patrick.net

tts says

Uh what about competency, political history, goals, ideas, etc? I'd rather the politicans compete based on those things then who can spend the most to bombard low info. voters with ads and TV commercials.

You can't even buy a megaphone to pronounce your goals or ideas without some kind of funding. As for competency and political history, then yes you are talking about keeping political power in the hands of incumbents. No new challengers can ever enter because they can not spend any money to get their message out.

Uh huh. If you're going to argue that every regulator and government offical ever is going to be corrupt and not do his job then there is no point at all talking about any sort of reform at all.

First of all, every single official is potentially corruptible . . . simply because s/he has to eat, clothe, shelter, and has family and friends. Government bureaucrats are not Gods. More importantly, even that is besides the point. The topic at hand is your assertion that somehow there would be a mechanism for hauling all porn watchers on public dime into jails. Well, guess what, not even the appointed officials watching porn during office hours are even in jail now . . . what's to prevent someone's brother-in-law / campaign manager waste his time twiddling thumbs just to collect a salary from public campaign funding? There are not enough layers of regulations or enough watchers in the world to watch all the watchers and regulators.

Go live in anarchist paradise Somalia.

What's with the fascination with the one place in the world where a brief period of anarchy worked better than all the governments before or since at that same place?

Reality says

If you have actually studied how bureaucracy works, you'd know that competing agencies are the result of the debilitating decline of old monopolistic agencies

No. That is the result of incompetent or corrupted regulators or politicians.

Reality says

Government intervention actually serves to stifle innovation and preserve monopolistic market power.

A corrupt or incompetent gov. does this. A competent one interested in doing its job will stop the collusion and rule breaking by the big corps to encourage more competition. Big corps don't like this, cuts into profits, which is why they always end up corrupting the government over time.

Reality says

Just think how Ford, the maker of more cars than the rest of the world combined (not just the rest of the US) in the early 1920's came perilously close to bankruptcy a decade later.

They try to perpetuate themselves but if idiocy is allowed then yes its still possible for them to fail, but very difficult even then. As you note Ford didn't go bankrupt, they should've but didn't, and they still exist to this day nearly a century later.

Reality says

Real historical monopolies almost always involved government enforcement. The government is the only one that can actually enforce economic monopoly by preventing others from entering.

The gov. gets involved at the behest of these corps though. You're totally ignoring or downplaying the corrupting influence they have on the government.

Reality says

Campaign volunteers hours times minimum wage (or more) is considered private political contribution.

For accounting purposes sure but most of these people get paid nothing for their time and that has been true for decades.

Reality says

My point is that you end up with monopoly or oligopoly eventually with any corporation, once they get to that point they start using their wealth to become self perpetuating by corrupting the government.

First of all, monopolies and oligopolies do not reach that eventuality before their core competence is rendered obsolete in a competitive market place.

What? Are you in America? Right now most of the major industries in the US are oligopolies that heavily lobby the government to prevent the free market from working.

Cellular: 4 carriers, massive lobbying spending, higher prices than in most other countries.

Medical insurance: just 3 or 4 insurers in each state, massive lobbying spending, exemption from anti-trust law, and higher prices than in most other countries

Internet access: http://taxdollars.ocregister.com/2011/09/29/paying-too-much-for-broadband-revolt/100973/?source=patrick.net

Retail: Walmart (note they number 90 on the list of biggest campaign donors)

Banking: Just a few large banks left

All of it cause by massive campaign "contributions" which everyone knows are simply bribes to spin the laws in favor of the briber.

I say elimination of that bribery is the answer.

If you say that the answer is not to eliminate the bribery, then what is the answer?

If you say that the answer is not to eliminate the bribery, then what is the answer?

Learn German, French, Swedish, and/or Norwegian.

I'd say Japanese, but they're deeper in the hole than us.

There's also Canada, Australia, NZ, Ireland, and the UK, but the first two are rather bubbly in the nice areas due to supply difficulties, and the latter two are as poled as we are, debt-wise.

Moving to NZ is like moving to an offworld colony almost, but it can be nice.

Reality says

You can't even buy a megaphone to pronounce your goals or ideas without some kind of funding.

That was already addressed (ie. petitions) for the penniless.

Reality says

First of all, every single official is potentially corruptible . . . simply because s/he has to eat, clothe, shelter, and has family and friends.

Of course, but then that is why we have a system in place to replace them if they get corrupted. Which is the best that you can reasonably do when you consider that everyone can get corrupted over time. However not everyone starts out that way.

You refuse to consider it possible that any government regulator or official can do his or her job either competently or ethically and refuse to consider it possible to have a good government and in fact believe they're all evil and enslave people. If you believe this to be true there is nothing to talk about WRT government reform since its all pointless anyways or at least schizophrenic.

Reality says

What's with the fascination with the one place in the world where a brief period of anarchy worked better than all the governments before or since at that same place?

What is with this fascination with a unsustainable brief period in time in a place that has known almost nothing but war and brutal poverty before and after? If for a second you are happy in a place that is at all other times hell would you call it heaven too?

