I am a RiNO

By Neil Stevens Posted in | | | Comments (155) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Hello, my name is Neil, and I am a Republican in Name Only.

No, it's true. Really. I fit the classic definition. My views are outside the party mainstream, so much so that I cannot in good conscience vote for the Republican every election, every time, regardless of who gets nominated1.

I'm not alone, either. Between people like me being RiNOs, and the great mass of voters who don't even register for a party, non-Republicans and RiNOs just might carry more right-leaning electoral weight than 'real' Republicans.

This has consequences for the party, and especially for Republicans voting in the primary with an eye on winning in the general election.

Read on...

On issue after issue, my views take me out of step with the middle of the Republican party:

  • I want Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and S-CHIP ended, not mended.
  • I want taxes cut in half to compensate after we end those programs.
  • I want several executive departments agencies gone including Education, Transportation, Energy, and Labor. I would also close well-known agencies like EPA, SEC, DEA, BATFE, and FDA.
  • I don't think it makes sense to ban most forms of abortion on demand, but then allow it in cases of rape and incest.
  • I would prohibit any mention, use, or categorization of people by 'race' in any government setting, including the Census Bureau and the courts.
  • I favor radical judicial reform, up to and including stripping jurisdiction over Constitutional challenges of state abortion laws (and anywhere else the Supreme Court is grossly wrong and defies the other branches) from the federal court system.
  • I would have favored hitting Iran's bomb program with nuclear bunker busters two years ago.

I could probably go on all day, but I will spare us all. Suffice it to say that I'm a far right winger and most of the time I vote, even when it's for a Republican, I'm making major compromises.

But sometimes I just break down. When I stands all I can stands, and I can't stands no more, I won't vote for the nominated Republican in a given race. When the candidate is too far away from me, that he's even to the left of the party mainstream, that becomes too much of a compromise for me to stomach. So I won't hestiate to vote for another party's candidate.

We've now established that I'm outside the mainstream and while I'm a regular Republican voter, I'm not 100% reliable. By the standards of many, that makes me a RiNO. So the question is: should I just quit the party, giving up on counterweighting the liberals at all, or is my occasional defection worth it?

That's up to the party men; the people who vote Republican every single time, without fail, and who get active and write party rules, are the ones who have to answer that.

1: I discount here freaks like David Duke. Not voting for him is a mainstream Republican thing to do.

Other than wanting to phase out SSA and Medicare over time, I'm with you on all the listed issues.

more later

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Yeah, me too. With ya both.

democrat from 1980-1998 and I am a party man for my new party, ie the GOP since 2001-now. Why. Omnly parties get things done, and this is esp true fro President.

But I do find myself quite disappointed that my excitement at my conservative epiphany, is not quite shared by too mnay repubs when they get to DC.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

...when are you filing your papers to run as a candidate? I'd vote for that platform in a heartbeat.

In reference to your post as a whole, I must agree. I know we have a big race next year, and while I will hold my nose and vote for any of our candidates (save HWMNBN [he can sell crazy someplace else]), I understand there are those who cannot, and I respect their decision.

In 1996, I was a 17 year old moron (how that differentiates me as a 28 year old moron now is anyone's guess) and wished I was old enough to vote for Perot (stop laughing). Clinton was too liberal and Dole was too...uhh....Dole-ish. The thing is, I still feel the same way today about that race, and given the choice again, I would vote third party.

While my political views have changed, I am still unwilling to bend on my principles. If we compromise the beliefs we hold most sacred for "just one more election - this one is REALLY important!!" then we risk getting exactly what we vote for. Under this circumstance, all we will be able to do is stand by idly and watch our principles circle the drain. It's just not worth it to vote for a candidate simply because of the letter by their name if it means losing the values that cause you to vote in the first place.

Short version: 5

Disagree with you on how to get them done and what stops us from going forward on them.

Does that make me a flaming lib ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I agree with almost everything except I kind of see the usefulness of the SEC and the FDA....And maybe I wouldn't do the bunker buster quite so soon.

When the candidate is too far away from me, that he's even to the left of the party mainstream, that becomes too much of a compromise for me to stomach. So I won't hestiate to vote for another party's candidate.

We've got a problem recently bringing the kind of candidates even RiNOs can vote for out of the shadows and into elected office. I think we need a Renaissance of the RiNOs. ;)

the precious swamp in south Florida if we knew it was there!

This greenie lib since 1978 imposed self suicide that pays for terrorism against us enrages me

and is one of the reasons I'm for Fred

But yes Neil the GOP has proven too liberal for me since my conversion in 2000.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

RiNOs need guns, too. And the problem with some of our left-of-mainstream candidates is that they've also run too far away from the 2nd Amendment. My feeling is that all RiNOs should be well-armed, if they want to be. It's fun!

Liberty without Virtue is Slavery to Vice

I have a right to bear fully automatic weapons no matter what their grips look like. I also have the right to a magazine as big as I want.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

But I have to ask why the parody of the prof with right to keep and bear doomsday weapons ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

if you know how, at least a black powder mortar. The only part that is at all hard is the potassium nitrate (saltpeter or niter), but it is in a variety of agricultural products and using them just gives dirty burning powder. If all else fails, you can just keep a clay jug outside the back door and begin collecting urine in it. That is how the CSA got the niter for much of its powder production. There was a whole service dedicated to collecting the "slop jars," and it was said only half in jest that everytime a Southern lady "excused herself" she was helping shoot Yankees. The Confederacy's powder plant at Augusta, Georgia was at the time the largest industrial plant in the World.

In Vino Veritas

For the record I actually own no guns, and haven't fired one since I was maybe 12, heh. And that was the only time I ever fired one.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

gun. I have won two turkey shoots, one as a teen and one a few years ago, but I am for the right to bear under the 2nd, beacuse its the law! The Constitution is THE law. And the recent DC Cir decision by Silberman is THE masterpeice on this: Self defense of one's home PRE-DATES the Constitution!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

I got a bunch!

In Vino Veritas

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

This is probable cause for the ATF (until Neil eliminates them, that is).

The correct answer is: "Yes, but only if the mail is privatized..." ;)

The post office is in the Constitution :-)

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

Because frankly I don't know anyone who wants fully automatic weapons. They're just really much too hard to maintain, and very expensive.

I don't have any, but if the opportunity ever came around, I would like to have some. Remember, if we can modify or eliminate the NFA, they would be much less expensive.

Two words: gun collectors.

