(04-22-2010 08:41 PM)LAOwl Wrote:  So Optimistic....does that make Obama Bull Connor or George Wallace?

I guess you read into what I said what you want to hear. I will be more explicit. I remember the virulent hatred that accompanied the integration of the Little Rock schools. I saw it on TV. I remember the racial violence that happened at many civil rights venues, like lunch counters. I remember whites only signs. Because I remember the 50's and 60's, I can tell you that what racism you see today is just a wisp of its former self. To answer your question as best I can...that does not make Obama anything. I was not trying to make an allegory as you seem to be.

................................................................................................

I had no idea liberals were keeping tea partiers from voting, were hanging tea partiers, wouldn't allow the children of tea partiers to go to integrated schools, or were physically harming tea partiers just for being tea partiers. Thanks for the heads up. You don't hear that stuff in the liberal media.

Gosh, did I say that? Where? What I will say it that the liberal media and many liberals themselves are misrepresenting the Tea Party, and I think a lot of them are doing it on purpose. I think they are trying to disenfranchise them by dismissing them as just a bunch of racists, and some people seem to be swallowing hook, line, and sinker. At least one Tea partier has been hurt by liberal haters. The TP was a black man, IIRC.

................................................................................................

Seriously though, I'm glad you posted those letters. The first guy pretty much sums it up. So the Tea Party makes up the backbone of the country and they don't want to give their money to freeloaders. Well, who are the freeloaders? With a party that's mostly white, it makes you wonder (esp since they wouldn't make up the backbone of the country.)

Apparently you think they think it is black people. I think that means you are reading your own prejudices into that. I think they think it is the 47% of the country that pays no taxes. That is not racially related, I think. Maybe you think so. I thought that was evident in any reasonably thourough reading of the letter. As for the backbone of this country, i think they mean the people who pay taxes. Once again, a thourough and dispassionate reading would show that. As for the mostly white part, isn't that what you said you weren't doing? Judging by the percentage of of skin color X? I see Hambone is using 6% as a figure for the black representation in the Tea Party. Are they racist too?

.................................................................................................

And let me get this straight. Polls have shown that the Tea Party is mostly white and angry. So its racist to call them white and angry? Again, thanks for the tip.

Yes, I think it is racist to dwell on their race as a means to diminish their message. Lots of black people are and have been angry too, and it is unfair to dismiss them out of hand because they are angry. It is enough to call them angry citizens - going to angry white people is quite a bit farther, unneccesary, and misleading in its suggestion of racism.

.................................................................................................

Spare me the woo is the poor Tea Party BS (because that's what it is, BS.) When the party uses rhetoric that makes it an us vs. them game, how am I supposed to feel, especially when the party is 1% black?

Woe?

Well, first, i think the Democrat Party is playing the us vs. them game and has been for a long time.

How should you feel? Check back with me after you stop dismissing them for the percentage of certain races and listen to their complaints. If you do that, I think you will feel like many of the Tea partiers do.

.................................................................................................

When party leadership such as Michelle Bachmann uses rhetoric calling the current government a gangster government or the constant use of terms such as socialism and Marxism (you know the Civil Rights Movement was considered Communist too, but you knew that since you remember Selma and Little Rock), it's hard to take you guys seriously.

Well, I don't remember the whole civil rights movement being considered Communist, just a few individual leaders who may well have been Communist/Socialist. Heck, i was pretty much one too back then. Of course, i was a lot more liberal then. Live and learn.

I doubt you would take us seriously in any case.

.................................................................................................

But hey, if you keeping patting yourselves on the back for changing the political process for the better, all that other crap will be forgotten. Right?

I haven't the slightest idea of what you are talking about. All I know is i was alive then and following it. Civil rights has been a long and difficult struggle. I have watched it since the 50's. Where were you then?

(04-22-2010 10:06 PM)LAOwl Wrote:  Good back and pinpoint the exact sentence where I say only black people are poor and don't pay taxes. All I said was I wonder who the gentleman thought the freeloaders were, especially in a majority white party that makes up the "backbone" of this country.

