35°Quick links: Boys ranch moves assets • GU basketball • WSU basketball • Kendall Yards plan • Swine flu
You, too, can be a pundit, but the rules have changed. Here’s helpful hints from the Washington Post’s Gene Weingarten.
Example:
”Rule 3: Being a modern pundit is like being a microwave oven — it’s about heat, not light. The current debate in America, for example, isn’t whether Barack Obama is, or is not, right for the country, it’s about whether Barack Obama is, or is not, Hitler. This sort of thing helpfully crystallizes issues for a public that is increasingly accustomed to black-and-white, either-or, on-the-island or off-the-island decision-making. The more simple-minded, the better.”
999 W. Riverside, Spokane, WA 99201
P.O. Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210
Main switchboard: (509) 459-5000 • (800) 338-8801
Newsroom: (509) 459-5400 • (800) 789-0029
Customer service: (800) 338-8801
© Copyright 2009, The Spokesman-Review
gmorton on October 27 at 1:58 p.m.
Obama is not Hitler, though he is a statist.
A statist is a person who seeks to employ the coercive power of the State to force others to provide him with some good he desires and which they have proven unwilling to provide voluntarily (usually because the statist is unwilling or unable to provide them with anything of value in exchange), or a person who seeks to exercise such power, in order to enrich himself by seizing wealth from others, or to conscript others into pursuit of some Utopian designs with which he has become enamoured. The former are passive statists, or “free-lunchers;” the latter are active statists, or “despots.” There is usually a symbiosis between passive and active statists, with the passives (free-lunchers) conferring or yielding power to the actives (despots), or acceding to such power, in exchange for the free lunches they desire.
There are many species of statist, who differ in the nature of the free lunches they demand, or in the case of the despot, upon the version of Utopia they seek. Obama and Hitler differ in the Utopias they respectively envision, but they both (along with all other despots) seek the coercive power of the State to carry them out.
Hope this helps.
Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 27 at 3:37 p.m.
So Obama is the 44th statist of the United States.
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on October 27 at 3:47 p.m.
No, only about the 12th. The country was reasonably statist-free until the 1930s. But each successive statist builds upon the power secured by his predecessors. State power, once acquired, never goes away.
Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 27 at 4:42 p.m.
Ah, the good ole days. Thanks.
Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 27 at 5:01 p.m.
<< A statist is a person who seeks to employ the coercive power of the State to force others to provide him with some good he desires and which they have proven unwilling to provide voluntarily (usually because the statist is unwilling or unable to provide them with anything of value in exchange) …>>
Sounds like George Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion.
And the drive to end slavery.
Federalists and anti-Federalists: Both anti-statist?
Early tariffs?
Where does the Civil War fit into this?
Flag as inappropriate
Chip Jones on October 27 at 5:38 p.m.
The special report in this month's “Atlantic” called “Who is Killing the Media?” is also worth reading.
Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 27 at 6:42 p.m.
Chip - so who is it that is killing media? You put that teaser out there and … then nothing!?
Flag as inappropriate
Charlie on October 28 at 7:17 a.m.
The msm has committed “Hara-Kiri.”
Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on October 28 at 7:31 a.m.
–— A statist is a person who seeks to employ the coercive power of the State to force others to provide him with some good he desires and which they have proven unwilling to provide voluntarily (usually because the statist is unwilling or unable to provide them with anything of value in exchange.)–—
Define what you mean by “unwilling” and “value” please.
Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on October 28 at 8:37 a.m.
GMorton could be actively describing anyone who seeks the assistance of gvt, from the old left inclusive of feminists to the new left inclusive of anti-abortionists. In short, such activist groups can't think that it is entirely possible to achieve on their own lasting change, but rather must use the coercive powers of gvt to effect change for them. In which case, GMorton, Obama is the 44th statist of the U.S.
I'll also remind GMorton that the First Amendment allows this “statism” that Morton so decries to exist.
What has that to do with whether Obama can be called “Hitler?” Hitler abandoned what ever democracy had originally existed in Germany. Obama is not only the product of democracy but has tried to further democracy even among obstructionist GOP. Which says a lot about obstructionist GOP. A case of projection.
Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 28 at 9:55 a.m.
<<Chip - so who is it that is killing media? You put that teaser out there and … then nothing!?>>
You're a person of interest, Richard. Might want to lawyer up. :)
Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 28 at 11:43 a.m.
I have to say … I had a good belly-laugh with that one Gary.
All I will say at this point is … I am being framed!
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on October 28 at 12:06 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,
“Define what you mean by “unwilling” and “value” please.”
Define “unwilling”? I wouldn't have thought that term at all problematic. Just check any of the dictionaries; I'm sure the defs they give will work fine.
“Value” is a theoretical (as distinct from a natural) property assigned to those things which someone would give up something (time, effort, some other good) to obtain. Whatever has a postive value for some person is a “good.” Value varies with the person (the valuer) and the thing; the term thus denotes a relationship between that thing and that person.
Value is not defined except with reference to a valuer. If a good X has the value V to a person P, that means P would give up (at most) V to obtain X. Of course, P will always try to obtain X by giving up something less than V, so that he can conserve his resources to obtain other things later (conservation of resources).
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on October 28 at 12:23 p.m.
Arch_Druid wrote,
“GMorton could be actively describing anyone who seeks the assistance of gvt, from the old left inclusive of feminists to the new left inclusive of anti-abortionists. In short, such activist groups can't think that it is entirely possible to achieve on their own lasting change, but rather must use the coercive powers of gvt to effect change for them.”
Well, no, Arch. A person who seeks the assistance of gvt to, say, apprehend and prosecute someone who has robbed them is not a statist (free-luncher type). The term refers to those persons who seek gvt assistance in obtaining something to which they are not entitled (they did not produce it, discover it, or give up something else of value to them to obtain it). So they ask government to seize it from someone else by force and hand it over to them.
Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on October 28 at 1:06 p.m.
gmorton,
–— Value is not defined except with reference to a valuer. –—
So in essence this is all an exercise in personal biases and beliefs?
For example, if I was truly opposed to the second Gulf War from the outset and feel that I got nothing of value from it, that would make George Bush a 'statist' in that he mis-used governmental power to seize my tax dollars in order to pay for it?
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on October 28 at 1:24 p.m.
Jeffrey,
No, it is not a matter of whether you *feel* you got something for it, but whether you did. (I doubt that you, or anyone else except some military contractors, did). Shrub was certainly a statist.
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on October 28 at 3:03 p.m.
Gary Crooks wrote,
“Early tariffs?”
Unless you're an anarchist, you'll need some means of paying for whatever services you expect government to provide. Whether taxes are “statist” depends upon what they are paying for. If you are paying taxes for a service from which you benefit, then they are not. If you are paying for someone else's free lunch, then they are. (Not all tax schemes are equally equitable, however, even if their purposes are legitimate).
“Where does the Civil War fit into this?”
The war resulted from the efforts of government to end the violation of natural rights slavery entailed. It was no more an example of statism than is the return of stolen goods to their owners by the police.
Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 28 at 4:42 p.m.
But the owners found value in those slaves. Those whisky rebellers weren't willing to pay.
Seems this statist thing is awfully flexible.
Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on October 28 at 6:06 p.m.
I quite agree, Gary.
On the one hand, “value” seems to be subjective. “Value is not defined except with reference to a valuer.” But on the other hand, “No, it is not a matter of whether you *feel* you got something for it, but whether you did.” So apparently there's some as yet undefined objective standard apart from what I 'feel'.
And I bet I can guess who gets to define that objective standard.
Some people don't feel that the second Gulf War was 'of value' and 'were unwilling' to contribute to its prosecution. So does that makes Bush a statist? What about other people who believe the war was most certainly necessary ('of value') and whole-heatedly supported it (were willing)? Does that mean Bush wasn't a statist? Which of those conflicting opinions decide the appropriate characterization?
What happens if, as with your Civil War example, opinions change over time? Is today's 'statist' tomorrow's 'statesman'?
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on October 28 at 7:40 p.m.
Not sure what your point is there, Gary C. Muggers find value in their stolen wallets too. The problem is, they obtained that value by force. So did slaveholders. Action by government (or by anyone else) to return that value to its rightful owners is not statism; it is justice – one of the major aims of government.
