You haven’t lived until you’ve been stuck in a traffic jam on the lower deck of the Fremont Bridge…during a windstorm
The sign of being a mature person is the ability to hear about tragedies and not immediately consider how it affects one’s own life.
Hey, did you know there are twelve publicly-accessible bridges in the city of Portland?
My thoughts are with the families, and also with my evening drive home over the Sellwood Bridge. The one on which the weight limit was recently lowered from 34 tons to 10 tons due to the discovery of cracks in the approaches. That’s why it’s so…fun to read the responses to Harry Reid’s declaration that we should probably consider investing in infrastructure nationwide.
Harry sure likes to spend our money, he doesn’t even need an investigation…
This nation spends more on welfare than it does the Constitutionally mandated military. (Auguste’s note: !!!)
But it’s always a hoot to see the implications that it’s all HIS fault and not Clinton for the previous 8 years. The bigger problem is relying on the Government to bail us out of this one. DOT is a slush fund for the idiots in Congress and the White House. Just another way to tax us to death and spend OUR money on a few pet projects. DOT is not required, mandated or even mentioned in the Constitution. Tell me why , again, we are continuing down this road…
The answer, obviously, is that various neighborhood associations need to start paying for building and repairs of the roads and bridges within their borders. They could do so by means of a sinking fund which involves assessing the value of the various homes in their neighborhoods, figuring the appropriate percentage of value required to maintain infrastructure as well as provide for emergencies, then send a yearly (or maybe quarterly) bill to each homeowner who would be required to pay or face having their homes repossessed. The local association would be responsible to administrate the money, hire inspectors and engineers, and generally provide for the welfare of the users of the infrastructure.
But at least it wouldn’t be taxes.
197 Responses to “If the libertarians were in charge, this never would have happened!”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Wouldn’t it be awesome if the entire US was just like Bartertown in Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome?
Hey, if we lived in Libertarian Paradise, you could just sue the corporation that built the bridge and, 15 years later, you might get compensation for the death of your loved one, if it hasn’t been completely eaten away by attorney’s fees! It’s a win-win!
Rest a bit easier, Auguste, as Oregon takes care of it’s roadways and bridges better than just about any place on the planet. And while you have your high winds like anywhere else, you also have mild winters and people like my Dad on the ODOT who have steadfastly refused to use excessive amounts of corrosive salt because they did the math and found cheap ain’t worth the expensive maintenance later.
My dad started as a pavement laying grunt with a high-school diploma. He retired as a highway engineer who served a year at the National Academy of Sciences. Oregon rocks.
I love the line about a “constitutionally mandated” military. The Constitution is actually pretty specific about the military. The actual text that authorizes the congress to create a military is such:
“To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;”
Firstly, the use of the plural “armies” suggest that the framers certainly didn’t intend to create a standing army like we have today. The federalist papers make this more clear. As such, the Pentagon and associated war machine have to be re-authorized every 2 years. Our sleight-of-hand to authorize large standing armies actually seems more constitutionally questionable than the very reasonable congressional role in providing for interstate commerce by means of establishing and providing for interstate roadways.
But the army certainly is cooler if you’re a wingnut. Then you can go on vicarious adventures overseas spreading “democracy.”
The title of this post:
is slightly mis-leading. Why? Because if the libertarians were in charge there wouldn’t have been a bridge to collapse - there would have been a line of cars waiting for the privately owned ferries to move back and forth across the river.
After all, it is only free enterprise that gets anything done, right? /snark
there would have been a line of cars waiting for the privately owned ferries to move back and forth across the river.
Noooo, Richard, without excessive taxes being used on infrastructure people would have enough income for gigantic duck-boats and AmphiSUVs and SUVmarines. Get with the program!
(never mind that if you needed less for taxes, the corporation you worked for would claim the bounty … shhh!)
You know, when I read the first story about the bridge collapse that I encountered last night, I was struck by the fact that the third paragraph in the story said that the Department of Homeland Security was pretty sure it wasn’t an act of terrorism. Now, it had never even occurred to me that it might be an act of terrorism! Fascinates me that that angle was so front-loaded in the story–it demonstrates how hot the administration is to cover their asses and show that they weren’t sleeping on the job. Screw the fact that they’ve been cutting taxes and cutting infrastructure funding while they’re supporting the war. At least it wasn’t *terrorism.*
Last night, after I went to see the wreckage, after I speculated that Voldemort was somehow involved, and after I called my family to let them know I was just fine, I thought for a second what the right wing response would be. It was an easy game, since the local blowhard has been lying for weeks (probably months, given my grasp of time) that the democrats don’t want to do anything with the roads, only to make public transit better.
What do I hear on my way home? GEEZ IF THE DEMOCRATS (who have been in charge here since November, and with a douchebag republican governor) WOULD JUST PUT MONEY INTO FIXING THE ROADS INSTEAD OF MAKING SURE THE BROWN PEOPLE COULD GET AROUND…
I got home, saw my boyfriend on the porch, and yelled “I TOTALLY CALLED IT!”
OMG! The Framers(TM) didn’t know about internal-combustion locomotion, advanced road engineering, or the interstate highway?! I don’t believe it! I guess next you are going to tell me they didn’t mention the Air Force by name in the Constitution because it didn’t exist yet!
Put your trust in the Framers(TM), people! What was good for 1776 will be grand for 2007!
Props to Opoponax for the Bartertown nod.
Mad Max + The Framers ™ = LibHeaven!
Ugh, Libertarians. For people who hate the roads so much they sure do use them a lot.
I’m afraid your solution to the problem of our sagging infrastructure boggles MY mind. The idea that myriad local communities could take care of their local infrastructure in totally undoable…even without the juristictional issues that would be created.
Of course those well-to-do neighborhoods would do fine, but those poor neighborhoods that the freeways tend to go through would find it impossible to manage or repair their infrastructure.
This almost sounds like one of those Republican pieces…the local people need to be self-reliant and take care of themselves.
A Pie-In-The-Sky if I ever read one…
For people who hate the roads so much they sure do use them a lot.
Yeah, IME they have no problem with enjoying the benefits of major cities’ infrastructure, nor do they mind using what has already (and fortuitously) been built. That’s why I’m dead set against letting them colonize New Hampshire; it’s too close to too many conveniences that other taxpayers subsidize. Let ‘em have a big, empty state like Wyoming, so they can really prove their mettle.
That’s why I’m dead set against letting them colonize New Hampshire; it’s too close to too many conveniences that other taxpayers subsidize. Let ‘em have a big, empty state like Wyoming, so they can really prove their mettle.
Exactly! Why should they get to feed off over 200 years of infrastructure that’s already in place? If Libertarianism is really the superior way to go, they should be able to build from scratch in a rural area instead of leeching off of things that other people’s tax dollars paid for, right?
Good take on this at Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/2/125940/9440
Wyoming’s got infrastructure, cities, even a national park or several.
Give `em the Aleutians.
And just to be nice, we’ll spot them a handful of Space Blankets.
Hell, I’ve got a roll of fishing line around somewhere I’ll donate to the cause (no hooks, I don’t trust them with anything sharp…)
Not to mention the irony of the libertarian nutjob critiquing federal government spending for infrastructure, ON THE INTERNET!!
These guys must have a whole separate node in the brains just to manage the disconnect that occurs in their version of reality.
The answer, obviously, is that various neighborhood associations need to start paying for building and repairs of the roads and bridges within their borders. They could do so by means of a sinking fund which involves assessing the value of the various homes in their neighborhoods, figuring the appropriate percentage of value required to maintain infrastructure as well as provide for emergencies, then send a yearly (or maybe quarterly) bill to each homeowner who would be required to pay or face having their homes repossessed. The local association would be responsible to administrate the money, hire inspectors and hire inspectors and engineers, and generally provide for the welfare of the users of the infrastructure.
Well, see, there are these little political subdivisions we have some people call “states”. This particular state could investigate its own infrastructure, since it happened within their borders.
A novel idea, I know!
I agree. It didn’t even cross my mind. Now, of course, I wonder if I was naive.
wagonjak - it’s called sarcasm. Look it up.
Virginia Gentleman - that’s fine. Of course, the states in the middle have a lot of wear and tear on their infrastructure from long haul semis and vacationers who just pass through and don’t spend enough/generate enough income to make up for the damage they do. But screw those states, right? That’s what they get for being in the middle and being poor.
#
Virginia Gentleman - that’s fine. Of course, the states in the middle have a lot of wear and tear on their infrastructure from long haul semis and vacationers who just pass through and don’t spend enough/generate enough income to make up for the damage they do. But screw those states, right? That’s what they get for being in the middle and being poor.
Tolls for roads heavily used by out-of-staters to take the edge of off taxes on in-state residents. Delaware does that on its strip of I-95 to great success.
Virginia Gentleman, I’m already paying for the roads I take to work everyday. I’m already paying for the roads I use when I drive up north, or down to the south. Why should working people be charged twice to drive?
VGentleman, I wasn’t aware that state taxes were considered perfectly fine by the anti-tax crowd.
#
VGentleman, I wasn’t aware that state taxes were considered perfectly fine by the anti-tax crowd.
Well, I consider my self small-l libertarianish and roads are just fine with me if done by the state government. Its perfectly legitimate (and necessary). If a politician can make the case to me that the state is absolutely strapped for cash and theres nothing that can be cut, then I could be convinced to support a tax increase.
Though I’d much prefer to it being paid for with increased gas taxes, since that would make the people who use roads the most pay the most. Also, it would have the benefit of reducing oil consumption.
Virginia Gentleman, I’m already paying for the roads I take to work everyday. I’m already paying for the roads I use when I drive up north, or down to the south. Why should working people be charged twice to drive?
Why should in-state residents be charged for roads used mostly by out-of-state residents?
Well, see, there are these little political subdivisions we have some people call “states”. This particular state could investigate its own infrastructure, since it happened within their borders.
Bbbut that sounds like (gasp!) GOVERNMENT! Why do you want Big Government to take care of you when the free market can do it all?
Bbbut that sounds like (gasp!) GOVERNMENT! Why do you want Big Government to take care of you when the free market can do it all?
I’m a libertarian, not an anarchist! I hope that you know the difference!
How many states have roads that are divided between out-of-state and in-state residents? Oklahoma roads are used heavily by long-haul semis (some, btw, carrying radioactive waste). But it’s not like they have so many roads that residents don’t use I-40 (which had a bridge accident 4-5 years ago) and I-35. Or the turnpike system. If you want to travel within the state (to shop, visit family, etc) you end up traveling the same roads as the vacationers and truckers. Most of whom will barely even stop to fill up their gas tank.
You know what’s not funny? That’s my life. I’m president of the HOA in my little neighborhood and our street was developed as a “private street” which means that we are responsible for repairing the ancient asphalt, for preventing the creek from eroding it and the houses, unclogging storm drains and dealing with flooding, salting and scraping the street when it snows, and generally paying for the upkeep of every piece of neighborhood infrastructure that exists.
When I came on, the dues were $15/month and only half of the people in the neighborhood were paying them. I keep pushing to raise them and start taking legal action against people who aren’t paying, and I get a lot of foot-dragging and pushback from everyone else, including the other board members, who have to approve expenditures.
Precisely two people who weren’t on the board even came to the last neighborhood meeting. We have about 50 houses.
You know what happens when people refuse to pay for the upkeep of the community? The road crumbles, as it’s starting to do right now; the creek erodes people’s land to the point where their patios are cracking; even the streetlamps would be shut off if we couldn’t pay the power bill.
It’s a freaking libertarian paradise.
How many states have roads that are divided between out-of-state and in-state residents? Oklahoma roads are used heavily by long-haul semis (some, btw, carrying radioactive waste). But it’s not like they have so many roads that residents don’t use I-40 (which had a bridge accident 4-5 years ago) and I-35. Or the turnpike system. If you want to travel within the state (to shop, visit family, etc) you end up traveling the same roads as the vacationers and truckers. Most of whom will barely even stop to fill up their gas tank.
So, whats wrong with tolls? With technology like EZpass or SmartTag (I don’t know what you call it on your state) congestion is not as much of a problem as it used to be with tolls.