If you say that the answer is not to eliminate the bribery, then what is the answer?

He sees the lacky being bribed (government officials) as the problem and not the briber (corps). The reality is you have to address both problems but you can't start addressing one side without first solving the other. Its kind've a chicken and the egg scenario right now and it has me quite pessimistic to be honest but you have to at least try to fix things. The alternative is unconscionable.

Bellingham Bob says

Learn German, French, Swedish, and/or Norwegian.

EU is pretty fucked too IMO, same with China and Aus. I don't think there is a place you can run and hide to and immigration is very difficult unless you also have a skill in demand or lots of money. If I had either though I think I'd go to NZ.

Sorry for spamming the thread guys. Kind've a topic that gets me riled up heh.

tts says

Anyone who has dealt with the cable companies knows they enforce local monopolies and make it difficult to impossible to switch and UPS and FedEx would do the same.

Kinda a half truth. The majority of local governments in the country generally sign contracts with cable companies authorizing one company. While it is true that there are some areas where there is cable competition it is usually one company.

Cable already had an advantage in that it was already wired in fair amounts of peoples homes (unlike FIOS which is new wiring).

But it should be noted that although cable as a medium can be considered a monopoly in a locality that does not limit tv itself. Once you factor in FIOS, Direct TV and Dish Network and even over the air HDTV (it exists) then there are consumer choices. It is interesting how cable tries to bash satellite companies and yet they are dependent on satellite technology to receive any programming (Cband dishes..Comcast owns the HITS Quantum system)

Technically speaking a fair amount does stream online as well. Netflix grew like crazy due to this.

TV certainly is different than what it was years ago. The days of casually flipping channels to find something good are over. The issue was that as channels expanded they went into more specific content. First there were sport channels and now there's the mlb, nfl, tennis, racing, nhl and nba networks. First there was MTV and now there's country music channel, vh1, classic channels etc. Eventually there isn't enough ratings to get advertising so content changes. Add in some consolidation and you see how all of a sudden it looks the same.

If some towns had extra money they could pool resources to make a quasi governmental cable tv organization but these days that's hard to do due to funds.

BTW you aren't spamming the board..it's ok

Just a note to patrick. I wouldn't call Walmart a monopoly. I worked at a box store for an number of years (not them or their direct competitors) Walmart is large and certainly holds great sway. Supposedly they are trying to get into appliances. Anyways the luster of it wore off. There are cheaper places to go shopping and there are places that have more products. Amazon is nearly 1/3rd the size of walmart and it's only been around 15 or so years.

As for banks there are plenty of small banks out there and credit unions. Yes there are plenty of big companies out there but there are none that specifically force me or you or anyone on the board to do business with them.

mdovell says

If some towns had extra money they could pool resources to make a quasi governmental cable tv organization but these days that's hard to do due to funds.

They've tried to do this but have been sued by the cable companies and almost always lose the case or the decision gets overturned on a retrial.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=14934

mdovell says

The majority of local governments in the country generally sign contracts with cable companies authorizing one company.

Yea that is corruption/incompetence. It certainly does happen but I think it'd be far less common if the regulators/officials weren't getting kick backs from these people.

FYI to everyone else: ISP/communications corruption is a very complex issue to try and follow but I think this blog here: http://www.techdirt.com/ is one of the better ones at it. Beware though, the more you learn on this subject the more you'll come to dislike and distrust most everyone involved in the business, its very hard to not become cynical in the extreme.

mdovell says

BTW you aren't spamming the board..it's ok

Good to know, thanks

You know, I think this is an accurate if over-simplified summary of the political opinions in the US:

* The right thinks that the free market should handle everything.

* The left wants to protect labor rights.

* Corporations hate both the free market and labor rights. They both cut into monopoly profits.

So if corporations can just get the right and left to destroy each other, corporations will rule America! Or has it already happened?

mdovell says

I wouldn't call Walmart a monopoly.

I wouldn't either. I'm just saying that it pays bribes to get laws made in its favor, and that this hurts the free market.

mdovell says

Yes there are plenty of big companies out there but there are none that specifically force me or you or anyone on the board to do business with them.

I had a CD at Wells Fargo but hated them so much that I moved it to a small bank when it came due.

Then Wells bought that small bank, so my CD was back at Wells again.

So when it came due again, I moved it to another small bank, and again Wells bought the bank and it was back at Wells again.

So I've moved my money out of Wells yet again.

By 2009, Wells Fargo had acquired 119 companies in nine years, including failed Wachovia Financial.

tts says

If I had either though I think I'd go to NZ.

I've seen reports of quite a big housing bubble there in the big cities too.

OK didn't know that, guess NZ is out then. I knew their gov. was pushing some neo lib. policies but thought things were OK there for the most part

So if corporations can just get the right and left to destroy each other, corporations will rule America! Or has it already happened?

I think they already got the Right to annihilate the Left back in the 70's and 80's when unions were gutted and now they pretty much do pull all the strings. Mean while the political narrative is very far Right, even more so than the 80's under Regan. Obamacare is pretty much what the R's wanted in the 90's when Gingrich was in charge of them and now its condemned by the R's as communism/socialism and the media does little or nothing to correct that BS.

tts says

I think they already got the Right to annihilate the Left back in the 70's and 80's when unions were gutted and now they pretty much do pull all the strings.