P.S. I want a Maxim Gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_Gun

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

with a VERY large certified check...
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Such a check is something I do not have right now.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

And you wonder, Neil, why I doubt your sincerity a lot of the time. Even if the rest of your post was parody, what was that?

There isn't a single person I know of right now who wants automatic weapons except you.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

For a minute there I thought Neil was going to be all by himself in his private army.

Its an absolutely fascinating machine.

From what I have heard though I haven't even gotten up the nerve to even look at the requirements to own one.

Out of curiosity does Massachusetts have an exemption for black powder antiques ? I know New York used to.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

You can get a license as an firearms curio collector for those types of weapons, because in most cases there is no ammunition available for them and anyone who would fire one would have a very tough time, in addition to wearing down and/or destroying a valuable historic artifact. In fact the Federal license for antique/curio collectors is not that difficult to obtain, and it entitles the bearer to purchase, possess, collect and sell (although not *deal*) in those kinds of weapons. It's a personal license and you need to be cognizant of that.

It's called an 03-FFL and is essentially a "neutered" FFL. So yes, if you can find one and have an 03-FFL, you too can own a gatling gun. Keep it in your living room, even.

You didn't even need the license and it was for all blackpowder weapons.

The gattling gun wasn't covered for some reason.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

MA has a blackpowder exemption:

Chapter 140: Section 129C. Application of Sec. 129B; ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition; transfers; report to executive director; exemptions; exhibiting license to carry, etc. on demand ...
...
The provisions of this section shall not apply to the following exempted persons and uses:
...
(p) Carrying or possession by residents or nonresidents of so-called black powder rifles, shotguns, and ammunition therefor as described in such paragraphs (A) and (B) of the third paragraph of section 121, and the carrying or possession of conventional rifles, shotguns, and ammunition therefor by nonresidents who meet the requirements for such carrying or possession in the state in which they reside.

However it also states:

Any person, exempted by clauses (o), (p) and (q), purchasing a rifle or shotgun or ammunition therefor shall submit to the seller such full and clear proof of identification, including shield number, serial number, military or governmental order or authorization, military or other official identification, other state firearms license, or proof of nonresidence, as may be applicable.

It's a very grey area of the law and my sincere advice to anyone considering buying a black-powder weapon thinking they are in the clear under Massachusetts law should consult an expert before purchasing one, much less displaying one.

If the rest of my experience with this state is any guide, you will be arrested first and then your defense team will prove your innocence later. You have been warned.

I agree that the Gatling Gun is really really interesting, but it is not a true machine gun. The Maxim Gun was the world's first true machine gun.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

for any competent machinist to make; all it is is a rotary barrel early breechloading type black powder weapon. Like any blackpowder weapon, its great liability is that the barrel(s) foul very quickly. Ten or fifteen shots is about the limit before you have to clean the barrel. The greatest use for the water in a WBTS soldier's canteen was to clean his weapon's barrel, and it was very common for the men to have to resort to urinating in the barrel to swab the powder residue out. Even high quality modern black powder leaves a LOT of residue.

I once spent a pleasant Sunday afternoon helping serve a 12 pound muzzleloading mountain howitzer at a re-enactment. I took a shower and changed clothes at the end of the day and again the next morning before going to ATL to catch a plane home. I got to spend quality time with airport security at ATL, Memphis, O'Hare, and SEA because there was still enough nitrate residue in my pores to set off their bomb detectors - and this was BEFORE 9-11.

In Vino Veritas

I just think the Constitution *enables* ownership of them, for a very specific reason: giving their owners a fighting chance.

I didn't even say I wanted one, I said I have the right to one.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

Fully automatic firearms didn't exist. Everyone was using muzzleloaders. The Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. If you want to press that, it could mean anything up to and including a nuclear weapon. I have to ask why you're so adamant about it? A fully-automatic weapon is useful for certain tactical situations in which you need a large amount of suppressive firepower, virtually of no use for anything else. Is that why you think you need one?

But that's no way to go through life, Neil. ;) Harsh language has specific uses in dreadful situations, too. Cockamamie assertions like wishing for automatic weapons might be one of the dreadful situations people find themselves in, but bro, life isn't that bad! Trust me.

they had just finished fighting a war with England to earn the rights that they codified into the Constitution. They knew full well the value of possessing arms that were used specifically to kill representatives of the government (ie. England and the British Army) who had been suppressing their rights. So when they wrote of the "right to bear arms," I am pretty sure they were not thinking about owning a .22 to shoot rabbits. I believe that right is there to provide some sort of check against the possibility that the government might again become an entity that may need to be opposed by armed conflict.


“I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels” - John Calvin

It's certainly true that law enforcement officers have access to fully-automatic weapons and can purchase them, although I'm not willing to say that they do so willy-nilly or carte blanche. I do know that most of the police officers I know in my very small town are well-armed, both in their professional capacities and in their private lives. It's frankly impossible for ordinary citizens under Massachusetts law to possess weaponry that even compares to that allowed to its law enforcement officers. You just cannot do it, and you don't want to try.

A clear question would be something like this: are the cops on the beat allowed to purchase machine guns and keep them in their homes even though private citizens cannot. In other words, if you are a bonafide law enforcement officer (and there are no shortage of bad apples) are you allowed to purchase, keep and maintain automatic weapons outside your official duties?

I don't know the answer to that question in Massachusetts, because I haven't thought to investigate it. I don't know if I want to investigate it.

After 9/11 I pretty much went along with the idea that all of our police officers should be as well-armed as they wanted to be. But frankly I have no idea what they've been buying. For all I know my local cops could have a fully-automatic Barrett .50 in their basement, perfectly legally. I just don't know the answer to the question. Most of the time in Massachusetts I do my best as a citizen to avoid running afoul of the constabulary, whose reach here is pretty broad.

give them the right to possess an automatic weapon even if state or local law would permit it. To the limited extent that you can own them, it is only under a federal license independent from your law enforcement commission. Most cop shops really don't like officers playing with guns off duty outside hunting and structured shooting. Most state's commissioned law enforcement officers have the power of their office 24/7 and are expected to intervene in a criminal act they observe whether technically on duty or not. If Officer Smith just happens to have his full-auto Uzi with him when he sees a felony in progress and saws the perp in half with it, his employer is going to have some 'splaining to do and probably some checks to write. The agency would vastly prefer that the officer only be armed with the service weapon issued by the department, since they may be liable for his actions.

In Vino Veritas

In Massachusetts, it's illegal for a private citizen to possess *pepper spray* without a Firearms Identification Card.