Theres also an idea (used in Sweden) called a congestion tax, which is interesting.
As for “having to pay twice” people are taxed twice all the time! I don’t own a car, I take the bus to work. My local taxes pay for some of the bus, and then I pay again when I use the bus. How are tolls any different from this?
Auguste, I know you were kidding, but there’s another reason why we can’t take care of the Fremont Bridge by assessing the local home-owners. Were you there when it was built? I was. As I recall, the first thing done to get ready to build it was to tear down the neighborhoods at both ends, wipe them out. Totally. So, sorry no one’s left to pay those “assessments.” (Funny, I thought those *were* called “taxes.” At least that’s usually what they are called when rural road districts vote on them.)
Virginia Gentleman - Yeah, the difference is that libertarians want the gov’t to protect them while they exploit people. Anarchists have a tendency to be nut jobs, but at least they don’t want to install a system where the primary consideration is that they’ll end up with the cool side of the pillow.
Virginia Gentleman - Yeah, the difference is that libertarians want the gov’t to protect them while they exploit people.
No no, my friend! What you just described is a Bush Republican.
Ooh, you obviously don’t live in New York. That’s the first thing anyone says whenever there’s any kind of unusual event here. When that steam pipe blew a couple weeks ago? No evidence of terrorism. Disgruntled MRA blows up his house rather than let it be sold to pay his divorce settlement? No evidence of terrorism. Blackout? No evidence of terrorism. Retaining wall collapses in a construction site? No evidence of terrorism. Yahkee relief pitcher blows a turn over the East River and flies his plane into an apartment building on the Upper East Side? No evidence of terrorism.
But as for infrastructure: levees, steam pipes and bridges, oh my! All aging, all weakened by deferred maintenance. Sense a pattern?
Um, pretty much all the states on the East Coast?
Virginia Gentleman - I believe that the emergent properties of an unregulated market make it one of the most exploitative systems possible. If you don’t think libertarianism envisions the government’s almost sole role as defending property then you should reexamine your politics.
Bushies are a whole different story, but forget them, no one here is going to defend them and it’s a waste of time to attack them.
Daneil-
Yes, that is one of the purposes of government. The others are the protection from fraud and violence, the protection of individual rights and freedoms, and the defense of national territory.
The title of this thread reminds me of this little piece.
Virginia Gentleman - Yuk yuk. My point is, yeah, you’d like a libertarian system of gov’t, and I accuse that system of being exploitative, and you respond that yeah, the government is supposed to enforce exploitation. You people live in some kind of dreamworld, buddy, if you think that the very ill, the very young, the very old, and the insane can all just take care of themselves. And if you know they can’t but don’t care that that’s an outcome of your system then you’re an asshole. Sometimes spelled “l-i-b-e-r-t-a-r-i-a-n”.
Clearly your system isn’t a meritocracy, because people born with wealth are going to be able to support themselves with virtually no labor. Concentration of wealth will occur as well, as it does in our system. Why is that justified? Why is that a good outcome of government, that some people end up owning all the shit and the vast majority of people are renting from the wealthiest 1%, or in the cold? What’s the benefit to society?
Really? That’s just so out of my scope of reference having almost exclusively lived and traveled in west of the Mississippi. You have highways and surface streets. Surface streets usually dead-end and can’t be used to get around. Interstates are main thoroughfares, not only between cities, but in cities (OKC, for instance, uses I-40, I-44 and I-35 as main traffic roads). There’s no way that in Oklahoma you could get many places without using the roads that out of state residents will use to travel through the state.
Colorado and Montana were the same. And we won’t even discuss traveling through Texas.
Virginia Gentleman - most of the major roads in Oklahoma are toll roads at some point. Residents can get a minor discount by using pikepass, but it’s extremely small and doesn’t make up for the fact that you really do have to take that road (for instance, to get from McAlester, Oklahoma to either Tulsa or Oklahoma City, you have to take the Indian Nation turnpike - unless you want to take a very poorly maintained road that adds way too many extra miles to be good for the environment).
My point is, yeah, you’d like a libertarian system of gov’t, and I accuse that system of being exploitative, and you respond that yeah, the government is supposed to enforce exploitation.
Ok, you think enforcing property rights, protecting individuals from violence and fraud, and protecting the country from invasion is “exploitation”. Funding basic infrastructure, too, is a legitimate function. Please explain how that equals “exploitation”.
Please define exactly what you mean by that term.
Clearly your system isn’t a meritocracy, because people born with wealth are going to be able to support themselves with virtually no labor.
You can go from wealthy to bankrupt in a generation, easily, if you squander your wealth. Being able to keep that wealth is just as much a skill as making it in the first place.
#
Virginia Gentleman - most of the major roads in Oklahoma are toll roads at some point. Residents can get a minor discount by using pikepass, but it’s extremely small and doesn’t make up for the fact that you really do have to take that road (for instance, to get from McAlester, Oklahoma to either Tulsa or Oklahoma City, you have to take the Indian Nation turnpike - unless you want to take a very poorly maintained road that adds way too many extra miles to be good for the environment).
And I have to absolutely pay $2 for a bus ticket unless I want to walk to work. Again, whats the difference?
VG - Your last statement is so batshit insane. Arguing with the bonkers is something I don’t have time for until later today. Seek treatment in the meantime.
VG - Your last statement is so batshit insane. Arguing with the bonkers is something I don’t have time for until later today. Seek treatment in the meantime.
Gee, thanks for engaging in a meaningful debate.
Here in New Hampshire a bruhaha has been stirring over a stretch of toll road that is used as the major throroughfare across the southern portion of the state. There are small communities that it cut through that left neighborhoods on the sides that either must exit and enter the road (and pay the toll repeatedly) or wind around circuitous older routes to get from back and forth to work or everyday or even to the next town.
Latt: Here Here, what about the nutjob in Plainfield? Holed up in his million dollar plus house with a felony tax evasion conviction, he certainly seemed to have no problem wracking up the tax bill for everyone in order to get his ‘message’ out.
I think any of the states of the union should be off limits to libertarians. You have the money to pay taxes but won’t? Then make your own paradise, I think they should lobby the Russians to sell them a portion of Siberia.
As for those who tout the wonders of free capitalism, I think they should begin to lobby to take over cities like East St. Louis that already have an infrastructure in place, an anxious, impoverished population ready to go to work and a government that couldn’t give a damn what happens to anyone there. Perfect proving ground I think.
Roads and road travel are so dangerous. If they were invented now they’d never get a license to operate.
kate,
SNL had a sketch during the 1996 campaign where Steve Forbes tried to do almost exactly that, with pretty disastrous results.
For the road afficianados everywhere, there are many levels of roads.
There’re the private roads
There’re the city streets.
There’re the county roads - each state has its own identifiers
There’re the state highways - these are usually identified by a highway sign with a state symbol or logo different from that used by the county.
There’re the US highways (Route 1 and other odd numbered highways begin on the East coast and run north-south. Route 2 is in New England and other even numbered run east-west while routes 80 and 90 are deep in the south.
And then there are those highways that are considered part of the Eisnenhower Defense system otherwise known as Interstate Highways. I95 on the east Coast to I5 on the west with most of the highways ending in 5 running from the south border to the north border. Other odd numbered interstates run for shorter distances but north-south. The east-west interstates begin with I10 in the south up to I90 in the north.
If you notice, the Interstates reverse the numbering used by the US highways. There is also a pattern that I am not fully conversant with for using the three number interstates that are by-pass/beltway type deals.
Most all of the roads have at least some tax payer funding. That includes bridges. And there’re a lot of bridges. Some of the roads at all levels are toll roads. And sometimes, the tolls are used until the road is paid for and then the toll booths are torn down. It really happens! I’ve seen it!
Now there’s a compelling argument! I think I’ll let my drivers license and car insurance lapse, and the next time a cop pulls me over, I’ll whip out a copy of the Constitution and say, “Show me where licenses and insurance are required, mandated or even mentioned.”<pedant>Not that it makes the original statement any less stupid, but Medicare and Social Security are welfare programs, which totalled are more than military spending.</pedant>
That’s when the first digit is even. If it’s odd, it’s a spur that goes into a city.Exactly! Why should they get to feed off over 200 years of infrastructure that’s already in place? If Libertarianism is really the superior way to go, they should be able to build from scratch in a rural area instead of leeching off of things that other people’s tax dollars paid for, right?
Ahem.
I live in NW Ohio. A few years back some water pipes beneath a major street broke, soaking the area and seriously damaging the road. Many people’s first reaction was to wonder if terrorist did it. WTF?
As it turns out the water lines were very old and not maintained and had just…crumbled. But God Forbid we raise taxes to actually take care our infrastructure.
splinterbrain:
Interesting point, and I’m sure that there is somebody out there who would make it in all earnestness. But isn’t it equally arguable that “welfare” programs are merely human infrastructure maintenance? Further, what makes technical infrastructure (if done by the states, mind) okay with some libertarians? It seems to confirm what many people have said here: that economic libertarianism* is a fundamentally anti-human system: having a government which ensures that people have access to medical care so that they and their families don’t have unpleasant early deaths is seen by ELs as a prima facie philosophical wrong .
* - I think that we all should start specifying EL, don’t you, other Pandagonians? Fact is, almost everybody on this site is a social libertarian and civil libertarian. It’s the Ayn Rand “starve in the gutter because the alternatives are WRONG!” whackadoodles that we have a problem with.
But God does forbid it. Haven’t you been listening to the evangelicals?I just really miss Minneapolis right now. As I posted below, the Star-Tribune’s Nick Coleman absolutely nailed the political issues surrounding the bridge collapse there:
Bridges shouldn’t just fall down. Cities shouldn’t just disappear. People who think the government is incapable of working well or doing anything valuable should not be given control of it.
My city is hurting today, and so am I. I wish I were there.
I’m a libertarian, not an anarchist! I hope that you know the difference!
Well, let’s see: libertarians want to dismantle the government and have everything run by corporations; anarchists want to dismantle the government and have everything run by collectives.
Sorry, still not seeing the huge philosophical difference here. Two sides of the same coin.
Not that it makes the original statement any less stupid, but Medicare and Social Security are welfare programs, which totalled are more than military spending.
Oh, for fuck’s sake.
Take a look at your paystub next time. You see those two entries for “SDI” and “Medicare”? Those aren’t taxes — those are insurance premiums. With Social Security and Medicare, everyone pays in so everyone can be covered in turn. You know, just like heath insurance or fire insurance or any other goddamned kind of insurance — you spread the risk so the largest number of people who need it can be covered, and when you need it, you’re covered.
It’s not a fucking “welfare program” if you paid for your own fucking coverage.
It’s not a fucking “welfare program” if you paid for your own fucking coverage.
Oh come on, Payroll taxes don’t go into any kind of “insurance fund” they are used for anything the government damn well pleases.
And social security most likely won’t be there for the under-35 crowd because of that fact.
Its not an insurance program, its the young subsidizing the old. Just be honest about that, at least.
I don’t see the purpose of baiting libertarians; they are annoying enough as it is.
Oh come on, Payroll taxes don’t go into any kind of “insurance fund” they are used for anything the government damn well pleases.
They go into the Social Security Trust Funds, which are comprised of the Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund. They will not need more than the most minor tweaks to make them solvent for the next 75 years.
The problem isn’t that there are no Social Security funds coming in — the problem is that Congress has let the executive branch borrow against them for things like the Iraq War, so the deficit is being paid for by Social Security. Worried about your future Social Security payments? Tell the president to stop spending $1 billion a month on idiocy.
Oh, and remember that whole “Social Security lock box” thing that Al Gore was going on about? He would have asked Congress to enact legislation to prevent the executive branch from raiding Social Security to pay for other stuff. But Bush got into office instead and started spending that money like a drunken sailor on a spree as soon as he got his hands on it. Thanks a lot, Supreme fucking Court.
Its not an insurance program, its the young subsidizing the old. Just be honest about that, at least.
What on earth do you think insurance is?
Your health insurance subsidizes sick people in the same plan.
Your auto insurance subsidizes people who have car accidents.
Your fire insurance subsidizes people whose houses burn down.