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on October 28 at 7:51 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,
“On the one hand, 'value' seems to be subjective. 'Value is not defined except with reference to a valuer.' But on the other hand, 'No, it is not a matter of whether you *feel* you got something for it, but whether you did.' So apparently there's some as yet undefined objective standard apart from what I 'feel'.”
You are confusing two concepts, Jeffrey. Values are idiosyncratic (individual), but quite objective. Your fingerprints are idiosyncratic, but quite objective. Value is not defined except in relation to a valuer, but once a valuer, P, is specified, then anyone can determine whether X has value V to P. They need only observe how P spends his time and invests his resources.
Its worth pointing out that observation is necessary here. We can't infer the value of X to Alfie by observing what it is worth to Bruno, or to “most people.” We have to make some observations of Alfie's behavior with respect to X.
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on October 28 at 8:26 p.m.
For clarity, you confound relative v. absolute with objective v. subjective. Values are relative, but objective.
Flag as inappropriate
Jeffrey_Grey on October 29 at 4:06 a.m.
The gobbledy-gook factor has risen too high. This is a blatant attempt to wrap your purely subjective biases in an unmerited cloak of objectivity.
You disagree with the liberal left's agenda. Fine. But just because you disagree that doesn't make the disagreement objectively right.
–— Value is not defined except in relation to a valuer, but once a valuer, P, is specified, then anyone can determine whether X has value V to P. –—
So what? “P's” value “V” is still subjective. Just because it's been “defined relative to P” that doesn't make it any more or less objectively right or wrong than it was before we defined it *and decided whether we subjectively agreed with it too.*
Facts are objective. Beliefs are subjective. No amount of logical limbo dancing will make them any less subjective.
Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on October 29 at 6:39 a.m.
GMorton most certainly has the remarkably highfalutin argument about matters of which one knows absolutely nothing. I did not say anything Morton about cops being sought out to assist a person recover stolen goods. I said those who seek out gvt to produce change, whether (old left) feminists to (new left) anti-abortionists. You might read more carefully what I wrote. Gvt is activist and therefore statist when people turn to it via their first amendment rights and ask of it to do something as to a specific political or other agenda. And how do you know, Morton that they are not entitled? If they aren't, then the first amendment should be tossed into the dust bin of history and we ought not now call this a democracy.
You always turn again and again to this matter of everything taken from you “by force.” Again, Morton you have no idea what you are talking about. You aren't “forced” to live in this country either. Perhaps you should live in a country where true repression and oppression does indeed exist, such as in China. Then when you returned, you'd have a better appreciation for the country that you call home. So excuse me, Morton, but your one-note whining is getting nothing but tiresome.
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on October 29 at 10:48 a.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,
“So what? “P's” value “V” is still subjective. Just because it's been “defined relative to P” that doesn't make it any more or less objectively right or wrong than it was before we defined it *and decided whether we subjectively agreed with it too.*
You're perfectly right. Values are neither right nor wrong, objectively, subjectively, or otherwise. That's because they are not properties of things which can be observed and measured by some objective method, like mass or chemical composition. To assert that some item X has a value V is not to impute any property to X; it is only a claim that some person P will give up V to obtain X. If there is such a person, and that person will give up V to obtain X, then the claim, “X has value V to P” is true; otherwise it is false. Values are *not defined* unless a P is specified. Hence the claim, “X has value V” (no valuer specified) is neither true nor false; it is meaningless. It is an incomplete sentence.
You're trying to construe value statements as though they are subject-predicate statements, like, “George is bald,” or, “Water freezes at 32F.” But they are relational statements; they assert a relation between a person and a thing, namely, that some person will give up something else to obtain that thing.
Let me summarize:
“X has value V” is neither true, false, subjective, nor objective. It is meaningless.
“X has value V to P” is either true or false, and is objective.
Facts are objective. Beliefs are subjective. No amount of logical limbo dancing will make them any less subjective.
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on October 29 at 10:50 a.m.
Oops, forgot to delete that last para from your comment.
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on October 29 at 11:11 a.m.