This comment in and of itself is racist... and implies exactly what I accused you of implying. I'm sorry you don't see it... but everyone else does. Just because a predominantly white group is talking about freeloaders doesn't mean they're talking about black people. They're talking about those who don't pay taxes... regardless of color. YOU have introduced race, not them. As for the "backbone" comment... is it really a stretch to say that the people who pay taxes in this country are its backbone? There are plenty of other body parts, but without tax revenue... the government can't help anybody. Again, YOU are injecting race.

Quote:And calling Democrats black and angry wouldn't be racist. It would just be stupid. We don't make up the majority of the party.

I guarantee you that if I described the Democratic party as a party of angry black people, I'd be labeled a racist. White people who were supportive of integration were certainly given a label by the racists. The point isn't about accuracy... It's about injecting race into a discussion that isn't about race. You said racist actions have happened at these events. I'd like to know what those were, because I don't support racism. The spitting incident wasn't racist or even intentional, according to the person who was spat upon. Stupid, yes... racist, no. Black people don't generally support the Tea Party or Republican platforms, but there certainly are some that do. I'd be interested to hear why you think that is.

Quote:http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/tea-pa...phics.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118937/republ...gious.aspx

The first Gallup polls says the Tea Party is 79 percent white. The second poll says the Republicans are 63 percent white. Blacks do make up a bigger part of the Tea Party, 6 percent to 2 percent. Hispanics make up 26 percent of the Republicans and are part of the 15 percent that make up the rest of the Tea Party.

The first poll also says that 75% of Americans are white. What is your point? It seems to me that The Tea party is more popular with blacks than the Republican Party. That's a good sign for such a bunch of racists. It seems to me that the majority of the difference between the TEA party and the Republican party is within the hispanic population... likely explained by the immigration issue. Is that really a surprise? Still, it appears SOME hispanics support the Tea party.

Seriously... You're obviously QUITE angry about this... but you don't seem to see that it is YOU who is making this a racial issue. Why can't I be for better stewardship of the funds we're already spending rather than simply raising taxes until we can't find anything else to spend it on.

(04-22-2010 10:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How do you keep your random citizen from morphing into a politician?

Term limits!

(04-27-2010 02:03 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(04-22-2010 10:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How do you keep your random citizen from morphing into a politician?

Term limits!

It always seemed to me that term limits would not stop human beings from becoming politicians, it would just initiate a game of musical chairs, where as soon as they reach the limit for one office, they run for the next.

(04-27-2010 02:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-27-2010 02:03 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(04-22-2010 10:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How do you keep your random citizen from morphing into a politician?

Term limits!

It always seemed to me that term limits would not stop human beings from becoming politicians, it would just initiate a game of musical chairs, where as soon as they reach the limit for one office, they run for the next.

My view of term limits includes not allowing a current office holder to run for re-election to the current position or another elected position while still in the current office.

Why should we, as taxpayers, pay somebody to do something (run for office) other than perform the duties of the office to which they were elected?

But then, maybe they do less harm that way?

(04-22-2010 08:20 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  Well, I mislike and mistrust all politicians equally. I would rather have a random assortment of citizens in charge.

Emmie: a very nice paraphrase of the late, great Wm. F. Buckley, Jr., who made the following off-the-cuff remark in 1963 (I think during his quixotic campaign for mayor of New York):
"I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University."

(04-22-2010 10:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How do you keep your random citizen from morphing into a politician?

What turns an elected citizen into a politician is that, once elected, he has a specific role in the political dispensation of money. Such dispensation can be more direct (e.g. taxes, appropriations and government contracts) or less direct (favoring or protecting some groups -- usually established ones, like big banks or labor unions, over less-established ones, like small business or entrepreneurs). Either way, the politician's role in these dispensations inevitably means that people who would like to have more money (which is everyone) will treat him differently, and he inevitably will become different as a result.

The best (though still partial) solution is the one that has always been right in front of us: the surest, and only, way to reduce the influence of money on politics is to reduce the role government in distributing money.

Unfortunately, the notion that government should be the PRIMARY manager of the distribution of money takes us rather obviously in the opposite direction.

(04-27-2010 04:24 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  What turns an elected citizen into a politician is that, once elected, he has a specific role in the political dispensation of money... Either way, the politician's role in these dispensations inevitably means that people who would like to have more money (which is everyone) will treat him differently, and he inevitably will become different as a result.

The best (though still partial) solution is the one that has always been right in front of us: the surest, and only, way to reduce the influence of money on politics is to reduce the role government in distributing money.