I was going to say that, yes.

For the "left" in power, we've got, what, Bernie Sanders?

There might be some center-left peeps in the House but the minority caucus in the House has zero power.

tts says

If I had either though I think I'd go to NZ.

I've seen reports of quite a big housing bubble there in the big cities too.

With the exception of Auckland NZ's housing bubble is deflating quite nicely right now. Last month I saw a beachfront house sell for 50% off the price it sold for 3 years ago. All loans are recourse loans and bankruptcy doesn't really discharge debt so people have a really big incentive to hang on if possible, but prices are sinking anyway.

tts says

OK didn't know that, guess NZ is out then. I knew their gov. was pushing some neo lib. policies but thought things were OK there for the most part

NZ has always had a socialist leaning or just socialist government that has been heavily involved in social issues. If you are looking for minimalist government NZ is the wrong country.

bob2356 says

NZ has always had a socialist leaning or just socialist government that has been heavily involved in social issues. If you are looking for minimalist government NZ is the wrong country.

neo-liberalism* has nothing to do with socialism, I'm quite fine with socialism so long as its done properly. ;)

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

tts says

No. That is the result of incompetent or corrupted regulators or politicians.

In other words, a state religion would work fine only if the priests were honest and saintly. LOL. You are still in the French/German/Chinese/Russian/Persian continental mindset, one that is the root cause of repeated imperial disasters in human history. The Anglo-American classical liberal thinkers discovered a few centuries ago that "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

There is no such thing as competent and incorruptible regulators or politicians if they are given enough power!

A corrupt or incompetent gov. does this. A competent one interested in doing its job will stop the collusion and rule breaking by the big corps to encourage more competition. Big corps don't like this, cuts into profits, which is why they always end up corrupting the government over time.

All governments become corrupt as they garner more and more power . . . because once again power corrupts. A big corporation can only be one side of a trade/exchange; the other side involves the individuals and other corporations. The counter-party, the individuals and other corporations have the right to refuse to do business with abusive big corporations unitl the big corporation buy off the government to force the counter parties into doing business with itself (through regulations, and/or taxation followed by government spending.)

They try to perpetuate themselves but if idiocy is allowed then yes its still possible for them to fail, but very difficult even then. As you note Ford didn't go bankrupt, they should've but didn't, and they still exist to this day nearly a century later.

What's good for the society is not whether Ford continues to exist, but whether people get good cars that they want for less. Stop thinking in terms of "what's good for GM/Ford is what's good for the people of America." Consumers should have the right to choose with whom they want to do business. That's called liberty and freedom . . . some thing the socialist / fascist mind has difficulty grasping.

he gov. gets involved at the behest of these corps though. You're totally ignoring or downplaying the corrupting influence they have on the government.

Not at all. I already stated over and over again that "government" and "corporations" are both artificial entities created by our mind. What exists in real life are individuals and individuals only. Both corporations and governments are tools for some individuals to exploit many others. Corporation is simply a legal construct by the government under limited liability law. The corrupting influence powerful groups of individuals (whether in corporate guise or otherwise) can have on "government" is the very reason why it is a bad idea to create a centralized nexus of power called big government. It is the Ring to Rule All Rings! Such a nexus of power can only be abused by great evil, and seldomly (if at all) for good.

tts says

That was already addressed (ie. petitions) for the penniless.

What petitions? How can you gather millions of signatures without campaign donations? Campaign volunteers' time is legally considered political donation, and legally required to be reported at least at minimum wage per hour.

For accounting purposes sure but most of these people get paid nothing for their time and that has been true for decades.

There is hardly any difference between donating time vs. donating money. Time is money. Should the political coercive machine be run by people whose time is worth the least? or should a high productivity individual be allowed to donate hours in exchange for many more hours from someone else?

BTW, personally I consider donation cap a farce. People should be allowed to donate as much of their own time or money. Better yet, the government should just sell additional votes instead of taxation.

Of course, but then that is why we have a system in place to replace them if they get corrupted. Which is the best that you can reasonably do when you consider that everyone can get corrupted over time. However not everyone starts out that way.

It's not even close to being the best that one can reasonably expect. Elections come around once every 2 or 4 years, and most of bureaucracy is becoming more and more shielded from political elections. Contrast with that, people vote with their wallets and feet every minute of the day. That's why the corporations and their whorish bought-and-paid-for political agents want to limited people's choices: by introducing more and more regulations and taxes.

You refuse to consider it possible that any government regulator or official can do his or her job either competently or ethically and refuse to consider it possible to have a good government and in fact believe they're all evil and enslave people. If you believe this to be true there is nothing to talk about WRT government reform since its all pointless anyways or at least schizophrenic.

