Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message .. . "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message .. . snip Ed: We are driving a 2003 Jetta TDI at least one occasion have seen 55mpg on a 500mile trip. The worst was 47mpg driving 80mph into a 25mph headwind. However, California made them illegal in 2004. I saw your comment about that before, Stuart, and it's remarkable. If diesel wasn't so ridiculously overpriced I'd consider it. My former neighbor has a turbodiesel New Beetle of about that vintage and he says he gets 45+ mpg with it, too. Also BTW I will take the "illegal profiteering" if it means the bloody incompetent federal government will keep their bureacratic noses out of our everyday business: FEMA is dictating building codes out in the desert and establishing "Flood Plains" where there is no record of anykind of flooding in the past 75 years. I was told that I might be required to raise my existing structure (40X72 steel building setting on a concrete slab) 1.5' above the existing ground grade!!! Libertarian? You bet. After seeing the government in action with Star Wars (I was involved in Star Wars for 6 years), the current Iraq farce, BATF, DEA etc etc. I don't see how anyone could avoid Libertarian leanings. Leanings, yes. Most Americans have a little streak of libertarian in them. Political party or ideology, no. Political candidates -- well, it keeps the libertarians from voting for jerks like Bush. g I'm reminded of one of the complaints registered in the Declaration of Independence: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." If that doesn't describe our BLM, FEMA, BATF, DEA etc. etc. We interfaced directly with FEMA in support of disaster relief in the Marshall Islands for two years and were sick and tired of apoligizing to the Marshallese people for the stupid, arrogant behavior of FEMA. Libertarian? And the alternatives are? It depends on what you want. If you want to grumble and have nothing happen, libertarianism is great. It's the ideology for people who won't be happy no matter what happens. This is probably true since the "something that happens" is generally being done by people who want to exert power over someone else. Waiting for the government to make "something happen" is guaranteed to yield "something" that will be resented in the near future. Most of the Libertarians see the problems that need solving are problems better solved by something other than an agency whose existence does not depend on their competence. Like what? Do you mean the "free market"? If that's the case, are you willing to live with what the "free market" decides? The few such as the highways and national defense are a few of the problems needing a more global approach offered by the Feds. Even then look at the military industrial complex and at just one example of fraud, waste and abuse created by the military being forced to deal with "expiring funds". It is, and if you have a solution, a lot of people will be interested. Libertarians don't have solutions. They have faith. But it's a mish-mash of different ideas that just don't fit together. Basically, self-styled libertarians are pure moralists, who have a patchwork quilt of moral principles that depend on everyone else thinking precisely like them. Yep. Somewhere we need to start with a guiding principle that we can all agree on. Otherwise we just have a morass not unlike looting. That's libertarianism: Everyone tries to loot everyone else. Of course, this is the opposite of what libertarians claim. But look at the current example: calling a fortuitous profit "profiteering," and favoring making it illegal. If those same gas stations got caught short with long-term oil purchases, while one guy in town was buying spot-market oil when it was on the way down and dropped prices below the cost of the other guys, and they all took a bath, the anti-profiteering "libertarians" would just shrug and say "that's the market for you." It's a moralism of convenience. Libertarians will claim that it isn't true, but few of them think it through sufficiently to recognize what they're doing. Ed: This can certainly be said for all of the political parties and especially our "Representatives" Then what's different about libertarianism? The current state of our society is to a large measure the result of our society allowing the people who "make things happen" to run loose. The constantly increasing size of government to do for people what they should be doing for themselves and the things like the Iraq war, the War on drugs which is costing a bunch and not yielding any significant results. Who is thinking their way thru to these results? What I hear, Stuart, is that you don't like the way things are going and that you think they'd go better if the government did very little. As I said, that's faith, not a solution. There is no example in modern history that supports the libertarian view -- except for tribal societies run by warlords. Like most philosophical, political ideologies, libertarianism is based on a mistaken view of human nature and a nearly complete disregard for the system of incentives that results from the libertarian plan. Free-market philosophies lead to the incentive structure that gave us Enron and the mortgage debacle. Most of those atrocities were *not* the result of breaking fundamental laws. They were examples of exploiting the weaknesses of markets, especially in today's complex economic world. Libertarianism itself is a prescription for chaos. The "guiding principles" you mention bear further exploration: if you sort out what they really mean, you'll find that you're founding your system on intellectual conservatism, which leads inevitably to a much more restrictive society than the one you're talking about. The libertarian principle is more like what Thomas Jefferson proposed, when he said that we should scrap our Constitution every 19 years and write a new one. I'm sure that's not what you have in mind. g As I said earlier, the small streak of libertarian leaning shared by most Americans is a common and a good thing. But it's not a system; it produces all truly stupid party platform; and it's unworkable. With apologies to Jean Kirkpatrick, it amounts to a letter to Santa Claus. I took a course in the Weapons Systems Acquistion Management put on by DoD. The word results was almost never used. The whole thing was about the process and making the process fit some model. The students didn't have a clue as to whether the results would solve the original problem. In fact they were all relatively ignorant and didn't care what the original problem was. Think their way thru? A very rare activity in my experience with the Federal Government and one usually only used in programming a path to promotion. One thing lacking in all of the political parties that I see is the lack of a guiding principle. Looking on the internet for expressions of guiding philosophy of the Democrats, the Republicans and the Libertarians, the only one with a clear statement of philosophy was the Libertarians. That's the problem. They're about a philosophy, not about running a government. Government is about assuring that the structure of incentives produces a beneficial result -- maximum life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I get the impression that both the Democrats and the Republicans are for whatever will get them elected. The Constitution, Declaration of Independence and even the Articles of Confederation don't seem to provide a clear statement that we are going to use as a guiding principle. At present, our basic principle seems to be: "Whats in it for me?" I know a bunch of people who are really for the government controlled health care. They ain't thought that thru very far. They are blinded with "what it can do for me" and ignore the myriad of examples of government incompetencies and costs demonstrated over and over again. The long range effect of some of these social programs is the reduction in the need to fend for yourself and will ultimately lead to the downfall of the nation. Who was it said the death of democracy is ordained when the people find out that they can vote themselves money. An old fool who said that before he got a chance to see what actually happens. In the US right now, it's the rich who tend to vote themselves more money. In any case, it doesn't work the way democracy's detractors thought it would. I tend to agree the formal Libertarian party seems to be just a "spit and whittle" kind of organization. I offered to start a fund raising pyramid to raise funds for Libertarian candidates and got zero response. I know that I'm tired of bureaucrats stripping my freedoms away and forcing me to pay for the process. Maybe you should re-name it the Grumbler's Party. Then you'd probably get more takers. g -- Ed Huntress |
#82
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:46:08 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner Asch quickly quoth: On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:57:16 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: Besides, I can't get in and out of my shop as it is. Plan on leaving heavy I can't afford the gas to get to the free stuff, Gunner. DAMN! Well, I probably could if you could scare up a free mini-mill and mini-lathe. Let me know soon, eh? vbg got a neat little japanese turret lathe...... And the 918 rivette i could maybe trade you something for...case of Monsters or something...but none of them are Mini..though the jap lathe is pretty close What are a "918 rivette" and "case of Monsters", pray tell? -- Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing. -- Thomas Paine |
#83
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:16:22 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message . .. On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:17:35 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message m... On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:09:45 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: Whoopee, the free market in action! g Can you say "illegal profiteering"? I knew you could. Pfffhhht. That sounds like something a socialist would say. Watch out, they'll take away your libertarian card. d8-) No, we Libertarians want the gov't out of our pockets, but we still want businesses to be fair. And that's one of the intellectual contradictions that leads me to scoff at libertarianism. You want it both ways: keep the government out of free markets, but employ the government to correct the things you believe are "unfair." To be a libertarian of that sort, you have to be comfortable with a lot of contradictions. For starters, you have to accept the fact that To profess allegiance to any politcal party demands that you be in contradiction with either reality or beliefs at some point in time. So what's your point? It's not just parties. It's also ideologies, party-based or not. Profiteering is not only illegal, it's downright wrong. Google sez: "Definitions of profiteering on the Web: * Profiteering is a pejorative term for the act of making a profit by methods considered unethical. Business owners may be accused of profiteering ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profiteering (business) * The act of making an unreasonable profit not justified by the corresponding assumption of risk, or by doing so unethically en.wiktionary.org/wiki/profiteering" Whose ethics? And, if profit making has to conform to a prescribed correspondance between risk and reward -- and if the libertarian admits that free markets don't always do that, because they can lead to profiteering -- who is to establish the "fair" relationship between risk and reward? That comes awfully close to the thinking behind centrally controlled markets. It sounds a lot like socialism. First, I thought that gas prices were set by the gov't. Nope. They set the taxes, not the retail price. Stations can make a set percentage above the price they pay to the oil companies. Where is that? Not in NJ. The market sets the price here. Numerous articles in the newspaper over the years complaining about collusion by the stations have fueled (sorry) that. Loose regulation, lots of collusion. That's the free market for you. Second, I thought profiteering was also frowned upon by societal norms. I don't consider that socialism, per se. The people who pay the price frown upon it. But give them a chance to screw a local gas station, and that's just the free market at work. Right? When they switched to the mandated 10% ethanol here, my mileage went from 14 down to 12.3mpg. I'm hoping to do considerably better next month on the trip to CA. The Tundra stickered at 15-19mpg. sigh I only carry about 500 pounds of tools around with me, so it's not like I'm loading the half tone pickup down and losing gas mileage as a result. sigh2 That sounds gruesome to me. My Sonata gets 30 mpg highway. My Focus gets around 33. Next time, I'm going to buy something that *really* gets good mileage. d8-) Can you carry 400 pounds of tools + plywood + a dozen 2"x6"x16' boards in your Focus? I don't have to. But you could be driving something a lot smaller that could handle it. I'm not suggesting that you should, only that it's clear you're paying a lot more than you have to, both for the vehicle and for the cost to fuel it. That's your choice. Unfortunately, my truck is both a luxury and a necessity. If the brakes in the Tacomas hadn't been so damned hard to push, I might have bought one of those, with twice the fuel economy. But they just felt -wrong-. The Tundra has 4-wheel discs and could prolly toss beanbags out of the back of the bed with precision. 65-0 in 158 feet flat! That's great. I hope it compensates you for the fuel cost. d8-) -- Ed Huntress |
#84
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:06:51 -0500, cavelamb himself