The money will always be around, though, and if government has a smaller role in distributing money, others in society will have a larger role. I think of Al Swearengen in "Deadwood." That town had no government, but that didn't mean an absence of the corrupting influence of money and power. It's just that a businessman was in charge instead of a politician. Not much difference, except a politician at least has to face election every once in a while.

If a fictional HBO show is a poor example, I think about the age of industrialists in the United States in the late 1800s. I admit to only limited knowledge of that era. I know, though, that government was much, much smaller then. But there was still a lot of money around, and issues about who got what were still pretty salient, with all the concerns about influence and corruption that accompanied it. Carnegie, Morgan, etc., had a lot of wealth and power, right? Those things don't disappear when government is smaller. They just move around.

Without getting into a discussion of the proper size of government, I think I am more supportive of politicians than many and less concerned about all the negative things usually implied by the pejorative "politician." I like that, to win elections, a politician typically has to show some substantive knowledge of complex issues and a detailed understanding of his or her constituents. I like that many politicians who are around for a while really are experts in certain issue areas (think Lugar on defense, Teddy on health care, etc.). I don't think random citizens, or term-limited politicians, would necessarily share these admirable and valuable characteristics. Most of all, I like that politicians are subject to regular elections, and even extremely powerful ones today can be unemployed tomorrow (e.g., Tom Daschle, George H.W. Bush, Harry Reid this year, Obama in 2012?). Al Swearengen, Dale Carnegie, etc., were never subject to such accountability.

(04-28-2010 10:31 AM)Boston Owl Wrote:  Without getting into a discussion of the proper size of government, I think I am more supportive of politicians than many and less concerned about all the negative things usually implied by the pejorative "politician." I like that, to win elections, a politician typically has to show some substantive knowledge of complex issues and a detailed understanding of his or her constituents. I like that many politicians who are around for a while really are experts in certain issue areas (think Lugar on defense, Teddy on health care, etc.). I don't think random citizens, or term-limited politicians, would necessarily share these admirable and valuable characteristics. Most of all, I like that politicians are subject to regular elections, and even extremely powerful ones today can be unemployed tomorrow (e.g., Tom Daschle, George H.W. Bush, Harry Reid this year, Obama in 2012?). Al Swearengen, Dale Carnegie, etc., were never subject to such accountability.

The problem I have with your construct is that it's not generally the decisions made by politicians that bother me nearly as much as the ones made by regulators and bureaucrats. And they are not subject to any form of accountability nor any sort of transparency. They generally cannot be fired except for truly outrageous behaviour, and you'd probably better not even mess with their salary hikes or benefits.

Politicians see a problem, say, "Let's pass a bill to solve it," and then congratulate themselves for solving it. The bill will say something like, "We want to make this a better world, and we are creating the ABCXYZ agency to make that happen. They will issue regulations to fill in the details." So the real power lies in whatever happens at ABCXYZ. Those proceedings (at least the ones where the real work gets done, not the public events that they conduct for show) are extremely opaque, and that's where lobbyists actually do the most of their heavy lifting. Private citizens are generally way more accountable than those folks. How do you propose to resolve that?

(04-28-2010 10:31 AM)Boston Owl Wrote:  The money will always be around, though, and if government has a smaller role in distributing money, others in society will have a larger role. I think of Al Swearengen in "Deadwood." That town had no government, but that didn't mean an absence of the corrupting influence of money and power. It's just that a businessman was in charge instead of a politician. Not much difference, except a politician at least has to face election every once in a while.
If a fictional HBO show is a poor example, I think about the age of industrialists in the United States in the late 1800s. I admit to only limited knowledge of that era. I know, though, that government was much, much smaller then. But there was still a lot of money around, and issues about who got what were still pretty salient, with all the concerns about influence and corruption that accompanied it. Carnegie, Morgan, etc., had a lot of wealth and power, right? Those things don't disappear when government is smaller. They just move around.

I don't want the money distribution to be concentrated in any one area--government, private industry, charitable organizations. I prefer to have government responsible for some of it, private industry responsible for some of it, and charitable organizations responsible for some, to keep some sort of a balance. And if you can think of any more, I'd probably gladly add them too (although, I suppose in the real world organized crime and terrorist organizations are significant players, and I'd just as soon deal them out).