Power corrupts. It is impossible for anyone to stay competent, ethical and incorruptible for an entire career of decades. At least there are not nearly enough of them to fill the millions of bureaucratic positions in the sort of big government that you have in mind. Give me 10,000 examples of government bureaucrats and employees who are volunteering to cut his/her own pay and benefits in half to match the private sector income level, then we can start talking about clean bureaucrats; I'm only asking for less than 1 out of every 1000!

The truth is that every office holder needs to have food, clothes, shelter, transportation, medicine, education their kids, caring for their parents, keeping their spouse happy/content. Such very human needs combined with the coercive power in the hands are deadly combinations. When you can find enough saints and even Gods to fill the offices in a "big government" we can then start to talk about your ideal bureaucracy.

So what's YOUR solution to the bribes that got us into this mess?

tts says

It was the straw that broke the camel's back. There were ongoing problems with the Confederation since it was set up, mostly involving interstate trade and the economy in general. All of that was tied to the "strong state/weak federation" mindset of the Confederation. The Confederation would've been dissolved irregardless of the Rebellion at some point.

That's only according to the Hamiltonian imperial aspirants who wanted to build an American Empire in the mirror image of the British Empire. Why would a strong federal government even be necessary for conducting interstate trade/commerce at all? The drug trade seems to be thriving despite federal ban. In fact, the Prohibition experience proves that federal regulations on trade only result in chaos (when they tread heavily; and irrelevant when they don't).

OK so if gov. are all evil and enslave their people just some slightly less so then others then what is the point of even trying to pick one or another?

Choosing the lesser of two evils is all we can do as human beings living in real life.

What is with this fascination with a unsustainable brief period in time in a place that has known almost nothing but war and brutal poverty before and after? If for a second you are happy in a place that is at all other times hell would you call it heaven too?

So contrary to your earlier accusation that I somehow made it up, you now do agree that Somalia was actually doing better during the brief period when there was no national government in the 1990's, better than the country before or since. Well, that's an improvement. As for the "fascination," I'm not the one keep telling others to go to Somalia (which is not in anarchy now anyway, and is worse after having a government installed back in place, ironically).

So what's YOUR solution to the bribes that got us into this mess?

Reduce the concentration of power. Individuals, including the individuals seeking profit under the guises of corporations, unions (which are also incorporated entities) and governments, bribe/buy (corrupt) services only because they can see "return on investment." When the vast majority of the population refuse to see themselves and their neighbors and fellow men/women ordered around by such nexus of power, there won't be much "corrupt service/power" to buy. Power corrupts; if you want to reduce corruption, reduce power!

Reality says

Reduce the concentration of power.

How?

I say by publicly funded elections, so you don't have to be backed by big money (which is big power) to get into Congress.

Reality says

So contrary to your earlier accusation that I somehow made it up, you now do agree that Somalia was actually doing better during the brief period

No I don't. I only posted that to show how illogical and inconsistent your thinking is. Why don't you start posting some articles or something to back up what you're saying since as I noted before doing quick and dirty google's on early 90's and late 80's Somalia brings up all sorts of nasty pages on the civil war during that time period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Somalia#Somalia.2C_1980-90
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Civil_War

Reality says

Choosing the lesser of two evils is all we can do as human beings living in real life.

Except you're building a narrative where choice is impossible if not an illusion altogether. After all if all gov's enslave and repress you have no choice at all. Unless you're going to start word bending definitions and such, which is total nonsense because words have meaning you know, there is no way your view makes any sense. Either internally or when it has to interact with the real world.

Reality says

That's only according to the Hamiltonian imperial aspirants who wanted to build an American Empire in the mirror image of the British Empire.

Which Alternate Earth are you from anyways? No one is going to take you seriously if post this stuff, least of all me.

Reality says

In other words, a state religion would work fine only if the priests were honest and saintly.

Nope. I'm assuming some are always corrupt, which you admit to be true yourself. No system of government will be perfect if for no other reasons than because it has people running it but "mostly works well" or even "good" is quite possible and indeed up until the last few decades was certainly true.

Reality says

A big corporation can only be one side of a trade/exchange;

Of course but they drive and focus the corruption in ways that handful of selfish senators or congressmen wouldn't. Usually they focus their bribery on perpetuating themselves and weakening their competitors as you're already noted. In time this makes them become more and more powerful. Eventually they can even suborn the state itself unless stopped. They are also not answerable to the electorate by voting and can and will influence the electorate outside of the political system.

tts says

Stop thinking in terms of "what's good for GM/Ford is what's good for the people of America."

I don't think this, not even vaugely. You're reading things into my posts that aren't there if you do.

Reality says

Consumers should have the right to choose with whom they want to do business

You say this and then support policies and ideologies which have time in and time out produce monopolies and oligopolies. The cognitive dissonance is stunning to behold here.

Reality says

What petitions?

I already mentioned a petition signed by a few hundred should be enough. And I already mentioned limiting the number of politicians able to run. This is pointless to talk about at all with you though right? Anything involving government regulators or officials automagically turns all people involved into porn watching jerks who steal from the public. Oh and all those governments will enslave and repress you too no matter what. The system of government matters not at all nor who runs it. Government= repression + slavery in your book.

You said that not me. The only political view consistent with this sort of thinking is anarchy so off to Somalia with you then, enjoy paradise or something.

