"Stuart Wheaton" wrote in message
...
Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

SNIP

...to get us out of our current Morass?
What morass? Are you starving? Are you threatened by some other country?
Did you have to sell your children into slavery? What in the hell are
you talking about, "morass"?
I'm talking about the Morass of restrictive laws and rules such as the
FEMA telling me that I might have to raise my entire 40X72 steel building
because of some bureacratic derived flood plain that there exists no
evidence, historically or otherwise to support.

This sounds strange, are they telling you to move it, or that if you want
to be covered by federal flood insurance, you need to move it? The gov't
has never had a problem with people building in flood areas before...
Maybe you just need to build a 2' high levee around it.
Sounded even stranger to me when I asked just what hazard to the public we
were addressing, they refused to answer. They just said that if my building
extension cost were above some number, I would have to raise the existing
structure 1.5'. There is no signs of any flooding ever occurring in the
area of my house. We are over 6' higher than the local road which is 250'
away. Discussions with local who have lived here 75 years cannot recall any
flooding of any amount where we live. Our house has been here 35 years and
hasn't seen anything other than a couple of puddles in the dirt road. FEMA
has forced local builders to import soil and create areas of extreme dust
storms when the winds blow. There have been hundreds of thousands of
dollars spent in this hauling soil, creating dust storms which load the
neighbors houses up with dirt. I do NOT want flood insurance. I'm not in
any hazard from a flood unless half of California drops off into the
Pacific.

I'm talking about the 3 star general in charge of the Strategic Defense
Command responsible for the Star Wars stuff getting his hand caught in
the cooky jar setting himself up with BDC for a post retirement job.

Isn't that the libertarian Ideal? Sell himself to the highest bidder? are
you against regulations or for them?
This is not the Libertarian Ideal. The Libertarians that I know believe
that the federal government should be restricted to the powers granted to
them by the Constitution. The existing laws should have taken care of the 3
star. Instead he was allowed to retire with full honors and as far as I
know he is now a consultant for some "Beltway Bandit". No we are not
insisting that the laws we already have be inforced. The "Powers that Be"
are ignoring them.
I'm talking about the 2 star general that changed a $750M contract scope
of work to a cost + award fee effort to Raytheon in spite of an Army
science board paper which stated unequivocally that the Army did not have
anyone technicall qualified to perform an award fee determination for
that effort. I'm talking about two people that I know who just obtained
government funding to produce some three radars using contract supplied
radar pedestals of quality much inferior to those setting right under
their noses in the supply yard.

In a libertarian world, low quality means low cost right? Maximize
profits, nobody HAS to stand under them, Freedom Right?
No at least my view of Libertarianism has a much higher demand on personal
ethics. With higher demand on personal ethics, the need for government
regulations decreases. The opportunity to create bureaucratic agencies that
exist primarily for their own existence goes away.

I'm talking about FEMA spending over $1M producing houses for the Typhoon
stricken Marshall Islands. The houses were fabricated with prest wood
with absolutely no studs.

So which great libertarian principle do you want applied here? More
oversight of FEMA? What about the contractor who built the shoddy
product? Why didn't that company, which arguably should know construction
better than some Bush college buddy now running procurement for FEMA, why
didn't they say, "Hey this won't do!, you gotta beef it up"? were they
libertarians, just making what they were told for maximum profit?
Hey I screamed like a stuck pig. I went to San Francisco and complained
about the incompetency being demonstrated by FEMA (one of their "architects"
laid out a repair job for an existing structure and he laid out the studs on
some multiple of 13". He also thought that 2x4s measured 2" x 4"
With just a little removing of the blinders example after example of
incompetent government rulings are just obvious.

I'm not seeing how adding greed and removing oversight will solve it
I don't think that the Libertarian principles that I know would generate
greed. Among the principles for personal accountability and personal ethics
that are necessary for the self regulations of the population, greed would
be a deficiency. If our society as a whole took greed and the need to exert
power over people to be a negative , a lot of what we now see in our
non-libertarian environment would go away. But then that is acting on
principles and not just attitudes and situational ethics.


The other Stuart

Glad to see somebody else who spells it properly!
Those other Stewarts are just wannabees.