tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post8400079173226189765..comments2024-03-28T06:22:23.961-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Deregulating GPS...and the InternetDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger134125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-16142038473954765662015-03-12T15:50:24.084-07:002015-03-12T15:50:24.084-07:00A correction for your history, since I recall thes...A correction for your history, since I recall these events.<br /><br />Transportation deregulation began under Ford (R) with the "4-R" bill in 1976. Perhaps more important was Ford consistently appointed de-regulation advocates to regulatory committees. Most important, he never made this a party issue and welcomed support from very liberal Democrats.<br /><br />President Carter (D), continued the legislative work, continued to appoint de-regulators, and most importantly did not make this a party issue and welcomed support from Republicans.<br /><br />President Reagan (R), finished the last of the legislative changes, continued de-regulations, and did not make this a party issue.<br /><br />The story is very similar for telecommunications de-regulation, but I would start with the huge event of the DoJ Anti-trust suit against AT&T filed in 174, supported by Presidents and regulatory appointments, through the final agreement in 1982.<br /><br />The important part of all these is that none of the Presidents, and none of the major advocates made this a party issue. It was a long running policy fight, where both sides stuck to policy fights and neither party made this a party issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-70189263730852100862015-03-12T11:59:41.951-07:002015-03-12T11:59:41.951-07:00Paul451,
Feeling a tad cynical are you? 8)
I...Paul451,<br /><br />Feeling a tad cynical are you? 8)<br /><br />I'm well aware of the distinction between the piece of paper and the social institutions that spring from it. I'm also aware that some take it too far and treat it as a sacred document. I don't. I have a profound appreciation for the humans who decided to try this social experiment, so any respect I have for the parchment is intended to reflect upon that.<br /><br />I'm not interested in ramming anything down your throat, though. Also, I'm considerably older than 14. 8) <br /><br />I'm just being who I am since David's community seems to appreciate that kind of behavior. I'll offer up my bits of criticism when appropriate and you all can bash them in return. I appreciate the opportunity to test what I think I know and offer to do the same in return for those with the courage to be tested.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-50322894349095857562015-03-12T11:54:04.289-07:002015-03-12T11:54:04.289-07:00Duncan,
I do apologize for stating my numbers bac...Duncan,<br /><br />I do apologize for stating my numbers backwards. That's as bad as missing a negation in a sentence and sounding like I'm in favor of something I actually oppose. 8)<br /><br />Still, your paraphrasing of my position is way off. I'm interested in imitating the progressively more difficult barriers we raise against the removal of and change to rules we placed in the Constitution. The fact that I dislike theft shouldn't surprise you or anyone with a lick of sense. The fact that I lump taxation in that class (occasionally) obviously does. Don't take it too personal, though. I don't go as far as some libertarians and accuse you personally of being a thief.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-36882652595869725612015-03-11T22:43:29.868-07:002015-03-11T22:43:29.868-07:00Alfred Differ,
"The US Constitution already p...Alfred Differ,<br /><i>"The US Constitution already protects..."</i><br /><br />The only thing the US Constitution protects is the podium under it from UV damage.<br /><br />You confuse the paper with the system, thinking it's the paper doing the protection, and that the paper will continue to protect even after the system is gone.<br /><br /><i>"I realize few people have read this kind of material"</i><br /><br />This is the internet. We've had libertarianism rammed down our throats for three decades by every 14 year old who discovers Mises. Hell, we've had Stephan Kinsella visit David's blog for a time (until he realised we weren't his usual tame sycophants and fled back to safer waters). The things you are saying are old news.Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-70832686327309907312015-03-11T20:20:53.680-07:002015-03-11T20:20:53.680-07:00
...you guys are welcome to continue arguing down ...<br />...you guys are welcome to continue arguing down here!<br /><br />But I have a new posting and hence I am moving...<br /><br />... onwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-7984967243511614672015-03-11T20:20:20.159-07:002015-03-11T20:20:20.159-07:00Alfred & Duncan et al. This is why we establis...Alfred & Duncan et al. This is why we establish PRIMARY RIGHTS... as opposed to secondary or contingent rights.<br /><br />Primary rights are those that allow each generation to change its mind and revise its rules to live as it sees fit... while preventing both elites and mobs from oppressing individuals. A balancing act, and we talk a lot about the latter desideratum a lot more than we talk about the former.<br /><br />But in fact, Jefferson and Madison talked a LOT about retaining each generation's right to -- by deliberative politics -- rescind their parents' rules and enact their own. e.g. re property rights, which are NOT protected in the Constitution, except in very general referrals to due process!<br /><br />Property/privacy etc are CONTINGENT rights that each generation may vote to redefine as they see fit, and then grumble when their kids change those definitions.