The people I distrust most are those
who want to improve our lives
have only one course of action.
Frank Herbert
Election 2013 Results
In widely expected outcomes, the Democrats swept back into power in NYC and the Virginia governor's mansion. I believe that DeBlasio is the first in NYC since Giuliani's first election in the 1990's, New York state has become probably the bluest state in the union since Pataki left the governor's mansion years back.The only thing remarkable about the election, other than marquee contests involving 2 NY Dems trying to resurrect their political careers after sex scandals was the mayor-elect's campaign spot with his son (DeBlasio's wife is black). McAuliffe, a Clinton hack, had never trailed in his race against State Attorney General Cuccinelli; the last result I saw was McAuliffe by 1 point (vs. double-digits). It looks like McAuliffe won with a slightly better turnout by the Dem base; the AG won a plurality of independents and benefited from a backlash against ObamaCare. No doubt the Libertarian candidate took votes away from the AG.
Christie in NJ won a solid reelection which instantly makes him a contender in 2016. Watch Christie do what the last 2 GOP Presidential nominees did--try to attract enough conservative votes to be competitive in the SC and FL primaries. As I type, Gallup has Obama's approval down to 39, close to his all-time low. It's still too early to talk 2016, but I also saw Hillary' approval had dropped to the mid-40's. I think the fact the Dems went all out in the VA race and only won by a point is not good news. Weeks after pundits were writing GOP obituaries over the shutdown, the Dems should be worried...
Mike Andrews: Bad Elephant of the Year Nomination
I would normally put this in FB Corner, but it deserves to be singled out:
The chair of the House Intelligence Committee – Mike Rogers – said, "You can’t have your privacy violated if you don’t know your privacy is violated."This the same sort of muddled thinking that destroys a village to save it from Communism...
Facebook Corner
(LFC). A [progressive troll?] fan has a question on water rights:
Lets say I'm on land mass a and I want to build a bridge to get to land mass b. If I build a bridge which is erected in a way it blocks the passages of boats and water is that still permissible because that bridge is my private property?
The river is not yet claimed. The people in this hypothetical scenario only want to build a bridge for people to cross and in order to do that they make a structure that blocks the passage of water and boats.
No. There are certain restrictions where you would have to provide a right-of-way, limited access to/through your property. Take, for instance,if the same person owned plots contiguous to yours; you could not block his preexisting right to access his property. If other people did have access to the waterway before your bridge, they still have the same right. There was a similar question a few days back about someone building a road around one's property; the same principle applies.
how would completely free markets protect the individuals from rampant corporations ruining lives and causing havoc, such as caused in 2008 through the deregulation of the finance sector?
LFC's "fans" are always "progressive" trolls. First, the economic tsunami was not "caused" by "deregulation". Banks are regulated at the state and/or federal levels. A typical bogeyman was the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Let's point out, e.g., that Europeans, hardly laissez-faire, never implemented their own Glass-Steagall. Second, we have to look at various government policies that are morally hazardous, e.g., government-insured deposits. We've had federal policies that subsidize home ownership (not laissez faire) and in effect intimidated banks into making loans to riskier applicants. We've had manipulation of interest rates by the Federal Reserve. The fact of the matter is that banking from the get-go has had restrictions that kept them from diversifying their risks. If you simply compare the US and Canada during the Depression era, you'll find Canadian banks were more resilient. Third, whereas an argument can be made that corporations have a privileged status because of limited liability from the State, the issue is more of the corruptibility and incompetence of the State; we are concerned when the State violates principles of free market competition.
LFC: mandatory GMO labeling?
I have no problem with anti-GMO/anti-science consumers "voting" their preference in the marketplace. I have no problem with non-GMO vendors trying to market their products accordingly. But using regulation to essentially promote non-GMO products and an anti-science agenda is abusive. The only legitimate case should be fraud, e.g., selling GMO products with a non-GMO label. I think it's safe to assume foods are GMO unless otherwise labeled.
(via Libertarian Republican) We should not expect the gullible people whom have bought into non-GMO propaganda and/or have a vested financial interest thereof to suddenly admit they have been wrong since the get-go. They are this age's Luddites.
 |
| Via LFC |
You know what else causes underemployment? Moving high wage jobs overseas.
Protectionist claptrap (DH). First of all, global competition already exists. Second, wages are not the only relevant factor in a decision to offshore. Higher wages reflect supply and demand, productivity of the worker. The solution is to develop value-added skills, not compete against commodity low-skill labor.
(Libertarian Republic). Why do so many 'libertarians' trust the government to tell them if their food is safe?
I haven't read all responses. Has anyone mentioned rat feces yet? I think if there's anything "progressives" like more than roads, it's protecting us from rat feces in food. Upton Sinclair and the Jungle. Of course, the public disclosure of less hygienic food preparation was more than enough to force industry reforms, but populists used this to expand Statist controls. I have a brother-in-law whose Dad raises a few pasture-grazing cattle in TX. I like grass-fed beef, but it's a hassle because you can't ship meat across state lines without federal inspections. But the fact remains that inspections were not based so much on food contamination issues but sensational reporting. I know food producers have a vested interest in selling safe food; they can be sued and their customer base decimated otherwise. I trust a competitive food industry more than government inspectors.
 |
| Viz LFC |
 |
| Viz LFC |
Rothbard was wrong. We were founded on a minarchist ideal. What was proven inadequate were the constraints on government. I submit there are ways to reform minimal government, e.g., decentralize, privatize, competitive bidding, but I think the issues like law and defense are at least as troublesome in the Utopian ideals of anarcho-capitalism.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Henry Payne and Townhall |
Richard Harris, "MacArthur Park"