Maybe you should take some basic business courses so you know what this stuff is, because it’s kind of embarrassing to see you spouting the Cato line without actually, y’know, understanding what you’re saying.
Zuzu, I’m not aware of any road on the east coast that are used only, or even primarily, by out-of-state drivers. I’ve lived in Massachusetts for the last 9 years, and in New York for 6 years before that. I visit relatives in Virginia and Connecticut. Are you talking about something that happens in the southern part of the east coast, or are you making a joke and I’m just not getting it?
Virginia Gentleman - You don’t seem to have any sort of intellectual resourcefulness. Have you thought through how someone born with loads of cash is going to have an easier time of it in life, whether or not they spend it wisely? Have you thought through how the children of the rich, by aggregate, have significantly more privileges than do children of the poor? Can you imagine those differences? If you can, why is that a good thing? How are they deserving of different privilege by dint of their birth?
And the idea that it’s a talent to remain wealthy is still nuts. With wealth comes both credit and investment. That it’s equally hard to generate wealth without those things as it is to maintain wealth with them is bonkers.
For all the slamming of libertarians, does anyone here realize that this disaster occurred in one of the most liberal states in the union, with one of the highest tax rates, and some of the highest investments in public infrastructure?
Get back to me when a bridge collapses in New Hampshire or Wyoming.
Minnesota has been under political gridlock for years and hasn’t been able to raise any extra $$$ for infrastructure maintenance during all that time.
So, no, Minnesota should not be considered as a state with “some of the highest investments in public infrastructure.” Maybe it did, but not now.
With insurance you pay premiums and you end up getting less money out of the system than you put in, on average. If you are healthy or lucky then your money funds someone less healthy or lucky, but the whole system is sustainable because premiums can be adjusted on the fly to maintain cash-positive flow.
In the SS scheme that isn’t always the case. It is only sustainable if the populations of young and old stay within certain limits.
In an insurance scheme the average person pays for themself (and then some), that’s really the whole point. SS isn’t set up in that way, there is nothing that dictates that you can’t get more money out of they system than you put in. (On average)
And in fact, the first recipients of SS got far more out of the system than they put into it.
SS is really not similar to insurance at all. How many insurance schemes can you think of where you pay premiums and get no coverage, then start getting coverage at the same time you stop paying premiums? The math and mechanism is totally different.
You can go from wealthy to bankrupt in a generation, easily, if you squander your wealth. Being able to keep that wealth is just as much a skill as making it in the first place.
Virginia Gentleman, you really are a gentleman, aren’t you? No one who’s ever done an honest day’s work would believe so heartily in the merits of trust fund babies.
zuzu: buh? i have to echo claudia here, cos in my twenty-odd years of east-coast living, i never experienced such a thing. (au contraire! for a while, i had the pleasure of taking I-95 to work every. damned. day. bonus: they were repaving it at the time! in the middle of the summer travel season!)
wake-up call, do you realise that both new hampshire and wyoming get federal transportation funding? to do roadwork? ’s true. even so, the traffic commissioner of new hampshire has already announced that taxes must go up if the state ever wants to get around to fixing the nearly 600 bridges in the state that need repairing. and those are just the ones in ‘deficient’ status — same status as the MN bridge.
FHWA maintains standards that states must adhere to but the states themselves develop plans on how to run their DOT’s and how to make sure that all designs and construction adhere to FHWA standards. State DOT’s get money from both the state and federal governments. Bridge inspections and other infrastructure inspections are already done by the states.
The issue at hand is the aging infrastructure of the US and the need to repair it. Which is a serious issue as demonstrated by the tragedy in Minnesota the other day. All construction projects have a design life, usually 20-40 years. Additionally as we have become more technically adept design standards have changed. What was an acceptable design 30 years ago is not necessarily going to be acceptable today.
People seem to need drastic examples to call attention to a serious problem. But it’s sad that some people need a drastic examples in their back yard to start caring.
“The east-west interstates begin with I10 in the south up to I90 in the north.”
As a San Diegan I must point out that I-8 is many miles further south than I-10.
As for insurance…
Insurance is gambling. (Hear me out!)
With auto insurance, you are betting a company that you’ll get in an accident and need lots of money to fix things. The company is betting against that. The company gives you odds (makes you pay premiums) based on what it thinks the risks are.
Social Security is a bet that you’ll live a long time (thereby getting more money out than you paid in). The government is betting you’ll die earlier. But while the government is waiting for you to either die or start collecting, it’s investing the money. It’s investing it in aircraft carriers and interstate highways and other things that have no return, but it’s investing, just like any other insurance company.
Now, the arguement that ’social security won’t be able to pay out because government already spent the money’ is silly. You’re saying that the United States Government isn’t good for it’s debts, debts owed not to bond holders but to it’s own citizens. If you don’t trust the government to pay it’s debts, you better arrange to use something other than U.S. dollars to use as money, because each and every dollar is a IOU from the U.S. government. If the government would default on Social Security, what else would it default on? Savings bonds? Treasury bills? Dollar bills?
“The east-west interstates begin with I10 in the south up to I90 in the north.”
As a San Diegan I must point out that I-8 is many miles further south than I-10.
As for insurance…
Insurance is gambling. (Hear me out!)
With auto insurance, you are betting a company that you’ll get in an accident and need lots of money to fix things. The company is betting against that. The company gives you odds (makes you pay premiums) based on what it thinks the risks are.
Social Security is a bet that you’ll live a long time (thereby getting more money out than you paid in). The government is betting you’ll die earlier. But while the government is waiting for you to either die or start collecting, it’s investing the money. It’s investing it in aircraft carriers and interstate highways and other things that have no return, but it’s investing, just like any other insurance company.
Now, the arguement that ’social security won’t be able to pay out because government already spent the money’ is silly. You’re saying that the United States Government isn’t good for it’s debts, debts owed not to bond holders but to it’s own citizens. If you don’t trust the government to pay it’s debts, you better arrange to use something other than U.S. dollars to use as money, because each and every dollar is a IOU from the U.S. government. If the government would default on Social Security, what else would it default on? Savings bonds? Treasury bills? Dollar bills?
it’s sad that the immediate call seems to be “let’s fix this bridge! RIGHT NOW!” rather then “hey, you know, we sure do have a lot of bridges…”
I’m having another episode of culture shock. Please bear with me, I’ll probably get over it soon.
For the sake of explaining it, I’ll lay out the Australian system, so you all see where I’m coming from. At the top of the tree, we have the Federal government (aka the Commonwealth). They’re the ones who have the power to levy and enforce income taxes. Which they do, and they have the Australian Taxation Office to administer and enforce all of this. They gather all the money together, and distribute a lot of it to the states and territories.
The state governments are our middle level of government. Each state or territory has a department or three which are dedicated to managing the infrastructure in that particular state. Their job is to monitor the status of the infrastructure, and to make short, medium and long-term plans for maintaining, updating and/or replacing it. Here in Western Australia, we have the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. It’s their job to provide the overall direction for development, and to ensure that adequate easement is left available to permit further development. They also gather state taxes, like payroll tax and stamp duty.
At the lowest level of government, we have the local councils. The various town, shire or city councils get to maintain the most basic stuff - mostly footpaths and pavements, as well as kerbing, parking arrangements, etc. It’s their job to make the decisions about what needs to go where, and what provision needs to be made for future expansion, and current demand. They’re the ones who get to explain to various homeowners that no, the fifty foot statue of Ben Cousins in the back yard might *not* be the best idea, if only because five out of ten of your neighbours are Dockers fans; or that slapping on another storey to your house isn’t allowed because it means the neighbours don’t get privacy. The councils gather rates to fund what needs doing.
So, let’s take the street outside my house as an example. It’s a pretty busy road, connecting with a highway at one end and one of the few points where it’s possible to cross a railway line. The decision making it one of the few points where the railway line could be crossed was made by the local council (according to my partner’s grandfather, it used to be possible to take a car across the railway at several points between this street and the next crossing south of it). The council is responsible for providing the Norfolk Island pine which is attempting to grow in the verge, and they’re responsible for the footpath which goes past the front of our house as well.
If that Norfolk Island pine does decide to grow properly, it will eventually cause cracks in the paving. If it cracks the footpath, that’s the council’s problem. If it cracks the asphalt and causes a pothole, it’s another problem for the council, and they’ll send a bloke around with a bucket full of asphalt to provide a temporary fix. If there’s a lot of potholes, and it’s decided the whole street needs resurfacing, that’s a problem for Main Roads, and they’ll send some nice people out to rip up the existing bitumen and put down some new stuff (and the house will smell of tar for about a fortnight). If the bridge over the railway starts to get shaky, Main Roads are the people who will be fixing it up. At present, there’s a bit of a query over the railway bridge, because one of the roads which runs alongside the railway is supposed to be turned into an extension of a major highway (and has been an extension of this highway for years, by default). So the council isn’t doing much about it until Main Roads make up their mind about what’s going to happen with this highway extension.
Now, the current highway which our street connects to (up the hill on the other side of the railway) is a problem for the Federal government. That means that if large stretches of it need resurfacing, or if it’s decided the whole thing needs to go from its current four lanes to six, the Federal government are the ones who will be supplying the money.
Of course, it doesn’t matter where the money comes from, it’s going to be spent on something which benefits a lot of people. The road outside my front door enables my partner to get to and from work. It lets people get to the pub at the beach end of the street (which generates revenue for all levels of government). It lets people get to and from work, to and from the shops, and effectively facilitates a lot of transport. The more people move about using that road, the greater the utility of it, and the better things are all round.
So, this is the system I’m used to. This is the system I’ve grown up with. This is what I think of when I think of infrastructure funding. And this is why I look at the whole business of a collapsing road bridge in the US and think “what the heck happened?”
Well, if there was some way that only libertarians could be the ones who fly off bridges that aren’t being dutifully repaired. They’d rather drown to death than spend a dime on infrastructure, but I don’t see why the rest of us have to live by those rules.
Great thread.
Government bridge falls down.
What do? Make fun of Libertarians.
Liberal logic - Ho Ho Ho.
I am disappointed though. I thought for sure
this was Bush’s fault. Or is that tomorrow’s
story?
This thread got me to thinking last night.
In all those dystopian films of the late 20th century, usually what causes the US to become a non-functional barren wasteland is some kind of big scary disaster. A nuclear war. War with Teh Comuhniss. A huge natural disaster the likes of which the world has never seen. Nuclear war with Teh Comuhniss.
Funny, turns out it doesn’t take anything nearly that big and obvious to break down civilization. All you really need is Karl Rove, some really unethical Supreme Court justices, and a massively depoliticized American public…
Zuzu, I’m not aware of any road on the east coast that are used only, or even primarily, by out-of-state drivers.
Maybe I misunderstood the question, because I wasn’t thinking that it meant roads used only by out of state drivers. More like roads heavily used by out-of-staters.
I agree with you Libertarian. I’m pretty sure that it is Bush’s fault. He offered to pay to replace it and that is a sure sign of accepting responsibility. If I read it right it is part of I 35 and therefore part of the Interstate network which is a part of the defense of the nation and a homeland security issue. That would make it a federal bridge and so an Administration problem. I think it is damn big of him to offer to repair his own damn bridge that he let fall down and smoosh people. Not let us see him fix all the other bridges that are his responsibility and lean on the Governors to fix theirs. Lead by example Big Guy, lead by example.
Government bridge falls down.
What do? Make fun of Libertarians.
Well, they could prevent the mockery by not ignoring certain deadly realities. No telling who’s to blame for this, but if it turns out the bridge wasn’t getting inspected and repaired as it should due to budget restraints, it’s time for libertarians to start owning up to the damage their silly philosophies do to this country.
Um, it IS Bush’s fault and not Clinton’s or Bush I’s.
Record highway funding levels were authorized by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998.
We know where the fault lies. We also know where the lies lie.
I didn’t mean to hijack this with my pedantry, so I’ll just point those with questions about how SS works to BruceMcF’s excellent diary on the subject here.
@6079
Recasting welfare as “human infrastructure” is a really intersting idea, actually. A progressive counter to the corporate recasting of “personnel” into “human resources“.
As to the broader issues of infrastructure, I shout a loud “what he/she said” to all those who’ve pointed out that not keeping your infrastructure in working order is monumentally stupid.