<br /><br />PRIMARY rights -- like freedom of speech and to know -- are fundamentally different. They must be defended with absolute absolutism and fanatical purity. Because any compromise ruins not only their idealistic purity... but especially their pragmatic functionality! For these are the tools by which the next generation can argue and change those contingent laws!<br /><br />Alfred may persuade a majoity to institute his 90% rule. But so long as the primary rights are preserved, some future liberal may persuade citizens to retract it... as Reagan persuaded them to retracts FDR's progressive tax rates. <br /><br />NOT an ideal situation! I despair that rightists actually still push Supply Side notions, despite their never ever ever ever having worked, even once. Or the fact that capitalism did far far far better under FDR tax rates than it ever has, since.<br /><br />Half the country is hypnotized. And even (maybe just a little ;-) so might be Alfred!<br /><br />But the key thing is that one generation's "reformers" must never be allowed to give unto a contingent matter the sanctity of a primary right. This is dogmatic fanaticism, not the tiered mix of primary idealism with pragmatic governance that gave us everything. David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-56993850656274472452015-03-11T18:02:01.722-07:002015-03-11T18:02:01.722-07:00Alfred
You said that
Laws/rules that require a mo...Alfred<br /><br />You said that<br />Laws/rules that require a moral decision should be 50%<br /><br />Laws/rules that are "forward thinking" as opposed to "moral" require a 90%<br /><br />So things like side of the road - is not a moral position (especially as us you guys drive on the wrong side) so would require 90% before it should be enforced<br /><br />and saying should drive on xxx as opposed to should not drive on YYY is just wording<br /><br />I do appreciate that it is exactly backwards as you intended<br />But it is logically that way around<br /><br />What you are saying is<br />Laws I approve of only need a 50% (or less) majority<br />Laws that I don't like need a 90% majority<br /><br />There are simply too many rules/laws/regulations that are required for our society to function<br />And too large a percentage of the population that simply does not understand this<br />In the USA the GOP is nearly half of the population with their<br />"Keep your gubermint hands of my medicare"<br />Duncan Cairncrossnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84051542707483408752015-03-11T15:52:37.936-07:002015-03-11T15:52:37.936-07:00Duncan,
I'm not sure how I convinced you of t...Duncan,<br /><br />I'm not sure how I convinced you of that, but it is exactly backwards from what I intended. Choosing which side of the road to drive upon doesn't involve moral decisions even if the rule does emerge from tradition. We tend to phrase it as 'Thou shalt drive on the **** side of the road' instead of 'Thou shalt not drive on the **** side of the road.' 8)<br /><br />Did I miss a negation in one of my earlier sentences? If so, I apologize for the confusion. Only moral decisions need this kind of protection. Protection from thieves, even if they are the majority, is one of them.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-22867033344655205192015-03-11T15:42:29.102-07:002015-03-11T15:42:29.102-07:00Blak Reg how brave of you to admit that's your...Blak Reg how brave of you to admit that's your "Smith." Well, well. Open admission is the first step toward healing! ;-)David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-31080856772400420342015-03-11T15:29:48.331-07:002015-03-11T15:29:48.331-07:00I'm also a "Smithian" libertarian, b...I'm also a "Smithian" libertarian, but I think it's more "L. Neil" than "Adam"...Blank Reghttp://www.hushmail.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-48687527356433418992015-03-11T14:43:24.861-07:002015-03-11T14:43:24.861-07:00Hi Alfred
That's even worse!
So we lose all r...Hi Alfred<br />That's even worse!<br /><br />So we lose all regulations that don't get 90% approval!!<br /><br />There go all fire regulations<br />Which side of the road do you drive on?<br />You don't really HAVE to stop for a red light!<br /><br />Washing hands before making restaurant food...<br /><br />Building regs,<br />Zoning<br />Pollution<br /><br />You have NOT thought this throughDuncan Cairncrossnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-49096425523334658922015-03-11T14:20:33.965-07:002015-03-11T14:20:33.965-07:00Nah. You might want to read Hayek's view on th...Nah. You might want to read Hayek's view on this. I'm cribbing from some of his material regarding the philosophy of law. The paraphrased version states that laws that attempt to restrict immoral actions (Thou shalt not laws) are derived from social rules that emerge from tradition. They usually have a high degree of support from the public and the law is only needed to deal with a few recalcitrant neighbors. The other block of rules has nothing to do with morals and tends to focus around what our social institutions are directed to do. They fit better in the 'regulation' class.<br /><br />This isn't nonsense. I realize few people have read this kind of material, but the same can be said of much older philosophers... like Adam Smith. It's a shame.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-22113389873359728032015-03-11T13:46:45.063-07:002015-03-11T13:46:45.063-07:00Alfred
You are talking nonsense
All laws are socia...Alfred<br />You are talking nonsense<br />All laws are social constructs<br />What you are saying is<br />Laws I approve of only need a 50% (or less) majority<br />Laws that I don't like need a 90% majority<br /><br />Any attempt to use "moral sentiment" to decide what laws to make takes us straight back to the churchDuncan Cairncrossnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-11803430943903675242015-03-11T11:45:30.542-07:002015-03-11T11:45:30.542-07:00Re: Clinton vs. Bush Presidental Race.
