Political Roundtable - Part VI

Severn Hoos · Post #1901 » by **Severn Hoos** » Thu Jun 4, 2015 1:34 pm

Good discussions, but I think it's missing one major point.

Why is there such concern about big money in politics? The real answer is because we have put too much emphasis on the government, particularly the Federal government. The less control the centralized government has over the everyday lives of people, the less benefit there would be in seeking office to gain that control.

So the obvious (or maybe not-so obvious, apparently) answer is to decentralize control and decision-making. Let the decisions that impact people's lives be made as close as possible to where they are. Your city council or County Board of Supervisors should have more impact on your life than the President & Congress. Take the power away from the central Leviathan and the money will drain away on its own.

Now, maybe the same money will show up in the local elections. But even then, you are much closer to the people who would potentially be influenced by that money. You see the mayor in the grocery store. You can go to the county board meetings and be heard. Or not go - but then you also give up the right to complain, if you decline the opportunity to have your voice heard.

The heart of Libertarianism isn't really "everyone does what he wants" - that's Libertinism. True Libertarianism is based on reducing the impact of government in your life, and to the extent that government does need to be involved, that involvement should be as local as possible.

I know that's easier said than done, but most of what passes for political commentary today is embarrassingly simplistic. Get money out of politics. Save the environment. Help the poor. Promote freedom. Defend values. and so on...

I can't imagine getting enough support to rip off the band-aid, but in my opinion that's what needs to be done.

dobrojim · Post #1902 » by **dobrojim** » Thu Jun 4, 2015 1:53 pm

Big money has perhaps recently (IDK) discovered that influence can be purchased
all the more cheaply as you go down the chain from feds to the most local politicians.
State reps are very easily purchased.

dckingsfan · Post #1903 » by **dckingsfan** » Thu Jun 4, 2015 1:57 pm

@Severn Hoos - good points but... there are still parts of the central government that we need and are good. Defense, food standards and inspection, etc.

But you are right on other parts - centralized education hasn't worked at all and should be decentralized. For those who say that we need the federal government for enforcement of certain policies, I would say that is what the courts are for...

And that gets back to the main point - the federal government shouldn't try to do everything. It should do what it does very well and always optimizing those processes within the resources it has.

I see the problem as a lack of prioritization and trying to do everything.

popper · Post #1904 » by **popper** » Thu Jun 4, 2015 2:48 pm

My view is that once the Supreme Court interpreted the "General Welfare" clause as authority for congress to spend on whatever program or charity they wanted, the long term fiscal health of the country was doomed. Govt. outlays and debt predictably exploded over time thus providing strong incentives for rent seekers of all persuasions to invest big money in the political class in order to get in on the action.

Post #1905 » by **Zonkerbl** » Thu Jun 4, 2015 10:55 pm

Well, the moment they wrote "freedom of speech" into the Constitution we were doomed.

The idea that money = speech has been a general practice in common law since forever.

dckingsfan · Post #1906 » by **dckingsfan** » Fri Jun 5, 2015 2:03 pm

More than 70% of Americans think we have the wrong immigration policy...

"More than seven out of 10, or 72%, of those polled believe illegal immigrants in the U.S. should be allowed to remain here, if they meet certain conditions. That result is consistent with Pew polls in the past two years that also found strong support for legalization across political party lines."

The Rs are going to get killed on this issue. Most farmers are rethinking their loyalty just because of this issue.

But... Obama may have bailed them out - "Approval of Obama's Handling of Immigration Falls to 31%"

dobrojim · Post #1907 » by **dobrojim** » Fri Jun 5, 2015 2:49 pm

Not a big HRC fan but I give her credit for coming out for the highest possible levels
of voter participation. I think it is simply wrong for any party to try to diminish
participation in elections. Politicians should aspire to give the best possible
representation to the broadest swath of our citizens.

dckingsfan · Post #1908 » by **dckingsfan** » Fri Jun 5, 2015 3:09 pm

I like the idea of voter ID laws + automatic registration. It would take care of the voter fraud (which is arguably limited except in Chicago - hehehe) and at the same time register the maximum number of eligible voters.

You could send out the ballot and the card at the same time.