I certainly think there's a credible argument that in the "age of the robber barons" government had too small a role. I do think the pendulum is swinging too far the other way now.

What I think is both reasonable and doable is some sort of basic safety net extended universally, supported by a broad-based and flat tax system. This is where Europe seems to be headed, and they are about 50 years ahead of us on the socialism track. They went too far toward government control, stagnated their private sector, and now they are trying to catch up--but facing severe hurdles in the form of "don't kick over my rice bowl" resistance from now well-entrenched special interests.

I believe we could do a 15% flat tax on wages, a 15% flat tax on business profits, and a 15% across-the-board consumption tax, and generate sufficient revenues to support the Boortz-Linder prefund at 30% of the poverty level and a social insurance medical system modeled after France. To make the dog hunt fiscally, we'd have to blow up Medicaid (which would now be redundant) and most of the current welfare system (which would also be made redundant by the prefund). I believe that structure would put bottom-of-the-table Americans in generally better shape than they are now, would eliminate a lot of the disincentives to improve their position that are inherent in the current "cliff vesting" welfare system (for the record, that problem is more a republican than a democrat legacy), and make the US a business location of choice again. Reduce the cost of the military by converting more active duty slots to reserve slots (1/6 the cost), getting out of Japan and Western Europe (and probably also Korea, but that's a bit tougher call because of Kim Jong Il), and reforming procurement to include the Elmo Zumwalt high-low mix in procuring new systems (recognizing that there are a lot of cases where the low-tech solution is more effective than the high-tech one), a "fly before you buy" approach to choosing new systems, and sharing more technology development costs with NATO and other allies and with the private sector.

(04-28-2010 11:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The problem I have with your construct is that it's not generally the decisions made by politicians that bother me nearly as much as the ones made by regulators and bureaucrats. And they are not subject to any form of accountability nor any sort of transparency. They generally cannot be fired except for truly outrageous behaviour, and you'd probably better not even mess with their salary hikes or benefits...

How do you propose to resolve that?

This is a good point, and I don't know. Certainly lots of bureaucrats and regulators, even career employees, must do what their bosses tell them, and their bosses are politicians, subject to elections. So you do see changes in the way bureaucracies operate after elections. Who would dispute, for example, that EPA regulators have become more aggressive since Obama won the White House? I have observed the same phenomenon with respect to my friends in HHS. Their work has changed dramatically since 2009, even though they haven't, and it will change again if a Republican wins the White House.

Is that the same thing as accountability? Maybe not. If it is, it's indirect and slow. Voters would have to disapprove of what EPA or HHS bureaucrats are doing and replace the current Administration with a different one. Or vote into office Congressmen from the other party who could hold hearings, apply pressure, etc. Maybe we'll see an experiment in whether this happens if the EPA issues climate regulations, which I imagine will get a lot of attention and will fire a lot of people up.

I agree that it is difficult to fire bureaucrats and regulators who are non-political appointees, and I'm sure we all know examples of such folks who are lazy, incompetent, or both. I do. But I also know lots of government employees who are smart, dedicated, awesome people. I am grateful that they are serving our country. Many of them could get higher salaries in the private sector.

(04-28-2010 12:08 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  But I also know lots of government employees who are smart, dedicated, awesome people. I am grateful that they are serving our country.

I don't. You've obviously had better luck than I. And that probably impacts our feelings about the issues. I've known lots of government bureaucrats, probably at least as many as you have, and I've worked both inside (on a contract basis) and outside various regulatory agencies, at the federal, state, and local levels. Oustide of the military (which has more than its share of problems) I can still count on one hand the number of bureaucrats that I found to be truly ethical and competent people.

I truly don't want anyone with the intelligence, work ethic, or character flaws of the typical government bureaucrat that I have encountered making any more than the absolute minimum number of decisions that can impact my life in any way.

(04-28-2010 12:08 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  This is a good point, and I don't know. Certainly lots of bureaucrats and regulators, even career employees, must do what their bosses tell them, and their bosses are politicians, subject to elections. So you do see changes in the way bureaucracies operate after elections. Who would dispute, for example, that EPA regulators have become more aggressive since Obama won the White House? I have observed the same phenomenon with respect to my friends in HHS. Their work has changed dramatically since 2009, even though they haven't, and it will change again if a Republican wins the White House.
Is that the same thing as accountability? Maybe not. If it is, it's indirect and slow. Voters would have to disapprove of what EPA or HHS bureaucrats are doing and replace the current Administration with a different one. Or vote into office Congressmen from the other party who could hold hearings, apply pressure, etc. Maybe we'll see an experiment in whether this happens if the EPA issues climate regulations, which I imagine will get a lot of attention and will fire a lot of people up.