If you get stopped in your car and for whatever reason a cop searches it and finds pepper spray and you don't have an FIC, you're going to jail.

I am really, really, really beginning to not like your home state.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

I don't know how it happened to Massaschusetts, except for the fact that the Democrats all moved in and took up permanent residence and can't be extricated without the political equivalent of industrial-grade blasting materials.

I look at the code in places like Utah and it just boggles the mind. People in Utah really are living in a kind of paradise -- at least in terms of the size of the government there. Here in Massachusetts there's nothing you can do without consulting a lawyer. How it happened to this historic Revolutionary state is really, really depressing. Don't let it happen to your state.

The protection of the United States against any enemy foreign or domestic. That is not a limited right. Sure, you can carry the argument clear up to nukes and there are many legitimate arguments both pro and con, but there is no legitimate way that full-autos can be excluded, whether you know anyone who wants them or not.

Oh yeah, you live in Massachusetts. No wonder you don't know know anybody who wants an automatic weapon. Of course the rest of us know that in Massachusetts you will probably NEED an automatic weapon sooner or later.

Come to Arizona. I'll not only introduce you to people who "want" automatic weapons, I'll introduce you to people who legally own them.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Let me remind everyone of something they seem to forget: the phrase "the people" appears six times in the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment is the only place that some folks decide to ignore it. And it doesn't say "will sometimes not be infringed", and it doesn't say "will not be infringed as long as it's not for really dangerous arms". Make no mistake, people -- all of the rest of your rights are merely on loan to you from the government, if you do not have the right to enforce them and demand them and protect them yourselves. I advise you to look long and hard at the history that lead to the inclusion of our Second Amendment rights, including British attempts to seize arms stashes, and the history of gun control legislation in the U.S. (including Congress wetting their pants when a bunch of World War I veterans marched on Washington, and our Reps wondered "Uh, what if they brought guns next time?").

If someone owns an automatic weapon and kills a ton of people with it, then the crime should be -- anyone, anyone? -- killing people! It shouldn't matter what kind of weapon a person uses. And it's nobody's right to tell the rest of us what weapons are "too dangerous" for us to own or not own. The colonists had and were able to keep weapons just like those used by the military, so I don't buy the argument that the Founding Fathers didn't anticipate modern military arms. And I also reject the argument that it's pointless because our weapons would be no match for any hypothetical military takeover here -- tell that to any number of lesser-armed groups who fought huge odds against a modern army and won... the Soviet Union sure found out the hard way.

Bottom line, anyone who doesn't personally want to exercise their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, doesn't have to. But they shouldn't expect the rest of us to give ours up just to make them feel better.

and own automatic weapons. Lots of people want to be my friend so that I'll take them to the range. I also have a manufacturer's license and can convert semi to fully auto, and can buy and build up to 40mm... which is nice.

all those bigoted and not-nice things I said about squirrels!

Penance!

Groveling!!!

Dude, I want to be your friend!

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

I can no longer see it, but my first blog here at RS was on the theme that my vote is not for sale. I am a conservative guy, and there is more than one GOP candidate for POTUS who I could enthusiastically cast my vote in the general election '08. There are some progressive populists running for POTUS in '08 in the GOP that I am not too excited about. POTUS with the (R) after their name is not enough for me. I voted for W in 2000 & 2004 in spite of the big government agenda that he ran on. In 2008 if a candidate like Huckabee or McCain who have bought into the carbon-tax populism currently in vogue get the nod by the GOP, then they will not receive my vote.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

If I were king for a day, I would:

Abolish the IRS, EPA, DOE, NEA, PBS, etc., immediately.

End welfare, WIC, Pell Grants, food stamps, government housing, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., without notice.

Not only stop farm subsidies, but confiscate the property of anyone who has ever received them.

Outlaw health insurance. (Want the services of a doctor? After your visit, take out your wallet and pay the guy. The price of medical care would drop by more than three-fourths.)

Turn the 48 contiguous states into a walled fortress. Citizens may come and go at will. Non-citizens must seek permission.

Administer a civics test to every citizen who would like to vote.

Order the arrest of every employee of the State Department and most of the CIA. And Dennis Kucinich.

I would probably go to bed after that day's work.

I've never felt like such a liberal. 0 for 7.

Doesn't Ron Paul actually have a good point here as it relates to abortion? He has introduced a bill to strip the courts of jurisdiction over abortion, but Republican leadership never considered bringing it up even when they were in the majority.

I may have my facts wrong here, but it is interesting that the GOP Congrss rarely even tried to use its jurisdiction-stripping power. One exception was on marriage, where the House did the right thing, but Bill Frist apparently never deemed it worthy of consideration in the Senate.

The Senate voted on a marriage amendment last year, and it did not even get a simple majority.

Still, I agree Frist was a bad leader, and I feel that he did much damage to the party.

RiNO is usually used to describe moderates or liberals. You are obviously a far right-wing conservative. There are millions of Republicans who think like you and I see no reason at all why you would ever vote for a Democrat. I guess you could start voting for the Constitution Party or something... which would be a whole new kind of RiNO.

There are lot fewer of me than there are people like Arlen Specter, heh. So guys like him get tagged with the RiNO label more often.

But Moe's been slinging that label around in the ABG discussions, so I'm rolling with it, heh. Takes one to know one :-)

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

"There are lot fewer of me than there are people like Arlen Specter, heh. So guys like him get tagged with the RiNO label more often."

Are there? I wonder.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

I have to think that if there were more of us around, then we'd be dominating the primaries and electing more of us.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

I think that a number of people that think like us on policy get bamboozled into thinking we need to moderate to win.

Perhaps, but it might just be a perception issue, a vestige of New Deal era garbage, and/ or a result of coalition politics (read lack of Conservatives in leadership positions).

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Surely this is all mainstream stuff . . . oh, no, hang on, I'm an extremist too.

As I see it you haven't even started to address some of the contentious stuff.

For example, once the federal government has pulled out of education entirely, should the states have vouchers or just not fund education at all?

What do my recreational pharmaceuticals have to do with anyone else?

What is the best model for privatising the police? Or the courts?

I could go on, but I am pretty sure there will be threadjacking all over the place if I do.

The question that is worth asking, though, is what can you get from the next Republican administration.

In my country, I am hoping the next Conservative government will introduce school vouchers. Compared with my fantasy list it is a small step. Compared with what any government ever has achieved, even Margaret Thatcher's, it is huge.