Well, here’s a deal, libertarians can use the bridges that AREN’T maintained.
We’ll use the bridges then that are actually funded by taxes and the government. How about that for efficiency of funds useage?
I mean, we wouldn’t want to stop them from living their politics, would we?
I drive on I-40 everyday to work. The only other route is Highway 70 and it is a little two lane job and would take me about 1.5 hours to get to work. I live in a rural area so fuck everyone who says “oh, just take a bus” - virginia gentleman. We don’t even have taxi cabs in my county, much less public transportation of any kind - unless you count the senior citizens center bus that ferries them to doctor’s appointments.
I use the interstate system pretty much every day, going to work, going to see my parents 2 hours away across the state line, going to The City to buy clothes or other necessities. What would you have all us poor rural folks do L(l)ibertarians? We sure as hell cannot afford upkeep on our county road system, much less the roads connecting the cities out here. Most of the county-maintained bridges are deemed unsafe at this time and several have either collapsed or been destroyed by flood waters in the last year. Even if we paid no federal taxes, our RURAL (40,000 people) county could not afford that and all the other federally subsidized services we all use.
my favorite libertarian story is about a friend of my husband’s (who I have spoken of here before). Before they were married, his then girlfriend got pregnant. Instead of marrying her and putting her on his company insurance, they chose to let the government pay for the baby. She worked, but in childcare makes so little money that she qualified for full government assistance. Well, the baby came very early and had to be airlifted to an area hospital. She had a C-section and both she and baby were in hospital for quite some time. Did they pay for any of this? No. Could they have if he had put her on his insurance? Yes- and as they are not rolling in dough, it probably would have bankrupted them. ( the baby was fine and is in elementary school now). So anyway, one day someone was in an argument about taxes and government services with him and brought up the whole thing about the airlift bill for the baby. His response was he “hated that the government had paid for it.” WTF?
No, I think it would be better for all bridges to have a Libertarian Toll, for people who demand to Pay Their Share.
For that matter, I think Libertarians should be able to opt out of income/property-based taxes and set up a pay-as-you-go scheme, where instead of just paying out a lump sum every so often, their share of the upkeep of public infrastructure is prorated by use. Every time they leave their driveway, for instance, their checking account is deducted $20. Every time they log onto the internet, they’re deducted $5. They should also only be allowed to hire people who’ve had a completely private education, or pay a $10,000 premium for the privelege of hiring a publicly educated worker.
Oh, and I wanted to mention something about infrastructure.
Maintaining roads is not an efficient use of public transportation funds. You want something that gives a max return for investment? Then shove money into public transportation. Gives you the max number of people served for the amount of money put in.
Here in Chicago the RTA (regional transport authority, covers the city trans - buses and the subway, as well as the suburban light rail and buses) is drowning in lack of funds.
They been short-changed for YEARS. And now all that lack of funding is having consequences. On one line the age of the track and the deteriorating quality of track means that in some sections the train can only move at around 5 mph (that’s approx walking speed). If the trains go any faster they run the risk of having the ties tear up and a major disaster on their hands.
And the thing is, its been like this for AGES. They’ve finally started doing something about it, but thanks to the lack of funding, it’s going to take them nearly a year and a half to complete it.
Then there is the construction of new stations and track on the north side, which is around a century old. When you are dealing with elevated track (which is effectively one long bridge) something THAT old concerns you. There are still tons of stations when once you walk up and stand waiting, when a train goes by, the whole structure literally sways. Not shakes; sways.
This morning my train was delayed for 20 mins, while “technical problems” were solved on it. I honestly imagined them using duct-tape to jury-rig a solution, because, you know, actually repairing the train by replacing the parts, isn’t something they can actually do now.
Yes, I know, this country isn’t laid out in such a way that public transportation can easily serve all of it. However, if you guys continue to seek short-term solutions (”Lets build another road bridge! That’ll solve the problem!” … yeah, for like, a decade maybe, before congestion eats away at that one too), and not look to major changes and long-term solutions, the fantasy that all this needs is more funding will just lead you down this path continually.
Oh, and being that I am a kiwi, I’m with Meg Thornton above with the cultural-shock thing of how the US handles funding issues, and that’s even after nearly 6 years of living here.
The problem isn’t that there are no Social Security funds coming in — the problem is that Congress has let the executive branch borrow against them for things like the Iraq War, so the deficit is being paid for by Social Security. Worried about your future Social Security payments? Tell the president to stop spending $1 billion a month on idiocy.
The fact they are using what is supposed to be my social security taxes to fund a worthless, unjust war is a great argument against trusting the feds with your retirement money.
If a corporation did this it would be considered fraud.
#
the opoponax-
Instead how about we have a “tax me more” fund for liberals who just really would love to pay higher taxes? You could make the first contribution!
Actually Virginia Gentleman, we’ve already had this discussion at this blog, and the majority of people here wouldn’t mind paying more in taxes if we get things like universal health care, better public transportation, cheaper state education, paid parental leave, paid child care, etc, etc, etc. You know, what the rest of the civilised world takes for granted?
Funny that, eh? A bunch of people that are actually willing to live according to their politics … novel, isn’t it?
Yes, Sarah, lets raise our taxes to western European levels. Then we, too, can have a 15% unemployment rate and a stagnating economy.
Oh, and the people who have the hardest time finding jobs in places like France are the young, minorities, and women. Just thought you’d like to know.
Oh, I know VG, given that I, lol, have grown up in both the british commonwealth and continental europe, I’m actually quite aware. Though it’s nice to see you trotting out the usual stock libertarian mistruths and misdirections about social democratic countries.
And stagnating economies? There’s only one stagnating economy here, and that’s the one we seem to be mired in the middle of? You checked out your currency’s performance lately? You’re getting caned by the euro, the pound, and even my little New Zealand dollar back home.
And the thing is, when you’re unemployed in these countries, its not a poverty sentence, it’s not a death sentence thanks to lack of access to health care, it’s not a poverty-cycle, where you can’t then have your children access higher education.
I’m only here to get an education, then I am SO quickly going back to countries where I don’t feel like I am teetering on a knife edge constantly. Course, I also worry tons about my friends that I leave here.
Britain ditched the Keynesian-welfare state model in the 1980s, and Australia and New Zealand always resembled the American economy more than continental Europe.
And the thing is, when you’re unemployed in these countries, its not a poverty sentence, it’s not a death sentence thanks to lack of access to health care, it’s not a poverty-cycle, where you can’t then have your children access higher education.
I’ve been unemployed before, I’m still around. You make it sound as though the minute you are unemployed you are stuck in a life of poverty forever and ever.
Well, I’ll bite I guess. Engaging in argument about purely ideological claims without reference to empirical evidence can be fun and sort of enlightening, insofar as it sheds light on the ideological system as an abstract entity. It is only on this basis that your “last statement” has any merit at all.
But today I have very little time to do that and I think it is safe to say, VG, that the vast majority of Americans at least, having been raised in the ideology you cite as obvious fact, are very familiar with the arguments, their extrapolated consequences, and the supposedly moral imperatives they imply.
Without indulging in aspersions or anything like that, I would like to point out that the empirical evidence is dead against the ideological prediction that the inheritors of wealth will in fact generally fall from their status as is a clear possibility. There aren’t any absolute guarantees that the heirs of this or previous generations’ new fortunes will remain on top, or even keep above the middle or lower classes, but if you look at the actual outcomes, you can see they generally do.
If you’d put forth the suggestion that a robust free market would automatically and reliably restrict the “natural aristocracy of merit” to new and bold talent back in say 1787, you’d be making a bold prophecy. If you’d said it in say 1847, it would be less bold but have the apparent merit of seeming to be broadly borne out in the preceding few generations. If you had said it any time after say 1907, you would look at best quaintly out of touch with reality. The past century has done nothing to bolster your case, and calls into question your basic premises.
Uh, yeah. Except it isn’t “our system” (well, not mine anyway). It’s the system we’ve got and have had for something like 200+ years now. You know, the system we friggin’ conquered the world with?
(Sorry, is it uncivil to say “friggn’”?)
It’s up to you to explain in a sensible way how the actual system of capitalism as we know it differs from some alternate model you think would in fact function as a “meritocracy.” And if so, considering that such a system would be much more consonant with the ideological claims our system makes and would therefore be very popular if feasible, why we have nevertheless gone on the path we have (one which, need I remind you, resulted in effective world conquest). And as a bonus exercise, why those of us who are skeptical of the virtues of capitalism as an absoulte and final system of human values, should prefer your variation over something we think is probably more humane, effective, efficient, and logical than trying to tinker with a system that proclaims property ownership as an absolute and final criterion of human good.
Oh, yes, it would be helpful if your alternate frame made good sense of the actual historical events of the past couple centuries, and had an obvious applicability to human experience before then as well.
Well, good luck and have fun–hope to check back in about 17 plus hours after I knock off being exploited at work and go get exploited as a consumer/citizen to resume on-the-job exploitation next midnight.
If anyone is still around by then, I’ll try to explain a straighforward theory of exploitation.
Ta till then!
Bwahahahahahaha!!!
Okay, that’s it, you’re not worth engaging with. Go do some basic research, then maybe the big kids here will let you play in the sandbox. I’m not talking to someone that removed from reality. I have better things to do.
@ VG — we already have that.
It’s called New York City. Almost everything Sarah just mentioned (except for paid parental leave and daycare), plus amazing publicly funded museums, libraries, theaters, parks (more and more with free wifi access), outdoor festivals, beaches, etc.
The really amazing thing is that a lot of the above “icing on the cake” stuff like free summer concerts are actually collaborations between the city/state, nonprofits, and corporations. Sort of a hybrid of all the different ideas about where money for public projects should come from.
I’m going to see Blonde Redhead this weekend on the taxpayers’ dime. Does that scare you, Virginia Gentleman?
The fact they are using what is supposed to be my social security taxes to fund a worthless, unjust war is a great argument against trusting the feds with your retirement money.
Close — it’s a great argument against trusting Republicans with your retirement money. Under Clinton, the Social Security trust fund was perfectly fine. It was at record levels. Then Bush started writing checks against it to fund his little overseas adventures and, well, now we see the results.
Funny how every time the Republicans completely fuck things up, their supporters start whining about how we can’t trust the government. No, we can’t elect people who say that government is bad, because all they do is steal money from the taxpayers because, after all, government is bad, so who cares if they take money from it? The fact that the money that Ted Stevens and Duke Cunningham and Jack Abramoff are stealing is my money and your money somehow gets “accidentally” forgotten about.
If a corporation did this it would be considered fraud.
It sure as hell would. I can provide you with a long list of Republicans who are under indictment or have been prosecuted for fraud just in the past 5 years. (Oh, and one — one — Democrat. Let’s never forget that in the huge flock of corrupt Republicans, there’s a single Democrat under indictment, which means it’s a widespread problem in both parties.)
Why the hell anyone in this country would continue to support Republicans and their “libertarian” fellow travelers is beyond me. I guess letting over 20 people die in a bridge collapse is perfectly fine with them as long as they don’t have to pay an extra $10 a year in evil, evil taxes.
(Apologies if this double-posts)
Britain ditched the Keynesian-welfare state model in the 1980s, and Australia and New Zealand always resembled the American economy more than continental Europe.
Yes, New Zealand is just like us, which is why the United States also has social welfare programs that cover every citizen from the moment they’re born until the day they die.
Oh, no, wait, that’s only New Zealand. Which means that the United States isn’t like New Zealand at all, dumbass.
#
Mnemosyne–
I voted for the Democrats last time so I’m hardly a Republican “fellow traveler” but lets assume what you say is true–you can’t trust Republicans with your retirement money.
Chances are, over the next 50 years, Republicans will be in power during some of that period. Do you really want the government in charge of not only your retirement money (but also your healthcare!) when a party you absolutely loathe will be in power around half of the time?
I am very uncertain about what people are saying here about Social Security and the use of the money in the SS system for other things. As I understand it, we have a surplus of SS funds, and the surplus is projected to continue to increase into 2012. My understanding is that the surplus is what is being borrowed, and that the surplus can’t be “banked”, because it would take money out of circulation and the federal government doesn’t have savings accounts anyway. So it is used.
