Anybody See Obama's Address?

[Velokid1]

Here's a good piece that discusses both Obama's speech an touches on the crap i just babbled about above. Infrastructure should be considered sexy.

http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archi ... na/244874/

[Amskeptic]

Infrastructure should be considered sexy.

Even if we were to invest in sprucing up the Empire, we have serious issues coming our way.
Colin

[Velokid1]

The article wasn't suggesting that investing in infrastructure would solve all our problems; it was speaking to small government folks, reminding them that tax money going toward the pretty remarkable infrastructure we have in place isn't wasted.

Naturally we have other problems.

[Amskeptic]

The article wasn't suggesting that investing in infrastructure would solve all our problems; it was speaking to small government folks, reminding them that tax money going toward the pretty remarkable infrastructure we have in place isn't wasted.

Naturally we have other problems.

Oh I wasn't pinning anything on the article, I just was looking at the letters to the editor page in the Friendship Arkansas paper, and I thought to myself, I thought, "we have other problems."

BUT, the fact is, NOW is a perfect time to invest in infrastructure upgrades as borrowing costs are so low.
Colin

[satchmo]

You haven't been watching your TV. If you send me $10 I'll pray for your prosperity. For $100 I'll mention you in my circle of friends. For $1000 I'll let you say you know me. For $10000 I'll include you in my circle of friends. Hell prosperity's a breeze in the US of A.

Jeez, man, you stole my best internet money making scheme. I was just about ready to 'go live' with my completely automated "Jesus Loves You Prayer Circle" where folks could just fill out a computer form with their worries and concerns, send in a little PayPal cash, and get an elaborate and 'personal' prayer delivered straight to 'GOD' (I know some ministers and we would send a copy of the prayer to the paying party, of course). Dang you. Now I'm gonna hafta go to my Plan B: Faith Based Investing (Board of Directors prays to GOD for guidance on stock purchases. Board buys 200,000 shares of stock that GOD said was going to be fruitful and multiply. Then board tells all the faithful that they should buy too cuz GOD says so. Stock price goes way up. Board prayerfully consults GOD again about time to divest. Board sells high. Then tells faithful now is the time to sell cuz GOD says so. Stock goes down. GOD was right. It's a miracle. Board gets rich, but only, and I mean only, as a reward for listening to GOD and doing HIS will. SEC can't touch us cuz we are just doing GOD's work. It isn't Pump n Dump when GOD tells you to buy and sell, is it?)

Gotta love it. Obama can't save us from ourselves. We are who we are, and we need to get used to it. Governments that seem to succeed (in the short term at least) have the most success when they employ jingoism and nationalism targeted at enemies real and imagined. In the US, we have better luck moving people to action when we tell them they should sacrifice their life for their country than we do asking folks to take care of their neighbors. Why is that?

Tim

[ruckman101]

..... In the US, we have better luck moving people to action when we tell them they should sacrifice their life for their country than we do asking folks to take care of their neighbors. Why is that?

Tim

I think you hit it on the head. We are what we is, and here we are.


neal

[steve74baywin]

In the US, we have better luck moving people to action when we tell them they should sacrifice their life for their country than we do asking folks to take care of their neighbors. Why is that?

Tim

It is called propaganda, it is not a myth, it is science. The news and TV are excellent tools.
Not only do those rich families in power benifit from getting the people to sacrifice for their country, they also benifit from getting the people dependent on government instead of each other. Those two go hand in hand.

[hambone]

History has not been learned, thus we are repeating it. Again, the human condition?

[Velokid1]

Not only do those rich families in power benifit from getting the people to sacrifice for their country, they also benifit from getting the people dependent on government instead of each other. Those two go hand in hand.

Isn't that a moot point, given the fact that the wealthy elite benefit no matter what happens? They benefit when the federal government pools all of our tax money and then contract with the wealthy elite to bold bridges, or uses the money to subsidize tobacco or GMO crops or fighter jets. And they also benefit when the private sector does all those things, since THEY ARE the private sector.

[ruckman101]

There's power in a union.

Oops, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a basic tenet of the Libertarian Party political plank anti-union? There's just no conceptual need. Sorry I believe in that basic right to organize and address grievances. Golly, almost sounds like a Constitutional right, kinda like addressing grievances with the government. Why are employers exempt?


neal

[steve74baywin]

Not only do those rich families in power benifit from getting the people to sacrifice for their country, they also benifit from getting the people dependent on government instead of each other. Those two go hand in hand.

Isn't that a moot point, given the fact that the wealthy elite benefit no matter what happens? They benefit when the federal government pools all of our tax money and then contract with the wealthy elite to bold bridges, or uses the money to subsidize tobacco or GMO crops or fighter jets. And they also benefit when the private sector does all those things, since THEY ARE the private sector.

Without the government aiding or helping them, then they are just people like the rest of us people, they may have an advantage due to the wealth they already have accumulated, but at least they aren't using the government to make it easier on them.
Why do they constantly seek the ability to control governments? There is a huge advantage to having the coercive power of the government on their side. It should be neutral, it should see all people as individuals and protect those individual rights.

There's power in a union.

Oops, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a basic tenet of the Libertarian Party political plank anti-union? There's just no conceptual need. Sorry I believe in that basic right to organize and address grievances. Golly, almost sounds like a Constitutional right, kinda like addressing grievances with the government. Why are employers exempt?


neal

The Libertarian view of Unions is this. There should be no government intervention.
People are free to form a Union. Yes sir, of course they are. If people working for a company want to form a "Union", they can. If that said "Union" wants to strike, they can. But also the owner of the company has rights too. He can hire other people if he wants.
Neal, in what way do you think or want the government to intervene?