I don't think it's accountability at all, becuase I don't think it bubbles its way up to the political process. While EPA and HHS (and every other federal agency) could not possibly have avoided changing substantially as a result of the change at the top, I doubt very seriously that enough voters to have made any noticeable difference based their vote in any way on the way EPA or HHS (or any other agency) were doing their business.

People hated Bush. Obama made them believe that he was the anti-Bush and McCan was McSame. That's it. They didn't endorse Obama (although most like him personally) or his agenda (many don't seem to be too happy with that). I think the democrats have overreached by interpreting what happened as an endorsement of what is in may ways a socialist agenda, and that is proving to be less than appealing to many Americans. Whether the hatred for Obama will rise to the level of hatred for Bush is still an undecided question. I would guess that unemployment rates would tell a lot of the story there, perhaps a disproportionate amount, and I don't like Obama's chances if that becomes his benchmark.

At this point, I see our choices as a republican theocracy (albeit to a God I worsip, although in a very different way) or a democrat socialist state. Please spare me either, but I have no idea how we get there from here.

(04-28-2010 10:31 AM)Boston Owl Wrote:  

(04-27-2010 04:24 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  What turns an elected citizen into a politician is that, once elected, he has a specific role in the political dispensation of money... Either way, the politician's role in these dispensations inevitably means that people who would like to have more money (which is everyone) will treat him differently, and he inevitably will become different as a result.

The best (though still partial) solution is the one that has always been right in front of us: the surest, and only, way to reduce the influence of money on politics is to reduce the role government in distributing money.

The money will always be around, though, and if government has a smaller role in distributing money, others in society will have a larger role. I think of Al Swearengen in "Deadwood." That town had no government, but that didn't mean an absence of the corrupting influence of money and power. It's just that a businessman was in charge instead of a politician. Not much difference, except a politician at least has to face election every once in a while.

If a fictional HBO show is a poor example, I think about the age of industrialists in the United States in the late 1800s. I admit to only limited knowledge of that era. I know, though, that government was much, much smaller then. But there was still a lot of money around, and issues about who got what were still pretty salient, with all the concerns about influence and corruption that accompanied it. Carnegie, Morgan, etc., had a lot of wealth and power, right? Those things don't disappear when government is smaller. They just move around.

Without getting into a discussion of the proper size of government, I think I am more supportive of politicians than many and less concerned about all the negative things usually implied by the pejorative "politician." I like that, to win elections, a politician typically has to show some substantive knowledge of complex issues and a detailed understanding of his or her constituents. I like that many politicians who are around for a while really are experts in certain issue areas (think Lugar on defense, Teddy on health care, etc.). I don't think random citizens, or term-limited politicians, would necessarily share these admirable and valuable characteristics. Most of all, I like that politicians are subject to regular elections, and even extremely powerful ones today can be unemployed tomorrow (e.g., Tom Daschle, George H.W. Bush, Harry Reid this year, Obama in 2012?). Al Swearengen, Dale Carnegie, etc., were never subject to such accountability.

There is a huge difference in the level of compulsion underlying the exercise of their respective powers. Politicians, through government, not only have a legal monopoly on their very own industry (the industry of government); they also have a legal monopoly on some pretty powerful tools, like legislation/regulation and its companion enforcement mechanisms, including imprisonment and execution.

The best safeguard of liberty (and thus of human happiness) is to prevent the concentration of power in any institution. While all concentrations should be treated with skepticism, concentration in the hands of government is especially to be feared for several compelling reasons:
- the uniquely powerful tools at its disposal, which give it a unique ability to preserve its own monopolies;
- its abominable track record of inflicting human misery on a mass scale (in the last century alone, one of the dominant demographic facts is state-sponsored murder)*;
- and also because, despite the historical record, there seems to be a continuing stream of apologists who are always ready to make the case that this time, government can be trusted (not least because they typically fancy themselves as among those who would conduct, or at least influence, the governing -- a perennially enticing prospect for the self-proclaimed "smart").