Now, the surplus will begin to shrink after 2012. That is, there will still be an excess of funds, but it will be smaller every year beginning at that time. The projection I saw is that the surplus will be gone and that SS will begin to operate at a deficit in 2042 without some MINOR adjustments to the way the system works.
Anyway, that’s how I hear this thing works and so statements like:
“The fact they are using what is supposed to be my social security taxes to fund a worthless, unjust war is a great argument against trusting the feds with your retirement money.”
don’t really address the point about the collection of those funds. It’s close, but not quite on the spot.
If government were not so corrupt, I would have no problem with trusting them with my money. However, government currently operates in a fashion that is the opposite of what are sometimes regarded as libertarian principles. That is the essential problem with the current government and with supporting the anti-tax conservatives. The basic premise of libertarianism is that competition in a free market economy produces better goods and services and lowers the cost of operation. However, the government is currently anti-free market and works to pass laws that protect the few, the ones who pay the individual candidates the most, against competition. This is true without regard to which party we discuss. They protect specific corporations against competition, so the libertarian ideal cannot be observed anyway. Taxes are a distraction from libertarianism and beside the point. If you really want to be a libertarian, take Grover Norquist somewhere up in the hills near Farmville and bury him in a nice, deep hole, because he’s got the whole libertarian argument fucked up practically beyond recognition.
What we need is a regulatory government, believe it or not, to protect competition if we are to have libertarian principles engendered in government. And then you will maybe see a value in privatization. As long as cronyism and payoffs are the norm, and as long as government is protecting the Halliburtons and the SAICs and so on, you will get the corruption and the overruns and so on. And folks, the Democrats don’t do business any differently from the Republicans. They all drink from the same trough. But please, don’t give me this “my taxes, my taxes, I am crying about my taxes” bullshit, because that’s not real libertarianism. Libertarians who actually know what they are talking about recognize that there is a need for government regulation and that there are legitimate functions in which governments engage and that go beyond just funding the military (i.e., paying off the defense contractors). Unfortunately, regulatory agencies are used to prevent true competition.
my head just exploded…
On these libertarian v. liberal threads, one thing always gets me…
The liberterians ALWAYS ALWAYS mention the supposed high unemployment rates and “stagnating” economy of the European countries. And it always makes me go: “So?”
Hear me out on this one: I am living in the “richest” country in the world. But what the fuck does that mean to me? Because I share the same citizenship of Bill Gates does not make these Ramen noodles taste any better. Wheras these “stagnating” economies don’t have the super wealthy to be sure, but most people there are living way more comfortably than I am. And as far as sustainable goes, they seem to be doing pretty good, what with the longer lifespans and better health and lower rates of poverty and all.
Oh, and before we get on the “blame” thing: sometimes, accidents do just happen. Somebody made a mistake: a construction worker cut a beam at midnight the night before and it was the wrong one. The beams eroded faster than expected because of envirnmental shifts. More people than planned took the bridge. We should look into the cause and adjust accordingly, and it is tragic that this happened, but I wouldn’t be calling for anyone’s head on a pike right now (and I can pretty much guarentee that anyone who worked on that bridge is going through their own moments of guilt and wondering right now).
DOT is not required, mandated or even mentioned in the Constitution.
Let’s take a quick look at Art. I, Sec. 8, shall we?
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . .
To establish Post Offices and post Roads
The federal government has been building roads since the days of the founders:
http://www.nps.gov/archive/fone/natlroad.htm
And of course, the Constitution doesn’t explicitly mention DOT, but then, it doesn’t explictly mention the State Department, either. Art. II, Sec. 2 refers repeatedly to “executive departments,” and that, together with Congress’ general “necessary and proper” powers, has been understood since the Washington adminstration as giving Congress the power to establish executive departments.
This has been the latest edition of Remedial Constitutional Law for Libertarians
In the same city, they were about to break ground on a $1.1 billion dollar sports stadium that was 2/3 publicly funded. The government already had the money to fix these things, but they decided to waste it on corporate welfare instead.
DBK, I believe you’re wrong. The DLC drinks at the same trough as the republicans. We’re trying to wean the rest of the Democratic Party off of it, or at least dilute its grip.
With the Republicans, you’ll never see their base try to rid the party of corporate influence, because they like what the money flow gets them - TV time, favorable press, free hit pieces on your opponents in national news, swanky dinners…
Instead how about we have a “tax me more” fund for liberals who just really would love to pay higher taxes? You could make the first contribution!
Hey, I’m willing to pay for the services I want to receive from the government, unlike you. If you want to stop paying your fair share, that’s fine, but the following conditions will go along with it:
- You will have to stop using all public roads, or pay a surcharge (aka tax) to use them
- You will have to stop using publicly-subsidized (aka taxpayer funded) public transportation. Alternatively, we will allow you to pay what it would cost you without that taxpayer subsidy — shall we say $20 each way to cover the bus, the driver, gas, and wear-and-tear on the road that you haven’t paid for yet?
- You will need to disconnect yourself from the electrical grid and purchase your own electrical generator — what, you thought the electric companies paid for the grid themselves? Sorry, no, the taxpayers paid for that, so you’ll have to find another way so you’re not leeching off hard-working people who are willing to pay their fair share.
- Same with the water and sewer systems. If you can’t afford to pay out of pocket to dig your own well, too bad — otherwise, you’ll be stealing money out of the pockets of people who are willng to pay for water and sewage disposal.
- You’ll have to find someplace to dispose of your garbage — can’t be using the taxpayer-funded landfill or dump anymore.
- You can’t work anyplace that received tax breaks from the government, because those taxpayers are subsidizing your paycheck. Oh, and your company can’t be on the power, water, or sewage grids, either, since of course you won’t want any company you work for to be paying taxes, right? It would be pretty hypocritical for you to insist that they pay taxes when you refuse to.
- No more airline flights. Sorry, all of that stuff is subsidized and regulated by the federal government, paid for by taxpayer dollars.
- No more fire and police protection.
- No using public libraries.
- No shopping at any stores that received tax breaks from the government. Sorry, you don’t get to go to Wal-Mart anymore, or even Target.
After all, if you continue to use taxpayer-funded services without actually paying taxes yourself, that would make you a leech and a drain on everyone else. Either that, or a complete hypocrite who complains about taxes while reaping all of the benefits of taxation. Which is it?
Chances are, over the next 50 years, Republicans will be in power during some of that period. Do you really want the government in charge of not only your retirement money (but also your healthcare!) when a party you absolutely loathe will be in power around half of the time?
Oh, I’m sure you’re right. People have short memories, and within 15 years or so, the Bush administration and all its works will go down the memory hole and the new Bill O’Reillys and Rush Limbaughs will talk about what Great Statesmen George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were, the same way they talk about how great Nixon was while conveniently “forgetting” his crimes.
But, then, I have a trust fund. If the Republicans run Social Security into the ground the way they seem hellbent on doing, I’m covered. How are you going to do?
DBK:Well, except for privatization, which is seen by many as de-facto corruption, (Personally there are limited things that kind of work for privatization, as long as they work with the whole economy of scales thing. For example, outsourcing say, catering for government events instead of having an in-house catering service for a monthly meeting or something) many on the left have as their goal actually increasing the power of the free market through regulation and even nationalization.
The biggest and best example of this, is universal health care. Through removing the health care control from employment, it gives citizens much more lattitude to switch to better jobs, or even create their own, creating a much more vibrant and free labor market.
But, then, I have a trust fund. If the Republicans run Social Security into the ground the way they seem hellbent on doing, I’m covered. How are you going to do?
I’m covered just fine by my job (and I can roll-over my retirement if I’m fired or get a new one). However, those depending on nothing but social security won’t be so lucky.
Also that doesn’t change the fact the payroll taxes that were supposed to be for my retirement are instead being flushed down the toilet in Iraq.
Now give the record of the federal government in the last seven years, had HillaryCare passed in 1993 and George W. Bush was in charge of your healthcare, how do you think that would be doing right about now?
In the same city, they were about to break ground on a $1.1 billion dollar sports stadium that was 2/3 publicly funded. The government already had the money to fix these things, but they decided to waste it on corporate welfare instead.
Totally incoherent.
Are you talking about New York?
Are you talking about the stadium that was proposed for the west side of Manhattan a few years ago?
The reason that didn’t happen was because neighborhood residents didn’t want it, and because the plan as proposed to the city council wasn’t workable. For instance, Manhattan has SERIOUS traffic problems. Sticking a major sports stadium in the middle of the area with the absolute worst traffic in the city won’t help that.
Are you seriously a libertarian who thinks that local residents and city government shouldn’t have a say in major public works projects? Especially such projects which are, as you say, 2/3 publicly funded.
Sports stadiums are media meat and abused water mains and roads are not. Governments are as prone to crappy ideas as the people that they represent. I am sitting next to a road that was supposed to be turned into a highway by 1967. I suspect that it has remained the way it is (increasingly hazardous) because the various political big boys can use it each election to make a point. If they actually fixed the problem then the vote-getting malarkey goes with it and they have to find a new problem to talk about. To top it off the various levels of government want different types of roads and neither is the type of road that is needed to solve the increasing problems of a road that supports the truck traffic of a major port, the car traffic of suburban workers and the local traffic of the established community. Oh, they fix it when it breaks and they have put in some safety features as the death toll rose but the total reworking is on hold until the politicians actually start listening to the engineers and the locals.
Just to add on to what Memosyne said, if we have our way, (and to be honest, that’s not completly pie in the sky), things such as health care and basic infrastructure, etc. will become “3rd rail” issues, where if any party tries to sink them, even covertly, that party will basically be removed from any sort of power.
#
the opoponax-
I was speaking of Minneapolis. You know, where the bridge collapsed. Sorry I wasn’t more clear.
But no, I don’t think cities should be in the business of helping corporations build sports stadiums (on land usually acquired through eminent domain, hurting the poorest residents).
VG - For me the critical issue when it comes to reducing government involvement in the economy is corporations. They are a fully government-created entity that allows people to engage in commerce without exposure to the full risk of their activities. I’m pretty sympathetic to a lot of libertarian arguments, but if we are to reduce government fiddling with the economy we ought to start by requiring those who engage in business to bear the full responsibility for the consequences of their actions. As I write this a major corporation just went under, firing 7000 people and planning to file for bankruptcy. The shareholders (supposedly ‘owners’ under the distorted nomenclature of modern capitalism) will only lose their equity, and will bear no responsibility for the debts accrued in their name. That’s entirely due to government mandate.
Getting the government out of people’s business means:
No limited liability
No corporate personhood
No government bailouts
No intellectual property law
In other words, it means the total destruction of the modern corporate capitalist economy. Since that’s just not going to happen, the only reasonable alternative is to provide some means of mitigating the harm caused by relieving the powerful of the responsibility for the consequences of their actions - hence the modern welfare state. To have one without the other is immoral. For some reason most libertarians seem fine with market distortions in favor of the powerful and utterly hostile to those which protect the weak. I don’t know if you are one of these, but hopefully this explanation will help you see why there is so much hostility towards people who call themselves libertarians.
Minneapolis.
The stadium issue has been a politlcal nightmare for years. Pawlenty refuses to “raise taxes” on anything (although he loves “fees”), the voters of Minneapolis at some point said, “not with our money and land you don’t,” and there’s never been any legislative compromise because it’s pure “elite politics.” It’s only the moneyed interests who give a shit. I’m pretty sure most Minnesotans would be more likely to ask for better schools than another sports stadium (even though the Metrodome, though fully functional, is a wretched place to watch a ballgame)
No, the constitution does establish patents and copyrights, but (even though Congress and SCOTUS have basicallly eviscerated this part) only for a limited time.
For some reason most libertarians seem fine with market distortions in favor of the powerful and utterly hostile to those which protect the weak. I don’t know if you are one of these, but hopefully this explanation will help you see why there is so much hostility towards people who call themselves libertarians.
I agree with your points about corporations, I am strongly against corporate welfare and the increasingly close relationship between private companies and the government. When those two powerful entities get together, nothing good can come of it. In fact its the very definition of fascism.