Just so ...Re: Clinton vs. Bush Presidental Race. <br /><br />Just so you know you're not alone with your concerns, David.<br /><br />http://theweek.com/cartoons/543648<br />A.F. Reynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-17725488728347287102015-03-11T11:44:40.392-07:002015-03-11T11:44:40.392-07:00There is a subtle distinction that is worth making...There is a subtle distinction that is worth making when it comes time to talk to someone who believes in 'small government.' Ask them if they wish to constrain government budget or government scope. If they think that constraining budget is a good way to constrain scope, it is entirely possible they are serving the new oligarchs. It could potentially work as a way to limit government, but it isn't morally defensible. Without that defense, their forces will never have a majority of voters and that will make them most useful for feeding the cannons in smaller, local skirmishes the overlords want to win.<br /><br />Where many of us are more likely to agree is on limitations of the scope of government. When we can agree to such things, budgets tend to get constrained as a side effect and that is a healthy thing for those of us who desire to use our money for other purposes. The overlords can't easily tolerate this approach, though. It is a child of the Enlightenment and far too powerful to let live.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-52466760990491210212015-03-11T11:30:03.249-07:002015-03-11T11:30:03.249-07:00Randall Winn,
I used to live in a community that ...Randall Winn,<br /><br />I used to live in a community that required a two thirds majority to raise taxes for their own school system. In neighboring communities the same rule applied and they couldn't pass anything. In ours, they did occasionally pass increases. Getting them passed required more work of our elected officials and more participation from the parents in the community. When all that worked, the schools got properly funded AND a rather magical thing happened to parent participation in the schools. It was an amazing place where parents actually gave a d*mn. I had absolutely no qualms contributing my money to such a fine institution. I contributed my time too.<br /><br />You said your legislature had to change the super-majority rule to get infrastructure fixed, but I put to you that they didn't have to do any such thing. They CHOSE to do so in order to avoid the political consequences of not fixing them. They chose to use their limited tools and limited imaginations to extract money from the public in order to avoid complaints that might reflect poorly upon their service to you all. I'm not impressed.<br /><br />I'll freely admit that a two-thirds majority rule is probably a bit much for raising funds to maintain already existing infrastructure. Whoever thought that was a good idea should probably rethink things. For new infrastructure, it might make more sense, but it's stupid to let currently useful property collapse without a general agreement from the public that this should actually be the case.<br /><br />Finally, regarding the minority of the public who just wants to stick it in the eye of authority, perhaps you all should think carefully about why the smartest civilization ever to grace this planet has produced such people in large numbers. Mayhap we are intruding on something they hold dear? Do they have any other way to fight back? Consider giving them that outlet and then paying attention to their complaints. It's just mildly possible libertarians and classical liberals aren't as tiny a slice of America as some think.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-74426762208487018372015-03-11T11:17:39.542-07:002015-03-11T11:17:39.542-07:00There are two large classifications regarding law....There are two large classifications regarding law. The first is the kind that maps to moral statements. Thou shalt not murder. Thou shalt not steal. That sort of stuff. The second is the kind used to determine the actions of government. Go raise money to build that road. Train that army to defend our people. Go land on the Moon and return safely. That sort of stuff. I'm most interested in defending a 90/80 split for rules with a moral underpinning. I'll tolerate majority rule for governance issues, but there is a region of overlap when it comes to funding government, staffing the military, and caring for those incapable of caring for themselves. I'm inclined to believe we can find a way to resolve a problem when it encompasses both types. For example, the roads we build ARE very useful and I benefit from them no matter how they are funded, but if I see taxation as theft, can we at least not discuss an alternative funding mechanism? Can we not agree that a large percentage of the public is required to agree on your mechanism before they judge me to be a cheat? Can we consider (calmly) that the world might still function and the sun still might rise tomorrow morning if my way is tried for a while?