*Those who are sanguine in the face of that track record disappoint or scare me.

(04-28-2010 12:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-28-2010 12:08 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  But I also know lots of government employees who are smart, dedicated, awesome people...

I don't. ..

Then you've probably never met my wife: a former HHS bureaucrat who did some really cool and important stuff in the Inspector General's office for a few years. And she's a Rice grad too! EOL RRF!

One thing I've thought about from time to time is whether Rice should offer a master's degree program in public policy or public administration. The Baker Institute could sponsor it. It would seem to be a natural fit, and Rice could play a role in educating the regulators, bureaucrats, and politicians of the future.

I spent a while at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, which does a great job not only of educating students but also encouraging them to go into public service. Kennedy School graduates work throughout government, and while I'm sure some of them have

(04-28-2010 12:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  the intelligence, work ethic, or character flaws of the typical government bureaucrat that I have encountered

most were impressive people whom I would trust in positions of power and authority (with appropriate accountability, of course!).* Rice could get involved in this education and training process. Who knows, maybe a James Baker School of Public Policy would become the premier public policy school between the coasts (no offense, LBJ School).

* Some were even conservatives! Go figure! I remember teaching economics to a member of the staff of Katherine Harris (remember her?). The day we covered taxes, and I discussed the deadweight loss from taxation and its pernicious effects on social welfare, his eyes lit up, and he almost leapt out of his seat, exclaiming, "Now I understand why taxes are evil!" The Cambridge liberal in me almost had a heart attack. It was a great moment. Great guy. I wouldn't vote for him or his boss, but I sure hope he's still in government.

As I said above, your experience is vastly different from mine, and that probably explains at least in part why we have different points of view on many issues.

Back when the Jones School was established, I thought it was pretty much the understanding that it would go in the direction you suggest. With the addition of the Baker Institute, that's an even more obvious course. Tie a law school in as well, and you'd have some pretty significant potential upside. Not quite sure why not, but it doesn't seem to be happening, and that's too bad. I'd support anything that would improve the quality of people going into public service.

I think that many government employees get in with the best of motives in mind. It's just that the desire to make the world a better place seldom seems to survive the first budget cyce. As for elected officials, the first re-election cycle pretty much seems to do it. Of course, if I had all the perks that a congressperson has, I don't know how well I'd remember that I'd been sent there to do good things for others.

While I don't think I would abandon my fiscal conservatism, I would feel a lot less uncomfortable with the current direction of the country if I thought there was any reasonable chance that the people running all these new agencies would be (a) competent and (b) honest. That's why I'm actually a big believer in the benefits of the much-maligned profit motive. The necessity to compete promotes a stern discipline that prevents things from being incompetently (or unethically) run for long. That doesn't happen in government, you just ask for a bigger budget next year. Enron was terrible, but the shenanigans there didn't go on nearly as long as they did at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (who are non-governmental in name only), and they sure as heck didn't harm the entire economy as much. And there are plenty more government agencies being run just as unethically as Fannie and Freddie, but we'll probably never know about them unless some congressman gets a burr under his/her saddle and decides to investigate. And most of what passes for congressional "investigations" is about 95% grandstanding and 5% investigating, so I'm not optimistic we'd find out then.

(04-28-2010 02:55 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  The best safeguard of liberty (and thus of human happiness) is to prevent the concentration of power in any institution. While all concentrations should be treated with skepticism, concentration in the hands of government is especially to be feared for several compelling reasons:
- the uniquely powerful tools at its disposal, which give it a unique ability to preserve its own monopolies;
- its abominable track record of inflicting human misery on a mass scale (in the last century alone, one of the dominant demographic facts is state-sponsored murder)*;
- and also because, despite the historical record, there seems to be a continuing stream of apologists who are always ready to make the case that this time, government can be trusted (not least because they typically fancy themselves as among those who would conduct, or at least influence, the governing -- a perennially enticing prospect for the self-proclaimed "smart").

These are sensible concerns, george. Are you fearful that the United States is one of those too-powerful governments that might one day inflict mass human misery and thus should not be trusted, even if elites say it should? Or are you fearful that this may happen not in the United States but in other countries that currently have extremely powerful, centralized governments (e.g., Iran)?