How?

I say by publicly funded elections, so you don't have to be backed by big money (which is big power) to get into Congress.

On the contrary. "Public" funding would be enormous concentration of power. There is no such thing as an acting "public" that makes decision for himself. There are only individual bureaucrats acting in the name of "the public." Letting such individuals wield all the resources that can go into the election process is guaranteed to result in self-perpetuating dictatorship/dynasty like in North Korea.

There is nothing wrong with people spending their own money to make political expressions. Money does not buy victory per se and letting people waste their own money on elections is no worse than letting people waste money on yachts (creating jobs in different industries in which they themselves have no expertise). The only real problem with "big money" is having the Federal Reserve printing money and propagandizing itself and its associates.

You're very wrong, but very useful to the people who take away your freedom with their bribes, both the corporations and the unions. They should give you a bonus. Good luck with that.

Public funding of campaigns is the exact opposite of concentration of power. Public funding would allow anyone to get elected, even people like you. Right now, you have no chance, and that's how they like it. You even defend your own lack of power!

The rules just need to be short, clear, and very public. The top 10 signature-getters get the funding and get on the ballot. Done.

There is definitely something very wrong with letting billionaires and corporations spend far more money on political advertising than you can. Where is your lobbyist?

Funny that you don't like the Federal Reserve but you want to keep all their member banks in control over government. Do you really think anything will ever happen to the Federal Reserve under our current system of bribery?

Reality says

There is nothing wrong with people spending their own money to make political expressions.

There is if you're like the Koch Bros. and have billions to spend on a misinformation campaign and do lots of other scummy things that would reasonably land other people in prison.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html

When money is speech the rich rule.

tts says

Nope. I'm assuming some are always corrupt, which you admit to be true yourself. No system of government will be perfect if for no other reasons than because it has people running it but "mostly works well" or even "good" is quite possible and indeed up until the last few decades was certainly true.

You are kidding yourself if you think any system of government worked "mostly well" or even "good" until the last few decades. You are forgetting the massive scandals and wars to divert unfavorable attentions throughout history, including US history. People were sick of the politicians and political corruptions in the 60's, 30's, 20's, 1900's, `890's, 1870's, 1850's, 1830's, 1800's. Heck even George Washington quit because he was sick of the partisan squabbles between Hamilton and Jefferson.

Power corrupts. Monopolistic power breeds corruption. There is no way around it. That's why the founding fathers came up with "necessary evil" and "lesser evil" to describe the government that they have no choice but to put together. It's not a god-like benevolent being, but an evil, a necessary evil that is somewhat less evil than a more interventionist alternative.

Of course but they drive and focus the corruption in ways that handful of selfish senators or congressmen wouldn't. Usually they focus their bribery on perpetuating themselves and weakening their competitors as you're already noted. In time this makes them become more and more powerful. Eventually they can even suborn the state itself unless stopped. They are also not answerable to the electorate by voting and can and will influence the electorate outside of the political system.

Senators and Congressmen do not work in isolation. Politicians work in groups and cliques. They are far more nefarious than corporations that are routinely replaced by competition. In fact, most American industrial families are by the way side within a generation or two, except for those who parlayed their fortune into politics . . . then we political dynasties!

I already mentioned a petition signed by a few hundred should be enough. And I already mentioned limiting the number of politicians able to run.

How? How do you limit the number of candidates to only a handful when the office is for the POTUS or even governorship? Heck, if you are laying out millions of dollars on the buffet table as public campaign funding, what's to prevent hundreds and thousands of people signing up for any and all offices? Let me see, let the existing politicians' old boys network decide who can run who can not? Like I said, either you are so dumb as unable to see what's the equivalent of two moves ahead in a chess game, or you are intentionally advocating the monopolization of the political process by a few political family dynasties.

This is pointless to talk about at all with you though right? Anything involving government regulators or officials automagically turns all people involved into porn watching jerks who steal from the public.

That's exactly what monopolistic power / job security without competition does. Porn watching, or other past-time much less stressful than actual work, is precisely what people will do if they are not answered to consumers who are free to switch service providers. Do you really want to know how much work hours are spent on internet surfing? You are doing it yourself right now! My only saving grace is that I'm surfing on my own dime as I work for myself.

Oh and all those governments will enslave and repress you too no matter what. The system of government matters not at all nor who runs it. Government= repression + slavery in your book.

Which part of "Power corrupts; absolutely power corrupts absolutely" don't you understand? What happened to the founding fathers' warnings about the need for vigilance to keep a Republic? Apparently lost on you.

You say this and then support policies and ideologies which have time in and time out produce monopolies and oligopolies. The cognitive dissonance is stunning to behold here.

How? Almost every single monopoly in American history has been the result of government granted monopoly. Profit attracts competition, and new technology constantly come up with new ways of doing things that displaces out-sized economic rent positions.

You said that not me. The only political view consistent with this sort of thinking is anarchy so off to Somalia with you then, enjoy paradise or something.