<br /><br />In case it isn’t obvious, I would negotiate on the actual numbers, but I would want them to be high enough to discourage people from writing formal law that dictates morals to others or infringes on the morals of a minority. To break the liberty of a minority, I think the number should be in the neighborhood of 90% and would challenge anyone who thought it should be easier. The US Constitution already protects much smaller minorities from infringements, so this isn’t such a radical idea. I include the 80% number for sunset purposes in order to create hysteresis effects when public opinion hovers near 90%. We shouldn’t have laws with moral implications becoming valid, then invalid, and then valid again too quickly. It’s not healthy. We also should not ignore a social movement that manages to bring down public support of a formerly popular moral position.<br /><br />My position on this may seem radical, but I see it as following toward a logical conclusion the belief system of a classical liberal. I have no interest in demolishing government, but I DO want them out of the business of intruding on our moral decisions. When there exists a very large number of people who agree on a moral stance, I’ll tolerate government support of it to a point, but I’d still rather we took the time to examine our assumptions. Do we really want to infringe their liberty? Do we really need to do it? Can we do away with some of our assumptions like we did with the Kings of old? I truly believe it would be worth examining our options.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-88379688202372982902015-03-11T05:28:01.402-07:002015-03-11T05:28:01.402-07:00If you follow the arguments made, Mr. Winn, it'...If you follow the arguments made, Mr. Winn, it's even worse.<br /><br />"I ain't votin' fer no tax increases 'cause the dadgum gummint takes too much!"<br /><br /><i>One year later</i><br /><br />"How come these doggone roads is so fulla potholes? An' why can't they keep them bus routes runnin'? Dadgum gummint can't do nuthin!!"<br /><br />Well, no, not without funding they can't - made especially difficult by the state Supreme Court last year insisting that the state has to better fund education, both because it's a good idea and because it's required by the state constitution, yet with the legislature still hamstrung by Eyman's foolishness. (Did you catch the part where Eyman sued to stop an increase in prices at the UW cafeteria, on the basis that any fees charged by a state-supported entity are <i>de facto</i> taxes and must be voted on and passed by a 2/3 majority?)Jonathan S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-59549335888020259902015-03-11T03:36:12.695-07:002015-03-11T03:36:12.695-07:00@Alfred Differ:
//* If we use some kind of rule l...@Alfred Differ:<br /><br />//* If we use some kind of rule like the 90/80 one I offered up for a beating, you'll have no trouble finding enough votes to support taxes for building roads*//<br /><br />...has been put to the test in the State of Washington, and found lacking.<br /><br />Just this month, our legislature had to toss a much more lenient 2/3rds rule in order to pass a basic fix-the-potholes bill.<br /><br />The problem is simple: at least 1/3 of the population takes greater satisfaction out of sticking a thumb in the eye of civilization than in having the potholes in front of their houses repaired. The argument that this is cynical rather than stupid (although the two are often related) appears to match the facts.<br /><br />I hope you will examine the data, and revise your theory.rewinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14008105385364113371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84160526243577309092015-03-11T01:14:14.810-07:002015-03-11T01:14:14.810-07:00Alfred
I still see your objection to any taxes not...Alfred<br />I still see your objection to any taxes not approved by 90% to be exactly the same as arguing that you do not need to obey ANY law also not approved by 90%<br /><br />There go any number of required laws from pollution to violence<br /><br />If you need 90% approval then murder and rape would probably not be illegal<br /><br />I can appreciate saying 50.1% is not enough<br />But 90% means we would be totally in the hands of a lunatic minority<br />Duncan Cairncrossnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-56403234145480212132015-03-10T17:27:06.240-07:002015-03-10T17:27:06.240-07:00Sorry. I see a lot of education scarcity around me...Sorry. I see a lot of education scarcity around me still. One of the things I consider most horrific about faith in general is how often it acts as a cure for curiosity. I've no doubt it helps in other significant ways, but there is a cost to faith and we don't overcome it easily.<br /><br />Officially, our literacy numbers are pretty high in just about every corner of the Earth today. Unfortunately, those numbers reflect a political choice made long ago to discuss only certain elements of a full education. It wasn't all that long ago that a person with only one language no musical skills would be considered an illiterate commoner even if he could read and write his local language. If you don't know your history, you suffer another kind of illiteracy. We've chosen to alter the definitions for useful reasons, but we shouldn't pretend a 99% score on the new standard implies the people have access to education.<br /><br /><br /><br />I'll admit I was being a little flippant regarding the role received by the aristocracy's supporters, but I'll point out that this is exactly what happened in the US Civil War. Southern farmers were displaced from their lands by slave-holding plantation owners and then whipped into a frenzy by Southern Press by the same elite to convince them the vile Northerners were intent on crushing 'their' way of life. WHAT way of life? Hmpf. They supported their aristocrats and then got fed to the cannons. It was one of the most stupid slaughters in our history. Liberty loving people really should have known better.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13332228876148976082015-03-10T17:13:42.745-07:002015-03-10T17:13:42.745-07:00David,
