patrick.net

Patrick says

Would you agree with an employment law requiring the federal government to hire only the best qualified, cheapest person who applies for any particular federal job?

Absolutely not! My disagreement starts at allowing government to hire...

Patrick says

You can drive your car without a license all you want on your own property and private roads. You just need a license to drive on public roads.

What the fuck makes a road "public"? Oh yeah, the uniformed armed guards who arrest you if you don't pay their bosses. Isn't that called armed robbery?

NuttBoxer says

What the fuck makes a road "public"? Oh yeah, the uniformed armed guards who arrest you if you don't pay their bosses. Isn't that called armed robbery?

What makes it "public" is that the road was build and maintained at taxpayer expense. Licensing is not a big money maker for the government but a method of enforcing competency to drive. Do you really think all roads should be free for alls, driving as fast as one likes, in whatever lane one likes, with traffic control lights and signs as optional? Nobody should get a speeding ticket? Even if all roads were privately owned turnpikes, there would still be rules by the owners. I do not like intrusive government, but a comprehensive road system with easy and cheap driver's licenses is not an example of overbearing government.

HeadSet says

What makes it "public" is that the road was build and maintained at taxpayer expense.

In regards to taxes, I refer you to my previous comment...

HeadSet says

Do you really think all roads should be free for alls, driving as fast as one likes, in whatever lane one likes, with traffic control lights and signs as optional? Nobody should get a speeding ticket?

YES!! Everything you're concerned about is covered in Minority Report. How did it work out in that simulation? Now of course you'll refer to cities where controls like this have the most obvious benefits. I'm still fine without them. I have stated my opinion on cities many times here...

I've also referenced driving in Tijuana many, many times to demonstrate why your argument is bullshit. Look, just because you can't imagine people living responsibly and free doesn't have shit to do with reality.

And on your comment about it not being over-bearing, I'll refer you to the 4th Amendment. Seems again free people disagree with you.

Patrick says

Yep. Both IntSoc and NatSoc are socialism, and the "Tell" of a Socialist is them claiming their form of Socialism "Isn't like the other kinds of Socialism, it's better" Another tell is that they deny their atrocities or claim it was absolutely necessary for that government to survive.

Patrick says

This is one step better than my 3rd world version that people constantly have to keep proving its their own property as the crooks teaming up with "gov", "judges", "police" generally with a hidden politician at the top to create papers in certain areas with a open secret deals to split the proceeds after occupying and sell the property at best. Murders with the help of folks from neighboring countries are not unusual to send signals to the community to make their next job easy.

Babylonian debt slavery 101. The purpose was never to pay off any debt, but to keep the debt active and escalating for compliant politicians intimidated enough to participate in financial crime to keep the Ponzi afloat. That, and the usual blackmails, threats and set ups.
Patrick says

https://fee.org/articles/why-government-spending-is-bad-for-the-economy/

Though everyone would agree in principle that you can’t get something for nothing, it seems this truth gets completely forgotten the moment government spending comes up. “How could you be against Internet infrastructure?” people might say. “Don’t you care about Internet access?” Of course I do. But I also recognize that money spent on Internet access is money that can’t be spent on food, healthcare, education, or housing. And unlike the proponents of these programs, I don’t presume to know what consumers most urgently need. ...

So, how do we systematically determine which uses of resources are the most valuable to consumers? With the government, this is impossible. Politicians and planners are simply “groping in the dark,” as the economist Ludwig von Mises put it. Sure, they’ve got all sorts of statistics, but the statistics paint at best a blurry picture of the relative needs of consumers.

Fortunately, there is an alternative: the market. On the market, profits and losses signal to entrepreneurs the relative value consumers place on different goods and services. These signals lead to a remarkable coordination between the needs of consumers and what gets produced. It’s not perfect, of course, but at least there is a mechanism for rationally allocating resources to meet the most urgent needs of consumers as best as possible. ...

The fact is, free-market proponents do care about human welfare. In fact, it is precisely because we care that we are against government spending! The question is not whether to have government-funded initiatives or let people suffer, but whether to have the government or the market allocate resources.

A proper understanding of economics, we believe, leads to the conclusion that market allocations tend to be better for the well-being of everyone than government allocations. Thus, far from being an act of misanthropy, our opposition to government spending actually stems from the very concern for human welfare that the left erroneously thinks they have a monopoly on.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/bad-luck-friday-april-26-2024-c-and

All nine Justices, including the liberals, seemed shocked by the concept of absolute presidential immunity. Like me, you’ve probably heard the media’s vomitous, broken-record jargon until your ears were bleeding: “nobody is above the law.” Really? Is that true?

Let’s start with judges. Judges are immune. If a judge makes a mistake, and an innocent person goes to the electric chair, what happens? Nothing. Even if the judge intentionally railroaded the defendant because of racial bias or for any other reason, what happens? Nothing.

How about Congressmen? Congressmen are immune. If they start a war that gets thousands of Americans killed, for illegal reasons (Wag the Dog), what happens? Nothing. (Critics will yap about bribery. So what? How many successful prosecutions have there been? At best, which is a stretch, bribery prosecutions only show a limited exception to Congress’ broad, general immunity.)

How about City Commissioners? City Commissioners are immune. What if a city commissioner violates citizens’ constitutional rights in Florida by mandating vaccines, and an outraged lawyer (me) proves the constitutional violation in court? What happens to the Commissioners?

Nothing.

How about cops? Cops are immune. At least, they enjoy qualified immunity. What happens if a cop negligently mows down grandma while chasing a teenaged jaywalker at irrationally high speeds? Nothing. Immune.

For Heaven’s sake, the entire government is immune. It’s a concept called sovereign immunity. The only way ‘round sovereign immunity is when the government graciously de-immunizes itself by passing a law allowing certain types of claims against government officials. Otherwise, tough luck, starbuck.

Although his immunity produces extremely vexing results in many cases, it is just as necessary as other types of government immunity. The President is not even an ordinary government official. He’s an entire branch of government. Article II of the Constitution establishes the President as the Executive Branch. Under the Constitution, the President enjoys powers exceeding those of any other government official, so it seems uncontroversial that he would also enjoy immunity exceeding that of any other government official.

I mean, through his pardon power, the President can even dish out immunity to anybody else, for any crime, no matter how horrible, even mislabeling checks. Why not himself?

Would I love to see Barack Hussein Obama tried for his crimes? A hundred percent. But that would open Pandora’s immunity box and start the political prosecution train going. Next stop, Banana Republic.

What to me was unaccountably absent from yesterday’s oral arguments was any discussion about the mountain of broad immunities already enjoyed by government and whether the President’s immunity should rest somewhere near, if not right at, the peak.

In other words, at minimum, a president should never have less immunity than every other government official. We put up with immunity so judges can rule without fearing personal consequences. We want Presidents to execute their duties boldly and decisively.

Nobody made that point yesterday.

What can I tell you? It’s a super strange year.

Immunity of the people who rule us is a good reason to minimize their numbers and power.