Arch_druid wrote,
“I did not say anything Morton about cops being sought out to assist a person recover stolen goods. I said those who seek out gvt to produce change, whether (old left) feminists to (new left) anti-abortionists.”
Well, Arch, the discussion concerned the definition of “statist.” I said that a statist is someone who demands that government deliver them a free lunch. So I'm not sure what your point is re: “producing change.” If the change sought is some kind of free lunch, then those who seek it are statists. If it has some other purpose, then they may not be.
“Gvt is activist and therefore statist when people turn to it via their first amendment rights and ask of it to do something as to a specific political or other agenda. And how do you know, Morton that they are not entitled? If they aren't, then the first amendment should be tossed into the dust bin of history and we ought not now call this a democracy.”
The First Amendment merely guarantees free speech, press, and religion, Arch. It protects your right to yell, “Kill all Jews!,” or, “Exterminate all capitalist roaders!” It does not empower the government, however, to carry out such populist demands, or even permit it to do so.
We know that someone is entitled to some good X if he has acquired X without inflicting loss or injury on anyone else. We also know that someone who obtained X by inflicting loss or injury on someone else is *not* entitled to it.
But perhaps you disagree.
Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 29 at 11:31 a.m.
<<Not sure what your point is there, Gary C. Muggers find value in their stolen wallets too. The problem is, they obtained that value by force. So did slaveholders. Action by government (or by anyone else) to return that value to its rightful owners is not statism; it is justice – one of the major aims of government. >>
Slavery was legal. Slave owners were not thrown in jail for theft or mugging ior kidnapping. (And this, mind you, was the good old days). Government took something of value. Just as it does with private property.
Pretty sure Southerners felt coerced given the ultimatum before the Civll War.
Making whiskey was legal. Those making it didn't willingly agree to the tax. So was Washington being a statist by enforcing it?
Find it hard to believe that 32 presidents were anti-statists, given your definition.
Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 29 at 11:31 a.m.
<<Not sure what your point is there, Gary C. Muggers find value in their stolen wallets too. The problem is, they obtained that value by force. So did slaveholders. Action by government (or by anyone else) to return that value to its rightful owners is not statism; it is justice – one of the major aims of government. >>
Slavery was legal. Slave owners were not thrown in jail for theft or mugging or kidnapping. (And this, mind you, was the good old days). Government took something of value. Just as it does with private property.
Pretty sure Southerners felt coerced given the ultimatum before the Civll War.
Making whiskey was legal. Those making it didn't willingly agree to the tax. So was Washington being a statist by enforcing it?
Find it hard to believe that 32 presidents were anti-statists, given your definition.
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on October 29 at 11:34 a.m.
BTW, Arch, the US was not designed as a democracy, but as a constitutional republic. That means that the powers granted to government were limited, and could not be expanded by mere popular sentiment; that required a constitutional amendment. All powers not expressly granted were “reserved to the states or to the people.” Government has no constitutional power to provide anyone with health care, but it also has no power to prevent people from providing for their own health care, including making voluntary arrangements with others for that purpose, the latter being one of those many powers “reserved to the people.”
I realize constitutional history is largely ignored (or actively distorted) in public schools. You may wish to brush up on it.
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on October 29 at 12:29 p.m.
Gary Crooks wrote,
“Slavery was legal. Slave owners were not thrown in jail for theft or mugging or kidnapping. (And this, mind you, was the good old days).”
Of course not. The government can impose punishments only for violations of the law. And slave-owning violated no laws. It can change laws to outlaw a practice formerly legal, however. When it does do, it owes compensation to anyone suffering losses due to that change. When the British Parliament outlawed slavery in the Empire in 1833 it appropriated 20 million pounds sterling – a huge sum at the time – to compensate slave owners (slavery was abolished in Britain itself in 1772 by a ruling of a Royal Judge, Lord Mansfield).
The US government would probably have done likewise had the slave states not been in rebellion.
“Government took something of value. Just as it does with private property.”
No, Gary. It did not “take” the slaves for its own use or to hand over to someone else with more political influence. It liberated them. There is a difference. Abolition ended certain violations of rights; it did not commit violations.
