The Goat Pen

I'm more about gov't regulation now than ever but the problem is I don't trust the gov't to regulate properly because they are run by the ones they need to be regulating.

Saint wrote:I'm more about gov't regulation now than ever but the problem is I don't trust the gov't to regulate properly because they are run by the ones they need to be regulating.

that's why I don't think its pragmatic to go full bore libertarian without rebooting the entire thing.

The constitution dictates that the federal government pay for our national defense - and in turn that means military - but because of the existing obligations of the the government, they are cutting the military.

Now mind you, I believe our military is bloated, wasteful and waaaay to large - but we're not cutting the military because of that, we're cutting it because the people in Washington realize that at some point, they aren't going to have enough money to pay their obligations and retiring baby boomers aren't about to vote to cut social security or medicare. So thats one of those things where if you are a constitutionalists, you're scratching your head at how we got to here.

My stance on minimum wage has been consistent - in a free market world there would be no need for minimum wage, but out government imports Mexico's impoverished under the guise of an outdated premise with the resulting affect that workers wages continue to be lower. Our government , at the request of big business, refuses to enforce current immigration laws. At the same, our government , while promoting public unions at the state and federal level, actively seeks to destroy and limit Unions in the private sector - again because this would result in higher worker wages, not to mention we attempt to compete with state subsidized products like Chinese Steel, Japanese and Korean Automakers and European Aerospace.

So I think its irresponsible for a libertarian to stick with strict libertarian principles that only supports their view while conveniently ignoring the other issues that our government does to promote interference and regulation of a productive worker and the right of self determination(at the state and local level)/pursuit of happiness.

I would not trust a true libertarian president to allow Unions to give a worker a voice, not would I trust a true libertarian to secure our borders resulting in a drop in the available worker pool.

The only other thing I truly disagree with libertarians about is the use of public lands - I don't trust the private sector to protect the natural beauty of this country and its not something you can't redo. A libertarian would be 100% behind putting up a billboard next to old faithful or allowing oil drilling in Glacier national park.

I guess I also tend to believe that while the government shouldn't pick winners and losers, they should be engaged in protecting the national interest of our country, and for example,allowing companies that support our infrastructure die out to free market principles would be irresponsible.

So yea, I am probably more republican in the sense of Barry Goldwater , and that today is just translated loosely to being Libertarian because Republican today is actually a variation of Yellow Dog Democrat with more than left moderate views outside of moral stances. Again, Goldwater would not support my views on the things mentioned above but the Government influencing the prosperity of the worker has changed dramatically since the time of Goldwater too.

and I have to say , reluctantly, that I do agree with IB on the civil rights act.

Its not that I support the idea of refusing service to someone because they are black, gay or handicapped, but I think it stands in the way of our basic rights to pursue happiness and our basic rights of living in a free country.

I can explain it like this

I am pro-life. I wasn't always that way but as I got older I started coming to terms about what life meant to me and what abortion meant to me.

however, that said, its not my place to tell another person what to do with their body or what their obligations are to their body. Dancing around the idea of when the unborn is a human being with rights (which is the key to dismantling this argument) , abortion is no more of an issue than telling a person they can't use heroin or get drunk.

So the same with me on civil rights- what I personally would or wouldn't do is based on my value system, but my value system doesn't give me the right to place my values on another person to where it impedes their right to do what they want with their property.

Sounds like you are pro-choice. Baby murderer.

"The only other thing I truly disagree with libertarians about is the use of public lands - I don't trust the private sector to protect the natural beauty of this country and its not something you can't redo. A libertarian would be 100% behind putting up a billboard next to old faithful or allowing oil drilling in Glacier national park."

That's not exactly correct. I don't think that libertarians, or rather, libertarian theory, is 100% behind put up a billboard in Yellowstone. What libertarian theory says is that if enough people don't want that, they will be able to muster enough support to make it not happen. But if they can't, i.e., if enough people just don't care, then so what? If you can't muster enough support to stop billboards in Yellowstone, then quite simply, enough people just didn't care enough to stop it. And if that's the case, then so what if there are billboards in Yellowstone? Every issue is going to have its detractors, there are plenty of people who are adamantly opposed to abortion (or whatever) and yet that is the law of the land and too bad for those who are against it. I'm not saying I support billboards in Yellowstone, but that's just the way it works with most everything else...

I will say I am glad that back in the day before mass transportation could enable people to actually get to these places and see the beauty and grandeur (etc) and mass communication could enable them to rally around any effort to put up billboards, some powerful people (Teddy Roosevelt, etc) used their power to make sure that big money interests couldn't ruin those landscapes. It wasn't a fair playing field back then (and it still isn't now), so I'm glad some powerful people made sure that at least some public lands were set aside and protected until such a time (i.e., now) that there would be enough people who had actually been to places like this and valued having them, and enough means (via the internet and 24 hour news cycle) to alert the masses if something like that (billboards, etc) was in the works, so that they could rally the support to stop such a thing...

