"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 10:19:48 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:
HDI is another arbitrary UN project that consists of weightings pulled out
of a hat. 'You want to boost the US HDI? Try universal healthcare.
Whoops...that isn't part of the libertarian program, is it?
Damned straight, it ain't.
I notice that you snipped the part where I pointed out that EVERY country
that ranks higher than us DOES have universal healthcare. So, you may not
think much of the value of the HDI (I don't). But don't raise the point
(Stuart) and then turn around and say that universal healthcare isn't a
contibutor to the HDIs of those countries with higher rankings.
You can give it another boost by shooting all the cows.
Hmm, is it milk or beef which is killing everyone, Ed? Or just the
hormone and antibiotic overdoses?
Probably all of the above contribute to a reduced lifespan. This isn't an
arguable point. The epidemiological studies, hundreds of which I've read and
reported on, are unequivocal.
But, if you *really
* want to get us on top, the long-term solution is obvious: Bulldoze the
inner cities flat.
And house the unwashed masses where?
That's your problem. d8-) My job is to raise our HDI. Stuart seems to think
it's important.
--snip of more HDI stuff because I'm not up on it--
So what does that have to do with libertarians or Libertarians? Don't they
have sex?
Evidently, most are hetero and have sex only with consenting partners
only. Pretty wild, huh?
What's your evidence for this? I've seen nothing to support your point.
They found that out 200 years ago, but there are still plenty of rich
people
around -- more than ever, in fact. I guess the "guy" was full of it, eh?
Again since we are not governed by principles, then the rule is grab
what
you can for yourself. Isn't this what you complain about in the big
corporations??
No. It's what I *expect* of greedy and overly ambitious people who are
given
the opportunity. My complaint is that we give them too many opportunities,
thanks to our semi-libertarian approach to (de)regulation of business, and
financial business in particular.
The libertarian ethos says "do as you like as long as it doesn't screw
with others."
Screw your "ethos." Remember when I said a couple of days ago that the
libertarian program is a moralistic one, and you scoffed? Now you're proving
my point. So-called libertarianism isn't a program, or a set of principles
for running a government. It's a cry in the wilderness for people to be more
moral.
Good luck. Both religious and secular leaders have been trying to do that
for thousands of years. By now it should be evident that people's morality
isn't going to change much one way or the other. If you want to design a
system of government that works with people as they really are, forget the
looney-tune philosophies that count on making better people. The object is
better government for the people as they are.
Lax Rep and Dem laws allowed the cluster**** that is our
current economy, not libertarians. They're practically non-existent in
the government so far. You can't blame this one on us, Ed.
Yet, anyway. 
The "cluster****" is one of the strongest economies in the world that is on
the downside of a business cycle. Every time the cycle swings down, out come
the Chicken Littles screaming that the sky is falling.
Here's an excercise. Step outdoors. See if the sky is really falling. Check
your refrigerator. Is there food in it? Good. Are there clothes in your
closet? Does your Internet connection still work? Good news.
Welcome to the business cycle. The idiots who said it had been overcome and
eliminated have just been proven to be idiots. That's all.
This is a PARTICIPATORY democracy, not a stage show for critics. And it
isn't a parliamentary system. It's a two-party system with a strong
president. That keeps it a two-party system.
Theoretically, anyway.
Theoretically? Have you noticed how the system actually *works*, in
practice? Screw the theory. It's the practice.
Fraud, waste, and abuse are endemic to large institutions, especially
governments. Oversight helps. Turning your back on it, as Reagan and Bush
have done, and as libertarians would do to an even greater degree, just
makes it worse.
That's your theory, right, seeing as no libertarians have been in
enough power to test it?
There is plenty of evidence right now. Libertarians want to eliminate
regulations on business, except for outright fraud. See how many mortgage
lenders can be proven to have violated the law in the current subprime
crises. They weren't violating the law. They were exploiting a libertarian
program of deregulation that gave them holes big enough to drive a truck
through. And they did.
Larry even thinks that libertarians would be more honest. Talk about blind
faith; I know of no reason to believe they would be any more honest. In my
estimation, exactly the opposite would be true. By eliminating regulation
and oversight, you'd may as well be offering the crooks and pirates an
engraved invitation.
Well your light bulb just dimmed. Ron Paul is a Representative from
Texas
not Arizona.
One stinkindesert is as good as the next. d8-)
Two points!
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.
That sounds like your primary gripe.
Faulty gov't agencies get your attention pretty quickly when they
enter your own life, Ed. Unfortunately, it usually comes in a negative
way.
Then fix them. The libertarians sure as hell couldn't do it. They don't even
want to regulate business, fer chrissake.
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.
How would libertarianism fix that, or any of the other things you've
listed?
It all looks like some kind of blind faith. What kind, I have no idea.
Well, how many libertarians have been caught in frauds, sex scandals,
or kickbacks?
What libertarians have been in a position to do so? d8-) As I said, it's all
blind faith. You seem to think that libertarians are a different species.
Gee, it all seems to be Reps and Dems, doesn't it?
Duh....they're the ones in power. It's whoever is in power. People being
people, ambitious and greedy people like power. They get into positions of
power if they have the ability. And then some of them exercise their
tendencies to ignore the law and to acquire wealth. The problem is greed for
power and wealth. It's always been a problem.
But you need people who are willing to do the job. So you regulate them, and
watch over them like a hawk, so they can't go on a rampage. You need more
regulation, not less -- because libertarians haven't figured out how to
breed a new species of people.
Or
do excellent track records not figure into your theories against
libertarians? You're awfully hot over this, Ed. Have you looked at
what's affecting your perspective yet? Please do.
What in the hell is that statement supposed to mean? English, please.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. I do not own or think
that
an SUV is the car to own but based on statistics it seems that the
majority of the people who are supporting the political parties running
the US do. Another example of thinking things thru.
Talk to Larry. He has a 6,000-pound truck to haul 500 pounds of tools. g
...daily, and frequently hauling sheets of plywood, 8-20' lengths of
tuba fore/six/eight/ten/twelve and 4xX posts, sacks of concrete, rolls
of fencing, ladders, digging bars, table saws, miter saws, trailers,
cement mixers, etc. Check your biases, bubba.
P.S: My Tundra weighs only 4,850 lbs....
Dry weight. You're 98% liquid, and so is your fuel and coolant. d8-)
... and can tote an extra 1,750 lbs
in the bed. The beefyness of the truck ensures that it can also haul
more weight safely, 8,500 pounds worth.
And do you haul 8.500 pounds with it? I thought you said that the most you
carry is 500 pounds of tools, right?
--
Ed Huntress