Why Did You Vote For Obama?

[Inhuman14]

Beyond your pay grade?

Yes indeedy.

[Napoleon Ier]

And it worries me based on these sorts of comments that Americans get to choose who ends up in charge of the free world for the rest of us.

Hey, you can move to America. Nothing's stopping you. Or, if you're feeling contrary, go join China or Russia. Which would you rather have in charge of the free world?

He wants the french in power.

I'm first to admit that would be far worse.

[Napoleon Ier]

I'm American, and I get pissed at people who think that we all think that we own the world. I think that the world needs a leader, though, and at the moment, the USA is that leader, whether you like it or not. Whether the USA is a good leader or not, well, that's not my department.

I'm not generalizing, of course, nor do I have anything but love for America, and in fact you'll find I have rather Atlantist leanings in geo-political debate. Nonetheless I find it disturbing that Americans, in this position as "that leader of the free world", would make their decisions based on demagogic rants aimed at exploiting their mob-like whims. Not that any other nation is necessarily better. I'm not relativizing. Simply the decision you had to make on November 4 required a degree of intellectual maturity the vast majority of you did not have, much as that degree is no higher in my own country.

[Napoleon Ier]

Walmart stockholders do well, but employees do not.

The two sets are not mutually exclusive. When you consider 50% of Americans own stocks, and the vast numbers whose pensions are tied up in the security markets, the whole "Wall Street vs. Main Street" myth is imploded, to understate the matter.

The cry is always that those types of aid creates jobs. Well, welfare creates jobs, too, ironically. Food stamps help support a lot of grocery stores

Hang about now, you clam you studied economics, so explain to me how food stamps represent real value added to the economy?

Rental assistance aids many a landlord .. some big guys, but many pretty small. Folks who own a home they could not sell.. so they try renting. Etc. Furthermore, when those food stamps or rental assistance or childcare assistance go to someone who is working a 40 hour week and still cannot afford health care, food, housing for her 1 or 2 kids (not 10 kids by 7 fathers or any such thing.) .. it really means that we are helping to prop up that business. If that business is a "mom and pop" where the owners are barely able themselves to pay a small mortgage, etc. ... that's one thing, but far too often, it is Walmart, Kmart, McDonald, etc.. .hardly small time companies without the means to pay more. Those companies could pay employees more, if they were willing to cut executive pay a little or to drop stockholder dividends. And yes, I DO think that the person who clocks in to work at any job deserves to be paid enough to live. Getting rich comes AFTER you have paid all your expenses, including employee pay. Not before.

That's all nice, but this wishy-washy weak form of social democracy was tried here in the UK and until Thatcher came and sorted it the country was virtually reduced to being 2nd/pushing 3rd World.

Bush & his cronies aided the big guys in ways that made absolutely no real sense. He allowed deregulation of the banks, which is part of why we are in this mess. He stonewalled support of alternative energy programs, while giving lip service to the opposite. ETC/

The motor of our economy is entrepreneurs getting initial capital injections to allow them to fulfill projects. Regulate that, and you throttle the ingenuity and pioneer spirit that is a keystone of Western civilization once especially resplendent in your own land. Ultimately, the banker and entrepreneur know best how to ensure they minimize the risk behind their credit transactions, not government.

What did happen to cause this credit crunch wasn't entirely Bush's fault, he's too easy a scapegoat. Yes, he spent money like a drunk sailor with Iraq etc, which is by no means a small contributing factor, but the expansion of the inflationary cut-taxes and-still-spend-obscene-amounts state is nothing new and particular to the US, and is the real cause of this crisis. Deregulations? Pshaw! It's letting bankers (of whom don't worry, I have my moments of Jacksonian suspicion of) get away with thinking they can lend more than they realistically would otherwise by promises of bailouts and cheap credit that caused the "mess".

She could have been president. As an American citizen, I did find that thought disturbing.

To an extent, fair play, but it's almost like Clinton and his backstage hanky-panky whilst in office: not entirely relevant to their direction of the country.

Obama on the other hand seems to think that taxing imports won't have a symmetrical effect on exports, which is probably worse than creationism in terms of its sheer stupidity, and he is in fact going to translate his

We had a time of unbridled, unlimited capitalism already

Worked bloody well too. Or would you rather we never had an Industrial Revolution?

There just aren't huge swatches of untapped resources laying relatively "unclaimed" (or, more to the point claimed by people who have not the slightest ability to keep them) ready to line the pockets of those who wish to take them.

Well, there are if you let intelligent people go look for these new resources and make their own incentives, rather than make them fill out reams of risk-assessment forms and tax them every second dollar they make in the process of going about it.

I am not so egotistical as to think our country rules the world. U.S. companies do have a lot of sway. The U.S. government certainly impacts the world, but we hardly act alone and are hardly "in charge" of anything but this country (and sometimes maybe not even that).

No one talked about egotism, just geo-political fact. The US leads the free world. We have no say in electing Obama, and whilst I don't think we would have made a better choice by any means, since you are making that choice, I hold you to higher standards.

[PLAYER57832]

Walmart stockholders do well, but employees do not.

The two sets are not mutually exclusive. When you consider 50% of Americans own stocks, and the vast numbers whose pensions are tied up in the security markets, the whole "Wall Street vs. Main Street" myth is imploded, to understate the matter.

A few of the early Walmart employees are actually millionares due to stocks. Still, there are big differances between a pensions, individual stock purchases & mutual funds, and the 401K, which is what most people now have.

And, when companies care more about making stockholders and CEOs rich than in pleasing customers and supporting employees, you have GM instead of Toyota. And the results speak for themselves. (in case you were not aware, GM has been paying several million to its executives in bonuses, cutting worker benefits and numbers of employees. Toyota paid its CEO 1 million and even when it shut down, kept its employees working on public service projects at full company pay)

The cry is always that those types of aid creates jobs. Well, welfare creates jobs, too, ironically. Food stamps help support a lot of grocery stores

Hang about now, you clam you studied economics, so explain to me how food stamps represent real value added to the economy?

Not sure when I said I "studied economics".

but if you read what I wrote, I did explain. If you need more specifics -- Food stamps pay for food in grocery stores which contribute toward the pofit of that grocery store, which helps support the owner and workers of that store. Most of those people pay taxes on those earnings.