wrote: There is no way I'm going to try correcting Wikipedia definitions. For that much writing I expect to be paid. d8-) The thing to do with Wikipedia is to use it for references, IMO. Centrism is not a compromise between the two poles. That's muddle-headed middle-of-the-roadism (see if Wikipedia has a definition for *that*). It's a recognition that the two poles are incomplete in themselves, and that they lead to falling-off-the-road-and-running-into-the-ditchism, because they may get the ying, but they never get the yang, and vice-versa. OK? d8-) -- Ed Huntress Well be that way! I meant to post a link to that "radical centrist" thinking I was talking about, in case you want a taste of it. This is the primary site for the serious intellectuals in that crowd: http://www.newamerica.net/ -- Ed Huntress |
#85
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 06:28:06 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote: On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:46:08 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm, Gunner Asch quickly quoth: On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:57:16 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: Besides, I can't get in and out of my shop as it is. Plan on leaving heavy I can't afford the gas to get to the free stuff, Gunner. DAMN! Well, I probably could if you could scare up a free mini-mill and mini-lathe. Let me know soon, eh? vbg got a neat little japanese turret lathe...... And the 918 rivette i could maybe trade you something for...case of Monsters or something...but none of them are Mini..though the jap lathe is pretty close What are a "918 rivette" and "case of Monsters", pray tell? 918 rivett lathe, second ops, with turret, cross slide and a drawer full of dead length collets, 3 jaw, the manual etc etcetc http://www.ozarkwoodworker.com/item/...orparts-manua/ Hanson's Monster Energy Drink http://www.monsterenergy.com/ "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." -- Norman Thomas, American socialist |
#86
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message .. . "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message .. . snip Ed: We are driving a 2003 Jetta TDI at least one occasion have seen 55mpg on a 500mile trip. The worst was 47mpg driving 80mph into a 25mph headwind. However, California made them illegal in 2004. I saw your comment about that before, Stuart, and it's remarkable. If diesel wasn't so ridiculously overpriced I'd consider it. My former neighbor has a turbodiesel New Beetle of about that vintage and he says he gets 45+ mpg with it, too. Also BTW I will take the "illegal profiteering" if it means the bloody incompetent federal government will keep their bureacratic noses out of our everyday business: FEMA is dictating building codes out in the desert and establishing "Flood Plains" where there is no record of anykind of flooding in the past 75 years. I was told that I might be required to raise my existing structure (40X72 steel building setting on a concrete slab) 1.5' above the existing ground grade!!! Libertarian? You bet. After seeing the government in action with Star Wars (I was involved in Star Wars for 6 years), the current Iraq farce, BATF, DEA etc etc. I don't see how anyone could avoid Libertarian leanings. Leanings, yes. Most Americans have a little streak of libertarian in them. Political party or ideology, no. Political candidates -- well, it keeps the libertarians from voting for jerks like Bush. g I'm reminded of one of the complaints registered in the Declaration of Independence: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." If that doesn't describe our BLM, FEMA, BATF, DEA etc. etc. We interfaced directly with FEMA in support of disaster relief in the Marshall Islands for two years and were sick and tired of apoligizing to the Marshallese people for the stupid, arrogant behavior of FEMA. Libertarian? And the alternatives are? It depends on what you want. If you want to grumble and have nothing happen, libertarianism is great. It's the ideology for people who won't be happy no matter what happens. This is probably true since the "something that happens" is generally being done by people who want to exert power over someone else. Waiting for the government to make "something happen" is guaranteed to yield "something" that will be resented in the near future. Most of the Libertarians see the problems that need solving are problems better solved by something other than an agency whose existence does not depend on their competence. Like what? Do you mean the "free market"? If that's the case, are you willing to live with what the "free market" decides? Yes if it gets rid of BLM, FEMA, BATF, DEA, TSA, and a number of others that are questionable in terms of "powers explicitly" those of the federal government. Those agencies are costing us a bunch with questionable yield. And once an agency is established, it is there for life. The few such as the highways and national defense are a few of the problems needing a more global approach offered by the Feds. Even then look at the military industrial complex and at just one example of fraud, waste and abuse created by the military being forced to deal with "expiring funds". It is, and if you have a solution, a lot of people will be interested. Libertarians don't have solutions. They have faith. Hell yes I have a solution: Quit focussing on the accounting process that likes "Expiring funds" and focus on the problem that needs to be solved and commit to solving the problem, not making the books look good. I worked in R&D for years and watched good ideas go down the tube because of "Expiring" funds. Example: Vertical seeking ejection seat. Demonstrated in the 70s right where I work. USN still doesn't have them. Would save lives (expensively trained lives if you want to make it an matter of economics). I can rattle off a bunch of similar examples from my experience. But it's a mish-mash of different ideas that just don't fit together. Basically, self-styled libertarians are pure moralists, who have a patchwork quilt of moral principles that depend on everyone else thinking precisely like them. Yep. Somewhere we need to start with a guiding principle that we can all agree on. Otherwise we just have a morass not unlike looting. That's libertarianism: Everyone tries to loot everyone else. Excuse me if I remember correctly we are not presently being exposed to libertarianism but the looting is certainly going on right now. The looting is being done by the Republican administration and the Democratic congress. Of course, this is the opposite of what libertarians claim. But look at the current example: calling a fortuitous profit "profiteering," and favoring making it illegal. If those same gas stations got caught short with long-term oil purchases, while one guy in town was buying spot-market oil when it was on the way down and dropped prices below the cost of the other guys, and they all took a bath, the anti-profiteering "libertarians" would just shrug and say "that's the market for you." It's a moralism of convenience. Libertarians will claim that it isn't true, but few of them think it through sufficiently to recognize what they're doing. Ed: This can certainly be said for all of the political parties and especially our "Representatives" Then what's different about libertarianism? Libertarianism doesn't want the government in our pants everytime we turn around. It isn't hard to see the effects of the government contrived agencies designed to protect us from the internal ravages of our own stupidity example the current mortgage farce where people borrowed money they couldn't pay back. That situation will take care of itself by letting the people learn that that kind of stupidity doesn't work. The lenders? They will learn when they have to reposess houses they can't sell. Will they learn that in the present? No because our government will borrow money to bail them out and the penalty for their actions will not be felt. We learn by making mistakes and if someone snatches the mistakes from us the learning is greatly reduced. The current state of our society is to a large measure the result of our society allowing the people who "make things happen" to run loose. The constantly increasing size of government to do for people what they should be doing for themselves and the things like the Iraq war, the War on drugs which is costing a bunch and not yielding any significant results. Who is thinking their way thru to these results? What I hear, Stuart, is that you don't like the way things are going and that you think they'd go better if the government did very little. As I said, that's faith, not a solution. There is no example in modern history that supports the libertarian view -- except for tribal societies run by warlords. Like most philosophical, political ideologies, libertarianism is based on a mistaken view of human nature and a nearly complete disregard for the system of incentives that results from the libertarian plan. Free-market philosophies lead to the incentive structure that gave us Enron and the mortgage debacle. Most of those atrocities were *not* the result of breaking fundamental laws. They were examples of exploiting the weaknesses of markets, especially in today's complex economic world. Yep and the fall of the Soviet Union was not because Libertarian principles were being practiced. Government intervention conducted by bureacrats that haven't a clue about the things that they are supposed to manage is quite a prescription for disaster. Libertarianism itself is a prescription for chaos. The "guiding principles" you mention bear further exploration: if you sort out what they really mean, you'll find that you're founding your system on intellectual conservatism, which leads inevitably to a much more restrictive society than the one you're talking about. The libertarian principle is more like what Thomas Jefferson proposed, when he said that we should scrap our Constitution every 19 years and write a new one. We might just as well do that if we are going to ignore the Constitution and just interpret it to justify what we want to do. Current examples are again rampant. I'm sure that's not what you have in mind. g As I said earlier, the small streak of libertarian leaning shared by most Americans is a common and a good thing. But it's not a system; it produces all truly stupid party platform; and it's unworkable. With apologies to Jean Kirkpatrick, it amounts to a letter to Santa Claus. I took a course in the Weapons Systems Acquistion Management put on by DoD. The word results was almost never used. The whole thing was about the process and making the process fit some model. The students didn't have a clue as to whether the results would solve the original problem. In fact they were all relatively ignorant and didn't care what the original problem was. Think their way thru? A very rare activity in my experience with the Federal Government and one usually only used in programming a path to promotion. One thing lacking in all of the political parties that I see is the lack of a guiding principle. Looking on the internet for expressions of guiding philosophy of the Democrats, the Republicans and the Libertarians, the only one with a clear statement of philosophy was the Libertarians. That's the problem. They're about a philosophy, not about running a government. Government is about assuring that the structure of incentives produces a beneficial result -- maximum life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Yep and FEMA telling me that I may have to raise my existing 40X72 steel building 1.5' because of some imagined Flood Plain is one hell of an example of that beneficial result. I get the impression that both the Democrats and the Republicans are for whatever will get them elected. The Constitution, Declaration of Independence and even the Articles of Confederation don't seem to provide a clear statement that we are going to use as a guiding principle. At present, our basic principle seems to be: "Whats in it for me?" I know a bunch of people who are really for the government controlled health care. They ain't thought that thru very far. They are blinded with "what it can do for me" and ignore the myriad of examples of government incompetencies and costs demonstrated over and over again. The long range effect of some of these social programs is the reduction in the need to fend for yourself and will ultimately lead to the downfall of the nation. Who was it said the death of democracy is ordained when the people find out that they can vote themselves money. An old fool who said that before he got a chance to see what actually happens. In the US right now, it's the rich who tend to vote themselves more money. In any case, it doesn't work the way democracy's detractors thought it would. I tend to agree the formal Libertarian party seems to be just a "spit and whittle" kind of organization. I offered to start a fund raising pyramid to raise funds for Libertarian candidates and got zero response. I know that I'm tired of bureaucrats stripping my freedoms away and forcing me to pay for the process. Maybe you should re-name it the Grumbler's Party. Then you'd probably get more takers. g Well Ed you had better hope that the Grumblers keep telling the King he ain't got clothes on. The non-Grumblers seem to be approving of business as usual. As I recall it was a bunch of Grumblers that got fed up and started this whole Union. Also take note that Ron Paul is creating a growing following. -- Ed Huntress |
#87