If you think you can get something major, that has to be worth a vote.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Your a true blue, red blooded american. Every time I vote for who I think has the right stuff, he turns out a little more wishy washie than I like (See the Bushes). But in the end, I vote against someone more than I vote for them. When it comes to foreign Policy, we need another Ronald Reagon. When he bombed Libbia (sp) he sure queited that place down.

I also would add that we need to limit jury awards in medical malepractice awards. Thats killing our medical systems. Yet, little is said about it. 1/2 of all medical cost can be directly linked to this problem. Instead of Hillary Care, we need freedom from the layers.

I always thought a RINO was a good liberal democrat elected on the Republican dime. (ie. Arlen Specter, Tom Davis, etc.)

Your description sounds to me like an RR “REAL Republican (tm)”.

Our party is drifted toward the squishy left (as witnessed by many of our current “front runners”), I submit that YOU are a true Republican and that the party in too many places has RINO-fied.

become President for four years would make enacting your platform more likely.(yeah I know you didn't say that you wouldn't vote for Rudy in this thread, but you did tip toe around it). As always, I'd go to war with you on the issues any day of the week.

Go Fred!

Oz

Read my most recent story, "Immigration may be Hillary's undoing" on First Cut Politics

Ron Paul supports just about everyone of your platform points other than bombing Iran.

Do you really want to abolish the FDA? We have arguably the safest food distribution system in the world yet you wish to do away with it? Why?

How bout the Nuclear Regulatory Commission? Should we just trust the utilities to build safe nuclear facilities and maintain them properly?

FTC? FAA? FCC? Get rid of them as well?

How bout the DoJ?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

You make unusually good points flyerhawk. I'll sign on to your plan to get rid of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the FTC, FAA and FCC.
I can't go along with you on the DOJ though, that is a constitutionally warranted office.

I think at least some of the duties of the NRC may be mandated by treaty. If not the NPT then something else, surely.

FTC seems to have a legitimate purpose of regulating interstate trade.

FAA also may have treaty duties, but if not, I can still live with it because of the almost essentially interstate nature of air travel (ironic that I say that when of the times I've flown, only once I went out of state).

FCC is useful because it's way too easy for different states to trample each other with broadcasts.

Now, of these agencies I'm sure I'd want to relieve them of some of their current duties, but I wouldn't eliminate them.

DoJ is pretty important for basic law enforcement for all of the above, I think. I didn't know you were so libertarian.

As for Ron Paul, that's the sad part of his run. He's let himself get so hijacked by freaks, that he's alienated people like me who should be his natural base.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

I think you guys are willing to throw away the baby with the bathwater but I do understand where you're coming from.

I just can't get behind the idea that the government should leave the regulatory business. Too many people willing to do too many bad things.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Constitutionally, as well as under principles of capitalism and good government, the government has a narrow role to play in life. Government should not do all the things we would like done, but rather be limited to those things that can't be done any other way. Every "good" thing that you cede to the government is one more grain of power added to their portfolio.
Capitalism works because self-interest works. In other words, greed that is restrained only by the market itself and very limited government checks against fraud actually helps those other than the greedy individual. Government actually destroys this mechanism when it gets involved.
I was picking on you with my post above, because I believe there is some clear responsibilities of the government. Those responsibilities should be limited to limiting fraud and protecting private property rights(which opens up a whole can of worms re: pollution). I don't think we should get rid of government, but we need to stop turning over all power and rights to the government in exchange for a dubious benefit.

Government should not do all the things we would like done, but rather be limited to those things that can't be done any other way. Every "good" thing that you cede to the government is one more grain of power added to their portfolio.

There is nothing inherently wrong with government performing any service. And we most certainly should not limit the government to those things that can't be done any other way because there is nothing the government does that CAN'T be done another way.

However there are some things that the government is far BETTER at doing than private enterprise. Running a military is a good example. So is supplying water. So is keeping the peace.

Capitalism works because self-interest works. In other words, greed that is restrained only by the market itself and very limited government checks against fraud actually helps those other than the greedy individual.

But these regulatory agencies are put in place PRIMARILY to prevent fraud and theft. Neil mentioned doing away with the SEC. Why? Should we allow insider trading? Should we allow collaboration between ostensibly opposed groups? Should we allow people to sell bogus products on the market based on nothing more than empty promises? How would the elimination affect the faith and trust that people have in our markets?

I don't think we should get rid of government, but we need to stop turning over all power and rights to the government in exchange for a dubious benefit.

Glad to hear you're not an anarchist. Government is nothing more than the collective will of a society. Sometimes the collective will of the people takes precedence over the individual desires of those same people. The framers knew this and thus created the 5th Amendment.

Capitalism is a great system because it is simple. But it is far from perfect and has many inherent flaws. To ignore these flaws out of a desire to adhere to a principle is folly.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

all these roles that you want government to play? If you can't, then by default they are illegitimate, even if they might provide a good service.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Of course we were talking about government in general and not just the government structure of the US Constitution.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

You said above that the government could do about anything. To relate many of the government's activites to interstate commerce is a ridiculous stretch and is how we got into our current situation.

If you were referring to state and local government as well, then I don't disagree as much. I thought that you were referring to the federal government.

It was argued upthread that government in generally should be eschewed except where it is the only choice. No mention of what level government this applied to thus I would assume it applies to all levels of government.

We can argue about this or that following under the Commerce Clause, if you like. But we would then at least implicitly agree that some regulatory power DOES fall to the Feds because of the Commerce Clause.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Can you justify all these roles of government under an originalist understanding of the commerce clause? Remember, FDR era judicial activists redefined commerce, and thus the Commerce Clause, in order to justify FDR's mess.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

"There is nothing inherently wrong with government performing any service."

Whaa? Flyer, remember economics. Government is an inherently inefficient and suboptimal allocator of resources. Government is also an inherently coercive actor, and last time I checked force can be necessary, and/or justifiable, but it is always morally wrong.

"And we most certainly should not limit the government to those things that can't be done any other way because there is nothing the government does that CAN'T be done another way."

Flyer, have your ever heard of a public good?

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Whaa? Flyer, remember economics. Government is an inherently inefficient and suboptimal allocator of resources. Government is also an inherently coercive actor, and last time I checked force can be necessary, and/or justifiable, but it is always morally wrong.

Government may not be as financially efficient as the private sector but that is because they don't measure success using financial indicators.

Are the police morally wrong to use force against a criminal? Certainly they are being coercive.

See the problem is that you guys approach this discussion with the belief that government is inherently evil, just as many on the Left believe that corporations are inherently evil.