Further, there are secondary benefits. If someone is starving, especially if their kids are starving, they don't tend to look down on things like stealing as much as if they have a relatively full belly.

Bush & his cronies aided the big guys in ways that made absolutely no real sense. He allowed deregulation of the banks, which is part of why we are in this mess. He stonewalled support of alternative energy programs, while giving lip service to the opposite. ETC/

The motor of our economy is entrepreneurs getting initial capital injections to allow them to fulfill projects. Regulate that, and you throttle the ingenuity and pioneer spirit that is a keystone of Western civilization once especially resplendent in your own land. Ultimately, the banker and entrepreneur know best how to ensure they minimize the risk behind their credit transactions, not government.

What did happen to cause this credit crunch wasn't entirely Bush's fault, he's too easy a scapegoat. Yes, he spent money like a drunk sailor with Iraq etc, which is by no means a small contributing factor, but the expansion of the inflationary cut-taxes and-still-spend-obscene-amounts state is nothing new and particular to the US, and is the real cause of this crisis. Deregulations? Pshaw! It's letting bankers (of whom don't worry, I have my moments of Jacksonian suspicion of) get away with thinking they can lend more than they realistically would otherwise by promises of bailouts and cheap credit that caused the "mess".[/quote]

No the cause of the crisis is that banks were allowed to bundle high risk mortgages into securities which were rated by agencies paid by the banks. Everything from other banks to schools to folks overseas invested in these supposedly safe securities. Only it turned out they were really just insurance for bad mortgages and when folks started having trouble with mortgage ... it all began to go bust.

Add in bank CEOs who get bonuses beginning at just over 20 million, up to around 35 million, regardless of whether the bank was doing well or not ... and you have folks who took too much risk too quickly because they thought they knew better and were so much smarter than the rest of the world. Now we, the American taxpayers, are having to pay for their arrogance.

She could have been president. As an American citizen, I did find that thought disturbing.

To an extent, fair play, but it's almost like Clinton and his backstage hanky-panky whilst in office: not entirely relevant to their direction of the country.

A president who disbelieves 90% of modern science is most certainly relevant.

We had a time of unbridled, unlimited capitalism already

Worked bloody well too. Or would you rather we never had an Industrial Revolution?

Cute, but you got your timing off a bit...as well as the consequences.

There just aren't huge swatches of untapped resources laying relatively "unclaimed" (or, more to the point claimed by people who have not the slightest ability to keep them) ready to line the pockets of those who wish to take them.

Well, there are if you let intelligent people go look for these new resources and make their own incentives, rather than make them fill out reams of risk-assessment forms and tax them every second dollar they make in the process of going about it.

Except it just is not so. First, they are not hamstrung as you seem to imply. Not in the U.S. Sure, the oil companies, etc. will push forward those claims ... all the while they are heavily investing and developing. However, there just are not vast untapped reserves of oil any more. Most timber is in Russia. Many fish stocks are depleted to the point of no return. That may not seem too significant to you .. until you realize just what it truly means about the entire ocean AND our well being.

Study science a bit more, actually LISTEN to experts in various resources (and not the so-called "experts" willing to come on every talk show for a price, but the ones who quietly do their work unless absolutely pressed).

Yes, there is certainly such a thing as too many taxes, improper taxes, too much regulation. BUT, we are most definitely not there yet in the U.S. Right now in the U.S., mining laws are such that my neighbor, who DOES own the mineral rights to my land and that of most of my community can mine those minerals without any regard to my house, the health and only minimally to the welfare of this community. A huge landfill was begun not too far from here. It now gets trash from New York City, etc. including some very hazardous waste. All of the local landowners, who used to drink well water now are required to BUY city water. Sure, the landfill corporation had to pay for the lines, but not the water the peopel use. It was a rural area, farms. They are not shut down. That meat and produce is sold. Supposedly it is "safe", but no testing is required. (and yes, I am QUITE aware of US agricultural regulations, but for one thing most of the stuff is sold locally to neighbors, similar small sources). The drainage area includes 3 streams that have only recently been restored. Locals spent years of work, money to restore them. One big landfill pretty much negated all that work.


Love Canal is located just north of here. Just down the road is what's left of a plant. None of the 40 or so employees of that plant are still living. They all died of cancer and related illnesses.

Sure, taxes must be within reason. BUT, they must also be constructed to truly compensate for damage a company does and the resources it uses. When mere compensation is not enough, as is often very much the case when it comes to natural resources, then regulation is necessary to see that MY rights and the rights of my neighbors are protected. This attitude that its OK for companies to do as they wish because they are creating jobs just is not reasonable. Profits come AFTER they pay expenses and only when they are not taking profit off the backs of their neighbor's health, livelihoods and general well being.

[Napoleon Ier]

ween a pensions, individual stock purchases & mutual funds, and the 401K, which is what most people now have.

And, when companies care more about making stockholders and CEOs rich than in pleasing customers and supporting employees, you have GM instead of Toyota. And the results speak for themselves. (in case you were not aware, GM has been paying several million to its executives in bonuses, cutting worker benefits and numbers of employees. Toyota paid its CEO 1 million and even when it shut down, kept its employees working on public service projects at full company pay)

And GM is going out of business: the market weeds out such innefficient behavious on its own. What we don't want is government getting its grubby paws all over business, because what works for one business is not what might work for another, and far better to allow individuals, consumers and producers, to sort out their own specific problems on a case-by-case basis than to have government impose blanket measures.


Not sure when I said I "studied economics".

but if you read what I wrote, I did explain. If you need more specifics -- Food stamps pay for food in grocery stores which contribute toward the pofit of that grocery store, which helps support the owner and workers of that store. Most of those people pay taxes on those earnings.

Further, there are secondary benefits. If someone is starving, especially if their kids are starving, they don't tend to look down on things like stealing as much as if they have a relatively full belly.

That doesn't answer the question of where the aggregate real value added is: what you pay to one set of people in food stamps must come from other peoples' pockets, through tax, or worse, inflation. You eat, as you're so fond of saying, because of real GDP: not freshly printed greenbacks.

The motor of our economy is entrepreneurs getting initial capital injections to allow them to fulfill projects. Regulate that, and you throttle the ingenuity and pioneer spirit that is a keystone of Western civilization once especially resplendent in your own land. Ultimately, the banker and entrepreneur know best how to ensure they minimize the risk behind their credit transactions, not government.

