Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Wednesday, August 8. 2012Weds. morning linksPunctuation in online writing Genius’ greatest hit saved Broadway Thirty Million for Race and Gender Hires at Columbia Is that legal? Left, duped by Onion parody, condemns Michele Bachmann for reaction to shooting Nyquist: What Keeps the Free Market Free? At 89, Indian hero Jack Jacob rests and recites—poetry Marco Rubio: Obama ‘Has Gone from Hope and Change to Divide and Conquer’
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Nyquist: What Keeps the Free Market Free?
QUOTE: According to Scalia, America is not about democracy. In fact, the Framers didn’t like democracy. Checks and balances was what really mattered to them. That's right. First and foremost, the balance between the legislative, executive and judicial branches, but also the separation of powers between federal, state and local governments. More generally, power is divided at all levels in modern democracies, political parties, corporations, lobbying and citizen groups, property rights, individual liberties. These separated powers preexist the U.S. Constitution. Unlike the French Revolution, there were already working parliamentary institutions in the American colonies. What the American Revolution did was remove the British Crown as head of state, but left all other institutions intact. The French Revolution resulted in the removal of all existing institutions, which had been discredited with their association with the monarchy, so anarchy and tyranny were the result. Notably, the British don't even have a written constitution, yet they have evolved democratic institutions. QUOTE: Logically, the establishment of universal equality would first require the establishment of a universal tyranny (a.k.a., the dictatorship of the proletariat). Yes, but not all movements towards equality mean some ideological pure "universal equality". Public education, workers' rights, ending segregation, the social safety net, are all consistent with the balance of power doctrine. Sure, federal intervention to end slavery eroded state power somewhat, but as power shifted, a new balance was achieved. I'd say the "balance" has shifted WAY over to the Federal govt. When I was a kid, people actually took "states rights" pretty seriously (though obviously not as serious as in the middle 1860s). The idea of a subsidy was a anathema to most people and it was a serious accusation to say that something was a subsidy. Nobody in the early 1960s would believe the Federal govt. would ever get this big or intrusive, but it has. Enumerated powers, anyone?
This "balance" of which you speak is a FAR cry from what the founders intended, but it was envisioned. That is why they made it so hard to amend the Constitution. Unfortunately, we (mostly the left) have found another way to "amend" the Constitution - the Supreme Court. mudbug: Nobody in the early 1960s would believe the Federal govt. would ever get this big or intrusive, but it has.
Well, the states continued to fail in their responsibilities. After the end of Reconstruction, Southern states instituted a harsh policy of segregation, often preventing blacks from voting, or otherwise participating equally to the benefits of society. It required federal intervention, again. Furthermore, as society has become more complex, there has been a movement towards greater integration, which requires more national involvement. It was found that you can't have your meatpackers in Chicago selling meat to New York without having some sort of safety standard. Nevertheless, most states still have considerable power. They enforce nearly all laws concerning ordinary crime, for instance, and states are very active within their sphere. Plus, as we mentioned above, it's not just the federal-state balance, but the integration and balancing at every level of society that results in a flexible and reasonably stable system. Well, the states continued to fail in their responsibilities. After the end of Reconstruction, Southern states instituted a harsh policy of segregation . . . . It required federal intervention, again.
True enough, but be fair: other than a brief post-war flurry of activity on behalf of equal protection, and passing the 13th - 15th Amendments, the Feds did an awful lot of had-sitting with regards to minority rights in the South. And that subsequent Federal intervention you mention didn't begin to happen until around 70 years after Reconstruction ended. And might not have been needed, but for screwing it up when they first had the chance. Furthermore, as society has become more complex, there has been a movement towards greater integration, which requires more national involvement. Government always justifies every expansion of its power as necessary. Sometimes it's even true!! But government often lies about that, or fails to note where it caused the problem it now wants more power to "fix". And government will almost never willingly admit that its intervention is no longer needed in any place into which it has extended itself. Further, not all complex social integrations can be addressed by Government; which is clumsy, inaccurate, slow when speed is needed or impulsive where deliberation is wanted. Government should be the answer of last resort. Prove to me that society has failed; prove to me the State governments have failed; prove to me the Federal Government won't fail, and prove to me Society's failure wasn't caused by prior governmental action. Then maybe. T.K. Tortch: Government always justifies every expansion of its power as necessary. Sometimes it's even true!! But government often lies about that, or fails to note where it caused the problem it now wants more power to "fix". And government will almost never willingly admit that its intervention is no longer needed in any place into which it has extended itself.
Yes. That's the expected behavior. T.K. Tortch: Further, not all complex social integrations can be addressed by Government; which is clumsy, inaccurate, slow when speed is needed or impulsive where deliberation is wanted. Generally. However, there are many things government can do that are outside the ability or scope of the private sphere. Regulating the commons for one. Investment in basic scientific research and exploration is another. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57489368/latest-curiosity-images-of-mars/
#1.1.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2012-08-08 19:16
(Reply)
Generally. However, there are many things government can do that are outside the ability or scope of the private sphere. Regulating the commons for one. Investment in basic scientific research and exploration is another.