“Making whiskey was legal. Those making it didn't willingly agree to the tax. So was Washington being a statist by enforcing it?”
No, because he was not collecting the tax to hand someone a free lunch. He was only guilty of enforcing an inequitable tax (one not apportioned according to the benefits the taxpayer receives from government).
Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on November 02 at 1:05 p.m.
<<No, because he was not collecting the tax to hand someone a free lunch. He was only guilty of enforcing an inequitable tax (one not apportioned according to the benefits the taxpayer receives from government). >>
It was collected to pay for government deficits. It was not surrendered happily. Nor were the taxed asked if they approved of the spending that led to the debt.
In other contexts, this is called theft.
<<Abolition ended certain violations of rights; it did not commit violations.>>
Too bad all those “anti-statist” presidents didn't do that. Or the founders. Guess they had too much to lose.
Let freedom ring.
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 02 at 11:00 p.m.
Gary Crooks wrote,
“It was collected to pay for government deficits. It was not surrendered happily. Nor were the taxed asked if they approved of the spending that led to the debt.
“In other contexts, this is called theft.”
The whiskey taxes were imposed to retire war debt. Taxes to pay for the legitimate functions of government, such as defense, are not theft, and the “whiskey rebels” did not oppose the tax on that ground. They opposed it because a disproportionate fraction of those costs were being imposed on a small group of citizens. The government never managed to collect a penny of that tax in most of the country, and it was repealed in 1803 (that and other excise taxes contributed to the defeat of the Federalists in the 1800 elections).
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.as…
“Too bad all those “anti-statist” presidents didn't do that [abolish slavery]. Or the founders. Guess they had too much to lose.”
Yes, they did. The likely dissolution of the Union.
Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 04 at 9:38 p.m.
GMorton, you have gone even further off the cliff on this. I guess you haven't bothered reading all of the first amendment. That last part that declares that the people can bring their grievances before gvt. That can also be interpreted as meaning they can turn to gvt to achieve various political agendas. Question, Morton, how do you suppose the U.S. Constitution became the law of the land? By democratic action. How do you suppose that the Bill of Rights, to limit the coercive power of gvt (but not take away what was already within its constitutional prerogatives) was passed? By democratic action.
As for that “free lunch” argument, what gives you the idea that the whole concept of “free markets” doesn't assure a free lunch for business interests at the expense of others? And when that free lunch is indeed described to you, you go into deep denial. Or you go on the attack. So excuse me, GMorton, who's the liberal?
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 04 at 11:39 p.m.
Arch_Druid wrote,
“That can also be interpreted as meaning they can turn to gvt to achieve various political agendas.”
Indeed they can. Consistently with the Constitution. If the latter is irrelevant, why did they ratify it?
“As for that “free lunch” argument, what gives you the idea that the whole concept of “free markets” doesn't assure a free lunch for business interests at the expense of others?”
Bad mistake, Arch. It is not the free market which hands business interests free lunches. It is government which does that. It hands out free lunches to business for the same reason it hands them out to labor unions, farmers, senior citizens, home buyers, and ballet companies – namely, to score some votes and campaign contributions. And I have never denied that business interests are among the hogs constantly jostling at the trough.
You are equating free markets with business interests. That is a bad mistake.
Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 05 at 6:52 p.m.
No, GMorton, I DO NOT equate free markets with business interests. I take note time after time that business interests that turn constantly to gvt are THEMSELVES the ones to equate their seeking gvt assistance with the “free market.” As do the GOP who push gvt intervention in the market place on the behalf of business interests.
The free market therefore does not and never will exist as long as business interests seek gvt intervention on any number of fronts. Which is why the Ayn Rand view of “free markets” remains a myth. And in any case, you would want some degree of gvt intervention to keep from getting sick from bad food, not paying for a car that breaks down in a matter of days, having tools and equipment that are reliable enough to last for years. The “free market” does not provide that guarantee. No, neither would business interests provide that guarantee. Only gvt intervention provides that guarantee.
GMorton, I did not make a “bad mistake.” Sorry dude.
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 05 at 9:48 p.m.