What did happen to cause this credit crunch wasn't entirely Bush's fault, he's too easy a scapegoat. Yes, he spent money like a drunk sailor with Iraq etc, which is by no means a small contributing factor, but the expansion of the inflationary cut-taxes and-still-spend-obscene-amounts state is nothing new and particular to the US, and is the real cause of this crisis. Deregulations? Pshaw! It's letting bankers (of whom don't worry, I have my moments of Jacksonian suspicion of) get away with thinking they can lend more than they realistically would otherwise by promises of bailouts and cheap credit that caused the "mess".

No the cause of the crisis is that banks were allowed to bundle high risk mortgages into securities which were rated by agencies paid by the banks. Everything from other banks to schools to folks overseas invested in these supposedly safe securities. Only it turned out they were really just insurance for bad mortgages and when folks started having trouble with mortgage ... it all began to go bust.

Add in bank CEOs who get bonuses beginning at just over 20 million, up to around 35 million, regardless of whether the bank was doing well or not ... and you have folks who took too much risk too quickly because they thought they knew better and were so much smarter than the rest of the world. Now we, the American taxpayers, are having to pay for their arrogance

Don't subsidize their arrogance then, and they'll tread more carefully next time. But of course. That makes far too much sense: we need goverment to solve this, so government needs first to pay them off for trying to earn money at everyone else's expense, which they only managed to do in the first place because government promoted absurd monetary policy, and then tell them they can't do it again. So....those "folks who though they knew better" end up getting stupid amounts of cash, and can retire on a Carribean island whilst you subsidize this. Wow, now I see why you say they though they were so much smarter than the rest of the world.

She could have been president. As an American citizen, I did find that thought disturbing.

To an extent, fair play, but it's almost like Clinton and his backstage hanky-panky whilst in office: not entirely relevant to their direction of the country.

A president who disbelieves 90% of modern science is most certainly relevant.

How? It's as relevant as Clinton and his extra-curricular fun, only this time it's the leftists who get to whinge.

We had a time of unbridled, unlimited capitalism already

Worked bloody well too. Or would you rather we never had an Industrial Revolution?

Cute, but you got your timing off a bit...as well as the consequences.[/quote]

The consequences? You want to compare the improvement in quality fo life for the average man between 1600 and 1750, and then between 1750 and 1900? You also want to look at the banking and financing institutions that paved the way for the 1st Revolution, and the 1846 repeal for the 2nd? Free Trade and deregulated credit trabsactions do work. Government messing with interest rates and ignoring monetary aggregates doesn't.

Except it just is not so. First, they are not hamstrung as you seem to imply. Not in the U.S. Sure, the oil companies, etc. will push forward those claims ... all the while they are heavily investing and developing. However, there just are not vast untapped reserves of oil any more. Most timber is in Russia. Many fish stocks are depleted to the point of no return. That may not seem too significant to you .. until you realize just what it truly means about the entire ocean AND our well being.
Yes, there is certainly such a thing as too many taxes, improper taxes, too much regulation. BUT, we are most definitely not there yet in the U.S. Right now in the U.S., mining laws are such that my neighbor, who DOES own the mineral rights to my land and that of most of my community can mine those minerals without any regard to my house, the health and only minimally to the welfare of this community. A huge landfill was begun not too far from here. It now gets trash from New York City, etc. including some very hazardous waste. All of the local landowners, who used to drink well water now are required to BUY city water. Sure, the landfill corporation had to pay for the lines, but not the water the peopel use. It was a rural area, farms. They are not shut down. That meat and produce is sold. Supposedly it is "safe", but no testing is required. (and yes, I am QUITE aware of US agricultural regulations, but for one thing most of the stuff is sold locally to neighbors, similar small sources). The drainage area includes 3 streams that have only recently been restored. Locals spent years of work, money to restore them. One big landfill pretty much negated all that work.


Love Canal is located just north of here. Just down the road is what's left of a plant. None of the 40 or so employees of that plant are still living. They all died of cancer and related illnesses.

Sure, taxes must be within reason. BUT, they must also be constructed to truly compensate for damage a company does and the resources it uses. When mere compensation is not enough, as is often very much the case when it comes to natural resources, then regulation is necessary to see that MY rights and the rights of my neighbors are protected. This attitude that its OK for companies to do as they wish because they are creating jobs just is not reasonable. Profits come AFTER they pay expenses and only when they are not taking profit off the backs of their neighbor's health, livelihoods and general well being.

These are all tragic anecdotes, but quite apart from the fact that using personal stories in debate doesn't substitute hard empirical data, what you're essentially complaining about is a violation of propoerty rights: the property rights of you and your family, or of your community. In a free country, we are lucky enough to be able to take people who violate our rights to a court of law. I entirely agree that negative externalities, which is economists' jargon for the bad things that directly result to other people's property because of profit-seeking, need to be taxed. I don't think a blanket 35% business tax on the other hand, is moral or sensible.

But let's just think: right now it's private individuals and their companies violating your rights. I'm in total agreement with you that you should have every right to get them off your property, or your community's property, or at least make them pay a restitutive price if you and the citizens of your municipality are prepared to accept it. However, that's thanks to the Common Law that preserves our liberties and makes case-by-case judgements to resolve individual problems. If, as you want, we have State-owned corporations doing whatever they damn please with the land, and you as an individual have no rights, being only a part of society for whom we are trying to "achieve a greater good", where is the rule of law to protect you then? Sacrificied on the altar of Marxist totalitarianism Player, that's where it is. The nightmare scenario is when the State takes over these companies, because then, you have nor rights, and ther's no judge, no court, no-one in fact, to protect you from the whims of mob-rule, or the rule of despotic oligarchs pretending to work in the name of the Proletariat.

Study science a bit more, actually LISTEN to experts in various resources (and not the so-called "experts" willing to come on every talk show for a price, but the ones who quietly do their work unless absolutely pressed).

Is that meant to be a subtle jibe at Friedman? Believe me, that's not a road you want to go down with me.

[PLAYER57832]

I cannot give you the full answer your post deserves right now. But, here are a couple of points just to start.

These are all tragic anecdotes, but quite apart from the fact that using personal stories in debate doesn't substitute hard empirical data,

Come again? These are hardly "just anecdotal" accounts. Love canal is a very well known, VERY well documented case study. No, I did not reference the many, many articles and studies because I believe that anyone as intelligent as you either knows of these things or can readily obtain the information.