But that simply isn't true. Government is exactly what we allow it to be. Same is true of corporations. They both serve a role that is necessary to a vibrant and stable society. Having government act as a corporation is likely to be a bad idea but so is having corporations acting like government.

And what I mean by that is that government should be the agent that provides services that do not properly respond to free market physics. Corporations should be the agent that provides services that DO follow free market physics.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

"Government may not be as financially efficient as the private sector but that is because they don't measure success using financial indicators."

Governments are economically inefficient. They always produce wasteful shortages, and surpluses. In economics speak government is a sub- optimal allocator of resources.

"Are the police morally wrong to use force against a criminal? Certainly they are being coercive."

As I said force is always morally wrong. Force can be justifiable, it might be necessary, but it is never morally right.

"See the problem is that you guys approach this discussion with the belief that government is inherently evil, just as many on the Left believe that corporations are inherently evil. But that simply isn't true. "

Government is at its best a necessary evil, and at its worse tyranny. It is intrinsically evil, because it is by nature a coercive entity. All government activity stems directly, or indirectly from coercion and coercion is always evil.

You need a better comparison. Most leftist can not even define the word corporation. Those of us on the right on the other had can usually define government, and even describe its basic structures, and functions.

"Having government act as a corporation is likely to be a bad idea but so is having corporations acting like government."

Why? If they are both nothing more than "...what we allow them to be," we should have not fear either of them

"And what I mean by that is that government should be the agent that provides services that do not properly respond to free market physics. Corporations should be the agent that provides services that DO follow free market physics."

What are "free market physics?"

I think you might be contradicting your previous statement "...we most certainly should not limit the government to those things that can't be done any other way because there is nothing the government does that CAN'T be done another way."

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Sorry work called me away yesterday.

Governments are economically inefficient. They always produce wasteful shortages, and surpluses. In economics speak government is a sub- optimal allocator of resources.

But economic efficiency is only one measurement of effectiveness. There are no economic measurements to determine safety or quality of life. All economics can do is determine costs and profits.

As I said force is always morally wrong. Force can be justifiable, it might be necessary, but it is never morally right.

This statement makes no sense. If it is justifiable how can it be immoral?

What are "free market physics?"

Supply and demand functions. Velocity of money. Liquidity. I was using a term to cover it all.

I'm not sure how I'm contradicting anything I've said.

Government is at its best a necessary evil, and at its worse tyranny. It is intrinsically evil, because it is by nature a coercive entity. All government activity stems directly, or indirectly from coercion and coercion is always evil.

Really? So when the government builds a bridge it is a necessary evil? Why is it evil in building the bridge?

Why? If they are both nothing more than "...what we allow them to be," we should have not fear either of them

Fear the men behind them. In and of themselves they have no ability to do anything. It requires people to do things.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

"But economic efficiency is only one measurement of effectiveness."

Economically inefficient systems, create poverty, starvation, and general misery. Heck in the long run economically inefficiency causes the collapse of governments, and the destruction of societies. In consequence, economic efficiency is extremely important because the future depends upon it.

"There are no economic measurements to determine safety or quality of life."

Now it has been a long time since I sat in a Microeconomics class, and economic history, and international economics were the twin focuses of my econ minor, but I can recall several economic measurements of quality of life (utils, standard of living, etc.)

"All economics can do is determine costs and profits."
Flyer, I think you have economics mixed up with accounting. Economics is a social science (one of the few left with objectivity), and as such it can be used to understand all human behaviors.

"This statement makes no sense. If it is justifiable how can it be immoral?"

I will give you an example. In this example there are two groups of people (group A, and Group B). Both of these groups are stranded, and isolated from any additional food supplies. Neither of the groups has enough food to survive. Faced with this reality Group B kills the members of group A, and takes their food supplies. Now Group B's actions were immoral, but also justifiable, because the made it possible for Group B to survive.

"Supply and demand functions. Velocity of money. Liquidity. I was using a term to cover it all."

Ok.

"I'm not sure how I'm contradicting anything I've said."

Possible contradiction in the following quotes.

"There is nothing inherently wrong with government performing any service. And we most certainly should not limit the government to those things that can't be done any other way because there is nothing the government does that CAN'T be done another way."

"...what I mean by that is that government should be the agent that provides services that do not properly respond to free market physics. Corporations should be the agent that provides services that DO follow free market physics."

"Really? So when the government builds a bridge it is a necessary evil?"

Yes. Sometimes government built bridges are an unnecessary evils (remember various "bridges to no where")

"Why is it evil in building the bridge?"

Government does not exist in a vacuum. All the resources used to build the bride are directly, or indirectly fruits of coercion, and coercion is always evil.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Government may not be as financially efficient as the private sector but that is because they don't measure success using financial indicators.

What does it measure success by? Past experience would lead me to conclude that almost all government leaders measure success by their ability to get themselves or their fellow party members (re)elected. Related to this, it appears that centralizing and consolidating their own power is also a primary measure of success for said leaders.

And what I mean by that is that government should be the agent that provides services that do not properly respond to free market physics. Corporations should be the agent that provides services that DO follow free market physics.

Nothing objectionable there, but the debate is really over what functions are necessary but which also cannot thrive under the free market, isn't it?

For example, I say the federal Department of Education can go - free market education models have been shown to work in other countries, and I don't hear anyone denouncing the small but extant private school industry in America as a failure. At minimum I'd hope we can agree that all functions of the DOE at the federal level are un-necessary in light of the ability for States to adopt whatever education programs and approaches their citizens see fit. In its current form, the federal DOE appears to exist only as a vehicle for centralizing and increasing authority over the education of children under the the federal executive branch.

Regarding regulatory agencies, we might take them case by case, but in general I'm much more for a healthy and active judicial system in which citizens are able to take their complaints and seek redress. It seems to me what we often get with regulatory agencies are a lot of people on the taxpayer dole who go out and search for "problems", which may often end up being purely clerical and not at all infringing on another citizen in a way that offends our sense of justice.

The outcome seems to miss the mark too. In my opinion the proper outcome from a bunch of ecoli-infested beef ought to be severe punishment in the marketplace by way of consumers discontinuing their purchase from that provider. Can you even, honestly (without searching) name the last two beef producers that sold ecoli beef to Americans? I don't know, maybe they got fined by the FDA or something, but the mentality in America right now is that the FDA will protect us so why pay attention and shop smart? The mentality ought to be "I know Company X can't keep manure out of its meat so I'm buying Company Y". I hope for an "I read Consumer Reports" mentality, not an "I trust Nanny to clean my beef" mentality.