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message .. . "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message .. . "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message .. . snip Ed: We are driving a 2003 Jetta TDI at least one occasion have seen 55mpg on a 500mile trip. The worst was 47mpg driving 80mph into a 25mph headwind. However, California made them illegal in 2004. I saw your comment about that before, Stuart, and it's remarkable. If diesel wasn't so ridiculously overpriced I'd consider it. My former neighbor has a turbodiesel New Beetle of about that vintage and he says he gets 45+ mpg with it, too. Also BTW I will take the "illegal profiteering" if it means the bloody incompetent federal government will keep their bureacratic noses out of our everyday business: FEMA is dictating building codes out in the desert and establishing "Flood Plains" where there is no record of anykind of flooding in the past 75 years. I was told that I might be required to raise my existing structure (40X72 steel building setting on a concrete slab) 1.5' above the existing ground grade!!! Libertarian? You bet. After seeing the government in action with Star Wars (I was involved in Star Wars for 6 years), the current Iraq farce, BATF, DEA etc etc. I don't see how anyone could avoid Libertarian leanings. Leanings, yes. Most Americans have a little streak of libertarian in them. Political party or ideology, no. Political candidates -- well, it keeps the libertarians from voting for jerks like Bush. g I'm reminded of one of the complaints registered in the Declaration of Independence: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." If that doesn't describe our BLM, FEMA, BATF, DEA etc. etc. We interfaced directly with FEMA in support of disaster relief in the Marshall Islands for two years and were sick and tired of apoligizing to the Marshallese people for the stupid, arrogant behavior of FEMA. Libertarian? And the alternatives are? It depends on what you want. If you want to grumble and have nothing happen, libertarianism is great. It's the ideology for people who won't be happy no matter what happens. This is probably true since the "something that happens" is generally being done by people who want to exert power over someone else. Waiting for the government to make "something happen" is guaranteed to yield "something" that will be resented in the near future. Most of the Libertarians see the problems that need solving are problems better solved by something other than an agency whose existence does not depend on their competence. Like what? Do you mean the "free market"? If that's the case, are you willing to live with what the "free market" decides? Yes if it gets rid of BLM, FEMA, BATF, DEA, TSA, and a number of others that are questionable in terms of "powers explicitly" those of the federal government. Those agencies are costing us a bunch with questionable yield. And once an agency is established, it is there for life. Then prepare to be turned upside down and have your pockets shaken out. g Food prices will immediately double without subsidies, oil will *really* get expensive, and, within a couple of years, every business in America will be owned by one or two companies. They'll wring you dry, because there will be nothing to stop monopolies, cartels, oligopolies, and other manipulators from taking over. The few such as the highways and national defense are a few of the problems needing a more global approach offered by the Feds. Even then look at the military industrial complex and at just one example of fraud, waste and abuse created by the military being forced to deal with "expiring funds". It is, and if you have a solution, a lot of people will be interested. Libertarians don't have solutions. They have faith. Hell yes I have a solution: Quit focussing on the accounting process that likes "Expiring funds" and focus on the problem that needs to be solved and commit to solving the problem, not making the books look good. I worked in R&D for years and watched good ideas go down the tube because of "Expiring" funds. Example: Vertical seeking ejection seat. Demonstrated in the 70s right where I work. USN still doesn't have them. Would save lives (expensively trained lives if you want to make it an matter of economics). I can rattle off a bunch of similar examples from my experience. What R&D? What Navy? You're talking about the libertarian world, remember. Whose going to invest in R&D in a free market? It only happens because of tax breaks, subsidies, and preferential treatment of certain business operations. In a free market, those things are gone. But it's a mish-mash of different ideas that just don't fit together. Basically, self-styled libertarians are pure moralists, who have a patchwork quilt of moral principles that depend on everyone else thinking precisely like them. Yep. Somewhere we need to start with a guiding principle that we can all agree on. Otherwise we just have a morass not unlike looting. That's libertarianism: Everyone tries to loot everyone else. Excuse me if I remember correctly we are not presently being exposed to libertarianism but the looting is certainly going on right now. The looting is being done by the Republican administration and the Democratic congress. If you get a liberatarian government, you ain't seen nothing yet. Looting will be fully privatized, with real incentives to perform. d8-) Of course, this is the opposite of what libertarians claim. But look at the current example: calling a fortuitous profit "profiteering," and favoring making it illegal. If those same gas stations got caught short with long-term oil purchases, while one guy in town was buying spot-market oil when it was on the way down and dropped prices below the cost of the other guys, and they all took a bath, the anti-profiteering "libertarians" would just shrug and say "that's the market for you." It's a moralism of convenience. Libertarians will claim that it isn't true, but few of them think it through sufficiently to recognize what they're doing. Ed: This can certainly be said for all of the political parties and especially our "Representatives" Then what's different about libertarianism? Libertarianism doesn't want the government in our pants everytime we turn around. It isn't hard to see the effects of the government contrived agencies designed to protect us from the internal ravages of our own stupidity example the current mortgage farce where people borrowed money they couldn't pay back. That situation will take care of itself by letting the people learn that that kind of stupidity doesn't work. Good plan. Do you have plenty of ammo, for when those impoverished, starving people come knocking at your door? Maybe they'll form mobs and will have a few guns themselves. After all, what will they have to lose? The lenders? They will learn when they have to reposess houses they can't sell. No way, Hose-A. They no longer own the houses. They sold the mortgages to your retirement fund. Will they learn that in the present? No because our government will borrow money to bail them out and the penalty for their actions will not be felt. We learn by making mistakes and if someone snatches the mistakes from us the learning is greatly reduced. The current state of our society is to a large measure the result of our society allowing the people who "make things happen" to run loose. The constantly increasing size of government to do for people what they should be doing for themselves and the things like the Iraq war, the War on drugs which is costing a bunch and not yielding any significant results. Who is thinking their way thru to these results? What I hear, Stuart, is that you don't like the way things are going and that you think they'd go better if the government did very little. As I said, that's faith, not a solution. There is no example in modern history that supports the libertarian view -- except for tribal societies run by warlords. Like most philosophical, political ideologies, libertarianism is based on a mistaken view of human nature and a nearly complete disregard for the system of incentives that results from the libertarian plan. Free-market philosophies lead to the incentive structure that gave us Enron and the mortgage debacle. Most of those atrocities were *not* the result of breaking fundamental laws. They were examples of exploiting the weaknesses of markets, especially in today's complex economic world. Yep and the fall of the Soviet Union was not because Libertarian principles were being practiced. Government intervention conducted by bureacrats that haven't a clue about the things that they are supposed to manage is quite a prescription for disaster. Libertarianism itself is a prescription for chaos. The "guiding principles" you mention bear further exploration: if you sort out what they really mean, you'll find that you're founding your system on intellectual conservatism, which leads inevitably to a much more restrictive society than the one you're talking about. The libertarian principle is more like what Thomas Jefferson proposed, when he said that we should scrap our Constitution every 19 years and write a new one. We might just as well do that if we are going to ignore the Constitution and just interpret it to justify what we want to do. Current examples are again rampant. OK, governement intervention, disregarding the Constitution...'sounds like you could attract a lot of grumblers with your growing list. I'm sure that's not what you have in mind. g As I said earlier, the small streak of libertarian leaning shared by most Americans is a common and a good thing. But it's not a system; it produces all truly stupid party platform; and it's unworkable. With apologies to Jean Kirkpatrick, it amounts to a letter to Santa Claus. I took a course in the Weapons Systems Acquistion Management put on by DoD. The word results was almost never used. The whole thing was about the process and making the process fit some model. The students didn't have a clue as to whether the results would solve the original problem. In fact they were all relatively ignorant and didn't care what the original problem was. Think their way thru? A very rare activity in my experience with the Federal Government and one usually only used in programming a path to promotion. One thing lacking in all of the political parties that I see is the lack of a guiding principle. Looking on the internet for expressions of guiding philosophy of the Democrats, the Republicans and the Libertarians, the only one with a clear statement of philosophy was the Libertarians. That's the problem. They're about a philosophy, not about running a government. Government is about assuring that the structure of incentives produces a beneficial result -- maximum life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Yep and FEMA telling me that I may have to raise my existing 40X72 steel building 1.5' because of some imagined Flood Plain is one hell of an example of that beneficial result. I gather from an earlier message that you're on a 75-year flood plain. Is that right? Have you checked the historical record? I get the impression that both the Democrats and the Republicans are for whatever will get them elected. The Constitution, Declaration of Independence and even the Articles of Confederation don't seem to provide a clear statement that we are going to use as a guiding principle. At present, our basic principle seems to be: "Whats in it for me?" I know a bunch of people who are really for the government controlled health care. They ain't thought that thru very far. They are blinded with "what it can do for me" and ignore the myriad of examples of government incompetencies and costs demonstrated over and over again. The long range effect of some of these social programs is the reduction in the need to fend for yourself and will ultimately lead to the downfall of the nation. Who was it said the death of democracy is ordained when the people find out that they can vote themselves money. An old fool who said that before he got a chance to see what actually happens. In the US right now, it's the rich who tend to vote themselves more money. In any case, it doesn't work the way democracy's detractors thought it would. I tend to agree the formal Libertarian party seems to be just a "spit and whittle" kind of organization. I offered to start a fund raising pyramid to raise funds for Libertarian candidates and got zero response. I know that I'm tired of bureaucrats stripping my freedoms away and forcing me to pay for the process. Maybe you should re-name it the Grumbler's Party. Then you'd probably get more takers. g Well Ed you had better hope that the Grumblers keep telling the King he ain't got clothes on. The non-Grumblers seem to be approving of business as usual. As I recall it was a bunch of Grumblers that got fed up and started this whole Union. Also take note that Ron Paul is creating a growing following. Yeah. Both of them are going to vote for him, too. g Just remember, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama. I wouldn't know where to begin addressing those points of yours, Stu. But I believe that you would get the opposite of what you want in most cases. -- Ed Huntress |
#88