I don't disagree with this, though outside a few examples I don't think government is particularly good at picking where such research and exploration ought to be invested in. My problem is that I don't trust our current governing class to make such decisions without making politics and cronyism the primary object of investment. That has been the recurring motive, from the Trans-Continental Railroad to Solyndra.* Even granting that government investment in "green energy" is well warranted, when the governing class is substantially corrupt or corruptible, you're not likely to make good on your investment. Worse, I would suggest that the recent example of bad investments in green tech by the government has actually compromised private motivation to invest in such tech ventures, period. *Solyndra isn't the best example for cronyism; that company actually received substantial private investment money in its early days. Some of the other recently bankrupt green tech companies that received gov't money never even had that.
#1.1.1.1.1.1
T.K. Tortch
on
2012-08-09 12:55
(Reply)
" ... the federal-state balance, but the integration and balancing at every level of society that results in a flexible and reasonably stable system"
A possibly worthy goal, if it contains the results of a knowing that ever single thing in and outside the human mind, spirit or material, on or off the planet, represented in the parts of speech or the unwordable things hovering nearby present or absent, real or imaginary, has a cost to the seller, and a price to the buyer. buddy larsen: A possibly worthy goal, if it contains the results of a knowing that ever single thing in and outside the human mind, spirit or material, on or off the planet, represented in the parts of speech or the unwordable things hovering nearby present or absent, real or imaginary, has a cost to the seller, and a price to the buyer.
Huh? Not everything is bought and sold. If you're trying to say that markets can set commodity prices better than central governments, sure.
#1.1.1.2.1
Zachriel
on
2012-08-08 19:11
(Reply)
A century ago Le Bon wrote of the difficulties involved in “reconciling Democratic equalization with natural inequalities.” As Le Bon pointed out, “Nature does not know such a thing as equality. She distributes unevenly genius, beauty, health, vigor, intelligence, and all the qualities which confer on their possessors a superiority over their fellows.” When a politician pretends to oppose the inequalities of nature, he proves to be a special kind of usurper – personifying arrogance in search of boundless power.
Logically, the establishment of universal equality would first require the establishment of a universal tyranny (a.k.a., the dictatorship of the proletariat). A formula for doing all this was worked out in the nineteenth century, and was the program of Karl Marx. === so reports the Nyquist piece, meditating on a national "...integration and balancing at every level of society that results in a flexible and reasonably stable system" "Arbeit Macht Frei at every level of society results in a flexible and reasonably stable system," nodded the party members, sitting around the big table in the castle in the Black Forest, "...und ve vill see to it macht schnell!"
#1.1.1.2.1.1
buddy larsen
on
2012-08-09 00:26
(Reply)
buddy larsen: A century ago Le Bon wrote of the difficulties involved in “reconciling Democratic equalization with natural inequalities.”
Interesting. That was before the defeat of fascism, open markets, the collapse of communism, social security, the end of Jim Crow, and the ascendancy of open democracy across the globe. That century is often called the American century. buddy larsen: "Arbeit Macht Frei at every level of society results in a flexible and reasonably stable system," nodded the party members, sitting around the big table in the castle in the Black Forest, "...und ve vill see to it macht schnell!" Fascism posits rigid inequality, with some races and nationalities better than others, extreme nationality, and an authoritarian leader. That was the competing model to American-style democracy.
#1.1.1.2.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2012-08-09 07:50
(Reply)
Zachriel: open markets
The should read "the triumph of the market system".
#1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2012-08-09 08:03
(Reply)
Right --USA's constitutional republic is the radical antidote to about as much of blue-on-blue human misery as a political system is capable of offering.
Our charge is to accept the offer, as fully and completely as we are able, and in deed as well as word.
#1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2
buddy larsen
on
2012-08-09 11:54
(Reply)
Hello Webmaster,
I visited your web site earlier today and firstly wanted to congratulate you on the appearance, excellent content and accessibility I discovered there. It is not often I come across a web site that offers such a positive user experience and great information too. At this present moment, I am seeking meaningful links from quality websites just like yours, for a current project on behalf of www.jellybeancreative.com. As you'll see, this is based upon a similar theme to yours and does in my view, offer added value content for web site visitors. Now as a part of this promotional activity, I would very much like to have a link featured on your website. Should you be agreeable, please use the following details to add the project site to your links page. Title: Exhibition Stand Design URL: http://www.jellybeancreative.com Des: Exhibition stand design & trade show stand builders. Jellybean Exhibition contractors design, manufacture & install custom built display stands & booths for trade fairs & events. Economical exposition solutions for clients exhibiting at promotional marketing tradeshow events. Modular exhibition booths & portable display solutions for hire & rental. High impact exhibition designers - to professional stand installations in UK & Europe. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate in contacting me by replying to this email. I will then get back to you as soon as possible. Thanks and Regards, Link Manager Here's a 36-second video of political commentary you might enjoy.
