Murphy's Fifth Law: If anything just cannot go wrong, it will anyway.
Tweet of the Day
But who will build the roads? The private sector--when public sector monopolists get out of the way. http://t.co/l89AftljLL
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) October 10, 2014
Gwyneth Paltrow on Obama: ""You’re so handsome that I can’t speak properly". Hearing that sends shivers up and down my spine.
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) October 10, 2014
I think Krugman wants one of those trillion dollar coins... http://t.co/HfmTeqF2AX— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) October 10, 2014
I guess Obama isn't worried about the Rolling Stone cover jinx just before the mid-term elections... http://t.co/HfmTeqF2AX
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) October 10, 2014
It's Rolling Stone's annual buy-one-Nobel-laureate-get-one-free issue... http://t.co/JBNCEv2BKS
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) October 10, 2014
Chart of the Day
 |
| Via Mike Puglisi on FB |
 |
| Via Being Classically Liberal |
 |
| Ah, Krugman... Via Being Classically Liberal |
Glen Campbell's I'm Not Going To Miss You Video
I know this is the third time I've plugged my favorite new song, but in this case, they've released the video for the song, which mixes Glen's final recording session with family video clips, and I think it's profoundly moving. One of my high school friends recently told me about being with her late mother going through the latter phases of dementia; she was moved by Glen's performance. Glen is the father of 8 children, 5 from earlier marriages, 3 by his wife Kim (32 years married). My thoughts and prayers for Glen, Kim, and their children through this difficult time.
Facebook Corner
(Libertarian Catholic). Using the term "marriage equality" is like saying there is no difference between men and women and the unique relationship between the sexes is not unique. It is a lie.
They are basically arguing marriage is a fundamental right and that the traditional definition of marriage enforced by individual states is discriminatory and deprives gay couples of relevant benefits under the law. This is basically a Fourteenth Amendment argument.
Remember the SCOTUS Reynolds decision (re: Utah and the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Law); the argument was that LDS followers practicing polygamy were being denied religious liberty. Among other things, the Court pointed out that any unlawful act could be prescribed by a religion (say, for example, a ritualistic sacrifice of your first-born) and said basically the cognitive aspects, not behavior, of religion were protected and also referenced the concept of traditional marriage back to early English law.
Justice Kennedy didn't go all the way to arguing a constitutional right to marry (which is being argued by Reason, Cato Institute, etc.) and pays lip service to traditional state regulation of marriage, but then some magic happens, and he upholds, on a legal technicality of standing because the state's elected leadership, the governor and the attorney general, refused to defend the proposition, throwing out California Proposition 8 which reinstated the traditional definition of marriage to the state constitution. (The state Supreme Court had thrown out an earlier traditional marriage proposition, arguing it had not been properly drafted beyond its scope of review.)
Keep in mind that California and other states also had provided legally protected domestic partnership/civil unions with marriage-like provisions, e.g., hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. Among other things behind that California court decision was the talking point that partnerships or unions were "second-class marriages" that barred gays from government marriage-conferred goodies, a Brown (education)-like "separate but equal" target.
I do find it paradoxical that libertarian think-tanks, instead of pointing out it's not to the benefit of gays to subject their relationships to Statist meddling, have cheered on judicial tyranny. I oppose State intervention in the social context, of meddling with private-sector social norms, institutions (like marriage and family) and traditions. I'm concerned about meddling with socially-evolved constructs, across cultures and religions, over thousands of years.
As Catholics and Christians, we know that real marriage is in its sacramental nature, not a piece of paper from the State. Whatever mutated construct the State is creating is NOT "marriage". I would prefer for gays not to co-opt a heterosexual construct. As a Catholic libertarian, I accept the right of others to associate in ways inconsistent with moral teachings; this is the essence of free will. I would prefer to see the concept of marriage fully privatized--which I believe is the true libertarian position.
(response from the group's moderator)
Excellent post- I agree with everything in it. The one thing that I would add is that marriage is not a right. People don't have the right to marry as it takes voluntary action on the part of others in order to participate. A "right" to marry would mean that if someone didn't want to marry you, you could imprison or kill them.
(Being Classically Liberal).
No it didn't. Do you fully understand Darwinsim? Global warming has been debunked. The nughtly news is great but for a real education you have to work for it.
Troll! You are talking to someone who represented his high school in science for several years. Go read about Antartica's snow layer, about animal species trying to migrate northward, about Eskimo artifacts buried from hundreds of years of ice and snow suddenly exposed.