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message .. . "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message .. . "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message .. . snip Ed: We are driving a 2003 Jetta TDI at least one occasion have seen 55mpg on a 500mile trip. The worst was 47mpg driving 80mph into a 25mph headwind. However, California made them illegal in 2004. I saw your comment about that before, Stuart, and it's remarkable. If diesel wasn't so ridiculously overpriced I'd consider it. My former neighbor has a turbodiesel New Beetle of about that vintage and he says he gets 45+ mpg with it, too. Also BTW I will take the "illegal profiteering" if it means the bloody incompetent federal government will keep their bureacratic noses out of our everyday business: FEMA is dictating building codes out in the desert and establishing "Flood Plains" where there is no record of anykind of flooding in the past 75 years. I was told that I might be required to raise my existing structure (40X72 steel building setting on a concrete slab) 1.5' above the existing ground grade!!! Libertarian? You bet. After seeing the government in action with Star Wars (I was involved in Star Wars for 6 years), the current Iraq farce, BATF, DEA etc etc. I don't see how anyone could avoid Libertarian leanings. Leanings, yes. Most Americans have a little streak of libertarian in them. Political party or ideology, no. Political candidates -- well, it keeps the libertarians from voting for jerks like Bush. g I'm reminded of one of the complaints registered in the Declaration of Independence: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." If that doesn't describe our BLM, FEMA, BATF, DEA etc. etc. We interfaced directly with FEMA in support of disaster relief in the Marshall Islands for two years and were sick and tired of apoligizing to the Marshallese people for the stupid, arrogant behavior of FEMA. Libertarian? And the alternatives are? It depends on what you want. If you want to grumble and have nothing happen, libertarianism is great. It's the ideology for people who won't be happy no matter what happens. This is probably true since the "something that happens" is generally being done by people who want to exert power over someone else. Waiting for the government to make "something happen" is guaranteed to yield "something" that will be resented in the near future. Most of the Libertarians see the problems that need solving are problems better solved by something other than an agency whose existence does not depend on their competence. Like what? Do you mean the "free market"? If that's the case, are you willing to live with what the "free market" decides? Yes if it gets rid of BLM, FEMA, BATF, DEA, TSA, and a number of others that are questionable in terms of "powers explicitly" those of the federal government. Those agencies are costing us a bunch with questionable yield. And once an agency is established, it is there for life. Then prepare to be turned upside down and have your pockets shaken out. g Food prices will immediately double without subsidies, oil will *really* get expensive, and, within a couple of years, every business in America will be owned by one or two companies. Ed: Where do the subsidies come from? Who is paying the subsidies? What agency syphons off their operating expenses for handling the subsidies? What farmers have received subsidies for Not growing rice in a field on the side of a hill that only grows rocks? Again personal experience. They'll wring you dry, because there will be nothing to stop monopolies, cartels, oligopolies, and other manipulators from taking over. Sounds a bit like what we've got now. The few such as the highways and national defense are a few of the problems needing a more global approach offered by the Feds. Even then look at the military industrial complex and at just one example of fraud, waste and abuse created by the military being forced to deal with "expiring funds". It is, and if you have a solution, a lot of people will be interested. Libertarians don't have solutions. They have faith. Hell yes I have a solution: Quit focussing on the accounting process that likes "Expiring funds" and focus on the problem that needs to be solved and commit to solving the problem, not making the books look good. I worked in R&D for years and watched good ideas go down the tube because of "Expiring" funds. Example: Vertical seeking ejection seat. Demonstrated in the 70s right where I work. USN still doesn't have them. Would save lives (expensively trained lives if you want to make it an matter of economics). I can rattle off a bunch of similar examples from my experience. What R&D? What Navy? You're talking about the libertarian world, remember. Whose going to invest in R&D in a free market? It only happens because of tax breaks, subsidies, and preferential treatment of certain business operations. In a free market, those things are gone. We don't receive a subsidy for our business and R&D is done. I don't think that Bill Gates got a subsidy when he started Microsoft. I know that a bunch of the experimental helo businesses operate without subsidies and R&D is a part of their business to stay competitive. The Robinson helicopter "monopoly" is being impacted by a privateer operating without subsidies. The old idea that businesses can't operate without government subsidies doesn't hold water. The justification of "Thats the way it has been operating" doesn't justify its continuance. The syphoning off of monies to support the government bureaucrats like FEMA , who by the way my wife and I had 2 yrs of direct interface with them, not just one or two individuals but the entire west coast operation and the taxpayer in me cried to see the ignorant stupid actions. We are being turned upside down now and our pockets shaken. There are billions of dollars being misspent and wasted by a growing federal government and candidates standing in line to grow more of these agencies. Cut the tax exemptions to increase revenue? How about getting more competent management of the government budget as it presently exists and use the surplus that could be created by competent management. But it's a mish-mash of different ideas that just don't fit together. Basically, self-styled libertarians are pure moralists, who have a patchwork quilt of moral principles that depend on everyone else thinking precisely like them. Yep. Somewhere we need to start with a guiding principle that we can all agree on. Otherwise we just have a morass not unlike looting. That's libertarianism: Everyone tries to loot everyone else. Excuse me if I remember correctly we are not presently being exposed to libertarianism but the looting is certainly going on right now. The looting is being done by the Republican administration and the Democratic congress. If you get a liberatarian government, you ain't seen nothing yet. Looting will be fully privatized, with real incentives to perform. d8-) This is of course opinion and not based on personal experience? Of course, this is the opposite of what libertarians claim. But look at the current example: calling a fortuitous profit "profiteering," and favoring making it illegal. If those same gas stations got caught short with long-term oil purchases, while one guy in town was buying spot-market oil when it was on the way down and dropped prices below the cost of the other guys, and they all took a bath, the anti-profiteering "libertarians" would just shrug and say "that's the market for you." It's a moralism of convenience. Libertarians will claim that it isn't true, but few of them think it through sufficiently to recognize what they're doing. Ed: This can certainly be said for all of the political parties and especially our "Representatives" Then what's different about libertarianism? Libertarianism doesn't want the government in our pants everytime we turn around. It isn't hard to see the effects of the government contrived agencies designed to protect us from the internal ravages of our own stupidity example the current mortgage farce where people borrowed money they couldn't pay back. That situation will take care of itself by letting the people learn that that kind of stupidity doesn't work. Good plan. Do you have plenty of ammo, for when those impoverished, starving people come knocking at your door? Maybe they'll form mobs and will have a few guns themselves. After all, what will they have to lose? This maybe not too far in the future anyway. with gas prices increasing there are going to be people starting to have to steal to eat. There are bunches of people that have to commute distances to work. Distances where a private car is the only way to get there. Stealing gas has begun to increase in our area. The lenders? They will learn when they have to reposess houses they can't sell. No way, Hose-A. They no longer own the houses. They sold the mortgages to your retirement fund. If that is true it is another example of government incomptence. My retirement fund is the Civil Service Retirement System which by the way fails to honor their own commitments. Didn't the Fed recently bail out some Wall Street organization that had heavily involved themselves with cheap mortgages? Will they learn that in the present? No because our government will borrow money to bail them out and the penalty for their actions will not be felt. We learn by making mistakes and if someone snatches the mistakes from us the learning is greatly reduced. The current state of our society is to a large measure the result of our society allowing the people who "make things happen" to run loose. The constantly increasing size of government to do for people what they should be doing for themselves and the things like the Iraq war, the War on drugs which is costing a bunch and not yielding any significant results. Who is thinking their way thru to these results? What I hear, Stuart, is that you don't like the way things are going and that you think they'd go better if the government did very little. As I said, that's faith, not a solution. There is no example in modern history that supports the libertarian view -- except for tribal societies run by warlords. Jesus Ed look where the current system has got us!! We are in hock up to our gills and it doesn't look like there is any real positive change available in the future. McCain wants to fight wars and be the world's policeman, Obama wants to increase the social programs and has indicated a willingness to provide taxpayer money to religious organizations. Like most philosophical, political ideologies, libertarianism is based on a mistaken view of human nature and a nearly complete disregard for the system of incentives that results from the libertarian plan. Free-market philosophies lead to the incentive structure that gave us Enron and the mortgage debacle. Most of those atrocities were *not* the result of breaking fundamental laws. They were examples of exploiting the weaknesses of markets, especially in today's complex economic world. Yep and the fall of the Soviet Union was not because Libertarian principles were being practiced. Government intervention conducted by bureacrats that haven't a clue about the things that they are supposed to manage is quite a prescription for disaster. Libertarianism itself is a prescription for chaos. The "guiding principles" you mention bear further exploration: if you sort out what they really mean, you'll find that you're founding your system on intellectual conservatism, which leads inevitably to a much more restrictive society than the one you're talking about. Is there an example where this occurred? I can't believe that the belief in much restricted reduced government that was held accountable for its actions would lead to more restrictive society. The libertarian principle is more like what Thomas Jefferson proposed, when he said that we should scrap our Constitution every 19 years and write a new one. We might just as well do that if we are going to ignore the Constitution and just interpret it to justify what we want to do. Current examples are again rampant. OK, governement intervention, disregarding the Constitution...'sounds like you could attract a lot of grumblers with your growing list. I'm sure that's not what you have in mind. g As I said earlier, the small streak of libertarian leaning shared by most Americans is a common and a good thing. But it's not a system; it produces all truly stupid party platform; and it's unworkable. With apologies to Jean Kirkpatrick, it amounts to a letter to Santa Claus. I took a course in the Weapons Systems Acquistion Management put on by DoD. The word results was almost never used. The whole thing was about the process and making the process fit some model. The students didn't have a clue as to whether the results would solve the original problem. In fact they were all relatively ignorant and didn't care what the original problem was. Think their way thru? A very rare activity in my experience with the Federal Government and one usually only used in programming a path to promotion. One thing lacking in all of the political parties that I see is the lack of a guiding principle. Looking on the internet for expressions of guiding philosophy of the Democrats, the Republicans and the Libertarians, the only one with a clear statement of philosophy was the Libertarians. That's the problem. They're about a philosophy, not about running a government. Government is about assuring that the structure of incentives produces a beneficial result -- maximum life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Yep and FEMA telling me that I may have to raise my existing 40X72 steel building 1.5' because of some imagined Flood Plain is one hell of an example of that beneficial result. I gather from an earlier message that you're on a 75-year flood plain. Is that right? Have you checked the historical record? Yep. There is a drainage that comes out of the Sierras to the North of me. It is aimed for what is now a county road that is over 30' below me in elevation. There is no history of any significant water flow for the past 75 years based on talks with people who have lived here that long. I used to do drainage calculations for the USFS for road design. Besides that when I asked them just what hazard to the public we were trying to avoid by my raising the structure 1.5' I was totally ignored. I told them I didn't need or want their flood insurance and would assume the risk to my structure myself. Seems I don't have the freedom to do that. I get the impression that both the Democrats and the Republicans are for whatever will get them elected. The Constitution, Declaration of Independence and even the Articles of Confederation don't seem to provide a clear statement that we are going to use as a guiding principle. At present, our basic principle seems to be: "Whats in it for me?" I know a bunch of people who are really for the government controlled health care. They ain't thought that thru very far. They are blinded with "what it can do for me" and ignore the myriad of examples of government incompetencies and costs demonstrated over and over again. The long range effect of some of these social programs is the reduction in the need to fend for yourself and will ultimately lead to the downfall of the nation. Who was it said the death of democracy is ordained when the people find out that they can vote themselves money. An old fool who said that before he got a chance to see what actually happens. In the US right now, it's the rich who tend to vote themselves more money. In any case, it doesn't work the way democracy's detractors thought it would. I tend to agree the formal Libertarian party seems to be just a "spit and whittle" kind of organization. I offered to start a fund raising pyramid to raise funds for Libertarian candidates and got zero response. I know that I'm tired of bureaucrats stripping my freedoms away and forcing me to pay for the process. Maybe you should re-name it the Grumbler's Party. Then you'd probably get more takers. g Well Ed you had better hope that the Grumblers keep telling the King he ain't got clothes on. The non-Grumblers seem to be approving of business as usual. As I recall it was a bunch of Grumblers that got fed up and started this whole Union. Also take note that Ron Paul is creating a growing following. Yeah. Both of them are going to vote for him, too. g Just remember, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama. I wouldn't know where to begin addressing those points of yours, Stu. But I believe that you would get the opposite of what you want in most cases. Well Ed I have come to the belief from watching your postings that you are one of the brighter bulbs in this string, but I can't imagine that you believe that the present path being taken by the Federal and State governments of increased size and increased borrowing and increased inefficiency is going to lead to a positive sunny future. Ed Huntress |