You are the one who is obsessed with Somallia . . . and doing it yet again even now! Somalia is not in anarchy now; their living standards were actually improving faster under anarchy in the 1990's than under all the governments before or since. How ironic that you imperialist types keep bringing up Somalia.

The desire for smaller government does not necessarily mean advocacy for anarchy. As the consummate liberal George Orwell observed, government is the result of some people's desire to put the jackboot on someone else' face. In other words, people in a society collectively deserve the government that they get: it's their rapacious desire towards their neighbors that keep the rapacious government in place, usually to their own detriment.

tts says

There is if you're like the Koch Bros. and have billions to spend on a misinformation campaign and do lots of other scummy things that would reasonably land other people in prison.

When money is speech the rich rule.

Stop confusing expression with "doing." First Amendment right regarding freedom of expression was put in place in recognition of the fact that if the government were given the power to regulate expression, the rich and powerful are far more likely to wield that power against others than being regulated.

Reality says

Stop confusing expression with "doing." First Amendment right regarding freedom of expression was put in place in recognition of the fact that if the government were given the power to regulate expression, the rich and powerful are far more likely to wield that power against others than being regulated.

This doesn't even make any sense by itself much less in reply to what I posted. The rest of what you're saying is typical handwaving with nothing to back it up. When you start getting serious and back up what you're saying with facts and such I'll start replying to you again, until then enjoy shifting your goal posts around and arguing over the usage of "doing" or whatever.

You're very wrong, but very useful to the people who take away your freedom with their bribes, both the corporations and the unions. They should give you a bonus. Good luck with that.

Limiting government is about preventing it from taking freedom from anyone . . . ergo no point to bribe; government officials have no freedom-depriving power for sale.

Public funding of campaigns is the exact opposite of concentration of power. Public funding would allow anyone to get elected, even people like you. Right now, you have no chance, and that's how they like it. You even defend your own lack of power!

I have no desire to run for office: power corrupts. OTOH, if there's $10M public funding buffet table laid out for every candidate, I may consider throwing my hat in, to run on the platform that I would do absolutely nothing and let people enjoy their natural freedom for a few years. Now tell me, what's to prevent thousands if not millions of people doing likewise? How would "the public" come up with the money?

The rules just need to be short, clear, and very public. The top 10 signature-getters get the funding and get on the ballot. Done.

Still exhibiting your inability to see two moves ahead: in order to be among the top 10 signature-getters in the US (to run for POTUS) or even in a state (to run for governorship or senate) . . . chances are that to be on the ballot would require millions of signatures. How would the candidate do that without hiring people or accepting volunteers (whose time are political contributions)? With ban against private political contributions in place, no candidate can do either. Do you really want to make all campaigns for the higher offices about who can personally knock the most number of doors in a 2-6 year window?

There is definitely something very wrong with letting billionaires and corporations spend far more money on political advertising than you can. Where is your lobbyist?

Most billionaires are not electable, partly because they are billionaires, and they know it. How did Meg Whitman fare? Would Bill Gates have any chance whatsoever?

Where you can kneecap political corruption is not in limiting political speech (i.e. yet another government power that can be bought and paid for, and turned against you), but in limiting the power of government, so the politicians have less to sell to the doners.

Funny that you don't like the Federal Reserve but you want to keep all their member banks in control over government. Do you really think anything will ever happen to the Federal Reserve under our current system of bribery?

Yes, so long as people are allowed to make political donations to anti-FED candidates. If and when the government is the only one who can decide what kind of political expression is allowed and funded, the central bank would indeed be perpetrated (that is, until the whole "superstructure" goes down with it).

tts says

This doesn't even make any sense by itself much less in reply to what I posted. The rest of what you're saying is typical handwaving with nothing to back it up. When you start getting serious and back up what you're saying with facts and such I'll start replying to you again, until then enjoy shifting your goal posts around and arguing over the usage of "doing" or whatever.

You are the one who is handwaving in fantasy land . . . and being a shameless hypocrite on top of that.

You couldn't even keep track of what form of government Somalia has when repeatedly telling people to go there if they desire anarchy.

Please answer how you would restrict the length of candidate list under your public-funding scheme where no one is allowed to make political donations; i.e. any signature list would have to be what the candidate can personally collect (no time from others allowed, which would be just a form of political donation)

You still need to come up with the list of 10,000 government bureaucrats and employees who have volunteered to cut their own salaries and benefits in half to match the private sector income . . . that's less than 1 out 1000 government bureaucrats and public employees! If you can't even come with that, how can you possibly start making the selfless assumption about the same bureaucrats and public employees?

Stop surfing and get back to work. You are not likely to be self-employed. If you can enjoy less-stressful activities like surfing instead of working while during paid hours . . . it would only be humanitarian to have the understanding that other people, including bureaucrats and public employees, would do the same. Hiring more police and prison wardens to haul them into jail would just result in even more people surfing on public dime.

If all it took was money to win office then why didn't Perot win in '92?

Why didn't McMahon win in CT? She spent 50 million of her own money and lost against Blumental that spent only 2 million.

What about Scott Brown and how he won even though Coakley spent five times as much as he did?

