Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Da Geezer]

I think what you are presenting is pure sophistry.

There is a distinct difference between the use of the word common as in the role of government in providing for the common defense and the commons as it is used in William Forster Lloyd's work as it is explained in the Wiki link (I have never read or studied his economic concepts).

In the preamble to the constitution providing for the common defense means defense for everyone. The constitution, as I read it, says nothing about the government having any role in providing the protection of or managing the commons, as I understand what that means in Lloyd's work (e.g. the fisheries, lakes and streams and so forth).

I'd never heard of William Forster Lloyd until your post, so we have that in common. You asked for more examples of the commons and I just linked to Wikilinks. The environmental movement uses the phrase "tragedy of the commons" which I also linked to. I'm not sure that is sophistry.

But let's argue on your terms. The Preamble reads: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

First, let's note that the Preamble was held NOT to be part of the Constitution in 1960, and later was held that it WAS part of the Constitution. The concepts are so broad as to be meaningless. Which is why I asked for you progs to name particular instances that government is the only entity that can provide for the common welfare. Obama chaffed under the Constitution (as "negative rights") and governed by decree.

As to garbage collection, private collectors are less expensive and are limited by the market as to what they can charge (I have a choice between two private companies in the small town in which I live). Municipal collectors can charge anything they want because they are a monopoly that is protected by the mayors they elect. Poor service is not punished. Garbage collection is clearly NOT a proper function of government.

Let's look at wild animals. They are a common good. Much of the early development of property law in English jurisprudence arose from the "capture or control" of wild animals. I happen to believe a deer hunting season is a proper function of government. Deer (and I mean unpenned deer) are a common good. The government limits deer season to November 15-30 in MI. It encourages the taking of bucks and limits the taking of does depending on the size of the herd.

That which is held in common may be managed by the state to ensure domestic tranquility and provide for the general welfare.

What I would like to discuss are those items in prog-think that the left believes are proper functions of government. I understand that Marxists like hack will always say "everything", but those of you who are not devoted Marxists should name a few proper functions of government. I'll start:

Protecting our borders from those who would illegally sneak into the country.
Aiding the enemies of our enemies.
Basic scientific research that is too expensive for a private company to do.

You get the picture.

[Ghengis Jon]

Biggest political whoppers of all time:

1972: "I am not a crook."

1994: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

2018: "Throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart."

[hack]

Can't boil it down to one money quote but the Iraqi WMA was pretty whopperish when you consider the human toll.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Decent post, Geeze ...... much better than whatever flew off your key board yesterday.

The point of my post yesterday was that there is a distinct difference between the "common defense" as it is stated in the Preamble to the Constitution (meaning every citizen of the US is entitled to it and it is therefor a proper role of government) and the "commons" as it is understood by and explained to us by the works of William Forster Lloyd.

That you seemed to be equating them was a faulty argument (i.e., sophistry). But, I don't think you were then or are now offering that argument, although you seemed to be last night.

So, clearing that up, you properly ask what does the left believe are proper functions of government. I don't know what the "prog-think, left" wants. I don't come from liberal persuasions. I do believe the Federal Government has important roles but they have nothing to do, in my mind anyway, with those that are so narrowly defined as the current vitriolic debate between the left and the right have created of late, e.g., kill or preserve the ACA.

That debate has created a strong anti-government view among the polity, especially conservatives, and that view is harmful and potentially destructive. The debate between conservatives and liberals lacks an essential understanding, on both sides, of how government, if we are to realize an effective form of it in this country, should go about it's business of governing. The debate must be raised above the shouting on both sides, e.g., abortion, civil rights, education, to a level that considers the purpose of the state.

The purpose of the state is to keep society safe and strong; to protect us from outsiders and from each other; to maximize freedom in a way that is consistent with security and order and that advances the common good; to provide society's "mediating institutions" the space they need to thrive; to encourage equal opportunity for all citizens; and to make a decent provision for the poorest and most vulnerable. All of this is meant to allow people to flourish and to advance human happiness. As Madison said, "Justice is the end of government."

The case for limited government is rooted in this understanding of government's purpose. In most circumstances, limited government is preferable to intrusive government because the former advances the public good and serves the common interest. The Constitution places meaningful limits on government power for a reason — to prevent tyranny, yes, and to advance self-government, of course, but also to promote the general welfare and to form a more perfect union. Limited government deserves to be embraced because it is a means (a system of government) to an end (the happiness and flourishing of the people).

The point here, Geezer is that it is pretty useless to list the roles of the government unless everyone having that discussion has an understanding of the broader context within which that debate should be held. I don't think we are there in this forum and neither is this forum the place to have such a discussion.

I will offer that this is a good read and tends to provide the context that I speak of. When you are done reading it, I think, as I have, you too will become less interested in asking any of us here to name a few proper functions of government. I get the picture. Do you?

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/a-conservative-vision-of-government

[*JD*]

Brilliant!
[ame]https://twitter.com/IamHappyToast/status/949655835617185792[/ame]

[Cody_Russell]

Trump: “I’m mentally stable, a genius.” Such a Joffrey thing to say...

[ame]https://youtu.be/4sJY7BTIuPY[/ame]

[Dr. Strangelove]

There is no point for performance art in this situation. I appreciate subterfuge, but this does not lead to any advantage or gain. But, yeah, for devotees of Trump it must be much less embarrassing to say he's just "acting" - even if there is no logical reason for the act.

Correct. There is no political gain to be had for tweets like this morning. It's not an act; this is who he is.