#89
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:41:33 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner Asch quickly quoth: On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 06:28:06 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: What are a "918 rivette" and "case of Monsters", pray tell? 918 rivett lathe, second ops, with turret, cross slide and a drawer full of dead length collets, 3 jaw, the manual etc etcetc http://www.ozarkwoodworker.com/item/...orparts-manua/ How big is that beastie? HxWxL, lbs, etc? What's the jap turret lathe? (same questions) Mini mill? Sieg x2 or x3 for dirt cheap? Hanson's Monster Energy Drink http://www.monsterenergy.com/ Ah, so; you're a caffeine freak. Is this better than Jolt? I tapered off caffeine because I hated the caffeine hangovers (as bad as a migrane) and now drink just 2 cups of coffee (infrequent) or 3 cups of tea per day. I wake up and am running at 90% by the time my feet hit the floor--without any damned drugs, TYVM. Anywho, who sells cases cheap? --Your Frugal Friend -- Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing. -- Thomas Paine |
#90
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... snip Like what? Do you mean the "free market"? If that's the case, are you willing to live with what the "free market" decides? Yes if it gets rid of BLM, FEMA, BATF, DEA, TSA, and a number of others that are questionable in terms of "powers explicitly" those of the federal government. Those agencies are costing us a bunch with questionable yield. And once an agency is established, it is there for life. Then prepare to be turned upside down and have your pockets shaken out. g Food prices will immediately double without subsidies, oil will *really* get expensive, and, within a couple of years, every business in America will be owned by one or two companies. Ed: Where do the subsidies come from? Who is paying the subsidies? You, me,....and the farmers of every underdeveloped country that is trying to sell farm produce here. Our subsidies, and those of the other developed countries, suppress produce-export prices from Central America and grain and meat prices from several other parts of the world. Neat, huh? Farm subsidies are the gift that keeps on giving. What agency syphons off their operating expenses for handling the subsidies? What farmers have received subsidies for Not growing rice in a field on the side of a hill that only grows rocks? Again personal experience. They'll wring you dry, because there will be nothing to stop monopolies, cartels, oligopolies, and other manipulators from taking over. Sounds a bit like what we've got now. What we have now is the result of Reaganomics' disbanding of the many regulations put into place since Standard Oil raped the country a century ago. Now we have a new raping going on -- everything from lax FCC regulations leading to NewsCorp. and Clear Channel, to Exxon-Mobil, to a handful of cable TV companies controlling the market and driving prices up endlessly. And if you think this stinks, try implementing a libertarian scheme. It will be Katie-bar-the-doors. Those alphabet-soup agencies you so despise are what keeps the wolf at bay, Stu. We learned a harsh lesson over a century ago and then conservative ideologues pretended that Standard Oil, the coal cartel, toxic drugs and fouled meat never happened. So now we're paying the price. The costs versus benefits of these programs are hardly recognized by most people, which is why there are so many grumblers around. d8-) For example, US farm subsidies run around $178 billion. Total administrative cost is less than $0.5 billion. But you may want to include regulatory costs, research, conservation, and all the other costs, which amount to around $20 billion. The entire cost of running the Agriculture department, including all of the school lunch subsidies, the forest service, and all the other bits and pieces is only a little more than 10% of the direct givebacks in subsidies. How about BLM? You don't seem to like them, either. Their FY 2009 budget is almost exactly $1 billion. So, what happens if you get rid of it? How do you manage the competing interests for federal land? Or do you just sell all of it? Maybe the Chinese would put in the best bid for our national forests, which they would then clearcut, libertarian-style. They really need the lumber and they have a lot or ready cash. Once the trees are cleared they can build a hell of a lot of golf courses and the Japanese tourists will pour in. Maybe we can get jobs as greens keepers. Disney would probably get Yellowstone, eh? It would make a hell of a theme park. Wolves behind glass. Bison wearing Micky Mouse ears. So cute! They'll have a waterslide powered by Old Faithful. Brought to you by America's libertarians. They saved you $3 in annual operating costs for every man, woman, and child in the US, and all it cost you was every tree and every square mile of public land in the country. The payoffs will let us live on that big credit card in the sky for at least another five or ten years. Whoopie! And so on. If you don't like the way things are run, maybe you should try to elect someone who cares. Instead, it sounds like you want to elect someone who just wants to tank all of it, so we can go back to the bad old days. Maybe they're nostalgic for the company stores and rotten meat. The market will sort it all out. When people buy a drug and die from it, other people will learn the lesson. When there are no more forests, we'll have room for more cows. Maybe the Japanese will buy our beef. When financial managers rape the currency and move to the Côte d'Azur, we'll be praising the free market while we eat beans and squash. It was good enough for the Indians. The few such as the highways and national defense are a few of the problems needing a more global approach offered by the Feds. Even then look at the military industrial complex and at just one example of fraud, waste and abuse created by the military being forced to deal with "expiring funds". It is, and if you have a solution, a lot of people will be interested. Libertarians don't have solutions. They have faith. Hell yes I have a solution: Quit focussing on the accounting process that likes "Expiring funds" and focus on the problem that needs to be solved and commit to solving the problem, not making the books look good. I worked in R&D for years and watched good ideas go down the tube because of "Expiring" funds. Example: Vertical seeking ejection seat. Demonstrated in the 70s right where I work. USN still doesn't have them. Would save lives (expensively trained lives if you want to make it an matter of economics). I can rattle off a bunch of similar examples from my experience. What R&D? What Navy? You're talking about the libertarian world, remember. Whose going to invest in R&D in a free market? It only happens because of tax breaks, subsidies, and preferential treatment of certain business operations. In a free market, those things are gone. We don't receive a subsidy for our business and R&D is done. I doubt if there would have been helicopters for another ten years if LePage and Sikorsky hadn't gotten all kinds of development contracts from the US military, Stuart. That wasn't payment for production, it was a subsidy. That whole industry needed a shot in the arm just to get moving. I don't think that Bill Gates got a subsidy when he started Microsoft. I know that a bunch of the experimental helo businesses operate without subsidies and R&D is a part of their business to stay competitive. The Robinson helicopter "monopoly" is being impacted by a privateer operating without subsidies. The old idea that businesses can't operate without government subsidies doesn't hold water. Most businesses operate without subsidies. Some others wouldn't exist without them. The microcircuit business, for example, was developed largely on military purchases with big up-front "development" contracts. Those are subsidies. The justification of "Thats the way it has been operating" doesn't justify its continuance. The syphoning off of monies to support the government bureaucrats like FEMA , who by the way my wife and I had 2 yrs of direct interface with them, not just one or two individuals but the entire west coast operation and the taxpayer in me cried to see the ignorant stupid actions. We are being turned upside down now and our pockets shaken. There are billions of dollars being misspent and wasted by a growing federal government and candidates standing in line to grow more of these agencies. Cut the tax exemptions to increase revenue? How about getting more competent management of the government budget as it presently exists and use the surplus that could be created by competent management. How about it? Do you have a plan for running a better government? Everybody wants better government. I doubt if any of them could begin to deal with it. It's all wishful thinking and general griping. But it's a mish-mash of different ideas that just don't fit together. Basically, self-styled libertarians are pure moralists, who have a patchwork quilt of moral principles that depend on everyone else thinking precisely like them. Yep. Somewhere we need to start with a guiding principle that we can all agree on. Otherwise we just have a morass not unlike looting. That's libertarianism: Everyone tries to loot everyone else. Excuse me if I remember correctly we are not presently being exposed to libertarianism but the looting is certainly going on right now. The looting is being done by the Republican administration and the Democratic congress. The looting is being done by multinational corporations and financial manipulators -- just the kind of people who libertarians would leave alone to practice their craft in the "free market." If you get a liberatarian government, you ain't seen nothing yet. Looting will be fully privatized, with real incentives to perform. d8-) This is of course opinion and not based on personal experience? We have lots of experience with unregulated finance and corporations that go monopolistic (or oligopolistic, as with the Big Three US car makers). If I understand libertarianism, the idea is to get the government out of free markets, right? Those companies would love it. Banks would be orgasmic about it. They've already shown us what they can do if you loosen the reigns. Take the reigns off, and it's payday for them, 365 days a year. Of course, this is the opposite of what libertarians claim. But look at the current example: calling a fortuitous profit "profiteering," and favoring making it illegal. If those same gas stations got caught short with long-term oil purchases, while one guy in town was buying spot-market oil when it was on the way down and dropped prices below the cost of the other guys, and they all took a bath, the anti-profiteering "libertarians" would just shrug and say "that's the market for you." It's a moralism of convenience. Libertarians will claim that it isn't true, but few of them think it through sufficiently to recognize what they're doing. Ed: This can certainly be said for all of the political parties and especially our "Representatives" Then what's different about libertarianism? Libertarianism doesn't want the government in our pants everytime we turn around. It isn't hard to see the effects of the government contrived agencies designed to protect us from the internal ravages of our own stupidity example the current mortgage farce where people borrowed money they couldn't pay back. That situation will take care of itself by letting the people learn that that kind of stupidity doesn't work. Good plan. Do you have plenty of ammo, for when those impoverished, starving people come knocking at your door? Maybe they'll form mobs and will have a few guns themselves. After all, what will they have to lose? This maybe not too far in the future anyway. with gas prices increasing there are going to be people starting to have to steal to eat. There are bunches of people that have to commute distances to work. Distances where a private car is the only way to get there. Stealing gas