I’m covered just fine by my job (and I can roll-over my retirement if I’m fired or get a new one).
Yeah, good luck with that. Under the system you want, your corporate overlords would be perfectly within their rights to dip into that just before giving you the sack.
#
Yeah, good luck with that. Under the system you want, your corporate overlords would be perfectly within their rights to dip into that just before giving you the sack.
I believe that would fall under the definition of fraud and/or theft.
MAJeff - the constitution also mandates a postal service, which has to go away in libertopia. The real minarchist libertarians want significant changes to the constitution.
I think intellectual property law as it stands is a huge mess, but some level of protection for IP is a good thing for everyone. The extension of copyrights that just took place at the behest of Disney, OTOH, is an abomination.
Methinks Virginia Gentleman could use a Holiday in Cambodia as a reward for his advocacy of the downtrodden.
Virginia Gentleman
I believe that would fall under the definition of fraud and/or theft.
WTF??
And the "fraud and/or theft" would be prosecuted how? You already stated that government is not to be trusted (implicitly stated, if not explicitly).
No, stogoe, that’s not the case. They do all drink from the same trough. That’s not a quote original to me, by the way, but to Robert Reich. I saw him say that one evening on, I think it was, The Daily Show. He’s a very bright man and he was absolutely correct. When you consider that the average member of the US House of Representatives has to raise $10,000 a week every week for his or her entire two year term in order to have another term, and that this money is not coming from $10 contributions within his or her district (which contains 650,000 citizens), you realize that somebody is paying off like a busted slot machine, but that somebody wants something in return. I understand they just defeated the measure to raise CAFE standards. You know who’s been staving off measures to raise CAFE standards for decades? The Michigan delegation to Congress, and I don’t mean the Michigan GOP delegation to Congress.
They all drink from the same trough. They all serve the same masters.
Europe? 15% unemployment? In what universe?
France’s unemployment rate: 8.7% (Dec.2006) - Percentage of population below poverty line: 6.2%
Sweden’s unemployment rate: 5.6% (2006) - Percentage of population below poverty line: NA
Norway’s unemployment rate: 3.9% (2006) - Percentage of population below poverty line: NA
Italy’s unemployment rate: 7% (2006) - Percentage of population below poverty line: NA
Spain’s unemployment rate: 8.1% (2006) - Percentage of population below poverty line: 19.8%
Belgium’s unemployment rate: 8.1% (2006) - Percentage of population below poverty line: 4%
Overall European Union unemployment rate: 8.5% (2006), and that includes the 10 countries who are less than two decades out of being Soviet-mandated economic basket cases (10.5 if you count E.Germany!) - - Percentage of population below poverty line: NA
And to keep me and Sarah-in-Chicago happy, respectively:
Canada’s unemployment rate: 6.4% (2006) - Percentage of population below poverty line: 15.9% [”note - this figure is the Low Income Cut-Off (LICO), a calculation that results in higher figures than found in many comparable economies; Canada does not have an official poverty line (2003)”]
New Zealand’s unemployment rate: a pissant 3.8% (2006) - Percentage of population below poverty line: NA
United States: unemployment rate: 4.8% (2006) - Percentage of population below poverty line: 12%
Data source? That most notorious of Marxist economics faculties: the CIA
So, basically, like a loooooooooooong train of economic libertarian apologists and fellow travellers here you are arguing from ideology, expectation and wishful thinking, not facts.
Good luck comparing poverty rates between various countries since each nation measures what constitutes poverty differently.
So European countries have about the same unemployment rate that African-Americans (the poorest group in this country) have? How impressive.
I note that you don’t bother to even acknowledge that you were talking out of your ass about unemployment rates.
You know what, Virginia Gentleman? You’re not really a libertarian, you’re an If Only, a category created by Dan Savage to cover an entirely different context. “I’d be okay with government if only it got rid of corporate welfare, I’d be okay with government if only it removed fraud and theft…” and so on endlessly.
Basically, economic libertarianism is better named Flexible Wishful Thinking For Simplistic Nutters. It’s a notional engagement of some idealistic fairyland where certain things happen in a perfect universe. It is no more viable or realistic than Heaven or doctrinaire Marxism. And, like religions and Marxism, huge, gaping holes blown into its structure by experience, empirical data or history or just written off as exceptions or interpreted as validating the point, or the point itself is moved around. Most of the economic libertarians who come here are just like you: they claim to believe in this economic Sugarcandy Mountain, but when called on the details they start trotting out the “except fors…”. Face it, boyo. You’re not a gentleman, you’re a priest.
I can also take them to the doctors without paying a fee. Imagine that.
But if you want even simple surgery, be prepared to wait for months on end since care has to be rationed.
six-
Like liberals don’t run around saying “the government would be perfect if only the Democrats were in charge!”
Actually, I think I quoted the particular libertarians I’m making fun of.As is so often true (thanks Ilyka!), if you’re not one of them (or in agreement), then it’s not about you.
One of the most easily identifiable characteristics of a weak character and a weak argument is that it is only strong enough to lift straw men. You will troll in vain for people here who argue that fictional perfection. Almost all of the posters here are cynical bastards of both (and intermediate) genders who have seen government acting in incompetent, indifferent and evil fashions and love to Call that. They do not argue for the perfection of the Democratic Party (a great number of the posters here loathe the Democrats), or for government itself. No, looking at some nonexistent nirvana where everything is perfect all the time is left to you economic libertarians and to scruffy Marxists who want to pretend that everybody after Trostky and 1905 doesn’t represent true communism.The people here argue that government is a viable, acceptable, useful tool for societal betterment. Not perfect, but better than the alternatives. And, for the most part, they also accept the notion that certain elements within the Democratic Party (eg: the non-bought, non-DLC branches) are better equipped in terms of good sense and practice to deal with it than their opponents. And, once in, they should be watched like hawks and prodded to ensure that they do what they promised to do. The notion that the people here are going to go strolling down their main streets throwing rose petals in the air once the Democrats are elected is utter crap, and shows the level of deceitful debate to which you have been gradually sinking as this debate goes on.
“But if you want even simple surgery, be prepared to wait for months on end since care has to be rationed.”
Funny, when my mom went in for ’simple surgery’ she had to waits for months on end since care provided by HMOs is rationed.
But when I went in for simple surgery, I was seen in a couple of weeks, since I use a socialistic system called “The Veterans Administration”.
One of the odder things about economic libertarians is, like their religious counterparts, they have a default setting. Gap in the fossil record? Scientific inability to explain a given thing or phenomenon at a given point in time? God wins by default! (And later, when that gap is filled in or that lack of an explanation provided due to further evidence understanding, they do not accept the corollary of their own argument and concede that God is now disproved.
ELs have the free market as their god. Any failure of government is taken as proof positive that government shouldn’t be doing X, Y or Z. Similar failures of the beloved market are merely indications that somebody didn’t get it right and the only thing that need be done is another dose of free market. Failures of the belief are merely proof that we need harsher implementation of the belief. Again, stand over in a corner with the communists and the godheads, baby. You belong there.
I am now in love with Ms. Kare re: 1:20 comment
I love this argument when the libertarians trot it out, because it really show they have no idea how a universal health care system actually, you know, works.
Yes, if you don’t need the surgery right away, you have to wait. If your need increases, then you get bumped up the line faster. But the thing is, you get the surgery. For free. Every hospital doesn’t need to have an MRI machine, because there is one available for everyone to use.
Hence, the speed of you getting the surgery is dependent on how much you need the surgery, not how much you can pay. The worth of a health system is not judged by those that fit most easily within the system, it’s measured by the service those that don’t fit get.
If anything, it’s the US health system that is the one that is rationed, because if the HMOs paid out everything they should, they’d stop being profitable. They HAVE to deny as many people coverage as possible, because their bottom-line ISN’T health-care provision, it’s profit.
The bottom-line for a non-profit driven universal health-care system is health-care provision.
This guy is digging himself a bigger and bigger hole. His own hole, mind you. Because, you know, he dug it all himself, and wants to keep digging, if only the government wouldn’t keep trying to take his ownership of that hole away. Or the spade.
“Now give the record of the federal government in the last seven years, had HillaryCare passed in 1993 and George W. Bush was in charge of your healthcare, how do you think that would be doing right about now? ”
See, I think that if Hillarycare had passed there wouldn’t have BEEN a Bush presidency, what with him being sooooooo popular that even after pulling every nasty trick in the book he still couldn’t pull out a clear enough majority to get “elected” without his buddies the Supremes, the loser. And we all know how unpopular social programs that benefit ABSOLUTLEY EVERYONE are. The votes of people with chronic, uninsureable illnesses alone would have given Gore the miniscule lead he needed.
6079 hon -
OT, but NZ’s economy right now is surging (though even at our worst we never relatively speaking get a very high unemployment rate internationally), and the government is having to do some serious juggling in order to get immigrants. People want to come, they’re just working hard to get as many as possible.
Sarah, you are wasting you time, my dearest fellow Commonwealther. ELs operate on a specific economic frame: any problem (real or alleged) with the How is taken as invalidating the What and the Why. However, that standard is never applied to the free market. Again, welcome to Faith, not reason.
While I’m not willing to go as far as Mustella (I’m not sure Americans are politicized enough to go Dem just because a program that benefits them was implemented by Dems), I don’t really see your point about HillaryCare, either.
If the Clinton health care plan had been implemented, and for the sake of argument, let’s say it was great and turned out to be a fantastic plan, it would still be legitimate as a governmental policy. In the same way that social security, public education, etc. are. Yes, Bush is trashing them within an inch of their lives (or really, really wants to). But the fact that this is going on doesn’t mean the people who originally devised them were wrong, or the programs are illegitimate and should be dismantled. It means Bush is a dickwad who is ruining our country’s social services and infrastructure.
Et voilá, Sarah, a demonstration of your intellectual honesty. A point which may undercut yours or mine but which is objectively sound and advanced to balance the debate. (I don’t think it does, mind, because it merely demonstrates that a socially active, high-tax state can still have surging growth, something those on the right deny with Calvinist passion.) It’s intellectual honesty of that kind that ELs can’t stomach. They reach for the “except for” out and then move onto the next rostrum.The funny thing is, ELs may at their core have a point: that the economy is so complex that clumsy statist interventions may cause more harm than good. But to take that valid point to the assumption that they always cause more harm than good is where they fall down. Cops sometimes screw up and shoot civilians and each other, for example, but in the USA no-one is advocating unarmed policemen, or the notion that police shouldn’t be there at all. Take out the police analogy and plug in “government activity in the economy” and you can see what nonsense EL really is.
6079 -
Yeah, I know hon … plus I’m not actually talking to him, as I gave that up quite a while up the thread. I’m more pulling out that sentence as an example of the shitty understanding of things outside of their frame of reference that EL’s show.
*blush* I just thought it was worth mentioning.
*nods* I don’t either, that’s why I mentioned that even at our worst we aren’t much more high than anything in the EU, or the US for that matter.
But more than that, it’s important to note that overseas the unemployment rate is less of a crucial indicator than it is here in the US. That is because one’s ability to function in US society is HIGHLY dependent on you having employment, whereas that’s not the case to the same degree in most other western nations. EVERYTHING here is predicated on employment.
I completely agree. Do government programs sometimes screw up? Of course! However, it is by far the best regulator of our society that we have, curbing the excesses and oppressions, and the ability of the system to heap privilege and power up in pockets of self-increasing accumulation.
Government is both the best and worst of us, because it, by definition, IS US.
rea, thankyouthankyou for posting about the General Welfare and road provisions of the Constitution. For such a short document, it’s amazing how many people bloviate about it without having read the thing!
VG, you clearly know nothing about pension fraud, so I urge you to learn a little about it before you go thinking that corporations are more trustworthy with retirement funds than the government. You may want to start by looking at an organization — founded and regulated by Congress — called the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. It is funded privately by the corporations who have committed fraud by either misusing funds deposited or underfunding plan contracts relating to the retirement savings of their workers.