For example, I say the federal Department of Education can go - free market education models have been shown to work in other countries, and I don't hear anyone denouncing the small but extant private school industry in America as a failure. At minimum I'd hope we can agree that all functions of the DOE at the federal level are un-necessary in light of the ability for States to adopt whatever education programs and approaches their citizens see fit. In its current form, the federal DOE appears to exist only as a vehicle for centralizing and increasing authority over the education of children under the the federal executive branch.

But you aren't arguing that government shouldn't be in the education business. You are arguing the Federal government shouldn't be involved. That's fine.

Regarding regulatory agencies, we might take them case by case, but in general I'm much more for a healthy and active judicial system in which citizens are able to take their complaints and seek redress. It seems to me what we often get with regulatory agencies are a lot of people on the taxpayer dole who go out and search for "problems", which may often end up being purely clerical and not at all infringing on another citizen in a way that offends our sense of justice.

We live in a very big country and creating a perfect regulatory code is essentially impossible because there are so many different circumstances. So you do what you can.

The outcome seems to miss the mark too. In my opinion the proper outcome from a bunch of ecoli-infested beef ought to be severe punishment in the marketplace by way of consumers discontinuing their purchase from that provider. Can you even, honestly (without searching) name the last two beef producers that sold ecoli beef to Americans? I don't know, maybe they got fined by the FDA or something, but the mentality in America right now is that the FDA will protect us so why pay attention and shop smart? The mentality ought to be "I know Company X can't keep manure out of its meat so I'm buying Company Y". I hope for an "I read Consumer Reports" mentality, not an "I trust Nanny to clean my beef" mentality.

You're making a circular argument. One of the biggest reasons WHY our beef doesn't kill people is BECAUSE the government monitors the industries and requires beef producers to follow specific guidelines.

It is fantasy to think that the market could properly regulate this sort of thing. First of all the market has reactive pressures. It's all well and good to say that the market would stop buying food from tainted sources but that doesn't help the people who fall victim to those tainted sources in the first place. Secondly even if a company were to face market blowback what is to prevent them from changing their brand name?

Take a look at China for a example of what can happen. A complete lack of government oversight certainly hasn't improved their product safety.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

"You're making a circular argument. One of the biggest reasons WHY our beef doesn't kill people is BECAUSE the government monitors the industries and requires beef producers to follow specific guidelines."

Can you prove that statement?

"Take a look at China for a example of what can happen. A complete lack of government oversight certainly hasn't improved their product safety."

China is still a semi-communist country. Its government is involved with nearly every aspect of its peoples lives. Somehow I doubt that anything being made there does not have the blessings of government regulators.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

if I can prove it but before we had the FDA we relied on market pressures to keep our food supply clean and it resulted in some pretty nasty problems.

Since it has been instituted those sorts of problems have been largely eliminated.

China is more concerned with production than safety.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

But you aren't arguing that government shouldn't be in the education business. You are arguing the Federal government shouldn't be involved. That's fine.

This is true. I suspect I would oppose most if not all State level involvement in education too, but we must start somewhere.

We live in a very big country and creating a perfect regulatory code is essentially impossible because there are so many different circumstances. So you do what you can.

It's arguable that we should do only what we absolutely have to - a far cry from whatever we can.

It is fantasy to think that the market could properly regulate this sort of thing.

I admit my position is fairly speculative. I'm not aware that the government agency in charge of this has ever actually put a company out of business, or so severely constrained their finances as to reach the same level of "punishment" as a large majority of consumers changing providers might result in. If the only consequence for a health violation is a bunch of paperwork and a small fine that's kept between the government agency and the company, is that enough risk to warrant doing what it takes to aim for 100% contaminant free beef?

Let private citizens form their own consumer watchdog groups, and then purchase beef that passes the watchdog testing that consumers come to trust the most. That seems like a better system to me - the watchdog group is funded strictly by citizen patronage, and so they must excel at meeting the needs of citizens. In our current system, our government leaders are funded by lobbyists. So how much attention does the corporate slaughterhouse receive, how much influence does it carry, on how the government carries out it's role, and whose needs it focuses on?

However there are some things that the government is far BETTER at doing than private enterprise.

I perked up at this. I thought you might have an interesting case to make.

Running a military is a good example.

Oh, never mind. It seems not. Do you have any evidence of this? I am not suggesting that there would not be problems with privatising the military - there is a big (and in this case genuine) free-rider problem. But better? Better in what sense? More effective? More efficient? With what are you comparing these nationalised monopolies on military services?

So is supplying water.

Now this one has been tested and your theories have been found wanting. As a general rule governments under invest in water supply and waste water disposal. The pay off to the investment is usually much longer than prevailing political terms of office. Why would a politician vote to invest billions of dollars in providing better water services when someone else will be in office to take the credit? Simply not in a politician's interest to do that. If there was a financial pay off, of course, it would be different. Businesses - usually through the stock market - can easily raise money for investment projects that take decades and make returns over that period. Politicians have much shorter horizons in mind.

So is keeping the peace.

This is another area where the evidence is pretty limited. In general private security companies do a pretty good job. Clear up rates for public sector policing seem to be pretty low. Crime often goes up in the face of massive extra funding for police and prisons. Though there is no easy way to do a large scale comparison between the effectiveness of government and private security services I would suggest that general indicators are that governments do poor to abysmal work in this area. Do you really find this government service so magnificent that you cannot imagine the private sector doing a better job?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

maybe I'm wrong. You have no evidence to suggest that privatizing the military is a good idea but concede that there are notable problems.

Same with law enforcement. Your only example is when private police are used to supplement government law enforcement. I can provide examples of when countries have largely private police forces. It ain't pretty.

As for your argument about water is flawed. Politicians are motivated by a desire to remain elected AND by a desire to build a lasting legacy. Business are simply interested in making money. What happens when the private water company decides to leave the water business for some other better business? Sure someone else will come in to replace them but what about the people that suffer during the transition?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

My response was do you have any evidence for your propositions.

Your theories on the water industry are interesting but ill-informed. The record of politicians is of underinvestment.

Businesses are interested in making money. Sure. What's your point? They do that by building infrastructures which provide a rate of return.

What happens when the private water company decides to leave the water business for some other better business?

Then they sell the business to another owner, of course.

but what about the people that suffer during the transition?