has begun to increase in our area. Wait 'till you see what happens if you take away the safety net. They'll be pouring off the reservation. The lenders? They will learn when they have to reposess houses they can't sell. No way, Hose-A. They no longer own the houses. They sold the mortgages to your retirement fund. If that is true it is another example of government incomptence. My retirement fund is the Civil Service Retirement System which by the way fails to honor their own commitments. Didn't the Fed recently bail out some Wall Street organization that had heavily involved themselves with cheap mortgages? So you wouldn't lose your retirement. g If you're Civil Service, that's a bad example. My 401K is taking a hit. Free-market, you know. That'll l'arn me, eh? Will they learn that in the present? No because our government will borrow money to bail them out and the penalty for their actions will not be felt. We learn by making mistakes and if someone snatches the mistakes from us the learning is greatly reduced. The current state of our society is to a large measure the result of our society allowing the people who "make things happen" to run loose. The constantly increasing size of government to do for people what they should be doing for themselves and the things like the Iraq war, the War on drugs which is costing a bunch and not yielding any significant results. Who is thinking their way thru to these results? What I hear, Stuart, is that you don't like the way things are going and that you think they'd go better if the government did very little. As I said, that's faith, not a solution. There is no example in modern history that supports the libertarian view -- except for tribal societies run by warlords. Jesus Ed look where the current system has got us!! We are in hock up to our gills and it doesn't look like there is any real positive change available in the future. McCain wants to fight wars and be the world's policeman, Obama wants to increase the social programs and has indicated a willingness to provide taxpayer money to religious organizations. Whatever it is, libertarianism isn't the answer, it's just more fuel on the fire. Loosen up those markets and watch them take the socks right off your feet. I gather from an earlier message that you're on a 75-year flood plain. Is that right? Have you checked the historical record? Yep. There is a drainage that comes out of the Sierras to the North of me. It is aimed for what is now a county road that is over 30' below me in elevation. There is no history of any significant water flow for the past 75 years based on talks with people who have lived here that long. I used to do drainage calculations for the USFS for road design. Besides that when I asked them just what hazard to the public we were trying to avoid by my raising the structure 1.5' I was totally ignored. I told them I didn't need or want their flood insurance and would assume the risk to my structure myself. Seems I don't have the freedom to do that. You'll have to fight that battle, Stuart. I don't know what to say. Something tells me there's more to it, but I can't even guess. I wouldn't know where to begin addressing those points of yours, Stu. But I believe that you would get the opposite of what you want in most cases. Well Ed I have come to the belief from watching your postings that you are one of the brighter bulbs in this string, but I can't imagine that you believe that the present path being taken by the Federal and State governments of increased size and increased borrowing and increased inefficiency is going to lead to a positive sunny future. Hardly. I think the economic policies we've followed under Reagan and Bush are absolute disasters. And libertarian policies would be even more extreme, except that we wouldn't get *any* of it back. With no income taxes, they'd be unable to pay debts and they would strangle the infrastructure until the economy collapsed for good. As I said, Stuart, it's a good program for grumblers and for people who resent all kinds of things that are going on. It's a lousy program for running a country. -- Ed Huntress |
#91
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 22:41:41 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth: --minor (several hundred line) snippage here-- Stu said: Well Ed I have come to the belief from watching your postings that you are one of the brighter bulbs in this string, but I can't imagine that you believe that the present path being taken by the Federal and State governments of increased size and increased borrowing and increased inefficiency is going to lead to a positive sunny future. Hardly. I think the economic policies we've followed under Reagan and Bush are absolute disasters. And libertarian policies would be even more extreme, except that we wouldn't get *any* of it back. With no income taxes, they'd be unable to pay debts and they would strangle the infrastructure until the economy collapsed for good. Ed, libertarian principles aren't anarchy and they aren't a total dismissal of government. They're just a lot more limiting on the government. I think you're totally overreacting here. As I said, Stuart, it's a good program for grumblers and for people who resent all kinds of things that are going on. It's a lousy program for running a country. The way you're talking, you seem to think the change from what we have to what we want would be overnight. That surely wouldn't work. It would have to be gradual, allowing for all those displaced gov't employees to find honest work as their worthless agencies are disbanded. Most could immediately find work in the EU, with their politically correct fellows, don't you think? snicker -- Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing. -- Thomas Paine |
#92
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 22:41:41 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: --minor (several hundred line) snippage here-- Stu said: Well Ed I have come to the belief from watching your postings that you are one of the brighter bulbs in this string, but I can't imagine that you believe that the present path being taken by the Federal and State governments of increased size and increased borrowing and increased inefficiency is going to lead to a positive sunny future. Hardly. I think the economic policies we've followed under Reagan and Bush are absolute disasters. And libertarian policies would be even more extreme, except that we wouldn't get *any* of it back. With no income taxes, they'd be unable to pay debts and they would strangle the infrastructure until the economy collapsed for good. Ed, libertarian principles aren't anarchy and they aren't a total dismissal of government. They're just a lot more limiting on the government. I think you're totally overreacting here. What I've described is the consequences of the libertarian program, Larry, and they should be no mystery at this point. Libertarians oppose government regulation of business. We've seen what happens in the world of finance when regulations are too lax; take the regulations off, and you'll just be clearing the sea lanes for the financial pirates. Libertarians oppose government ownership of property, and an end to restrictions on cross-national flows of capital. China needs lumber; they'll clear-cut the national forests, and it won't take them more than a few years to do it. They've already been exploring the purchase or lease of large tracts of western timberlands. I suppose you know about how current grazing policies have wrecked the land and the water in the plains. Take off the regulations, and the plains will be a desert. And so on. The entire libertarian program is something that you'd expect high school students to cook up for a civics class project. It's mindless of consequences, and ignorant of the signals and trends that are already getting us into trouble. It would be hard to imagine a dumber set of policy ideas than the ones in the current Libertarian Party platform. As I said, it's a letter to Santa Claus. As I said, Stuart, it's a good program for grumblers and for people who resent all kinds of things that are going on. It's a lousy program for running a country. The way you're talking, you seem to think the change from what we have to what we want would be overnight. That surely wouldn't work. It would have to be gradual, allowing for all those displaced gov't employees to find honest work as their worthless agencies are disbanded. Most could immediately find work in the EU, with their politically correct fellows, don't you think? snicker So, you want to bleed the economy to death slowly, rather than all at once. d8-) -- Ed Huntress |
#93
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 06:38:57 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 22:41:41 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: --minor (several hundred line) snippage here-- Stu said: Well Ed I have come to the belief from watching your postings that you are one of the brighter bulbs in this string, but I can't imagine that you believe that the present path being taken by the Federal and State governments of increased size and increased borrowing and increased inefficiency is going to lead to a positive sunny future. Hardly. I think the economic policies we've followed under Reagan and Bush are absolute disasters. And libertarian policies would be even more extreme, except that we wouldn't get *any* of it back. With no income taxes, they'd be unable to pay debts and they would strangle the infrastructure until the economy collapsed for good. Ed, libertarian principles aren't anarchy and they aren't a total dismissal of government. They're just a lot more limiting on the government. I think you're totally overreacting here. What I've described is the consequences of the libertarian program, Larry, and they should be no mystery at this point. Libertarians oppose government regulation of business. We've seen what happens in the world of finance when regulations are too lax; take the regulations off, and you'll just be clearing the sea lanes for the financial pirates. Can you say "Ideals tempered by judgment"? I knew you could. Why haven't you here? Libertarian policies aren't black and white as you show them, just as Republican and Democrat policies aren't set in stone. Libertarians oppose government ownership of property, and an end to restrictions on cross-national flows of capital. China needs lumber; they'll clear-cut the national forests, and it won't take them more than a few years to do it. They've already been exploring the purchase or lease of large tracts of western timberlands. Show me one Libertarian who has suggested that. I dare you. But under current politics, vast amounts of timber are already going to Japan, both from USA and CA, and probably other countries. From what I understand, Japan takes the bark-on logs intact and mills them there. I suppose you know about how current grazing policies have wrecked the land and the water in the plains. Take off the regulations, and the plains will be a desert. And so on. The entire libertarian program is something that you'd expect high school students to cook up for a civics class project. It's mindless of consequences, and ignorant of the signals and trends that are already getting us into trouble. It would be hard to imagine a dumber set of policy ideas than the ones in the current Libertarian Party platform. As I said, it's a letter to Santa Claus. Taken standalone, intact, as law, you're probably close to right. But that's not how policies are made politically. What libertarians want is a movement -away- from the authoritarian style and -toward- the less-regulated libertarian style of government. I haven't heard a single libertarian candidate who would completely toss the entire current workings of government, but there's a whole lot which needs fixing. Jesus, Ed. You're being far to literal on this issue. As I said, Stuart, it's a good program for grumblers and for people who resent all kinds of things that are going on. It's a lousy program for running a country. The way you're talking, you seem to think the change from what we have to what we want would be overnight. That surely wouldn't work. It would have to be gradual, allowing for all those displaced gov't employees to find honest work as their worthless agencies are disbanded. Most could immediately find work in the EU, with their politically correct fellows, don't you think? snicker So, you want to bleed the economy to death slowly, rather than all at once. d8-) Slowly is much better that fast, as Shrub is doing, eh? -- "Excess regulation and government spending destroy jobs and increase unemployment. Every regulator we fire results in the creation of over 150 new jobs, enough to hire the ex-regulator, the unemployed, and the able-bodied poor." -Michael Badnarik |
#94