(Being Classically Liberal). Who is your favorite economist or philosopher of all time?
Philosopher: St. Thomas Aquinas. Political: Herbert Spencer. Economist: stylist/popularizer: Bastiat, Don Boudreaux (Cafe Hayek). I've liked Reisman's Capitalism, Mises' critique of socialism, Of contemporary figures, I like to read Cochrane (the grumpy economist), Cowen of Marginal Revolution and just about anyone from George Mason.
(Being Classically Liberal).
Worst POTUS in history.
Medicaid and Medicare, two of the worst funded programs ever, even worse than social security, the victimization industry, the perpetual underclass Great Society, being responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American men meddling in Southeast Asia politics. Like Obama, he's an FDR wannabe. Worst POTUS ever? He's got tough competition from Lincoln, FDR, and Wilson, but certainly the worst in my lifetime. (Obama, though, is really trying hard to get there.)
(responding to a troll commenting on "selfish libertarians", saying they don't gripe when they get government benefits like public safety):
Crackpot Statist troll! There were volunteer firefighters long before union firefighters retired early on multi-million dollar pensions paid for by future taxpayers at the point of a gun.
(Being Classically Liberal). Some person posted on our wall saying libertarians were "wishful thinkers" and that without government things like child labor would be rampant. I consider this to be wishful thinking considering how baseless of a claim it is. If we actually take the time to look at the evidence, it's pretty clear that isn't much of it in favor of the hypothesis that child labor laws work. Consider the following:
According to economic history.net "Most economic historians conclude that this legislation [child labor laws] was not the primary reason for the reduction and virtual elimination of child labor between 1880 and 1940. Instead they point out that industrialization and economic growth brought rising incomes, which allowed parents the luxury of keeping their children out of the work force. " [1]
According to the National Bureau of Economic Research: "While bans against child labor are a common policy tool, there is very little empirical evidence validating their effectiveness. In this paper, we examine the consequences of India’s landmark legislation against child labor, the Child Labor (Prohibition and Regulation) Act of 1986. Using data from employment surveys conducted before and after the ban, and using age restrictions that determined who the ban applied to, we show that child wages decrease and child labor increases after the ban. ...We also examine the effects of the ban at the household level. Using linked consumption and expenditure data, we find that along various margins of household expenditure, consumption, calorie intake and asset holdings, households are worse off after the ban." [2]
Believing that government can cure every social wrong is a faith-based stance. I'm a libertarian because I've looked at the evidence, and it suggests that, more often than not, government intervention makes things worse. In this case, government bans on child labor actually lead to a reduced standard of living for families who used to utilize child labor. We shouldn't find that surprising considering that child work because if they didn't their families would likely go hungry.
Funny leftists think that libertarians are wishful thinkers yet have such blind faith in government that they can make assertions like "the government ended child labor" and then proceed to back up the claim with no evidence. Debate tip, if anyone does this you must challenge them to provide evidence for their claims, too often libertarians simply accept what their opponents claim to be true.
Citations:
[1] http://eh.net/encyclopedia/child-labor-in-the-united-states/
[2] http://www.nber.org/papers/w19602
This allegation is union propaganda as usual--they also claim credit for 8 hour days, 40 work weeks, etc., which Ford implemented long before its first union pacts. My first professional IT job was at an insurance company which implemented 4 day workweeks.
I used to deliver newspapers, and if I want to hire some kids down the street to mow my lawn or shovel my walk, why should any busybody care?
But getting to the main point: this is the same kind of garbage that tells us that without the EPA, there would be turds floating down our drinking supply. Without fascists to force paying more than a private-sector firm to accomplish something, the world as we know it would come to an end.
(IPI). The federal judge in charge of the bankruptcy proceedings of Stockton, California, has ruled that city-worker pension debt must be treated like any other form of debt and could be adjusted under federal bankruptcy law.
This means that contrary to popular belief, government-worker pensions are not untouchable, at least according to the federal courts.
I see that the retiring state treasurer from the People's Democratic Republic of California is suggesting that the state could bar municipalities from filing for bankruptcy. (Recall the unions tried to do this in the case of the Detroit bankruptcy by going to court.) The corrupt public unions will do everything in their power to protect up to 6 figure pensions of early retirees with compulsory taxpayer bailouts, most of whom themselves don't have pensions.