I can see the money argument in the past..before the internet, before recorders that can skip commericals etc.

Advertising can actually turn people off after awhile and thus those people might not get in. Advertising as a concept does not exactly help. How many ads for Amazon.com broadcast on tv ? And yet it is one of the largest retailers on the planet.

Signatures to get on a ballot is fine but not all positions work like that. Even with public elections party structures of both major parties won't die off..even others (constitution, libertarian, green) won't either. If a position is apolitical that's fine but if more than a few run then naturally the parties will have more of an advantage. Local elections tend to not be as political as state and national. But outside of that it would be harder.

Patrick I know what you mean by banks. My checking was in a small one..which was bought by a national one which was bought by a international one. But there's a local one 1/16 of a mile down the street. Not all places sell out. My town had a retailer go under (Caldors it was a north east chain) walmart wanted to come in. The town offered that area..they wanted to be right by the highway..take it or leave it..walmart didn't open but there's enough of them around.

Most of major brick and mortal retail is dying due to the internet. Walmart hasn't significantly grown in the past ten years. There are Fjords that have less rocky patters than their stock price.

tts says

Yea that is corruption/incompetence. It certainly does happen but I think it'd be far less common if the regulators/officials weren't getting kick backs from these people.

I'm actually on a board and we don't get paid anything from the town or any company for that matter. Most don't, we're all volunteers. When contracts are made up usually the companies offer things such as free wifi for libraries, free tv's for schools etc. The issue I see is how long the contracts usually are (ten years). Cable has significant competition with satellite and now FIOS. it is mostly internet services that keep them afloat. AOL was huge 15 years ago because they could squeeze $20 a month from people ($240 a year) Comcast can do that at $50 ($600 a year)

Cable contracts can be odd. Verizon tried to buypass all local governments in Mass and said why don't you just give us a state license but they were turned down.

I should note that some of what is on cable is free. Free to air satellites have religious, non profit, educational and foreign programming. This hasn't been updated in a few months but most still should be there
http://www.ftalist.com/english.php If you see larger dishes (say 1m in diameter) in immigrant communities that's what these are.

I'd also add that there was an ability to have encrypted over the air tv (Chicago was filled with this in the late 70's to mid 80s)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ON-TV

Now there was a company that tried doing this more recently but they went under
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USDTV The sad part is that since the companies are now owning more content (comcast with nbc) it makes it a bit harder to negociate distribution.

If someone had some deep pockets they could rock the industry with some licensing. Over the air hdtv looks pretty good. Over the air pretty much can buypass cables contracts.

mdovell says

If all it took was money to win office then why didn't Perot win in '92?

He was doing great until he backed out and then tried to rejoin the race.

mdovell says

What about Scott Brown and how he won even though Coakley spent five times as much as he did?

Coakley screwed up her campaign and pumped huge amounts of cash into it towards the end but it was too late by that point.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/21/coakleys_failure_to_communicate/

mdovell says

I can see the money argument in the past..before the internet, before recorders that can skip commericals etc.

Most voters are low info. and easily swayed by image, tons of studies back this up time and again, its very depressing and I hate it but its true:

http://ts-si.org/politics/30787-candidate-appearance-most-likely-to-sway-low-info-voters

mdovell says

I'm actually on a board and we don't get paid anything from the town or any company for that matter.

OK how common is this because from what I've read this normally isn't the case.

mdovell says

Over the air hdtv looks pretty good.

It does but few stations seem to support it and the reception is limited to say the least.

Reality says

You are the one who is handwaving in fantasy land . . . and being a shameless hypocrite on top of that.

I've posted far more links and data to back up what I'm saying and you still haven't even tried to validate what you're saying about Somalia which still wouldn't even refute my point here:

"What is with this fascination with a unsustainable brief period in time in a place that has known almost nothing but war and brutal poverty before and after? If for a second you are happy in a place that is at all other times hell would you call it heaven too? "

You're not even willing to do some simple googleing and cut and pasting to back up what you're saying. Why in the world would anyone take you seriously?

Reality says

Stop surfing and get back to work. You are not likely to be self-employed.

Hahah nice ad hom again. I'm posting here during the day so I must be slacking off at work you suggest? I couldn't possibly be on an off day after doing my normal 3 12hr weekly shift. Nope, no one anywhere works 12hr shifts, which BTW is normally 3 days a week, sometimes 4 but that leaves 3-4 days off in a row.

Coakley did screw up...supposedly only 3% of her advertising was online..she tried to change it on the last few days but it was not enough.
Still she spent five times as much..just like McMahon spent 25x as much.tts says

OK how common is this because from what I've read this normally isn't the case.

Local governments where I am have various boards. Some are library trustees, others might be council on aging, disability commissions, school committee, anything related to bodies of water (ponds, lakes, rivers), recycling (we just got curbside) is also one. Terms are a few years.

There has been a trend also of community channels becoming quasi governmental. This can be a mixed bag. On one hand usually there is a fee charged to cable users that becomes donated to the budget of the channel but one could argue that independence might be a bit harder to control. Usually as long as there are disclaimers channels can get away with quite an amount on tv.