[Velokid1]

Without the government aiding or helping them, then they are just people like the rest of us people, they may have an advantage due to the wealth they already have accumulated, but at least they aren't using the government to make it easier on them.

You are missing my point.

They will either use the government to help them, as they do now, or they reap equal or greater benefit from not having the government to regulate them, as they would in your scenario. Either way, they have the advantage. I would argue that they would have a much greater advantage without any regulation.

Why do they constantly seek the ability to control governments? There is a huge advantage to having the coercive power of the government on their side. It should be neutral, it should see all people as individuals and protect those individual rights.

They constantly seek to control and influence the government because that's their only recourse, given the government's power over them. Again, they would be at an even greater advantage if they didn't have to waste time and money on buying off their regulators. They would LOVE to have government out of the game, so they could trample everyone.

[steve74baywin]

They will either use the government to help them, as they do now, or they reap equal or greater benefit from not having the government to regulate them, as they would in your scenario. Either way, they have the advantage. I would argue that they would have a much greater advantage without any regulation.

They constantly seek to control and influence the government because that's their only recourse, given the government's power over them. Again, they would be at an even greater advantage if they didn't have to waste time and money on buying off their regulators. They would LOVE to have government out of the game, so they could trample everyone.

I see more damage by them using the government than I do by them not being able to use the government.
Remember the crazy legally created "corporation" would be undone.
But even if your right,
I can't see violating their rights just to give me an edge. They are people to, as long as they don't use the coercive powers of the gov, I'm fine.
As long as the gov protects individual rights, that's all the restriction by force I am willing to put on my brother, even if my brother owns alot. Just protect my rights, even against him. But I am not willing to use the coercive powers of the government to stack the cards in my favor.

[ruckman101]

How would I want the government to "intervene" you ask? Why in all the ways the government has, in response to pressure from the citizens for sane and safe working conditions, a wage that allows you to live, not slide into debt to your employer, all things employers weren't doing on their own. It took unions to get the job done. While labor is technically another resource, to drive down those costs in the name of profits at the expense of your employees is criminal. Look at WalMart, they bank on government subsidies to slash their labor costs. While the abuses used to be 80 hour work weeks, now it's the 20 hour work week.

All those government "interventions" were reluctantly taken at the behest of the citizens. Why anyone would think employers would be any more honorable now without those "interventions" is beyond me. Why support what has already failed?


neal

[steve74baywin]

How would I want the government to "intervene" you ask?

I ask that directly at your Union concerns. What laws to intervene in the Union/employer/employee relations? What laws are needed to help or hinder any of those parties.
Not whether Unions are needed, good or not. Not whether what they helped to get passed is good or not, but what laws do we need for there to be Unions, or for them to exist? What more than what a Libertarian form of gov would provide for the existence of Unions.
I am saying Unions can still be in a limited Libertarian form of gov. There is no laws to prevent it, and there wouldn't be any laws to help either side. What laws do you think the government needs for Unions to exist, or perhaps in order for them to be of use? What laws do you think we need to help unions to succeed?

Why in all the ways the government has, in response to pressure from the citizens for sane and safe working conditions, a wage that allows you to live, not slide into debt to your employer, all things employers weren't doing on their own. It took unions to get the job done. While labor is technically another resource, to drive down those costs in the name of profits at the expense of your employees is criminal. Look at WalMart, they bank on government subsidies to slash their labor costs. While the abuses used to be 80 hour work weeks, now it's the 20 hour work week.
All those government "interventions" were reluctantly taken at the behest of the citizens. Why anyone would think employers would be any more honorable now without those "interventions" is beyond me. Why support what has already failed?
neal

None of those are needed, unless people feel they are slaves, owned or powerless. We need none of them.
If the working conditions aren't safe, don' work there.
It is not criminal to drive down cost at the expense of of employees if they are not forced to be there. If we had a free society they wouldn't have to work there.
Maybe employers wouldn't be more honorable, if they aren't honorable enough for you, then stand up and leave. Freedom, if want it, exercise it, if you don't, then I guess you could stay.
I wouldn't suggest supporting something that has failed.
That is why I don't support control of people in the hands of the wealthy, becuase it seems that always fails for the masses. The wealthy are the ones in power. Limit there power, why give them more? So they can make the way people consumed milk for 1700 years illegal?

Edited to add,
People could be in a Union and still all choose to not work to bring about some change by the Employer. Whether that employer meets there demands or not would be up to the employer. If he chose to hire all new people, then they'd have to live with whatever the other people didn't like, or they could leave to.

Edited a 2nd time.
I thought I had addressed how Union could be in LP gov with no laws favoring either party, just protecting Individual Rights.
Substitute some bad working conditions for the word pay in the example of a strike.

The union argument can be one of the harder ones.
Using my usual Libertarian approach to dissect the issue.
Basing things on property rights, property as things owned including oneself.
A person who owns a company, owns it, it is their property.
They offer job at set wage. A person can choose it, or not.
The people who have chosen to work there decide to form a union, they can do that.
They can decide that together as a whole they can strike, not go to work.
The owner of the company can then decide to work with them, not have any work
going on, or hire new people....
In other words, if property rights alone are observed, and no government intervention or laws
to give either side an advantage or disadvantage, I see no problem. I think this is best.
There would be no issue. It seem too simple to me. People, property, free choice.
Choice to work somewhere, form or join a union if you want, work or don't work, owner makes
choice, perhaps he will realize he can't find people better and should work with them, which would also mean they have leg to stand on, or maybe he will find there our thousands standing at the door, who can do this job and are willing to for the same pay, which would sort of mean the people striking don't have a leg to stand on. Maybe he thinks he can do without these people and is wrong, his business will suffer, maybe he will learn, if not, his loss, his life, his choice, his property

.