Trump's judgment is supposedly infallible. Yet he's hired tons of shitty people around him. Trump elevated Bannon to a position equal to Priebus in his original staff. Now both are gone and Bannon being a horrible person is supposedly no reflection on Trump "outstanding, better-then -all-other-Presidents combined judgment".

[hack]

As to garbage collection, private collectors are less expensive and are limited by the market as to what they can charge (I have a choice between two private companies in the small town in which I live). Municipal collectors can charge anything they want because they are a monopoly that is protected by the mayors they elect. Poor service is not punished. Garbage collection is clearly NOT a proper function of government.


Geezer doesn't appear capable of reconciling his favored theories with reality. Municipal garbage collection doesn't create monopolistic behavior. It may create some generously-paid employees, the story I posted shows. But it does not create public hazards, exploited workers, unnecessary fatalities, or avoidable damage to public and private property. It also does not create the undue regulatory burden of keeping on top of dozens of companies, most of which fail their inspections, the numbers show.

The story I posted is a great example of excellent investigative work but also the futility of it. The story lays it all out. The broader stats, the specific anecdotes, and the costs of allowing these unsavory actors to feed at the public trough. And yet people like Geezer are going to continue to believe what they choose to believe regardless of the facts.

This could very well be because it's been 30 years since anybody debated what the right set of economic policies are. There's an economic orthodoxy that goes unexamined by people once past a certain age. Younger people can take a look without the baggage of two generations of propaganda and think it out for themselves. For those of us who are a bit older, we've just gone too long without exposure to any real debate about whether the things we always hear about the virtuous private sector and the bumbling public sector are actually true.

[Kapture1]

[ame]https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/949778883385155584[/ame]

[Da Geezer]

Geezer doesn't appear capable of reconciling his favored theories with reality. Municipal garbage collection doesn't create monopolistic behavior. It may create some generously-paid employees, the story I posted shows. But it does not create public hazards, exploited workers, unnecessary fatalities, or avoidable damage to public and private property. It also does not create the undue regulatory burden of keeping on top of dozens of companies, most of which fail their inspections, the numbers show.

The story I posted is a great example of excellent investigative work but also the futility of it. The story lays it all out. The broader stats, the specific anecdotes, and the costs of allowing these unsavory actors to feed at the public trough. And yet people like Geezer are going to continue to believe what they choose to believe regardless of the facts.

I don't know what "the story" you are talking about. Could you repost it?

And you have finally come up with a reason for your belief that government should do everything: it saves money because the government does not need to be regulated!!

Hack, garbage collection involves picking up trash that people put out at appropriate times, dumping it into a truck until the truck is full, and then trucking it to a landfill or dump. Why do you start with the presumption that this process needs to be regulated? When is the last time you had a private company picking up your trash?

I would suggest you read the excellent article Jeff posted. It has a lot to say about liberty being a thing of value. It also makes the point that the trust of the people in their government is also a thing of great value. Take a chance and read it.

This could very well be because it's been 30 years since anybody debated what the right set of economic policies are. There's an economic orthodoxy that goes unexamined by people once past a certain age. Younger people can take a look without the baggage of two generations of propaganda and think it out for themselves. For those of us who are a bit older, we've just gone too long without exposure to any real debate about whether the things we always hear about the virtuous private sector and the bumbling public sector are actually true.

So you are saying that the youth, younger than you even, are able to think this problem (of never discussing what the right set of economic policies) out, but the rest of us can't? That's because they have been so indoctrinated in socialism that they seem to you to be free thinkers.

And to say that we have not seriously discussed economic policy for 30 years is absurd, even for you.

[hack]

"Why do you start with the presumption that this process needs to be regulated?"

That says it all about you. You didn't pay attention to what you were responding to, and therefore ask very stupid questions that speak to your lack of an ability to reconcile your ivory-tower theory with actual lived experience. Go upthread and see for yourself. Maybe it would be good for you to know what you are commenting on before commenting. Certainly it would be good for the rest of us.

[Da Geezer]

hack, garbage collection happens just fine in 95% of the country without regulation. Maybe if your financial well-being were not so closely tied to the regulatory state, you would see that about 60% of all regulation is simply nonsense.

Hack, what is your wife's occupation? Why would anyone choose to live in DC if they were not part of the deep state?

Heh, follow the money.

[AlabamAlum]

I came within a few seconds of becoming a director at Georgetown Medical Center. Too hard to justify with the cost of living. But I was close to pulling the trigger. Love the city.

[hack]

Far better to visit here than to live here.

hack, garbage collection happens just fine in 95% of the country without regulation. Maybe if your financial well-being were not so closely tied to the regulatory state, you would see that about 60% of all regulation is simply nonsense.

My financial well-being is exposed to the price of oil these days. Has nothing to do with regulation, much as you'd like it to be. I don't see why you ask people the questions you ask them, since the answers never seem to sink in.

Anyhoo, waste management is the fifth-most deadliest occupation in the country.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Axios was shown copies of Trump's private schedule. Many days he doesn't leave the Residence until 11 AM. Until then he mainly makes phone calls, watches tv, and tweets.

https://www.axios.com/scoop-trumps-secret-shrinking-schedule-1515364904-ab76374a-6252-4570-a804-942b3f851840.html

EDIT: There's additional reason to believe this is accurate. He rarely has any public events before 11AM and his tweeting usually stops around late morning.

"Executive Time" to become a new catchphrase.