As for the others. You misunderstand misuse of personal testimony. In fact, it is valid when it is empirically based and the information presented is specific and limited to the facts, as my statements were. You may not like what I am saying, but it IS valid and definitely applicable to this debate.

what you're essentially complaining about is a violation of propoerty rights: the property rights of you and your family, or of your community. In a free country, we are lucky enough to be able to take people who violate our rights to a court of law. I entirely agree that negative externalities, which is economists' jargon for the bad things that directly result to other people's property because of profit-seeking, need to be taxed.

Except that is exactly what you are objecting to.

I don't think a blanket 35% business tax on the other hand, is moral or sensible.

The problem is that while some issues can be readily defined and delineated, there is a whole set of other issues that are not so easily assessed. How much does one particular business use our roadways? Is the Sulphur that the local pulp mill produces really worse than the carbon emitted by carbon plate company in the next town?

One reason for a flat tax is becuase true equity, truly assessing all these factors is nearly impossible. Does a flat tax hurt some businesses perhaps unduly and reward others? Truthfully, there would be problems with any system. But you also have to consider the cost of implementing a very complex system.

We already give businesses thousands of tax breaks. Many are legitimate attempts to correct above "inequities" or to steer businesses in ways that are good for the overall economy/country as a whole. Giving some companies breaks for hiring ex prisoners, for example, encourages them to hire these more risky employees and thereby helps make it less likely they will recommit crimes. Alternative energy and pollution control devices make the world around us just better for all. I myself would much rather breath air free of smog, but even if you wish to discount those sorts of effects, smog has a straight economic effect in causing buildings to deteriorate more rapidly and causing increased illnesses.

But let's just think: right now it's private individuals and their companies violating your rights. I'm in total agreement with you that you should have every right to get them off your property, or your community's property, or at least make them pay a restitutive price if you and the citizens of your municipality are prepared to accept it. However, that's thanks to the Common Law that preserves our liberties and makes case-by-case judgements to resolve individual problems.

It does not work that way. You first need to change the law. Right now, I DO NOT have any right to do anything about invasion of my property. My neighbor was quite freely allowed to build up his house by 12 feet and there was no requirement that he install proper drainage. Even if the law were protecting me, the local inspector does not even have a basic knowledge of water drainage. His comment, when I complained that water was running into my garage was to just "wait for the grass to grow"... and that would fix it. (note, I DID study hydrology in College!).

IN my case, it was possible that I MIGHT have been able to win my case had it gone to court. Possible.. by no means assured. BUT, I was told it would cost roughly $15,000 to even present the case in court ...even with me or possible some good friends of mine who are engineers, etc., serving as the prime expert witness'. AND, under Pennsylvania law there is no obligation for the winner to pay court costs. Sometimes costs are awarded, but often not. So, I would lose a MINIMUM of $15,000 protecting a house that was worth (back then) maybe $40,000. The point was mute, because I just did not have the money. My neighbor did.

THAT is why uniform and clear laws are needed ... to protect little people like myself who cannot afford to take the bigger guys to court whenver we wish. I needed a clear law that I could point to, that would direct the inspector what was required.

If, as you want, we have State-owned corporations doing whatever they damn please with the land,

Wait.. wait.. I said NOTHING about "state owned" corporations. These are PRIVATE corporations.

and you as an individual have no rights, being only a part of society for whom we are trying to "achieve a greater good", where is the rule of law to protect you then?

This is what I am saying. I HAVE NO protection, because whenever they are proposed folks with big bucks (mining companies, etc.) come in and talk about "loss of business" , "economic deprivation" and "business rights". "free market".

Sacrificied on the altar of Marxist totalitarianism Player, that's where it is. The nightmare scenario is when the State takes over these companies, because then, you have nor rights, and ther's no judge, no court, no-one in fact, to protect you from the whims of mob-rule, or the rule of despotic oligarchs pretending to work in the name of the Proletariat.

Now you are going off on a ridiculous tangent that has nothing to do with anything I said. Marxism? No judge, court. Mob rule?

Point in fact, if anything will result in mob rule, it is the kind of DEregulation you propose, not the sort of sensible and controlled legislation and taxation I am suggesting.

Study science a bit more, actually LISTEN to experts in various resources (and not the so-called "experts" willing to come on every talk show for a price, but the ones who quietly do their work unless absolutely pressed).

Is that meant to be a subtle jibe at Friedman? Believe me, that's not a road you want to go down with me.

Friedman? Never heard of the guy.

Here is where I have to make one of those statements you hate. If you truly are not aware that what I said is true, then you just don't know science very well, not real science in the real world. Either you know and are simply feigning ignorance or you truly don't know ... and will have to learn in time.

I am referring to my personnal experience. I worked in science for years, worked with scientist who are/were considered international experts in their fields. You would not recognize any of the names, but they ARE the ones who come up with the data, who publish the information that moves science forward. Aside from technical conferances and publications, they generally are NOT the ones you see talking about it, though. I watch Discover and don't necessarily always know the people in front of the camera (sometimes I do), but I generally DO know the people who originated the research, who started the "ball rolling" in the direction that allowed those "TV" scientists to interest folks like National Geographic or Discover. Understand, in the case of National Geographic and Discover, the scientists presented are fully credible and excellent scientists. However, when you look at the talk show circuit or the local experts on various news/TV shows, the same is not necessarily true. In fact, it often is not.

Often times those truly involved with research, particularly if it is government funded, are expressly forbidden from any discussion outside of a tight technical circle.. publications, conferences, etc. What you see is their information/data regurgitated. And well, often things are lost in that process.

[Napoleon Ier]

I think your anti-capitalist outrage is fundamentally misplaced and that you're misunderstanding some of my posts, and as am I some of yours (apparently). I'll try and type up a brief outline of my position, but as a bare sine of the argument, understand that a broadly libertarian constitution in the US guarantees you the right to your own property, and to avail yourself of a justice system independent of any legislature or executive to enforce that right, against the will of the majority if requisite, in direct contrast to utilitario-communalo-neo-socialist ideas you think you might be affiliated with.

The comment "Friedman? Never heard of the guy." says it all really, though.