Sounds like you want to rape Mother Nature. Asshole.

My mom was such a big Goldwater fan she named her youngest son after him.

hedge wrote:"The only other thing I truly disagree with libertarians about is the use of public lands - I don't trust the private sector to protect the natural beauty of this country and its not something you can't redo. A libertarian would be 100% behind putting up a billboard next to old faithful or allowing oil drilling in Glacier national park."

That's not exactly correct. I don't think that libertarians, or rather, libertarian theory, is 100% behind put up a billboard in Yellowstone. What libertarian theory says is that if enough people don't want that, they will be able to muster enough support to make it not happen. But if they can't, i.e., if enough people just don't care, then so what? If you can't muster enough support to stop billboards in Yellowstone, then quite simply, enough people just didn't care enough to stop it. And if that's the case, then so what if there are billboards in Yellowstone? Every issue is going to have its detractors, there are plenty of people who are adamantly opposed to abortion (or whatever) and yet that is the law of the land and too bad for those who are against it. I'm not saying I support billboards in Yellowstone, but that's just the way it works with most everything else...

I will say I am glad that back in the day before mass transportation could enable people to actually get to these places and see the beauty and grandeur (etc) and mass communication could enable them to rally around any effort to put up billboards, some powerful people (Teddy Roosevelt, etc) used their power to make sure that big money interests couldn't ruin those landscapes. It wasn't a fair playing field back then (and it still isn't now), so I'm glad some powerful people made sure that at least some public lands were set aside and protected until such a time (i.e., now) that there would be enough people who had actually been to places like this and valued having them, and enough means (via the internet and 24 hour news cycle) to alert the masses if something like that (billboards, etc) was in the works, so that they could rally the support to stop such a thing...

if you watch Ken Burns documentary on the parks, you realize that alot of our federal parks are actually a result of philanthropy of the wealthiest Americans. Their mindset was that instead of giving money directly to the gutter trash that worked for them, mankind would benefit more from having public entities bestowed upon them such as parks, libraries, concert halls, etc and then after donating this or bulding them, they often transferred responsibility to the federal government to maintain them and keep them in the public interest.

I understand what you are saying about the libertarian mindset but I just don't trust the public to care - especially with the Sara Palin types I see lately - drill baby drill - the 10 - 30 years we face of increased cost of gasoline for example might sway the people to forsake a park that has been with us for over 100 years and in turn act in a way that can't be reversed. I watched a documentary on Penn St. that was crazy a couple of nights ago about how it became a martyr to ignite our coutry's passion in preserving our architectural heritage. This beautiful piece of architecture - comparable to a European castle or church was demolished to make way for Madison Square garden because the federal and/or state government had no interest in preserving this.

sardis wrote:My mom was such a big Goldwater fan she named her youngest son after him.

Goldie?

"This beautiful piece of architecture - comparable to a European castle or church was demolished to make way for Madison Square garden because the federal and/or state government had no interest in preserving this."

Just take a picture of it before you tear it down and move on.

I don't trust libertarians. All that freedom shit can't be good.

Welcome! Have you answered the three questions?

I've been busy. Travelling. A spot of illness. You know the drill. Thanks for asking.

rough year for Saban and Grant. I figured you just shut it down for awhile

Nah. 11 wins in football is about what I expected. And I said last year that Grant was done. And to a larger degree, I love college athletics, but -in the end- I try to keep the relative failures and successes of 20-year-olds in perspective.

I'm still trying to figure out if sardis is goldies uncle or grandpa.

I don't see the same philanthropy today that was present in the Industrial Age. Well, mainly because I wasn't alive to see it then.

There are unwritten rules of capitalism that have to be followed to make it work and to keep gov't intrusion to a minimum. The main one is don't be greedy and that seems to be the first one broken in business today.

glad your feeling better AA

2 game losing streaks will do that to you

Saint wrote:I don't see the same philanthropy today that was present in the Industrial Age. Well, mainly because I wasn't alive to see it then.

There are unwritten rules of capitalism that have to be followed to make it work and to keep gov't intrusion to a minimum. The main one is don't be greedy and that seems to be the first one broken in business today.

its there, but its more global. Bill Gates is trying to solve malaria in 3rd world shitholes so he can open call centers there for example.

crashcourse wrote:glad your feeling better AA

2 game losing streaks will do that to you

If you took three months off every time your team lost two, we wouldn't see for a couple of millennia. Anyway, not the AU-OU abortion.