I've read them and find little I can d...David,<br /><br />I've read them and find little I can disagree with in them. <br /><br />Technically, I'm a classical liberal who recognizes I have a few more friends in the Libertarian party than I do among the Dems, so I switched my registration after the 2012 election. <br /><br />I can easily see the arguments Adam Smith laid out for us, but I can also see that we've learned a thing or two since. Our Enlightenment has come a long way and fought and lost a big battle against our former allies among the intellectuals when they abandoned us for the allure of pontificating from a socialist platform. Smith's points still stand, but I argue we should take them farther the same way Hayek did when he wrote the Constitution of Liberty and then addressed again some of the later points after the lessons we learned from stagflation.<br /><br />Regarding our political trajectory, however, I think we should try to make the libertarians moot by reviving classical liberalism. When you advocate for people to recover their Smithian heritage, I couldn't agree more. When you argue for CITOKATE, I couldn't agree more. When you offer up mildly plausible conspiracies, I sometimes shake my head, but I'll consider them anyway and do my civic duty by poking at them. 8)<br /><br /><br />On a tangential note, I finally read Foundation's Triumph. I spent much of the time imagining myself pickup up whatever weapon I could find to attack your 'paternalistic government'. It made it hard to read for me, so thank you for the experience I won't soon forget. 8)Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-41409259848965490382015-03-10T17:09:00.908-07:002015-03-10T17:09:00.908-07:00"Not long ago we used to take the need for Ki..."<i>Not long ago we used to take the need for Kings and Nobles as a matter of faith too</i>"<br /><br />It was less a matter of faith and more a result of education scarcity: when only a minority of the population is literate, and a minority of this minority qualifies as erudite, concentrating power in these few hands makes sense: nobility became obsolete the very second mass education became possible.<br /><br />***<br /><br />"<i>The aristocracy rewards their supporters by putting them on the battlefield opposite us when the revolution comes.</i>"<br /><br />No: the aristocracy rewards their supporters by granting them access to the state's superior firepower. Sure, eventually the ruling class becomes so inept that its incompetence nullifies its advantage in term of resources, but before that day comes, "<i>the idiot cynics</i>" can and <b>will</b> kill rebels, plunder their homes and rape their children with impunity.Laurent Weppenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-70649000431968235312015-03-10T16:59:59.008-07:002015-03-10T16:59:59.008-07:00Alfred, your stance is refreshing and it is good t...Alfred, your stance is refreshing and it is good to have present a fellow who is at least slightly more "libertarian" (in standard ways) than this here Smithian version. Though you've made your moderation clear, compared to Randians,<br /><br />Let me just make sure you have seen my essays on the trajectory of libertarianism, published by a group that still had hopes of reforming the LP.<br /><br />See http://www.tinyurl.com/polimodelsDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-77164822408178912662015-03-10T16:51:07.755-07:002015-03-10T16:51:07.755-07:00Treebeard’s yadda-yadd is more cogent, this time. ...Treebeard’s yadda-yadd is more cogent, this time. Indeed, political correctness and reflexive self-hatred are lefty tropes that prove the right does not have a monopoly on dismal-vile craziness. Maybe not a monopoly… but the right truly has cornered the market, at least since the fall of the USSR. <br /><br />The left snarls at science… the right wages relentless war upon it. The left CONTAINS romantic renunciators who hate the future. The hijacked and lobotomized right CONSISTS of such people. <br /><br /> These are differences of great note. Moreover, political correctness and reflexive self-hatred are just exaggerations of the more healthy versions that 95% of liberals actually hold to — a relentless will to improve and make things better through willingness to criticize past errors. To mistake that for political correctness and reflexive self-hatred is like mistaking “shall we dance?” with attempted rape.<br /><br />The crux is simply this. Across 200 years, our method has accomplished more than ALL other societies COMBINED have in 6000. The burden of proof is on jerks who assert we go back to insanely stupid methods that never, ever, ever worked.<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.com