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 06:38:57 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 22:41:41 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: --minor (several hundred line) snippage here-- Stu said: Well Ed I have come to the belief from watching your postings that you are one of the brighter bulbs in this string, but I can't imagine that you believe that the present path being taken by the Federal and State governments of increased size and increased borrowing and increased inefficiency is going to lead to a positive sunny future. Hardly. I think the economic policies we've followed under Reagan and Bush are absolute disasters. And libertarian policies would be even more extreme, except that we wouldn't get *any* of it back. With no income taxes, they'd be unable to pay debts and they would strangle the infrastructure until the economy collapsed for good. Ed, libertarian principles aren't anarchy and they aren't a total dismissal of government. They're just a lot more limiting on the government. I think you're totally overreacting here. What I've described is the consequences of the libertarian program, Larry, and they should be no mystery at this point. Libertarians oppose government regulation of business. We've seen what happens in the world of finance when regulations are too lax; take the regulations off, and you'll just be clearing the sea lanes for the financial pirates. Can you say "Ideals tempered by judgment"? I knew you could. Why haven't you here? Libertarian policies aren't black and white as you show them, just as Republican and Democrat policies aren't set in stone. When you start to "temper" the libertarian program, you wind up with something else. Call it "conservatism light." The basic ideas of smaller government, privatization, free trade and laissez-faire are cornerstones of intellectual conservatism, Larry. Those folks, too, would say their ideals should be "tempered by judgment." In fact, if you study their program (a big job; they've had around 230 years to develop it, because it was founded contemporaneously with the founding of our country -- although in contradiction to large parts of it), you'll see that it's something like the supposed libertarian program run through the wringer of experience. That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it stands today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would define it, is a form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that their opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you need an agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos, he's surely talking about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform, because those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly talking about the kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as explained in detail by Edmund Burke. I don't want to start a big exegesis of libertarianism and conservatism. My point here is a lot simpler: It's that the so-called libertarians of today are, for the most part, grumblers who don't like one thing or another, or many things, about the way government is going and their solution is to all but do away with government. They can only do this because they've jumped to some conclusions based on wishful thinking and a wilfull belief in markets that is not supported by history. They do this by ignoring the broader context and by focusing on selected examples. When you point out some counterexamples, they hedge their idealist, radical theories with "temperence." Those are the words of an ideologue who hasn't really thought through to the consequences of his ideology, but who just knows he doesn't like the way things are. The bottom line is that, if you were to work out examples of how the libertarian program would work in practice, issue by issue, and expose it to the light of history and experience -- issue by issue -- it would come out about as I've described. It's a bunch of ideas that describe the feelings and attitudes that drive an important part of politics in the US. As a program, it's silly and juvenile. Most adults realize this, which is why the party gets nowhere, and will never get anywhere. It's useful as an outlet for grumblers who don't want to get their hands dirty by getting into the real game. Sometimes third parties have a pernicious effect, when they become spoilers, as the Naderites did in 2000. Otherwise, though, they're a harmless escape valve for discontent. Libertarians oppose government ownership of property, and an end to restrictions on cross-national flows of capital. China needs lumber; they'll clear-cut the national forests, and it won't take them more than a few years to do it. They've already been exploring the purchase or lease of large tracts of western timberlands. Show me one Libertarian who has suggested that. I dare you. That's the point. Most Libertarians haven't considered the fact that it would be a likely consequence of their program, should they accidentally get it enacted. d8-) But under current politics, vast amounts of timber are already going to Japan, Under libertarian politics, you could multiply that volume by some large factor. ...both from USA and CA, and probably other countries. From what I understand, Japan takes the bark-on logs intact and mills them there. They'd prefer just to break off a big chunk of North America that produces trees and sail it to Japan. Barring that, they'll take their trees whole, thank you, sans limbs and roots I suppose you know about how current grazing policies have wrecked the land and the water in the plains. Take off the regulations, and the plains will be a desert. And so on. The entire libertarian program is something that you'd expect high school students to cook up for a civics class project. It's mindless of consequences, and ignorant of the signals and trends that are already getting us into trouble. It would be hard to imagine a dumber set of policy ideas than the ones in the current Libertarian Party platform. As I said, it's a letter to Santa Claus. Taken standalone, intact, as law, you're probably close to right. But that's not how policies are made politically. What libertarians want is a movement -away- from the authoritarian style and -toward- the less-regulated libertarian style of government. I haven't heard a single libertarian candidate who would completely toss the entire current workings of government, but there's a whole lot which needs fixing. Jesus, Ed. You're being far to literal on this issue. I don't know anyone who doesn't think there's "a whole lot which needs fixing. Jesus..." g But we sure see a lot of categorical dismissal of government here, by people who describe themselves as libertarians. For example, Stuart. And you, on a bad day. As I said, Stuart, it's a good program for grumblers and for people who resent all kinds of things that are going on. It's a lousy program for running a country. The way you're talking, you seem to think the change from what we have to what we want would be overnight. That surely wouldn't work. It would have to be gradual, allowing for all those displaced gov't employees to find honest work as their worthless agencies are disbanded. Most could immediately find work in the EU, with their politically correct fellows, don't you think? snicker So, you want to bleed the economy to death slowly, rather than all at once. d8-) Slowly is much better that fast, as Shrub is doing, eh? I'll leave that one alone. I'm busy thinking about the new Republican plan to use whale oil for biofuel, anyway. -- Ed Huntress |
#95
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:37:39 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 06:38:57 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 22:41:41 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: --minor (several hundred line) snippage here-- Stu said: Well Ed I have come to the belief from watching your postings that you are one of the brighter bulbs in this string, but I can't imagine that you believe that the present path being taken by the Federal and State governments of increased size and increased borrowing and increased inefficiency is going to lead to a positive sunny future. Hardly. I think the economic policies we've followed under Reagan and Bush are absolute disasters. And libertarian policies would be even more extreme, except that we wouldn't get *any* of it back. With no income taxes, they'd be unable to pay debts and they would strangle the infrastructure until the economy collapsed for good. Ed, libertarian principles aren't anarchy and they aren't a total dismissal of government. They're just a lot more limiting on the government. I think you're totally overreacting here. What I've described is the consequences of the libertarian program, Larry, and they should be no mystery at this point. Libertarians oppose government regulation of business. We've seen what happens in the world of finance when regulations are too lax; take the regulations off, and you'll just be clearing the sea lanes for the financial pirates. Can you say "Ideals tempered by judgment"? I knew you could. Why haven't you here? Libertarian policies aren't black and white as you show them, just as Republican and Democrat policies aren't set in stone. When you start to "temper" the libertarian program, you wind up with something else. Call it "conservatism light." The basic ideas of smaller government, privatization, free trade and laissez-faire are cornerstones of intellectual conservatism, Larry. Those folks, too, would say their ideals should be "tempered by judgment." In fact, if you study their program (a big job; they've had around 230 years to develop it, because it was founded contemporaneously with the founding of our country -- although in contradiction to large parts of it), you'll see that it's something like the supposed libertarian program run through the wringer of experience. You're not suggesting that we've achieved perfection after 230 years, are you, Ed? That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it stands today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would define it, is a form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that their opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you need an agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos, he's surely talking about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform, because those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly talking about the kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as explained in detail by Edmund Burke. I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here. I don't want to start a big exegesis of libertarianism and conservatism. My point here is a lot simpler: It's that the so-called libertarians of today are, for the most part, grumblers who don't like one thing or another, or many things, about the way government is going and their solution is to all but do away with government. They can only do this because they've jumped to some conclusions based on wishful thinking and a wilfull belief in markets that is not supported by history. They do this by ignoring the broader context and by focusing on selected examples. When you point out some counterexamples, they hedge their idealist, radical theories with "temperence." Those are the words of an ideologue who hasn't really thought through to the consequences of his ideology, but who just knows he doesn't like the way things are. grumble, grumble The bottom line is that, if you were to work out examples of how the libertarian program would work in practice, issue by issue, and expose it to the light of history and experience -- issue by issue -- it would come out about as I've described. It's a bunch of ideas that describe the feelings and attitudes that drive an important part of politics in the US. As a program, it's silly and juvenile. Well 'Neener, Neener' to you, too. Most adults realize this, which is why the party gets nowhere, and will never get anywhere. It's useful as an outlet for grumblers who don't want to get their hands dirty by getting into the real game. Sometimes third parties have a pernicious effect, when they become spoilers, as the Naderites did in 2000. Otherwise, though, they're a harmless escape valve for discontent. We almost did it (made REAL changes) in '92. It scared the holy **** out of both the Reps and Dems, but it didn't scare them into doing their jobs or out of further criminal activities. It's a damned shame. Libertarians oppose government ownership of property, and an end to restrictions on cross-national flows of capital. China needs lumber; they'll clear-cut the national forests, and it won't take them more than a few years to do it. They've already been exploring the purchase or lease of large tracts of western timberlands. Show me one Libertarian who has suggested that. I dare you. That's the point. Most Libertarians haven't considered the fact that it would be a likely consequence of their program, should they accidentally get it enacted. d8-) How the **** do I argue with that pretzel logic? sigh You're a master(ful) debater, Ed. Taken standalone, intact, as law, you're probably close to right. But that's not how policies are made politically. What libertarians want is a movement -away- from the authoritarian style and -toward- the less-regulated libertarian style of government. I haven't heard a single libertarian candidate who would completely toss the entire current workings of government, but there's a whole lot which needs fixing. Jesus, Ed. You're being far to literal on this issue. I don't know anyone who doesn't think there's "a whole lot which needs fixing. Jesus..." g But we sure see a lot of categorical dismissal of government here, by people who describe themselves as libertarians. For example, Stuart. And you, on a bad day. Nah, we're just dismissing various entire sectors of gov't each day, not the whole enchilada. -- Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing. -- Thomas Paine |
#96
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message news On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:37:39 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it stands today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would define it, is a form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that their opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you need an agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos, he's surely talking about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform, because those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly talking about the kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as explained in detail by Edmund Burke. I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here. I think I got carried away. I'll relax now. d8-) -- Ed Huntress |
#97