When corporations misappropriate funds of or underfund a plan, such plan is taken over by the PBGC, which then manages the plan in line with the plan documents (which were originally drafted by the corporations, back before they reneged on their word about benefits to be paid). How often does this happen? Well, according to the PBGC’s website as of this morning, the PBGC manages OVER THIRTY THOUSAND pension plans.
So if the government hadn’t stepped in and tried to obtain a remedy for the pensioners, because their savings were being plundered by the corporations entrusted with such savings, pensioners in over 30,000 benefit plans would be SOL. Tell me again…between the government and the corporations, which is the safer place for retirement funds?
“But if you want even simple surgery, be prepared to wait for months on end since care has to be rationed.”
That’s been in the news so much lately and yet you got it wrong. Most of the countries with single-payer systems provide care more quickly than the US. Canada is one of the few, or maybe the only country that has a longer waiting period than the US.
What Amanda said the other say, while it’s something that I always say… Hey, if you’re in someone’s house credit the party planner, so to speak
Corporations are Government.
What this means, is that all those bad things that people attribute to government, the beauacracy, the red tape, the delays, the rationalizing, the “not-my-problem-ism”, all those things, are seen MORE in the private sector than they are the public sector.
It’s just that in the private sector they’re out of control.
In fact, one thing that really makes some progressives, like myself, really pissy, and it’s the reason why libertarians of all sorts get a really rude response, is the assumption that we don’t realize this. That we want the big bloated beauacratic government.
Not me at least. I want something small, nimble, and quick. For example, like a single-payer unversal health care system. Nothing in the private sector can even come close to competing when it comes to reducing red tape than the single payer system.
At least in Canada, do you know who makes decisions about “rationing”? Those in control of giving out the service. If you need say, a hip replacement. You go see a specialist. If you need it tomorrow, then you’ll probably get it tomorrow. But if the specialist decides that there’s 40 people who need it more than you, then you’ll have it after them.
There are exceptions to this of course, which I know from personal experience. Things that could be seen as cosmetic, need to keep a close eye over, of course. My wife’s reduction took about 2 months to approve, and was done in 3 months after that. It wasn’t life threatening, just life betterment surgery. (Ha! They took off 14 pounds. I tell my female friends that and they to a one disagree. They coudln’t even imagine it)
In any case, the red tape is kept to a minimum. And it’s very efficient all around. (Canada has other inefficiencies that raise the cost of health care. Not the least is sitting next door to the US. The US adopts UHC and Canada’s costs drop like a rock)
I believe that would fall under the definition of fraud and/or theft.
Oh, honey. There would be no courts in the Libertarian Paradise to enforce the laws against fraud and/or theft. Or, there might be privately-funded courts. And if the corporations paid for those courts, who do you think is going to win?
VG “But if you want even simple surgery, be prepared to wait for months on end since care has to be rationed. ”
I did actually. 2 whole months. Didn’t have to pay for it either. My life sucks so hard /snark/
Also, regarding that waiting period red herring, a great many insured middle class Americans find themselves waiting for non-emergency surgeries, anyway. Usually due to some combination of not being able to take time off work/threats of losing their job and inability to afford the surgery (especially when their HMO decides it’s “elective” and declines to cover it at all).
Not to mention hon, that if they DON’T have health insurance, then almost any surgery they have will nearly always be emergency surgery, because they will have put anything non-urgent off due to their inability to pay. And forget about accessing preventative health care.
So, instead of a surgery that is quicker and costs less for the system, people are forced into surgeries that take longer, use more resources, and cost more.
Wow this thread is fucking stupid. I feel dumber for having read and participated in it.
including american sociologists? Need a second choice if holland doesn’t work out so well.
Thanks to Rea for beating me to the punch on the constitutional aspects.
I again want to point out that HMOs are nowhere near as bad as “traditional companies”, and many provide better care because they can aggregate and track data for best practices medicine, just like Canada does. Furthermore, I’d like to see a breakdown of the percentage of HMOs that are for-profit (many states prohibit them being for profit corporations, including MA).
That said, I’d like to note yet another way in which successful regulations mitigated the death and mayhem toll in Minneapolis: seat belts, air bags, and crash-worthy vehicles.
Many of the injured were not wearing seatbelts. Many of the injured who were wearing seatbelts were not killed when they could have been. Airbags helped many people keep their faces out of the glass, seatbelt or no. Cars built to take a serious impact survived diving 65 feet - forces akin to a 35-40 mph crash.
People lived because their cars had many safety features that were mandated long enough ago to protect most of the vehicles on that bridge. Something to think about!
Yup Jeff, most definitely. I’d say go to your nearest consulate (I’m fairly sure there is a consulate in Boston … the embassy is of course in DC) and ask what the story is.
Getting highly educated people to immigrate is a high priority.
when i did have insurance, i had to wait four months for just a doctor’s appointment. besides, having to wait months for ’simple surgery’ is vastly preferable to never getting it at all, VG.
I’m not entirely convinced that this bridge issue was one that could be solved simply by throwing more funds at it…
After all, look at the wonderful Bay Bridge that we are constructing here in San Francisco, with 17 years of delay, >$6Billion in cost overruns, and NO END IN SIGHT.
Even when it is completed, it will be a disaster, as single-tower self-anchored suspension bridges do not hold up in seismic events.
The bottom line is we are throwing TONS of money at our bridge, with no benefit whatsoever.
How about throwing engineers and structural repair teams?
>Getting highly educated people to immigrate [to NZ] is a high priority.
How are they for lab techs and bike mechanics/music teachers? The more I think about living in a *sane* country, the more I don’t care that it’s halfway across the world.
How are they for lab techs and bike mechanics/music teachers? The more I think about living in a *sane* country, the more I don’t care that it’s halfway across the world.
Lab techs, hell yeah … now as to music teachers, I don’t know so much, but if you did some research and got yourself a job offer, well, then that’s a huge vote in your favour.
Again, go make an appointment with your local NZ consulate and talk about options … or hell, take a couple weeks off and go to NZ for a vacation, experience the country a little, and in Wellington you can talk to immigration there, as it’s the capital.
Yes, I am kinda interested in this “throwing money” theory of Grilltacular’s to solve a problem … does it require coins, or can the light toss of a bill work as well? Does the strength of the toss matter? Because I’ve got pretty strong arms … does denomination count? Because, you know, I could throw a twenty or MAYBE a fifty, but anything higher I just couldn’t do.
Maybe this might work for my dissertation … I’ll stand at the other end of my office and throw loose change at it now … hmmm, doesn’t appear to be working so much … still not …
And still not …
You know, I think Grilltacular might be fibbing just a touch over this actually working occasionally.
Well, we’d need an aeronautical engineer to figure out how to make the most aerodynamic and far-flying paper airplanes out of bills.
quoth Caroline:
ok, see, to me that’d be reason enough to avoid moving into that neighborhood, right there. just sayin’.
You don’t throw it at the dissertation, but the committe. A good dime in the eye or two and you can get them to agree to almost anything.
Actually, you know, I used to work with one of those (she got a NASA scholarship … and no, not for drinking … NASA: Need Another Seven Amstels), so we may have that covered.
Need Another Seven Amstels
works for me
Ooooo, there’s a good idea … plus throwing change at them would release a good deal of pent up frustration
make sure to get some Sacagawea dollars for your advisor
Yeah, you see?
You threw money at the problem, and it didn’t work.
Libertarians: 1
Sane People: 43,572,198
How is NZ on social workers (Master’s level) and air conditioning/heating tech? Need any? I’ve long been thinking of writing a fiction book, 1984 sized, or so, about a libertarian dystopia. Funnily enough, what most of these guys don’t realize is that it will look a WHOLE lot like our current society, except with all those evil social programs taken out, and civil rights not guaranteed.
How is NZ on social workers (Master’s level) and air conditioning/heating tech?
Social workers … errr, don’t know, you’d have to do some research (where’s Phoenician when you need him).
Now, as to air-con/heating. The major thing about NZ houses is that a) we don’t have residential air conditioning, no matter how hot it gets (not even window units) and b) there is no central heating except in the more expensive homes (everything is space heaters, electric heaters, stand-alone gas, fireplaces, and eco-friendly heat exchangers … the latter have really been taking off back home).
So, air air-con/heating, either there will be nothing, or the fact that there may be no one with experience might mean that there are heaps of positions desperate for someone.
I’m working on my air pollution and public health scientist connections in NZ (nice report just came out) and I think a math teacher/computer geek might be of use.
We are also continuing to water the sprouting earth scientist and the budding architect/designer.
If we get 4 more years of the current nonsense, I think we might be up for a fresh new hemisphere.
Come clean Sarah - an appalling number of South Islanders in particular still use wood burners and smog up the larger settlements of a cold winter’s inversion.
I think a math teacher/computer geek might be of use.
Oh HELL YES. Those professions will be snapped up like hot cakes.
Come clean Sarah - an appalling number of South Islanders in particular still use wood burners and smog up the larger settlements of a cold winter’s inversion
Yup, you’re thinking specifically of Christchurch (which is more a product of the unique climate locale of the city more than actual amount of polution, thanks to the bloody inversion layer in that city … that’s where I did my undergrad) and it’s worse than wood burners, it’s COAL.
Cue ominous music.
You know, I’m so gonna get my arse kicked by the kiwis back home, when this sudden rush of liberal americans arriving as virtual refugees in the country
let’s get to the important stuff…the boys cute?
maybe Sheelzebub should have a kiwi lechery tuesday
~
And don’t forget the $2 bill- where so darned few of those went through alot of circulation, they are nice and crisp. Just perfect for folding into paper airplanes.
From six-oh-seven-nine: “The notion that the people here are going to go strolling down their main streets throwing rose petals in the air once the Democrats are elected is utter crap”
Wasn’t this how Bush & Co. envisioned the troops being greeted in Baghdad?
That would be nice, but would it happen? As I stated with our local SF-Bay-Bridge, by far the largest bridge contract in America, is a big, fat, money leach into corporate coffers while delivering us nothing, with the idea that if we just keep funding it (up from a $300M retrofit, to a $900M retrofit, to a $1.1B bridge, to now a >$7B bridge and no end in sight.
My point was not that funding is irrelevant, only that it is not a dominant factor. Obviously with no money, you get no bridge, but apparently you can give an exta $5.9Billion or more and still get…nothing.
Case in point: Our government has spent $400Billion in Iraq and we have jack to show for it. I have equal faith in their ability to properly manage these projects even with a flood of funding.
We should consider stocking our government with people who aren’t total idiots. Might help.
Whoa! Wait a minute. That’s kind of radical there.
Grilltacular:
Welcome to the free market, buckaroo.
Jeff -
here you go hon:
http://www.nzrfu.co.nz/index.cfm?layout=wallpapers
http://www.blackcaps.co.nz/page.aspx?pri=114
http://www.emiratesteamnz.com/mul_gall_item.aspx?Collection=57
We’re all very outdoorsy, it’s a huge part of our culture.
Jeff -
here you go hon:
http://www.nzrfu.co.nz/index.cfm?layout=wallpapers
http://www.blackcaps.co.nz/page.aspx?pri=114
http://www.emiratesteamnz.com/mul_gall_item.aspx?Collection=57
We’re all very outdoorsy, it’s a huge part of our culture.
This entire thread is pretty damn disrespectful in light of the fact that the recovery of the bodies has not yet been completed. I complained the same way when bloggers went apeshit pro and anti-gun 17 minutes after Virginia Tech happened.
The connection between this horrific tragedy and the #1 beloved favorite target of Pandagonian viciousness, preferred over right-wing theocratic thugs and left-wing murderous dictators - libertarian ideas - escapes me. We don’t know what caused this disaster. NTSB has not begun, let alone finished, its investigation of this matter. The “structurally deficient” tag that has been applied to this bridge does nothing to close the issues at hand; that tag applies to tens of thousands of bridges that didn’t and won’t collapse.
I am pretty sure, however, that no Libertarian decision maker is at fault for the failure here, because no Libertarian government has ever had jurisdiction over that bridge at any level of government. Minnesota has had Democrats (DFL), Republicans, Independents, Socialists. Never a Libertarian. Sort of a Rovian attack style - figure out where you are weak or flawed, then paint your opponents as viciously as possible with that flaw. Classy, especially when the bodies are not yet counted.