[PLAYER57832]

I think your anti-capitalist outrage is fundamentally misplaced and that you're misunderstanding some of my posts, and as am I some of yours (apparently). I'll try and type up a brief outline of my position, but as a bare sine of the argument, understand that a broadly libertarian constitution in the US guarantees you the right to your own property, and to avail yourself of a justice system independent of any legislature or executive to enforce that right, against the will of the majority if requisite, in direct contrast to utilitario-communalo-neo-socialist ideas you think you might be affiliated with.

The comment "Friedman? Never heard of the guy." says it all really, though.

You have tossed out a lot of labels you have apparently learned insufficiently. I am not anti-capitalism. I am opposed to unbridled capitalism.

We do not habe a Liberaterian Constitution, we have a constitional democracy and a republic. And, yes the judiciary enforces rules, BUT the legislator and occasionally the executive branch have to first create the laws. The constitution is a guide to other laws, not a full list of the laws necessary to run a country.

As for the name-calling. Cute, but how about saying something real?

[Snorri1234]

I think your anti-capitalist outrage is fundamentally misplaced and that you're misunderstanding some of my posts, and as am I some of yours (apparently). I'll try and type up a brief outline of my position, but as a bare sine of the argument, understand that a broadly libertarian constitution in the US guarantees you the right to your own property, and to avail yourself of a justice system independent of any legislature or executive to enforce that right, against the will of the majority if requisite, in direct contrast to utilitario-communalo-neo-socialist ideas you think you might be affiliated with.

The comment "Friedman? Never heard of the guy." says it all really, though.

You have tossed out a lot of labels you have apparently learned insufficiently.

He does that a lot.

[Napoleon Ier]

I think your anti-capitalist outrage is fundamentally misplaced and that you're misunderstanding some of my posts, and as am I some of yours (apparently). I'll try and type up a brief outline of my position, but as a bare sine of the argument, understand that a broadly libertarian constitution in the US guarantees you the right to your own property, and to avail yourself of a justice system independent of any legislature or executive to enforce that right, against the will of the majority if requisite, in direct contrast to utilitario-communalo-neo-socialist ideas you think you might be affiliated with.

The comment "Friedman? Never heard of the guy." says it all really, though.

You have tossed out a lot of labels you have apparently learned insufficiently. I am not anti-capitalism. I am opposed to unbridled capitalism.

We do not habe a Liberaterian Constitution, we have a constitional democracy and a republic. And, yes the judiciary enforces rules, BUT the legislator and occasionally the executive branch have to first create the laws. The constitution is a guide to other laws, not a full list of the laws necessary to run a country.

As for the name-calling. Cute, but how about saying something real?

Labels I've learned insufficiently? What, like the word "fallasy"? Do please explain what you're wittering about. The Constitution of the United States is a libertarian one in that it enumerates and specifies the rights of government, clearly distinguishing them from those of citizens, and that the rights of government are confined within guaranteeing an environment apt for the mutual exercise of liberties. You do have a Republican system of government, or a Constitutional Democracy, but that doesn't not exclude it from being libertarian, or classically liberal. So please, don't lecture me about labels until you read up past the level of political philosophy you learnt in Backwater High School or wherever it was.

As best I can tell, you're whining because you don't like companies mining in your backyard. The scenario seems highly improbable to me, but my point is, that in the US of A, the judiciary can "make" law in the sense that it can set the case precedent for preventing companies from arbitrarily seizing private property when you bring the case to court. A judge exists, who regardless of the opinion of the majority, as he would be unable to do in a 'direct' Democracy, can enforce your property rights. That's libertarian capitalism in action. I don't believe I called you any names, I merely pointed out you had misplaced outrage at "unbridled capitalism", when really you should have recognized that the only scenario in which a company could violate your private property would be under anarchy, where no authority enforces your rights, or under socialism, where the government 'abolishes' your right to that property for the 'greater good'.

That's all perfectly real. Rather than pretending I'm calling you names, I suggest you find a response, or be quiet.

[PLAYER57832]

Labels I've learned insufficiently? What, like the word "fallasy"? Do please explain what you're wittering about. The Constitution of the United States is a libertarian one in that it enumerates and specifies the rights of government, clearly distinguishing them from those of citizens, and that the rights of government are confined within guaranteeing an environment apt for the mutual exercise of liberties. You do have a Republican system of government, or a Constitutional Democracy, but that doesn't not exclude it from being libertarian, or classically liberal. So please, don't lecture me about labels until you read up past the level of political philosophy you learnt in Backwater High School or wherever it was.

Insults again... still haven't learned that those with real points have no need to insult?

Now you are combining liberaterianism with liberalism?

The American Liberaterian Party wants removal of government with few exceptions. Our constitution gives both the federal and state governments a whole series of very specific rights, obligations, responsibilities and restrictions.

But if it makes you happy to use the label "Liberaterian" ... go for it. Political definitions change constantly anyway. Your definition might be accurate at some point.

As best I can tell, you're whining because you don't like companies mining in your backyard.

No, I think they should be responsible for preventing and/or correcting damage they cause as a result of their operations.

The scenario seems highly improbable to me,

and there you go again ... you dismiss what I say as "highly improbable", even though I have given you some details specific enough to show that I am not just talking off the top of my hat. Further, these are hardly secrets. You can see I live in PA. Try googling "natural gas deposits/PA". But, you could also look into mining in Wyoming, California, Colorado, Arizona, Montana .... etc, etc etc. If you wish to dispute, then it would behoove you to at least verify before you start accusing someone of lying.

but my point is, that in the US of A, the judiciary can "make" law in the sense that it can set the case precedent for preventing companies from arbitrarily seizing private property when you bring the case to court. A judge exists, who regardless of the opinion of the majority, as he would be unable to do in a 'direct' Democracy, can enforce your property rights.

No, you don't really understand the process. Judges don't create laws. They interpret them. Judges can & do shade law through their decisions (which can have the effect of creating laws), but the legislator can create a new law that the judge then must abide.

As far as the "precedent for preventing companies from arbitrarily seizing property". Wrong again. This WAS the law for a long time. However, there have always been exceptions. The railroad companies still have holdings all over the country .. holdings that never had a rail, because they were given them through eminent domain. Currently, eniminent domain is being used to grab land for shopping malls and other private enterprises.