Arch_druid wrote,
“I take note time after time that business interests that turn constantly to gvt are THEMSELVES the ones to equate their seeking gvt assistance with the “free market.””
Er, no, they don't, Arch. When businesses lobby and schmooze for a free lunch, they do not offer free market arguments. They offer “public interest” or “public good” arguments, just as do lobbyists for labor, farmers, school teachers, researchers, opera companies, and performance artists. That is always their *public* rationale. The *private,* unspoken rationale is always, “you line our pockets, and we'll vote for you and throw a few bucks your way next election.”
If you know of a case where a business attempted to justify its trough-feeding with a “free market” argument, please cite it.
In your previous comment you said,
“As for that “free lunch” argument, what gives you the idea that the whole concept of “free markets” doesn't assure a free lunch for business interests at the expense of others?”
Please explain how a free market assures “free lunch for business interests at the expense of others.”
I suggested before that you do not understand the concept of a free market. You seem to think a “free market” is one in which “business interests” receive government handouts and are free to cheat customers. Do I have to explain the concept again?
Request: Please explain the term “free market” as you understand it.
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 05 at 10:01 p.m.
Arch_druid wrote,
(Overlooked this one)
“The free market therefore does not and never will exist as long as business interests seek gvt intervention on any number of fronts.”
No, Arch. Business interests will seek government intervention whenever it is in their interests to do so, and *as long as they have a reasonable prospect of receiving it*, just as will all other species of free lunchers. A free market will not exist as long as there are no limits to the government's power to grant free lunches. Government will hand out free lunches to whomever asks, as long as some pol can score a few votes or enlarge his power by granting it.
As long as the government is in the free lunch biz, Arch, you can be sure that “business interests” will be lined up at the trough, along with all the other hogs.
Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 06 at 7:37 p.m.
GMorton, just in case you haven't realized it, I happen to be a part of the business world for the last 20 plus years as a small business owner who takes my business on a seasonal basis down to the local farmer's market yearly.
This is what I know, can you sell hops here in N. Idaho? Actually, no, you can't. Because the major agribusiness down south has approached the Idaho state gvt to regulate who can grow and sell hops as an advantage to themselves.
Can you sell bean seeds as bean seeds at a Farmer's Market booth? No, because agribusiness down south has approached the Idaho state gvt to regulate the distribution of bean seeds. In order to sell bean seeds, they have to be sold as produce to be cooked. Not as a seed that can simply be grown in the individual garden.
In short GMorton, the facts themselves dispute your psuedo-Ayn Randian “free market” ideology. Business interests are only vocally in dispute of anything that would infringe on the “market place” if it benefits labor and consumers. They are however all for regulations that will assure themselves profits, reduce by measurable amounts the competition, and keep to a minimum start up companies, small business owners and credible overseas competition. THIS GMorton is how they define “the free market.” And no, it is not about the “public good” since the public isn't necessarily benefited by this statist advantage on the behalf of the business interest. Or the business interests wouldn't seek statist solutions.
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 06 at 9:13 p.m.
Arch_druid wrote,
“In short GMorton, the facts themselves dispute your psuedo-Ayn Randian “free market” ideology.”
Which facts were those, Arch? The facts you cited (I take your word that they are “facts”) do not “dispute” anything. Indeed, they illustrate the claim I made that “As long as the government is in the free lunch biz, Arch, you can be sure that “business interests” will be lined up at the trough, along with all the other hogs.”
Government regulations to protect businesses from competition are *free lunches,” not the workings of a free market. They are examples of statism. Far from being arguments against free markets, they are examples of the lack of them.
If you want to be able to freely but and sell bean seeds, Arch, you're gonna need to get the gummint out of the free lunch Biz. I.e., you're gonna have to support free markets.
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 06 at 9:13 p.m.
“but” in last para should be “buy.”
Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 07 at 11:24 a.m.
GMorton, small growers do not have the clout to get government out of the free market. And agribusiness isn't going to get the gvt out of the free market as long as they see gvt as an advantage to themselves. That is why, as Gary C. does acknowledge, the gvt and the market place have always been hybrids as an entity. Simply because business entities find more advantages for gvt involvement in the market than they would have if gvt stayed strictly out of it.