Suffer what, exactly? Bills printed on different headed paper? Are you under the strange impression that businesses grind to a halt during a change of ownership? A business, in this case, I should add that runs almost entirely automatically. Decisions are made mostly about building and maintaining infrastructure on decades long timescales. It is a massively capital intensive business.

Given that nearly all the value of the business is in the infrastructure, your view that an owner choosing to sell the business would run it down first is quite staggering. It would be like trashing your house the day before potential buyers come round to view it.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

"You have no evidence to suggest that privatizing the military is a good idea but concede that there are notable problems."

Flyer, what do you know about Executive Outcomes?

"Same with law enforcement. Your only example is when private police are used to supplement government law enforcement. I can provide examples of when countries have largely private police forces."

Please do

"What happens when the private water company decides to leave the water business for some other better business? Sure someone else will come in to replace them but what about the people that suffer during the transition?"

Flyer, you are assuming the existence of a monopoly. Moreover, I do not know if you know this (I think you said that you are a New Yorker), but many rural areas are served by private water companies, without creating the problem you described.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

"Politicians are motivated by a desire to remain elected AND by a desire to build a lasting legacy."

No the are interested in establishing/expanding their own patron client system. In consequence, government agencies overpay their labor, and hire excessive numbers of employees (high wages, and easy work buys loyalty), while underinvesting in infrastructure.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

But Congress and the Courts have been pretty consistent on this point for some time.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

The constitution has been in exile since the New Deal.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

may get points for colorful imagery but her point is off the mark.

The Constitution changes with the nation.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

"The Constitution changes with the nation."

This was not the intention when the country was founded. Further, to the extent that it is true, or becomes true, freedom becomes more extinguished in the world. Ask the Greeks how well democracy without an anchor worked. After that, ask the Romans.

Can you show something that suggests that the founders didn't expect the Constitution to change with the times?

If their intention was to set up a rigid governing document why were they so determined to use vague language?

I fail to see how we have fewer freedoms today than your typicak Virgninian or Bostonian did in 1790.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

and that's why they included the amendment process with its heavy, heavy burder of supermajorities.

The Constitution was intended to be changed only for the most compelling and widely supported reasons, not by the whim of law professors and judges.

In Vino Veritas

At home.

However, the whole intent of the constitution is that it is THE document that reigns in the Federal Government. If it is elastic, it cannot perform that task. A clear indicator would be the amendment process itself, a very high hurdle needed to change it.

Fewer freedoms? Try paying your employees what they are worth to your business if it is less than the "minimum wage". Try determining for yourself who you will hire or fire, without regard to race, gender or other protected status. Those are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

The fourteenth amendment spoiled everything. At least, it is arguably the primary source of the so many problems regarding the Constitution and its "evolution." The people who wrote and ratified it HAD to have been extremely ignorant.

Another one of those permanent solutions to temporary problems. When the original problem has been dealt with, you are still left with all of the drawbacks of the solution.

Flyer, what is the point of having a constitution in a system where a handful of people have the power to completely redefine the constitution on a whim?

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

"The Constitution changes with the nation."

The constitution is designed to change only via amendment, not at the whim of a handful of philosopher kings (supreme court justice)

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

well before the new deal, too, with the court decisions following the reconstruction amendments.

and the court was already starting to slide re: the commerce clause by the 19-teens, thanks partly to men like Holmes.

I agree with your post 100%. If that is a RiNO, that is me for sure.
The only problem though is that people that think like us are the "foot soldiers" of the GOP, and unfortunately as the party moves to the left (I think the case could easily be made that the GOP overall has drifted to the left of the average American on many issues) we drop off one by one. If Pro-life stops being part of this party, "RiNO" support will drop fast.
Election history tells us clearly that you can't win by moving to the center, you have to lead the center to you. Entrenched establishment types have suckered themselves completely on this, because they care about nothing but wins for their team. Worse, they have a club mentality that if you aren't "for the team", you can go soak yourself.
That is my biggest concern this election season. The one thing that can block the resurgence of the GOP in 2008 is trying to win the election instead of the debate.
If we nominate a fiscal liberal(Huckabee) or a social liberal(Rudy, Romney?) or a freedom(2nd Amendment, etc) liberal (Huckabee, Rudy, Romney?) we are probably sunk...and that is all the way down the ticket.

I think if you look at both the far right and far left, neither side likes the platform of the two major parties, and yet they are the "base" of those parties. They are the ones that nominate candidates and donate the cash. So how is it that those most interested and most invested are the least happy with the parties that result?

Most people I talk to and read about are never happy with the candidates that get nominated, and yet...who nominates these people? No one likes them, yet everyone votes for them. Odd.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken

It is because with very few exceptions in modern history, politics has been about convincing your base that the other guy is worse, and convincing the "independents" that your guy isn't so bad, or at least that they shouldn't bother to vote for your opponent.

single-handedly win an election. You have to offer things up to other people. When you do that, the base always seems to threaten to stay home. It's an informal check and balance system that prevents either major party from riding herd over the whole system.

“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."

I've never been able to find any real gains for the base voters who like Neil (based on the post) want certain things that the Republicans will never give him. They don't even pay lip service to it. Same thing for those on the ultra-left. They want socialism and the Democrats will never give them that. So what exactly do the two polar bases get out of being the reliable vote for parties that shun them?

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken

People like me *shift* the debate, and alter who gets nominated. You know that old song and dance about "run right in the primary and left in the general?" That's because of people like me having disproportionate influence in the primaries versus the general.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

I admit they may pay you a tip of the hat in the primary, but it never materializes into anything tangible that I can see.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken

I would contend that the far left is much closer to their goal of socialism.

In fact much of the US social policy is nothing but socialism, and the dialog from all democrats and some republicans is socialism (with some class envy thrown in) cloaked in whatever buzzword is the current fad. So at least in my political life '79- now' socialism (represented by the nanny state) has become the norm.

========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?

So how is it that those most interested and most invested are the least happy with the parties that result?

The primary voters (probably a majority or close) are not all interested and invested. They vote for the most popular person. I think the media is largely to blame for that popularity. Voter ignorance, perhaps at times intentional, is a major factor.

I'm with you on about 5.5/7 of your list. Any chance you might run for office sometime?

So, announce your candidacy on Halloween. :)

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

But let's coin a new name for people like us -- RiTo (Republicans in TRUTH Only). Then again, that sounds like the name of the token Mexican guy on a bad ABC sitcom...