BUT, you miss a big part of what I said. You see, in much of the U.S. if you buy land, you buy only the surface. You don't necessarily buy the mineral rights. (It varies, in CA you usually do, but out here in PA ... generally no) So, since I don't own what is under my house, I have no right (according to the current law) to say anything about it. In fact, the company that "develops" the mine will have to pay only a very small fee, and will often get tax breaks because mining (regardless of impact) is legally considered a benefit to society. The key law is the minig act of 1877. A lot has changed since then, but not the law.

That's libertarian capitalism in action. I don't believe I called you any names, I merely pointed out you had misplaced outrage at "unbridled capitalism"

No, the truth is you don't really want unbridled capitalism yourself. That is one of the terms I see you throwing around without really getting into the true definition.

You have acknowledged, for example, that taxes can be an effective means of controlling pollution and other externalities (we disagree on which externalities and even what is an externality at times, but you agreed that taxes are sometimes necessary and proper for externality control). I believe you are also against monopolies, etc. None of those things are consistant with pure capitalism. (more on that later).

, when really you should have recognized that the only scenario in which a company could violate your private property would be under anarchy, where no authority enforces your rights, or under socialism, where the government 'abolishes' your right to that property for the 'greater good'.

You see this is the big differance between reading something in a book and debating it on-line and actually living the reality.

The truth is that the government can and does absolutely both take and allow companies to take private property all the time. Sometimes, it is perfectly "legitimate". The country needs a new prison, and no one wants to sell... so a judge tells some people they must sell. In a nice world, that person would at least be compensated a fair market value. In the real world, often their property is condemned and sold as a condemned property with minimal value. (strangely, wealthy people seem to be able to get nice returns when it is their property being bought!). This happened in the town next door just 2 years ago. They enlarged a road and bought up all the property in the way. In that case, most of the people actually did get reasonable prices (this is also a depressed area, so you can't get much lower property values anywhere), but that is definitely not always the case.

More and more this "eminent domain" priviliage is being used to support wholly private businesses, because they will provide "economic benefit" to the area. Translate ... a few people will get rich. The example I previously cited of railroad seizures is a mixed example. On the one hand, railroads WERE needed. It was a private company building, but under direction of the government and to provide a real public service. However, there was no real justification for them to take miles on either side of anywhere a rail might go ... and, in many cases, land that never would see a rail for many reasons. By rights, the decision of where to lay the track should have been decided before taking a millimeter of land. (allowing for some errors, natural engineering problems they could not solve) Then, enough land to build the track and a reasonable safety "buffer" were all that the rail should have been able to cease. Instead, they took entire farms. It is a well known and despicable segment of our nation's history.

That's all perfectly real.

No... but it seems you would rather hurl accusations than investigate a point of view that differs from what you have been taught to date.

Rather than pretending I'm calling you names,

Hmm.. you mean like "communist", "anti-capitalist", "ignorant", ... etc.?

I suggest you find a response, or be quiet.

Problem is, I do respond and you ignore what I say or dismiss it as "invalid" .. no matter if I am saying something I myself have seen or relaying very well known information/examples or coming up with something more esoteric.

If I have an opinion (and state it as such), I am being "communist" or some variation of "idiotic" "silly". If I talk generalities, you ask for specfics. If I give you specifics, you will either claim that anything I say I have seen/is happening in my community is "irrelevant", "not proper debating technique" (though they are), an "exception" /abberration or just plain "could not be true". If I cite a reference, you don't bother to read it, don't bother to see if the source is credible, you dismiss it and put forward some wikipeadia article or completely noncredible source that just happens to share your viewpoint.

The bottom line is you seem plain incapable of even trying to understand any viewpoint but your own. You don't even really read through most of my posts, you just try to zoom in on anything you can to try and dispute it.

To contrast, it is plain from most of my posts that I have heard not only much what you are saying (there are exceptions, particularly in small details), but am often actually familiar with more details than you.

No, I don't tend to memorize names. You can dismiss me for not recognizing Friedman, be "content" in your ivory tower that you "know more" ... or you can look at what I am actually saying.. and consider that perhaps, just perhaps you are not the only or even the most intelligent person in this universe.

Also.. remember this. There is a lot more to wisdom than straight intelligence. You can memorize all the facts, all the ideology you like, but if you are not able to look at it, synthesize and criticize your own views as well as others ... you will never gain wisdom. Wisdom takes age and patience. A computer can memorize, but cannot truly be wise. (not yet, not for a long time anyway)

[Napoleon Ier]

Alright, fine. Let's say that a particular company is in fact mining under your backyard. Either this affects you, in which case, we have either a negative externality, which most streams of pure capitalism, libertarianism and classical liberalism as ideologies entirely support taxing, or we have a situation in which they don't affect you by mining, and you have no right to complain. If some law exists saying they have a right to be using your property without due compensation, then a judicial review must establish that said law is void. That's a basic feature of US style libertarian checks-and-balances democracy. Now, Obama is going to be able to do bugger all in this respect since the founding fathers of your country established a judiciary branch of government separate from the executive and legislative, so frankly, I don't see the relevance.

Nonetheless, please, understand that the judiciary exists, and that there is such a thing as case law that exists next to statute law, if only for my own sanity, and that the principle that underlies government as outlined in the US Constitution is that a judge can override a legislature violating your rights.

As for your constant petulant whining, I can only beg of you to get over yourself. If you're going to patronize, fine, but expect to get ridiculed in response when you claim to have a firm grasp of mining laws without understanding the concept of a judiciary, or of Obama's economics without knowing who Friedman is, and lecture people on this basis.

[PLAYER57832]

Alright, fine. Let's say that a particular company is in fact mining under your backyard. Either this affects you, in which case, we have either a negative externality, which most streams of pure capitalism, libertarianism and classical liberalism as ideologies entirely support taxing,

No. check your definitions. PURE capitalism says that he who makes the most money "wins", that no limits are acceptable, that the market will correct all. We had pretty close to this in the 1900's here in the U.S. and not cooincidentally, afterward came the Depression (this is, by-the-way, what I mean when I said your dates were off ... in the 1600's and 1700's most of the world was hardly capitalistic. You were referring to the beginnings and stirrings of capitalism and the rise of the middle class. I was referring to the end result, which had to be reigned in because it did NOT work without limits. We are in a similar paradigm shift right now, but you will have to look outside of your famous quotes and textbooks to see that).

or we have a situation in which they don't affect you by mining, and you have no right to complain. If some law exists saying they have a right to be using your property without due compensation, then a judicial review must establish that said law is void. That's a basic feature of US style libertarian checks-and-balances democracy. Now, Obama is going to be able to do bugger all in this respect since the founding fathers of your country established a judiciary branch of government separate from the executive and legislative, so frankly, I don't see the relevance.