Probably some big holes in my argument though...

dckingsfan · Post #1909 » by **dckingsfan** » Fri Jun 5, 2015 7:38 pm

Wow, that would be so cool... I hope it sweeps the country!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/ ... 9420150604

dobrojim · Post #1910 » by **dobrojim** » Sun Jun 7, 2015 11:46 pm

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/qr9n5u/america-in-the-middle-east---learning-curves-are-for-pussies

great monologue by JS. Learning curves are for pussies.

Post #1911 » by **penbeast0** » Mon Jun 8, 2015 1:25 am

That was GREAT! I had made much the same argument to my students when we were studying the Middle East about training local forces in a region where no one has much faith in our chosen government (Vietnamization anyone?) but in a much less entertaining and less profane manner so I'm not sure it got through as well.

dckingsfan · Post #1912 » by **dckingsfan** » Mon Jun 8, 2015 1:19 pm

Doesn't he miss the point - he says that taking over Iraq - was stupid. Agreed. Lots of bad decisions.

But then he never counters that pulling out our troops wouldn't have add stability.

Post #1913 » by **Zonkerbl** » Mon Jun 8, 2015 1:20 pm

Could I just point out to folks that one of the guys in charge of pointing the finger at Clinton for getting a bj was a child rapist?

dobrojim · Post #1914 » by **dobrojim** » Mon Jun 8, 2015 1:27 pm

what is your definition of 'taking over'?

We occupied Iraq for a number of years at great human and economic cost
but I would suggest that to say we 'took over' would be a misleading description
of our situation there during that time.

Like I have been saying, military victory is just the first step and is accomplished
relatively quickly and inexpensively, emphasis on relatively. It's what happens next
that becomes much more seriously problematic on a number of levels.

dckingsfan · Post #1915 » by **dckingsfan** » Mon Jun 8, 2015 3:41 pm

Zonkerbl wrote:Could I just point out to folks that one of the guys in charge of pointing the finger at Clinton for getting a bj was a child rapist?

That is pretty ironic... the worst part is that folks get things confused - they might think Clinton was the child rapist... sigh

JWizmentality · Post #1916 » by **JWizmentality** » Mon Jun 8, 2015 4:11 pm

dobrojim wrote:http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/qr9n5u/america-in-the-middle-east---learning-curves-are-for-pussies

great monologue by JS. Learning curves are for pussies.

I'm going to miss Stewart. A true intellectual. His replacement doesn't spark much enthusiasm, but I'll withhold my judgement for now. :-?

dobrojim · Post #1917 » by **dobrojim** » Mon Jun 8, 2015 4:14 pm

John Fugelsang would have been a great replacement.
I liked the bumper sticker I saw once out in Woodstock VA (probably a lonely lefty)
I watch Comedy Central for News and Fox News for comedy.

Post #1918 » by **penbeast0** » Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:47 pm

dckingsfan wrote:
Zonkerbl wrote:Could I just point out to folks that one of the guys in charge of pointing the finger at Clinton for getting a bj was a child rapist?

That is pretty ironic... the worst part is that folks get things confused - they might think Clinton was the child rapist... sigh

I always thought it was pretty ironic how Clinton was protrayed as a great feminist and the major womens' organizations didn't go after him for sexual relations with a 19 year old intern who was working for him. Can you imagine how that would have gone if the President was George W?

I have very little tolerance for Clinton and Nixon defenders. What they did lowered the respect and efficacy of the Presidency; and we knew what kind of lowlifes they were when we elected them.

dckingsfan · Post #1919 » by **dckingsfan** » Wed Jun 10, 2015 5:14 pm

I would say that there is even more baggage with Hillary then with Nixon or Clinton (pre election). And yet, I would venture a guess that she is going to be the ones that the Ds offer and back.

Post #1920 » by **Zonkerbl** » Wed Jun 10, 2015 5:51 pm

penbeast0 wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:
Zonkerbl wrote:Could I just point out to folks that one of the guys in charge of pointing the finger at Clinton for getting a bj was a child rapist?

That is pretty ironic... the worst part is that folks get things confused - they might think Clinton was the child rapist... sigh

I always thought it was pretty ironic how Clinton was protrayed as a great feminist and the major womens' organizations didn't go after him for sexual relations with a 19 year old intern who was working for him. Can you imagine how that would have gone if the President was George W?

I have very little tolerance for Clinton and Nixon defenders. What they did lowered the respect and efficacy of the Presidency; and we knew what kind of lowlifes they were when we elected them.

What does that have to do with feminism?

Why did feminists not participate in slut-shaming Monica Lewinsky? How much do you know about feminism?