one of the other parties to support some of its policies in return for power, unless both the mainstream parties combine against them, in which case the Tea Party could call them out on it.

[MSimon]

@MSimon re your plug for the 'Libertarians' - they look just like the normal Republican party to me. are you sure you haven't been sold a dud there, or inadvertently been brainwashed into joining some religous sect by mistake?

I have gone from Democrat, to Communist, to Libertarian, to libertarian Republican. I know most of the arguments from the inside. I may very well be mistaken. Brainwashed is not likely.

[KitemanSA]

Regulation is always designed to favor established connected companies over their competition.
ALWAYS. It is NEVER to protect the consumer.

This is an accurate description of effect, not intent. The "intent" is to protect the little guy. But you know what road is paved with "good intentions".

[KitemanSA]

Drug prohibitions have never worked. Generally their lifetimes run about 50 years or so (my guess is that they live longer now because people live longer).

It worked in China after drug addiction virtually destroyed the nation making it easy pickins for an invading Japan. China was the experiment that demonstrated WHY drugs needed to be banned, and how they were a threat to the survival of a nation.

It wasn't the draconian measures used in China after WWII, it was the fact that the instrument of war (drug smuggling in a suppressive regime) used by the British empire to retrieve their gold was ended by the end of the war.

Drug use in China was fed, was PUSHED, by the British government as a means to retrieve their gold after the Chinese Empire refused to allow regular trade. On government stupidity driving another. Tiz the way of the world.