Nonetheless, please, understand that the judiciary exists, and that there is such a thing as case law that exists next to statute law, if only for my own sanity, and that the principle that underlies government as outlined in the US Constitution is that a judge can override a legislature violating your rights.

One more time.

No, they are not (currently) mining under my house. They ARE mining under the houses of my friends and nearby individuals. I don't know the extend of the Marsallas natural gas deposits, I have been told by the guy who happens to own the mining rights to my land (a friend of my husband's, in fact.. though irrelevant in all regards .... he would do as he wishes, regardless of friendship) that there is no coal here. 2 nearby coal mines DO go under various people's property.

You probably saw a glimpse of this a couple of years ago when they rescued those guys from the Que Creek. The rescue shaft was sunk into a dairy farmer's property. The dairy farmer did not know the mine was even there.

Generally, when the mine is actively maintained it is not a direct issue (exceptions abound!), but once the mine is abandoned, things fail and you end up with sink holes. The thing is realtors, etc. don't have to tell you. In fact, its often hard to even determine accurately where exactly a mine is. In the Que Creek incident, it is thought those miners ran into an old abandoned mine shaft and that is why it flooded. Apparently, the maps of that old mine were off. In Wyoming, many cattle ranchers have found their farms crossed by temporary roads to access oil wells. They can come within a few feet of someone's previously peaceful home, can run their trucks at full tilt (Wyoming does not have tight speed laws, besides this is private land, not a public road), kick up toxis debris, etc.

The mining act of 1877, which has not been repealed or even much amended, says, essentially that you can obtain a mining claim and have the right to establish a mine to obtain those minerals. This is why Allegheny National Forest wilderness (such as it is) has Natural Gas Wells. The government, we, do not own the mining rights.

As for your ideas of private property .. water, air are not actually private in the U.S. (some exceptions, but generally true). A lot of people think they are, but they are wrong. There is good reason. The most obvious is freedom of passage ... as assured by the navigable waterways act, which basically says that you cannot dam or inhibit passage through a navigable stream of any size. Also, water rarely stays put, even groundwater moves. So, if you sink a dump over the hill (this is my reality, by-the-way), the water under that dump is likely to wind up in my drinking water. (depending on rock formations, gradients, etc.) Even if it does not wind up in my specific water, it WILL wind up in some neighbors.. in many neighbor's water. So, the government has the duty and obligation to ensure that said dump (any other entity) does not unduly pollute the water. It took a LONG time for folks to realize this was happening, how serious the issue was, and that it could be prevented. Ergo, the Clean Water Act (U.S. law). However .. in comes Bush and tells EPA (the primary, though not only, agency responsible for enforcing this law) to ignore many portions since he did not happen to consider them valid. THAT issue is still mired in court. It will be solved when Obama comes into office, but the court case will likely take more time. (the court case is whether the executive branch, i.e. the president of the US has the right to ignore and interpret certain rules).

That said, the landfill company is not stupid. And, some basic rules do apply. Water law is too complex for even many skilled lawyers to understand, so I am not going to get into all the details. But, the landfill is lined with plastic, which will keep seepage out for an estimated 200 years. They were required to give all their neighbors new water systems (but not to pay for the water these people would then have to buy, or in the case of a stubborn friend of mine, simply the $19 dollar monthly fee with NO useage at all ... she had to let them install the tap, but shut if off and simply filters her well water ... still she has to pay that monthly fee AND has never gotten her water tested to see if her filters are doing a good enough job, etc. Still, while 200 years seems like a long time .. it is likely within my grandchildren's life times. If not my grandchildren, then great grandchildren.

BUT.. and this is a pretty big "but". Here is the thing. If you are going to criticize with any sort of credibility, you really ought to make a stab at verifying stuff before declaring it wrong.

AND, as far as the law goes ... sorry, you are just plain wrong.

If you wish to discuss, fine. But, right now you are acting like a spoiled, petulant child... and that is the FIRST time I have called you a name!

[Frigidus]

Geez, are these short story length posts about why you voted for Obama? Didn't we realize it was because he's black back at page 2?

[PLAYER57832]

Geez, are these short story length posts about why you voted for Obama? Didn't we realize it was because he's black back at page 2?

No, its diverged into N.I. claiming anything I say is either evidence I am a communist, anti-capitalist, or just plain hogwash... and denying any evidence on anything I present.

[Napoleon Ier]

Alright, fine. Let's say that a particular company is in fact mining under your backyard. Either this affects you, in which case, we have either a negative externality, which most streams of pure capitalism, libertarianism and classical liberalism as ideologies entirely support taxing,

No. check your definitions. PURE capitalism says that he who makes the most money "wins", that no limits are acceptable, that the market will correct all. We had pretty close to this in the 1900's here in the U.S. and not cooincidentally, afterward came the Depression (this is, by-the-way, what I mean when I said your dates were off ... in the 1600's and 1700's most of the world was hardly capitalistic. You were referring to the beginnings and stirrings of capitalism and the rise of the middle class. I was referring to the end result, which had to be reigned in because it did NOT work without limits. We are in a similar paradigm shift right now, but you will have to look outside of your famous quotes and textbooks to see that).

Irrelevant semantics. Your definition of classical liberalism as alien to libertarianism and pure capitalism as synonymous with anarchy notwithstanding, the ideology we're debating here is one which has for its basis enforcement of the most basic right of property. Hence, using said ideology's principles as premises, a mining company can only mine outside your property if it does not damage it without, as I said before, compensating for the negative externality with a mutually agreeable settlement, or desisting from it's activity.

or we have a situation in which they don't affect you by mining, and you have no right to complain. If some law exists saying they have a right to be using your property without due compensation, then a judicial review must establish that said law is void. That's a basic feature of US style libertarian checks-and-balances democracy. Now, Obama is going to be able to do bugger all in this respect since the founding fathers of your country established a judiciary branch of government separate from the executive and legislative, so frankly, I don't see the relevance.