(04-28-2010 05:08 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  

(04-28-2010 02:55 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  The best safeguard of liberty (and thus of human happiness) is to prevent the concentration of power in any institution. While all concentrations should be treated with skepticism, concentration in the hands of government is especially to be feared for several compelling reasons:
- the uniquely powerful tools at its disposal, which give it a unique ability to preserve its own monopolies;
- its abominable track record of inflicting human misery on a mass scale (in the last century alone, one of the dominant demographic facts is state-sponsored murder)*;
- and also because, despite the historical record, there seems to be a continuing stream of apologists who are always ready to make the case that this time, government can be trusted (not least because they typically fancy themselves as among those who would conduct, or at least influence, the governing -- a perennially enticing prospect for the self-proclaimed "smart").

These are sensible concerns, george. Are you fearful that the United States is one of those too-powerful governments that might one day inflict mass human misery and thus should not be trusted, even if elites say it should? Or are you fearful that this may happen not in the United States but in other countries that currently have extremely powerful, centralized governments (e.g., Iran)?

I can't speak for George, but I fear both. Can't say I really feared the first before GWB, but with him followed by Obama we have moved way too far in that direction for me to be comfortable.

(04-28-2010 12:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-28-2010 12:08 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  But I also know lots of government employees who are smart, dedicated, awesome people. I am grateful that they are serving our country.

I don't. You've obviously had better luck than I.

Well, wonder of wonders. I am actually going to come down on BO's side, a little, kinda, sorta. For the last 22 years, I have been in a committed relationship with a high-level bureaucrat, now retired. I have watched her work very hard, and she is very smart. I have also seen others of her coworkers who weren't worth a bucket of warm spit, and the maze of regulations, restrictions, and political correctness she had to traverse were beyond my patience.

BUT - government employees just think differently from people in profit-based enterprises, and in our early years some of the things she would tell me of her work would boggle my capitalistic mind. One example: she was crowing to me about a meeting she had with three other top level bureaucrats for three hours to iron out a difference of opinion - should a letter to be sent out use the word "presumed" or the word "assumed"? She was happy that her view prevailed. To her, it was important that it be done "right" - I would have written the letter in 10 minutes and not worried about the subtle differences. I could only think of the cost to the taxpayers of three hours of 4 GS-14s and higher deciding this majorly important matter. I learned about 15 years ago not to compare the government way of doing things with the business world way of doing the same things.

Please don't tell her I told this story. She may assume that I have presumed too much, and dump me. Or so I presume. Or assume, whichever is proper.

(04-29-2010 12:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2010 12:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-28-2010 12:08 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  But I also know lots of government employees who are smart, dedicated, awesome people. I am grateful that they are serving our country.

I don't. You've obviously had better luck than I.

Well, wonder of wonders. I am actually going to come down on BO's side, a little, kinda, sorta. For the last 22 years, I have been in a committed relationship with a high-level bureaucrat, now retired. I have watched her work very hard, and she is very smart. I have also seen others of her coworkers who weren't worth a bucket of warm spit, and the maze of regulations, restrictions, and political correctness she had to traverse were beyond my patience.
BUT - government employees just think differently from people in profit-based enterprises, and in our early years some of the things she would tell me of her work would boggle my capitalistic mind. One example: she was crowing to me about a meeting she had with three other top level bureaucrats for three hours to iron out a difference of opinion - should a letter to be sent out use the word "presumed" or the word "assumed"? She was happy that her view prevailed. To her, it was important that it be done "right" - I would have written the letter in 10 minutes and not worried about the subtle differences. I could only think of the cost to the taxpayers of three hours of 4 GS-14s and higher deciding this majorly important matter. I learned about 15 years ago not to compare the government way of doing things with the business world way of doing the same things.

I guess you've expressed a lot of my frustrations. I've been in and out of both government and private industry throughout my career, and I've attended far more than my share of meetings similar to the one you describe. I've just dealt with too many bureaucrats with egos so overblown that getting their way, no matter how trivial the matter, was far more important than what it cost the taxpayers, or what good or bad results it inflicted on society, for them to get there. I'd much rather deal with people like that in the private sector, where I can always take my business down the street to a competitor, and if enough people do that they will be out on their head, ego and all.