About your comment on abortion: Rape and incest are illegal and immoral in most societies. There are valid social reasons for this. To demand that a rape victim (a real one, not Roe) or incest victim carry an unwanted baby to term is akin to "involuntary servitude." I agree that the baby is innocent, but so, too, is the woman (at least in theory.) You thus have a balance between two "rights." You did not mention "life of the mother." Same type of balance. I offer this not to be persuasive, but to distinguish between "abortion on demand"and "in cases of rape and incest."

"The most effective birth control pill is an asprin tablet. She takes one and holds it firmly between her knees."

If I posted my platform, Moe would ban me. Like in general, why abolish a government agency if you are not going to kill all the bureuacrats to preclude having to pay them a pension?

Automatic weapons? Why own one if you are not going to use it to eliminate annoying, useless people like antiwar marchers and Jerry Springer audience members?

etc. etc. but that is just being idealistic.

HOWEVER, just because I don't have a candidate that shares my views, doesn't mean I am so stupid as to with hold my vote from a viable candidate who is well to the right of a Democrat though well to the left of me. In this world, that person is invariably a Republican. That is why I will always vote Republican and that is being realistic.

Just remember the most important political equation of the late 20th century. Ross Perot=(Bill + Hillary Clinton)

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

that I would be humbled by your support. King is pretty much what I consider an entry level position. But don't worry, you and Becker are in the deal with great outfits and titles longer than your legs. Langley will come along because he is conditioned to such a State.

I'll make Neil head of the Liberal Party. That should re-define the political center compared to us Conservatives.

Now, something I do need some advice and counsel on. Can anyone make a convincing argument as to why we need Congress? I just can't seem to get my Kings arms,(note: good name for a pub chain), around what they do that is worthwhile. I think all they do is syphon off tribute from those who would curry favor in the awarding of Crown contracts.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

It gives the Monarch a readily available group of high profile fools to publicly execute for the enjoyment of the masses.

With respect to "siphoning off tribute", you really need to read up on your Monarchy stuff. (qlangly where are you when we need you) The Monarch can appropriate anything he wants from the serfs, and Congress is just one more specific group of serfs.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Depends on the monarchy you are talking about, of course. But parliaments and congresses have long been accepted as being responsible for raising taxes.

The British Parliament - actually, it was the English Parliament then - invented the whole concept of government budgets. Previously they had just given the King or Queen funds as requested, or not. But Charles II was in the habit of spending money that he said was for the Navy on the Duchess of Portsmouth. Sounds like a battleship, I know, but she was actually his mistress. So Parliament started voting him money under specific headings. Not completely sure this was a good idea. Parliaments pretty soon that they could earmark money for headings that had more to do with the comfort of MPs than anything else.

But it sounds to me like Tbone's idea of monarchy is the Saudi model, not the British. If he wants to be British royalty, get used to opening stuff, saying "and what do you do?", and delivering speeches written for you by morose Scottish socialists.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

we're dealing with a Monarchy model that more closely resembles, say, Henry VIII as opposed to Elizabeth II.

Tbone seems more fit for the occasional beheading in the public square and maybe a drawing & quartering now and then than cutting ribbons at the opening of a childrens educational center.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Richard the LionHeart would be my middle of the road guy. Vlad the Impaler would be a mentor.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

than Richard, and possibly than Henry.

Henry couldn't be bothered to run the country when he was young - too much hunting, wrestling and tennis to take up his time. He had a series of ministers do it on his behalf: Cardinal Wolsey, Sir Thomas More and Sir Thomas Cromwell. Of the three Cromwell (not to be confused with Oliver) was much the most able, but also had the lowest profile.

After Henry had Cromwell beheaded, he took to running the country himself. He was not bad at it, though rather brutal. Doubting transubstantiation was a burning offence. (This must have been awkward, as his successor, Edward VI burned people for believing in transubstantiation and his successor, Mary I, restored their father's policy).

Richard took very little interest in governance at any stage of his reign. He was always off adventuring. The rumours about his sexuality are pretty hard to corroborate at this distance.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

contemporary stories, about his relationship with Blondel the minstrel.

There is also a contemporary story about a holy man who accosted him and warned him about his sinful lifestyle and reminded him of the fate of Sodom and Gommorrah, after which he agreed to abandon his sinful ways.

That's about it. Not really possible to draw any firm conclusions.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

drag is what I heard and the rock group Blondie was named after her. Have you ever heard this over there?

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

A machine gun and a dead bureaucrat in every garage!
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

And a dead bureaucrat in every democrats.

One the damn things stink while living.
Two the democrats were probably bureaucrats so it will save on the moving.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

to do, which often isn't much. Government is also often the "employer of last resort," especially the Fed, and where one might fit in an EEO plan is often the most important qualification.

If you want villians in the public sector, look at the appointee level, especially those who've been in appointments for more than one administration or who have bobbed back and forth between the merit system and the appointee ranks.

In many ways, Republican appointees are worse than Democrat, at least the Democrats usually have some idea what the agency does. Many, perhaps most, Republican appointees come in pig ignorant about the agency they've been tapped to run and can't be bothered to learn anything before they start making smoke and noise and breaking things - or they're so intimidated by the job that they just get snowballed by the 'crats.

That said, it isn't easy to work at the appointee level if you know and take seriously the job. When I was a high-level merit system employee, it was real easy for me to be the purist and the hardass and, frankly, to be a real PITA to waffling appointees. Having your name on the door makes you have to look at things from a far broader and more political perspective and tempers a lot of that purism. I like to think that it didn't temper mine much, but it certainly did often enough to cause my subordinates some consternation from time to time, and if it was something that was purely political, I tried to just do it all myself rather than involve them in it.

In Vino Veritas

you forgot that we are tearing down the buildings that house them (OK to leave the bureaucrats in the building - two birds one stone concept) so that there will be no ready place to house the bas*ards if some future Congress decides to start them up again.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

If anyone wants a bigger version of the RiNO, let me know, heh.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Last night I thought Neil was kidding about automatic weapons but after reading the responses and thinking about it for a day, you're right. But it's not my time in Massachusetts that has made me so self-abnegatory: all that happened in Illinois. Mbecker, I think you're right. Next spring, after I buy my KLR650, I think I'm going to take my first business vacation and ride to Arizona and back. Maybe we'll meet up and head out to the desert with your friends and shoot a few thousand rounds.

[Side note to Neil: I was just surprised to hear it coming from you. Dunno precisely why, but I was.]

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I always thought that you were an RKBA guy. It kind of suprised me that you weren't already for full autos.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service