Nonetheless, please, understand that the judiciary exists, and that there is such a thing as case law that exists next to statute law, if only for my own sanity, and that the principle that underlies government as outlined in the US Constitution is that a judge can override a legislature violating your rights.

One more time.

No, they are not (currently) mining under my house. They ARE mining under the houses of my friends and nearby individuals. I don't know the extend of the Marsallas natural gas deposits, I have been told by the guy who happens to own the mining rights to my land (a friend of my husband's, in fact.. though irrelevant in all regards .... he would do as he wishes, regardless of friendship) that there is no coal here. 2 nearby coal mines DO go under various people's property.

You probably saw a glimpse of this a couple of years ago when they rescued those guys from the Que Creek. The rescue shaft was sunk into a dairy farmer's property. The dairy farmer did not know the mine was even there.

Generally, when the mine is actively maintained it is not a direct issue (exceptions abound!), but once the mine is abandoned, things fail and you end up with sink holes. The thing is realtors, etc. don't have to tell you. In fact, its often hard to even determine accurately where exactly a mine is. In the Que Creek incident, it is thought those miners ran into an old abandoned mine shaft and that is why it flooded. Apparently, the maps of that old mine were off. In Wyoming, many cattle ranchers have found their farms crossed by temporary roads to access oil wells. They can come within a few feet of someone's previously peaceful home, can run their trucks at full tilt (Wyoming does not have tight speed laws, besides this is private land, not a public road), kick up toxis debris, etc.

The mining act of 1877, which has not been repealed or even much amended, says, essentially that you can obtain a mining claim and have the right to establish a mine to obtain those minerals. This is why Allegheny National Forest wilderness (such as it is) has Natural Gas Wells. The government, we, do not own the mining rights.

As for your ideas of private property .. water, air are not actually private in the U.S. (some exceptions, but generally true). A lot of people think they are, but they are wrong. There is good reason. The most obvious is freedom of passage ... as assured by the navigable waterways act, which basically says that you cannot dam or inhibit passage through a navigable stream of any size. Also, water rarely stays put, even groundwater moves. So, if you sink a dump over the hill (this is my reality, by-the-way), the water under that dump is likely to wind up in my drinking water. (depending on rock formations, gradients, etc.) Even if it does not wind up in my specific water, it WILL wind up in some neighbors.. in many neighbor's water. So, the government has the duty and obligation to ensure that said dump (any other entity) does not unduly pollute the water. It took a LONG time for folks to realize this was happening, how serious the issue was, and that it could be prevented. Ergo, the Clean Water Act (U.S. law). However .. in comes Bush and tells EPA (the primary, though not only, agency responsible for enforcing this law) to ignore many portions since he did not happen to consider them valid. THAT issue is still mired in court. It will be solved when Obama comes into office, but the court case will likely take more time. (the court case is whether the executive branch, i.e. the president of the US has the right to ignore and interpret certain rules).

That said, the landfill company is not stupid. And, some basic rules do apply. Water law is too complex for even many skilled lawyers to understand, so I am not going to get into all the details. But, the landfill is lined with plastic, which will keep seepage out for an estimated 200 years. They were required to give all their neighbors new water systems (but not to pay for the water these people would then have to buy, or in the case of a stubborn friend of mine, simply the $19 dollar monthly fee with NO useage at all ... she had to let them install the tap, but shut if off and simply filters her well water ... still she has to pay that monthly fee AND has never gotten her water tested to see if her filters are doing a good enough job, etc. Still, while 200 years seems like a long time .. it is likely within my grandchildren's life times. If not my grandchildren, then great grandchildren.

BUT.. and this is a pretty big "but". Here is the thing. If you are going to criticize with any sort of credibility, you really ought to make a stab at verifying stuff before declaring it wrong.

I never contested the factuality any of this, simply the extent to which you can blame capitalism and John McCain for it.

AND, as far as the law goes ... sorry, you are just plain wrong.

What, in respect to the judiciary being able to declare a law unconstitutional? Of course! What absurdity! Silly me...haha, imagine that being true! Obscene idea, isn't it? Even more so when you consider I tried to debate it with you, star DA as well as research scientist and nobel prize winning economics with a BSc Idaho to cap it all off...

[jonesthecurl]

I prefer Napoleon IIIeme anyhow.

[Napoleon Ier]

I prefer Napoleon IIIeme anyhow.

Yes, me too. Everyone knows that George W. wanted to finsh off the work done in none other than Napoleon Ier's famous 1991 winter "March through Pennsylvania" campaign which was his inspiration to personally order the 2nd Marine Division into PLAYER's backyard, topple the statue made in her likeness that was set up therein after gagging her with a copy of Article 6 put on a piece of duct-tape, give a victory dance on a beached aircraft carrier round the block, then allow Dick Cheney to use a pneumatic drill and a Newcomen Engine (that was designed by Oliver Cromwell's NMA Engineers, not an aspiring Cornish capitalist, obv.)t o pump obscene amounts of oil from the topsoil of her vegetable garden that she put there to prove males and females are exactly alike, which he then put on gigantic polluting tankers in the stream next to wherever she lives and shipped them to the Pope, who wanted the oil to pour down the throats of gays like in that scene from Three Kings, and also to rev up Sancta Militia Petri panzers (because he's a Nazi, obv.) to kill protestants.

[Napoleon Ier]

Yes, me too. Everyone knows that George W. wanted to finsh off the work done in none other than Napoleon Ier's famous 1991 winter "March through Pennsylvania" campaign which was his inspiration to personally order the 2nd Marine Division into PLAYER's backyard, topple the statue made in her likeness that was set up therein after gagging her with a copy of Article 6 put on a piece of duct-tape, give a victory dance on a beached aircraft carrier round the block, then allow Dick Cheney to use a pneumatic drill and a Newcomen Engine (that was designed by Oliver Cromwell's NMA Engineers, not an aspiring Cornish capitalist, obv.)t o pump obscene amounts of oil from the topsoil of her vegetable garden that she put there to prove males and females are exactly alike, which he then put on gigantic polluting tankers in the stream next to wherever she lives and shipped them to the Pope, who wanted the oil to pour down the throats of gays like in that scene from Three Kings, and also to rev up Sancta Militia Petri panzers (because he's a Nazi, obv.) to kill protestants.

God I'm funny.

[mpjh]

looking

[Frigidus]

looking

[jonesthecurl]

I think those skydivers have forgotten something...