(Being Classically Liberal). (F) One of the biggest fallacies Republicans and Conservatives share with Democrats and Progressives is the idea that you can legislate a perfect/moral society.
In America the first big attempts of this was in the early 20th century during the "Progressive Era". Where Progressives prohibited Narcotics and Alcohol.
You need a big government to police personal habits and vices.
No, I don't think that conservatives and Republicans believe that the State can do any such thing. I think certain conservative populists have a law and order mentality that believes the laws (e.g., immigration and drug) should be strictly enforced and points to inconsistent enforcement as exacerbating social problems. They don't necessarily see prison as rehabilitation so much as protection from violent people.
Conservatives must be seen in context to a status quo. It would be quite consistent for a conservative to object to radical reforms, say in privatizing social security, although they would never have initiated a social security system from scratch.
(IPI). Due to new regulations issued by the Obama administration, taxpayers could now be on the hook for a blank check to the insurance industry if their losses in the #ObamaCare exchanges are higher than originally predicted.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is moving forward with the bailout for 2015 even though they have been told that their scheme is illegal.
This is one of those things Pelosi said you had to pass the bill to see what's in it. Who would have ever guessed that if the State requires the insurer to cover a large group of people below cost and then markup the losses on overpriced policies to others, the suckers might balk? The mandate was supposed to give the suckers no choice.
There are predictable ways this plays out. The fascists try to blame the "greedy" insurance companies or call it a "market failure" and push for their agenda for nationalizing healthcare. If you think this is bad, wait until you can't get that specialist you want, while the government charges its premiums at the point of a gun.
(Reason). Is this the Rolling-Stoniest Rolling Stone cover ever? http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/09/is-this-the-rolling-stoniest-rolling-sto
I guess Obama isn't worried about the Rolling Stone cover jinx just before the mid-term elections...
(Cato Institute). "This is a really bad policy idea: the U.S. Postal Service wants to get into the grocery delivery business."
Even without reading your post, I commented on a similar thread a few weeks back. This is an insane idea--it's a low-margin business, it's up against more efficient private-sector suppliers, like Amazon, which is happy at this point just to break even. It requires a ton of capital investment (like refrigerated trucks). I am very opposed to a government monopoly using its privileged cash flows to "compete" in the private sector.
What we should all agree on is that it's long past overdue to privatize the USPS, like the majority of our trading partners have themselves done; it's ludicrous that USPS is politically blocked from adjusting prices, shuttering money-losing operations, etc. So we now have a dying cash cow first-class mail monopoly, and no doubt if and when it fails, the taxpayers will be left bailing out corrupt union retirement obligations...
You guys don't realize the background checks and scrutiny an employee has to go through before becoming a postal employee. Most other delivery companies will hire a convicted felon; the Postal Service will not. Do you really want the potential for a convicted felon to have access to your mail? Also, the postal service is not allowed to raise prices when things like gas prices go through the roof. And what started the decline of the postal service was forcing them to set aside several billion dollars to create a retirement fund. No company or government agency had EVER been forced to that. You folks should get your facts in order
This guy is a parasitic unionist, folks. The USPS has an ungodly labor cost, unsustainable contract, and this fascist is basically arguing for a taxpayer bailout of a dying government monopoly. This bullshit of trying to fear-monger based on the screening these guys do--this is the exact same garbage the taxi union whores are trying to use against ridesharing services.
(follow-up comment)
I've had about enough of corrupt union propaganda on the fact that the Congress forced the USPS to properly fund its corrupt union commitments. I will agree with the cronyist in the fact that the Congress meddles with price increases, cost-cutting moves like no Saturday delivery, and allowing the USPS to close up to 75% money-losing branches, but the union bastards have long fought off using non-union part-time workers and other common-sense remedies.
In fact, Troll Bozo, companies, unlike the federal government, are required to list unfunded liabilities on their financial statements, and the few still with pension plans have to assume about half the investment return that most public plans assume (basically a lower return means the company has to kick in more money). The question is who should bear the cost of the corrupt USPS union deals--the taxpayer or the postal customer? Keep in mind with a cash cow first-class postal monopoly basically in decline--we still have retirement obligations going on for decades, even if the first-class mail business continues to shrink every year like it is... In fact, private pension plans are prohibited by law from running on a pay-go basis. The union whore needs to stop reading union talking points and take a class in Econ 101.
Proposals
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Lisa Benson via Townhall |
Linda Ronstadt, "Long Long Time"