Will we find that the bridge was designed poorly? Maintained poorly? Sabotaged? Hit by a freak occurrence or the severe turbulence of that stretch of the Mississippi, which tends to corrode the hell out of bridge structures? Who knows? Frankly, who cares?
My heart goes out to the survivors, the grieving and the economically damaged - commuters, couriers, truck drivers, bus drivers and the longshoremen who will get laid off while the Mississippi is shut down. The Minnesota farmers who may have to pay a lot more to move their crops south. If this blog had more conscience than attitude, it would link to the memorial funds for the deceased such as this one for a member of the Winnebago Nation who died, rather than take cheap political shots over the dead bodies.
Well said crabby. Auguste has a tendancy to take cheap shots essentially unrelated to the topic at hand.
I’m not fan of libertarians but this really doesn’t make any more sense than the right wing “pussy liberal English majors are to blame for VT” nonsense.
If this blog had more conscience than attitude, it would link to the memorial funds for the deceased such as this one for a member of the Winnebago Nation who died, rather than take cheap political shots over the dead bodies.
Thank you for linking to that. I may contribute.
That said, while we are flogging the libertaraian ethos, lets have a big hand for Hero Jeremy Hernandez for organizing the evacuation of a bus full of terrified kids, some of whom were injured.
You see, Jeremy wouldn’t have been there at all if our lovely liberterian friends hadn’t influenced key others into agreeing that all education should be privately finananced, unlike even India. No, Jeremy would have been well on his way to his dream of having his own repair shop, a decent income, and a decent life had he not had to drop out for lack of money.
Is there a fund for his education Bruce? Or does he just have to be a bit more enterprising and fast-thinking to get where he wants to go?
While paying out libertarians is always fun, and George Bush deserves a fair share of blame for everything in the world, I think these infrastructure problems are probably America’s fault more than any individuals. It’s not just roads either - health, inner city infrastructure, emergency services, all seem to be slowly falling apart in the US. Your military has been useless for at least 40 years, your space program is fraught with accidents and failures and is well known to be massively over costed (just like your defense industry); your foreign policy community is massively incompetent. What is it in America that has gone wrong over the last 40 years?
I am not American, but I think the problem is that too many americans on both sides of the fence are blinded by ideology: liberal or right wing, Americans seem to think you can do it best.
The connection between this horrific tragedy and the #1 beloved favorite target of Pandagonian viciousness, preferred over right-wing theocratic thugs and left-wing murderous dictators - libertarian ideas
Christ. Now they’re VICTIMS.
If you really think that Amanda picks on Libertarians more than she picks on the Bush administration, or on sexists of any political profession, you simply aren’t paying attention unless it’s your own fee-fees being hurt.
flashheart: we know. really. we are aware of the situation, and apologise for the inconvenience. we’re trying. please don’t chastise us for our American Arrogance ™. pandagon might not refrain from the occasional cheap shot, but it’s hardly a bastion of AMERICA! FUCK-YEAH!-itude.
that said: bruce, the libertarians kind of shot first on this one. did you read the post, together with the selected quotes from the provided link? why no stern remonstrations for those heartless libertarians on the CNN site who had more attitude than conscience? did they get a lecture about taking cheap political shots, too?
Sarah: ? You’re getting caned by the euro, the pound, and even my little New Zealand dollar back home.
And, boy, are the exporters bitching about it. The NZ dollar has risen to unsustainable levels not due to its own merits, but the weakness of the US dollar - but I’ve seen a lot of worry from the horticultural press about it.
Sarah: And the thing is, when you’re unemployed in these countries, its not a poverty sentence, it’s not a death sentence thanks to lack of access to health care, it’s not a poverty-cycle, where you can’t then have your children access higher education.
Also true - my mother was a cleaner, and put herself through university *while* one of her kids had a major health crisis. I hesitate to think what it would have cost in the States to have paid for three operations on a foot and about 6 months of hospitalisation.
Oh, and by the way - one of those was almost immediate, since it was an emergency. The other two took a while to schedule, since they weren’t. And I kept the foot, thank you.
VG: Britain ditched the Keynesian-welfare state model in the 1980s, and Australia and New Zealand always resembled the American economy more than continental Europe.
Bullshit. You don’t have the first clue about NZ economic history, pre or post 1984. Don’t try fucking with me on this, man, on this topic I can kick your ass from here to Hawaii.
6079: New Zealand’s unemployment rate: a pissant 3.8% (2006) - Percentage of population below poverty line: NA
One thing that worries me a little is a sort of “guest worker” scheme being implemented to import workers from the Pacific to handle seasonal picking, due to the tight labour market here. In theory it’s good for both us and the Islands; in practice, I’m a bit dubious based on looking at Germany or the US. I still recall those bloody dawn raids on overstayers - the last thing we need is to start a segregation between Polynesians and “real” New Zealanders.
Sarah: I completely agree. Do government programs sometimes screw up? Of course! However, it is by far the best regulator of our society that we have, curbing the excesses and oppressions, and the ability of the system to heap privilege and power up in pockets of self-increasing accumulation.
Um, it’s a necessary component of a society, but it should be considered in balance. For all its failings, a capitalist market is still a damned important component in a free society.
Actually, John Ralston Saul is good on these discussions.
Sarah: Getting highly educated people to immigrate is a high priority.
Anyone really interested should probably take a look at this page. Going through this checklist gives you an idea of whether you’d be a “skilled migrant” or not.
Regarding skill shortages - medical lab techs, air conditioning - um, automobiles?
Sarah: Social workers … errr, don’t know, you’d have to do some research
Social workers
(where’s Phoenician when you need him).
The Phoenician was hiking to the top of Mt Victoria and down through the Town Belt to the public library, in the continuing campaign to become less of a bloated blob than he currently is. He is now sitting in front of his computer rubbing his abused calf muscles and contemplating a third year paper in info science that he really should have started reading a fortnight ago.
Come clean Sarah - an appalling number of South Islanders in particular still use wood burners and smog up the larger settlements of a cold winter’s inversion.
There are no South Islanders left. We have to pay actors in Queensland and Christchurch to pretend that there are still actual cities there, but everyone has really moved up to Auckland.
You know, I’m so gonna get my arse kicked by the kiwis back home, when this sudden rush of liberal americans arriving as virtual refugees in the country
[Raises an eyebrow] The last liberal American I knew well was blonde and liked getting foot massages. I liked giving foot massages. I think we will be able to cope with American immigrants, provided they are required to spit on a copy of the GOP manifesto before being allowed off the planes.
MAJeff: let’s get to the important stuff…the boys cute?
Strangely enough, I’m not so worried by the thought of Jeff recruiting as I am Sarah.
I point out that one cute Kiwi male of ambigious pervertedness is now headed Statewise for a couple of years. Anybody around the Oak Ridge National Laboratory should feel free to welcome him and his partner - they’re good people.
OK, VG, if you are still out there I have just five minutes, so here’s the short version:
1) You are incredulous at the notion that people with a lot of money are able to choose not to work if they don’t want to, but it should be blindingly obvious that if a person has in hand cashable assets amounting to 100 or more times what a typical wage-earner takes in in a year, they clearly don’t have to work a day if they don’t want to–and are willing to live on a fixed income comparable to a typical working person.
2) Ah, but they could be richer still if they only “put that money to work,” that is to say invest it somehow or other. Right, and to do that means taking risks and requries them to put some effort into managing it. Or-they could let someone else have a cut, and hire that person to do even that work for them. They won’t get as rich, and in principle run the risk of someone cleverly wresting it from them.
3) What does it mean to “put your money to work?” Basically–here’s the bonus answer–exploitation. It means that someone else–lots of someone elses–work, and you, entitled by having put up money or equivalent property assets, get a share of what they make. Period. It may be that such enterprises require management, vision, entrepreneurship, innovation, etc–but you, as contributor of the money are not in the least obligated to provide any of that. You can always hire someone else to do it.
And that in a nutshell is the fact of exploitation. What it means morally is subject to debate, and I think it depends on historical circumstances and situations, but the bottom line is, wealth “grows” by siphoning off a portion (typically in capitalist history, about 50%; nowadays it may be more) of the work of the working people who produce everything. It may or may not be a good idea for those working people to accept this, but that is what happens.
And if you can understand that, it might not be so mind-boggling when you look at the actual evidence and find that once a person and their heirs get significantly rich in this system, they rarely if ever fall back into the ranks of the working people, who must labor for themselves or others every day, just to keep on surviving.
I leave it as an exercise to you to prove or accept as disproven that this system is some kind of “meritocracy.”
And point out that if you look at it the right way, the Soviet Union under Stalin was sort of a “meritocracy” too. Does that make it all better?
Posts stuck in moderation. See my blog for links about immigration to New Zealand.
Eh, somewhat guilty as charged.
Then again, the “libertarian” angle on this was, as I stated, a reaction to the kneejerk anti-tax reaction (see the post) to Harry Reid’s statement of what others more serious than me have been saying for a long time: Our country’s infrastructure is in serious trouble, and this particular tragedy is unlikely to be the last.
In other words, the idea that infrastructure investment is sorely overdue is not an exploitation of this tragedy, but a long-running meme. The “quit trying to spend our money, Harry!” types are pretty craven, and if I’m taking a cheap shot, I’d argue as to whether it’s unrelated to the topic at hand.
Auguste,
You might be interested in these two columns by STrib columnist Nick Coleman. He’s been absolutely on the money about this:
Thursday
Today
Which reminds me: On the economics of privatizing bridges: http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,2763,1380226,00.html.
The connection between this horrific tragedy and the #1 beloved favorite target of Pandagonian viciousness, preferred over right-wing theocratic thugs and left-wing murderous dictators - libertarian ideas - escapes me.
Seriously? Well, I understand you sympathize with so-called libertarian people, but to listen to most of said people spout their ideas about how government should be, I just want to slap the shit out of them and teleport them back to the Gilded Age. You’ve given precious little to make me think that that particular place and time is not ideal for you. And neither has any other Randroid libertarian. I actually would like to see every libertarian in the same position as any number of less fortunate people and see how quickly they change their “ZOMG bootstraps it’s all good!!!!” tune. You disgust me.
*bbbzt* Sorry, thanks for playing. As with a lot of things, it matters not about the simplicity of the sugery, but the need for the surgury.
And, as I’m sure someone will point out, if you cannot afford insurance, or you cannot aford the “co-pay” you may not get that surgey *at all*.
As far as someone early in the thread suggesting letting the libertarians(tm) colonize wyoming, no, let ‘em have death vally to breed their litle corps of Saudukaur.
That’s not a picture of the Frmeont Bridge. Fremont Bridge is only one level, and it’s a very short bridge across Lake Union. You were actually on the highway in that photo… perhaps the express lanes of I-5 or I-90 from Lake Washington…
To be fair, a highway overpass also collapsed - though it was less deadly - in the north end of Montreal not so long ago, and chunks of concrete have fallen out of other overpasses in the area and been closed for inspection. God bless Canada for universal health care, among other things, but I’m not sure we’re doing such a great job of looking after our infrastructure either, despite our tax dollars.
And re. health care: I have paid for a doctor’s appointment once in my life, when I was stuck in interprovincial student limbo, and even then I would have gotten reimbursed if I’d gotten around to sending the form in. It kind of blows my mind to hear people (or TV shows - Grey’s Anatomy and House have both pulled this once or twice) arguing that the US model of health care is somehow standing on moral high ground. When you or your children are sick, you should not be barred from treatment on the basis of what kind of job you have.
I would like to know what would have happened to my friend’s family if they’d been US residents. Their daughter was born premature and was in the hospital for weeks…not to mention all the hospital visits and physiotherapy there have been since then to address resulting complications. My friend was working retail at the time and her husband was in tech support. Somehow I doubt these kinds of jobs come with a lot more benefits in the US than they do here. And this is to say nothing of the fact that my friend would probably have had to be back at work before her baby was out of the hospital.
There’s a world outside Seattle, you know. We even have bridges there. No trolls, though.
(By the way, I wasn’t calling shoephone a troll, but referring to the Fremont Troll in Seattle, which isn’t actually under the Fremont Bridge, I now learn.)