The Barack Obama Presidential Library is already built. Check it out! http://youtu.be/Qy6NOTjKMg8 Along with the vision of Romney as a pragmatic problem-solver, the Romney campaign ought to paint the image of Obama as a heartless, narcissistic statist. It wouldn't hurt Romney's campaign one bit to remind voters of that reality.
Obama doesn't have to portray Romney as anything. They just need to portray America as broken and everything the right stands for as the reason. This reminds me of the later Clinton years where every news story that fits the narrative is blown completely out of proportion.
Church burnings, remember that? Now it's shootings. Even the local news is jumping in, with big flaring headlines like "Double Shooting" for a case where two people were wounded. Makes it a mass shooting, yes? Guns are the best wedge so far. Most folks are scared to death of them and this crosses all the marginalizing lines like radical feminism, gay rights, and minority groups. So stay tuned, each and every shooting will be reported in a breathless orgy of non-information. Oh, wait, only the shootings involving whites. The gang bangers will continue to slaughter each other each weekend and nobody will notice. The media is the problem. Thinking people don't need them, but thinking people are outnumbered 5:1 by ignoramuses that think media bias is a concept akin to tin-foil hat talk. "if it's on TV, it's gotta be true". Don't count on people who watch TV to vote for Romney. Even the local news is jumping in, with big flaring headlines like "Double Shooting" for a case where two people were wounded. Makes it a mass shooting, yes?
Obama's campaign probably does not want to get too deeply into that because someone on the other side just might point out the race of most of the gangsters involved in shootings in cities all around the country, i.e., if Obama had a son, he just might look like most of the shooters (and the victims). The equivalent of Columbine and Aurora happens every month in Obama's hometown, almost every weekend in fact, and the shootings are, by and large, not perpetrated by whites in white neighborhoods. Can you say that African-American kids are going feral? I'd say that's not exactly a winning theme for the re-election of an ultra liberal like The One. Nyquist has a new one out, following the above --America's Crony Capitalism:
http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/jr-nyquist/america-crony-capitalism It's mainly about a lady named Ann Barnhardt, whose name you may recall from her shutting down her own career and income, her commodity futures biz, upon the revelation of the MF Global affair. She made at that event an icily ferocious truth-clanging statement to her clients, as she returned their money --the statement was soon picked up by Zero Hedge --and the rest is (if i may be so bold as to say) the beginning of the Second American Republic. Read the Nyquist --it's his usual three-minute column --but then, do not open the link to Barnhardt's site unless you have no further plans for the afternoon --and possibly evening, if not the (cough) rest of your life as it is at this moment. http://barnhardt.biz/ === When you get to mid-July: her story of dropping away from the Catholic Church due to --she only now understands --the 1968 Novus Ordo liberalization --and how her recent accidental encounter with the church as it was before 1968 --the Tridentine Mass --compelled her in a rush of love head over heels to return --well, you'll then be prepared for The Alinsky/Archbishop Bernardin/Obama Nexus Part 1. Hold onto your hat. === Meanwhile, here she is on GM and the Manchester rugby team sponsorship, followed by a piece of the next entry, included to shed further light on the kaleidoscopic strobe this woman is: === 3. GM announced on Monday that it had purchased a sponsorship agreement with a British soccer team. The players will wear little Chevrolet patches on their jerseys and Chevy will be the "official vehicle" of this soccer team. Do you want to guess how much GM, the same GM whose stock is trading at all-time lows, who is writing sub-prime car loans in a desperate bid to move inventory, is losing something like $100,000 per Chevy Volt, and still owes the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars is paying for this sponsorship deal? Go ahead. Guess how much GM just plopped down for a few jersey patches on a British soccer team. Try $600 million. As in six-tenths of a billion dollars. The population of the U.K. is 63 million people. They basically just spent $10 on every man woman and child in the U.K. You know what they should have done? They should have taken that $600 million and figured out how to build cars that aren't pieces of crap. Heck, you know what I would have settled for? How about they take $60 million - one tenth of the original amount - and assemble the greatest scientific and engineering minds on the planet. The goal? Simply this: figure out how to build a vehicle such that when you shut the door, the window and interior door mechanisms don't rattle for six seconds. Throw in an extra $20 million while you're at it and unlock the secret to the satisfying "whoosh-thud" door closing sound that the Germans figured out FORTY YEARS AGO, the Japanese figured out THIRTY YEARS AGO and the Koreans figured out TWENTY YEARS AGO. You'd still be $520 million to the good, and could use that money to pay back the bondholders that got raped in 2009. 4. Hey! How about a couple of emails from readers about the Latin Mass videos below? Ann, I watched your links to the Latin Mass videos yesterday and I literally picked my jaw up off my desk. As soon as I returned home, I went straight to my wedding heirloom case where one item is a 1951 pocket copy of Today's Holy Mass. In it are all the exact prayers and sections (in English) of the Latin Mass that I watched. My heart swelled with longing to witness this Mass. I know you have advised us to search out a Tridentine Mass and I fully intend to do so. J If you build it, he will come . . . |