Which is why you find a lot of business and trade sets of rules in the U.S. Constitution. Not even the founding fathers were prepared to divorce the gvt entirely from the market place itself.
It is a nice myth, but it isn't based on historical fact.
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 07 at 2:36 p.m.
Arch_druid wrote,
“That is why, as Gary C. does acknowledge, the gvt and the market place have always been hybrids as an entity. ”
I assume you're referring to Gary C's comment (in another thread) that the characteristic technologies of the 20th century were the result of a “partnership between the free market and government” (that is a paraphrase). Gary C is mistaken about that. Government had no role to speak of in the development of any of them.
“Which is why you find a lot of business and trade sets of rules in the U.S. Constitution.”
What? Which provisions are those?
The Constitution includes no such thing, Arch. You should read it sometime.
Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 08 at 7:13 a.m.
I did, where it involves gvt that can regulate interstate trade and trade treaties with other countries. Yeah, and history also shows us that it took gvt to put together tariffs that supposedly protected domestic business interests. Obviously, Morton, you don't pay much attention to the U.S. Constitution any more than you pay much attention to history. Reagan, after all, the “free market” devotee that he was still placed gvt intervention in the way of the market place to stifle overseas competition at the behest of domestic business interests. But then, both the U.S. Constitution and historical precedent made it possible.
So, try again.
This time paying closer attention to the document.
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 09 at 11:53 p.m.
On 11/7 Arch_druid wrote,
“That is why, as Gary C. does acknowledge, the gvt and the market place have always been hybrids as an entity. ”
And,
“Which is why you find a lot of business and trade sets of rules in the U.S. Constitution.”
On 11/8 Arch_druid wrote,
“I did, where it involves gvt that can regulate interstate trade and trade treaties with other countries.”
Er, Arch, the power to regulate interstate commerce is not “a lot of business and trade sets of rules.” There is nothing in the Constitution which could remotely be construed as a “business and trade set of rules.”
Nor does the power to regulate interstate commerce imply that “gvt and the marketplace have always been hybrids as an entity.” That inference is bizarre.
The interstate commerce clause was added to the Constitution in order to remove that power from the States. There were no federal regulations on interstate commerce for over 100 years after the document was ratified, including the entire period when all the technologies previously mentioned were developed. The government had no role in developing any of them, direct or indirect.
Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 10 at 10:52 a.m.
There you go again, GMorton refusing to acknowledge history. The power to regulate interstate commerce DOES in fact mean rules and regs where those businesses are concerned. There is absolutely nothing “bizarre” about it. And yes, it does mean Morton, that as a consequence, gvt and private enterprise will always be hybridized.
As for the assertion that gvt doesn't produce. Really? And ALL scientists don't work for the federal gvt? A percentage of them do. The National Weather Service is privately owned? Think again. Your roads and bridges were produced by gvt money and those who were contracted to build them. The CDC is also a public entity. Morton, you are beyond silly.
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 10 at 2:22 p.m.
Arch,
Go back, read what was said, and try again.
Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on November 11 at 11:33 a.m.
GMorton, it is you who have the problem. I do not. You have taken the “libertarian” position to the extreme. At some point you are going to have to recall that even the founders' intent was to in fact provide a role for gvt. The only argument you have here is that of the anarchist, every man for himself.
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 11 at 2:02 p.m.
Arch_druid wrote,
” At some point you are going to have to recall that even the founders' intent was to in fact provide a role for gvt. ”
Of course they did. That role is clearly set forth in Article I, Sec. 8. Read that section, and let me know whether you find “provide health care,” “provide retirement incomes,” “provide public education,” etc.
“The only argument you have here is that of the anarchist, every man for himself.”
Now, Arch, you well know that I've made no such argument. The Constitution authorizes Congress to establish and army and navy, build post offices and post roads, and various other things. It does not expect every man to provide those things for himself.
Try to challenge the arguments actually made, rather than fictitious straw men, OK?
Flag as inappropriate
gmorton on November 11 at 2:04 p.m.
BTW, Arch, though I am not an anarchist, anarchism does not assert or imply “every man for himself.”
Flag as inappropriate