In all due respects the only real action is when contracts are ironed out. Here's a commission where that is going on right now
http://www.mhcrc.org/content.asp?n=ops&s=ops_publichearing They benefit a bit by that they bought out NBC and regulations are having them give a bit more back (lower high speed internet)

Some boards publish their minutes. This one seems to go back quite a bit
http://www.ci.issaquah.wa.us/Agendas.asp?CCBID=4

tts says

I've posted far more links and data to back up what I'm saying and you still haven't even tried to validate what you're saying about Somalia which still wouldn't even refute my point here:

"What is with this fascination with a unsustainable brief period in time in a place that has known almost nothing but war and brutal poverty before and after? If for a second you are happy in a place that is at all other times hell would you call it heaven too? "

You're not even willing to do some simple googleing and cut and pasting to back up what you're saying. Why in the world would anyone take you seriously?

What's there for me to invalidate? Read your own quoted text above, you are agreeing with me that Somalia was better during the period anarchy than the governments it had before or since. What's there for me to invalidate? If you really want a detailed analysis of Somalia from people know the realities on the ground in Somalia, here are three:

http://mises.org/daily/2066

http://mises.org/daily/2701

http://mises.org/daily/5418

Do I think Somalia, even in its anarchy period, was heaven? Not at all. It was however better than itself during the Siad Barr regime that was in power for decades immediately prior to the anarchy period and better than the civil war/invasion/piracy that is the current Somalia after outside powers tried and succeeded in imposing a central government there.

You are the one keep mistakenly assuming that somehow Somalia is still under anarchy now, which it is not.

Hahah nice ad hom again. I'm posting here during the day so I must be slacking off at work you suggest? I couldn't possibly be on an off day after doing my normal 3 12hr weekly shift. Nope, no one anywhere works 12hr shifts, which BTW is normally 3 days a week, sometimes 4 but that leaves 3-4 days off in a row.

Now you are just lying through your teeth to cover your track. What does that kind of hypothetical unusual schedule have to do with you? Absolutely nothing.

Still patiently waiting for your answers to the following:

(1) Please answer how you would restrict the length of candidate list under your public-funding scheme where no one is allowed to make political donations; i.e. any signature list would have to be what the candidate can personally collect (no time from others allowed, which would be just a form of political donation)

(2) You still need to come up with the list of 10,000 government bureaucrats and employees who have volunteered to cut their own salaries and benefits in half to match the private sector income . . . I'm asking for a list of less than 1 out 1000 government bureaucrats and public employees! If you can't even come with that, how can you possibly start making the selfless assumption about the same bureaucrats and public employees? an assumption that is of critical importance to make your bureaucratic regulatory state workable at all.

Crickets. . .

Reality says

What's there for me to invalidate? Read your own quoted text above, you are agreeing with me that Somalia was better during the period anarchy than the governments it had before or since.

Actually I'm not, I disputed that and post links a ways up the page WRT to the multiple back to back civil wars in Somalia in the late 80's and 90's up to the 2000's. But that is totally moot since even if there was brief period in time Somalia was a paradise or whatever it has since then descended into de facto anarchy.

Reality says

You are the one keep mistakenly assuming that somehow Somalia is still under anarchy now, which it is not.

There is a government but its a joke, everyone knows the country is a failed state, even worse off than Afghanistan or North Korea.

Reality says

Now you are just lying through your teeth to cover your track. What does that kind of hypothetical unusual schedule have to do with you? Absolutely nothing.

That is the exact shift I work. There is nothing hypothetical or unusual about it. Plenty of people work 12hr shifts and 3 days is the norm since if you go over that you have to get paid OT unless you're salary which I'm not. Good job calling me a liar without a shred of proof too BTW. Stay classy brosef!!

Reality says

(1) Please answer how you would restrict the length of candidate list under your public-funding scheme where no one is allowed to make political donations

A law would be passed saying no more than 30 candidates, which I've already said several times now IIRC.

Reality says

(2) You still need to come up with the list of 10,000 government bureaucrats and employees who have volunteered to cut their own salaries and benefits in half to match the private sector income

No I don't, you just randomly started saying this for no reason and it makes no sense at all in this discussion. Wages of public employees are a whole other subject. Its a complete non sequitor. Go beat down your own strawmen I'm not doing it for you.

Blah this is a waste of time. You can't even try to argue coherently and your links are a joke too.

TO THE IGNORE LIST WITH YOU *shazaam*

e: omg this thread is like half the length now so rooomy

mdovell says

In all due respects the only real action is when contracts are ironed out. Here's a commission where that is going on right now
http://www.mhcrc.org/content.asp?n=ops&s=ops_publichearing They benefit a bit by that they bought out NBC and regulations are having them give a bit more back (lower high speed internet)

Some boards publish their minutes. This one seems to go back quite a bit
http://www.ci.issaquah.wa.us/Agendas.asp?CCBID=4

Thanks for posting this. The meeting notes seem straight forward to read but there are a ton to read through. Feel like playing some games n' stuff right now but I'll try to slog through them over the next few days. Might be some interesting tid bits.