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message news On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:37:39 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it stands today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would define it, is a form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that their opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you need an agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos, he's surely talking about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform, because those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly talking about the kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as explained in detail by Edmund Burke. I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here. I think I got carried away. I'll relax now. d8-) Grab your copy of the Constitution, a couple gallons of ethanol and harass the neighborhood spouting the second amendment at 50 or 60 MPH in your go cart! You will feel better in no time Ed G "Stoichiometric", damned Ed, I worked that into so many conversations the day after seeing it and laughed so hard I can't believe it. What was really funny was the number of sage nods there were after weavung the word - completely senslessly mind you - into a technical discussion of the project I'm on right now. I'll surely catch hell shortly but it was worth it. Stoichiometric! -- John R. Carroll www.machiningsolution.com |
#98
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 20:07:43 -0700, the renowned "John R. Carroll"
wrote: Ed Huntress wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message news On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:37:39 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it stands today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would define it, is a form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that their opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you need an agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos, he's surely talking about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform, because those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly talking about the kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as explained in detail by Edmund Burke. I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here. I think I got carried away. I'll relax now. d8-) Grab your copy of the Constitution, a couple gallons of ethanol and harass the neighborhood spouting the second amendment at 50 or 60 MPH in your go cart! You will feel better in no time Ed G "Stoichiometric", damned Ed, I worked that into so many conversations the day after seeing it and laughed so hard I can't believe it. What was really funny was the number of sage nods there were after weavung the word - completely senslessly mind you - into a technical discussion of the project I'm on right now. I'll surely catch hell shortly but it was worth it. Stoichiometric! Sounds like fun. Tomorrow try 'adiabatic'. I think it would work wonderfully in business situations. "See, we want our expansion to be (emphasis) *adiabatic*". (wait for earnest nods) Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com |
#99
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
Sounds like fun. Tomorrow try 'adiabatic'. I think it would work wonderfully in business situations. "See, we want our expansion to be (emphasis) *adiabatic*". (wait for earnest nods) Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Sorry Spehro, Can't let you get by with that one without giving you some heat! Richard |
#100
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:47:05 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote: tea per day. I wake up and am running at 90% by the time my feet hit the floor--without any damned drugs, TYVM. Oh..did I mention I was working at an altitude of 26 feet above floor level, just a couple feet below the (metal) roof, with an outside temp of around 99F all day? A two liter bottle of Mt. Dew, refilled once with water , refilled again, 2 bottles of Iced tea, 2 Monsters and Ive still not ****ed yet. But my clothes go crunch...crunch when I move |
#101
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:47:05 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote: On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:41:33 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm, Gunner Asch quickly quoth: On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 06:28:06 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: What are a "918 rivette" and "case of Monsters", pray tell? 918 rivett lathe, second ops, with turret, cross slide and a drawer full of dead length collets, 3 jaw, the manual etc etcetc http://www.ozarkwoodworker.com/item/...orparts-manua/ How big is that beastie? HxWxL, lbs, etc? What's the jap turret lathe? (same questions) Probably 5 wide, 3 high and 3 deep, maybe 500 lbs....wired 440 3ph, but I think I can set you up with a motor May not suit yur needs...it is a 2nd ops lathe....shrug The Jap is about 250 lbs, uses 4c collets, may also not fit your needs. Ill hunt you up a Logan 11" Mini mill? Sieg x2 or x3 for dirt cheap? Nope...mills are much harder to find. Hanson's Monster Energy Drink http://www.monsterenergy.com/ Ah, so; you're a caffeine freak. Is this better than Jolt? I tapered off caffeine because I hated the caffeine hangovers (as bad as a migrane) and now drink just 2 cups of coffee (infrequent) or 3 cups of tea per day. I wake up and am running at 90% by the time my feet hit the floor--without any damned drugs, TYVM. Im old, tired and out of sorts, and often sore as hell when I wake up. Example... I got off work tonight..er this morning rather..at 2:30am then drove back 35 minutes to the RV. After spending all ****ing day wiring up a 5 ton overhead crane, conduit, sub, disconnect, which in the process my Delta sawzall stripped its gears, my favorite 3 watt LED flashlight went tits up...I finally powered up the hoist..ran it up and down 2 times and on the 3rd lift, I short stroked it, as ignorant villagers for whom broken English is a second language at best...will do.. and it inconvieniently belched out a puff of magic smoke with a loud CRACK and a flash, blew all the breakersin a line out to a 200 amp sub (460 volts)..and welding one relay partially closed, blew out 2 of the 3 connector pins from the plug in power leads..welding them into the females and blowing them out of the male socket. The 20 amp breaker its tied to did trip, but the 200 amp 460 sub did also... Best as I can figure..up and down contactors engaged simultainiously...or one stuck...... Brand spanking new 5 ton electric hoist. Brand rhymes with Net. All this today, so they could unload the 8' x 19' stainless steel tanks that are coming in in the morning for the internals to be welded in....made mucho phone calls at 2:30 am to voice mails, hoping they could cancel the delivery trucks carrying the tanks...cause there is no way to unload them. They are so ****ed....... Anyways...its 4:37 am..Im still ****ed off as hell, sucking on a cig, with a Monster at hand, thinking about taking a cold shower (ran out of propane here at the RV sometime today) and have to be back at the clients shop at 9am to give him the details. Anywho, who sells cases cheap? Sams Club. About $15 for a 24 can, case. --Your Frugal Friend |
#102
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 04:55:28 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner quickly quoth: On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:47:05 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: tea per day. I wake up and am running at 90% by the time my feet hit the floor--without any damned drugs, TYVM. Oh..did I mention I was working at an altitude of 26 feet above floor level, just a couple feet below the (metal) roof, with an outside temp of around 99F all day? It sounds like you're wiring another machine shop this month. BUT...Are you wearing a hat? How about a cool-tie (wet scarf?) Both help immensely in the summer under those conditions. That said, I wonder if DoN ever made his last month. A two liter bottle of Mt. Dew, refilled once with water , refilled again, 2 bottles of Iced tea, 2 Monsters and Ive still not ****ed yet. But my clothes go crunch...crunch when I move And you just crinkle a sleeve over your french fries for extra salt, right? BTDT. Take a 5gal cooler filled with cool water. It's much, much better on your system than icy, sugary, caffeinated crap, G-mon. -- Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing. -- Thomas Paine |
#103
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 04:56:13 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner quickly quoth: On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:47:05 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: How big is that beastie? HxWxL, lbs, etc? What's the jap turret lathe? (same questions) Probably 5 wide, 3 high and 3 deep, maybe 500 lbs....wired 440 3ph, but I think I can set you up with a motor Eek! Too big. May not suit yur needs...it is a 2nd ops lathe....shrug The Jap is about 250 lbs, uses 4c collets, may also not fit your needs. Ill hunt you up a Logan 11" That doesn't sound "mini" to me. Mini mill? Sieg x2 or x3 for dirt cheap? Nope...mills are much harder to find. I've had a definite need for a mill half a dozen times but can't think of a time where I needed a lathe, other than for wood. The mill is first on my list...after cleaning out that shop so I can breathe in there without hitting something on all sides. Hanson's Monster Energy Drink http://www.monsterenergy.com/ Ah, so; you're a caffeine freak. Is this better than Jolt? I tapered off caffeine because I hated the caffeine hangovers (as bad as a migrane) and now drink just 2 cups of coffee (infrequent) or 3 cups of tea per day. I wake up and am running at 90% by the time my feet hit the floor--without any damned drugs, TYVM. Im old, tired and out of sorts, and often sore as hell when I wake up. I know. I'm 54, too; 55 on Aug 5th. But I'm not out of sorts when I wake up. Morning is my brightest and clearest time and I love it. I haven't yet had time to beat up my body and wear out my mind. g Example... I got off work tonight..er this morning rather..at 2:30am then drove back 35 minutes to the RV. After spending all ****ing day wiring up a 5 ton overhead crane, conduit, sub, disconnect, which in the process my Delta sawzall stripped its gears, my favorite 3 watt LED flashlight went tits up...I finally powered up the hoist..ran it up and down 2 times and on the 3rd lift, I short stroked it, as ignorant villagers for whom broken English is a second language at best...will do.. and it inconvieniently belched out a puff of magic smoke with a loud CRACK and a flash, blew all the breakersin a line out to a 200 amp sub (460 volts)..and welding one relay partially closed, blew out 2 of the 3 connector pins from the plug in power leads..welding them into the females and blowing them out of the male socket. The 20 amp breaker its tied to did trip, but the 200 amp 460 sub did also... Best as I can figure..up and down contactors engaged simultainiously...or one stuck...... Brand spanking new 5 ton electric hoist. Brand rhymes with Net. All this today, so they could unload the 8' x 19' stainless steel tanks that are coming in in the morning for the internals to be welded in....made mucho phone calls at 2:30 am to voice mails, hoping they could cancel the delivery trucks carrying the tanks...cause there is no way to unload them. They are so ****ed....... Anyways...its 4:37 am..Im still ****ed off as hell, sucking on a cig, with a Monster at hand, thinking about taking a cold shower (ran out of propane here at the RV sometime today) and have to be back at the clients shop at 9am to give him the details. I had a better day than you did yesterday. I did a short freebie job for my Hawaiian client and she's going to send me a nice gift basket in return. Otherwise, it was dead and I stayed in the air-conditioned house all day, away from the heat and all that California smoke. The Happy Camp fire is very close and blowing into Oregon this week. Work is DEAD up here right now. I've had two calls all week. One was from a drunk who wanted to find 1/4" hardware cloth. The other was from a guy who wanted a quote for his insurance company for putting in a new mailbox. He also stated that if I didn't hear back from him, it was probably because he was going to install it himself. sigh -- Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing. -- Thomas Paine |
#104
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message news On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:37:39 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it stands today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would define it, is a form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that their opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you need an agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos, he's surely talking about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform, because those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly talking about the kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as explained in detail by Edmund Burke. I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here. I think I got carried away. I'll relax now. d8-) Grab your copy of the Constitution, a couple gallons of ethanol and harass the neighborhood spouting the second amendment at 50 or 60 MPH in your go cart! You will feel better in no time Ed G "Stoichiometric", damned Ed, I worked that into so many conversations the day after seeing it and laughed so hard I can't believe it. What was really funny was the number of sage nods there were after weavung the word - completely senslessly mind you - into a technical discussion of the project I'm on right now. I'll surely catch hell shortly but it was worth it. Stoichiometric! A good word. Wait 'till you try it at a bar, when trying to describe to the bartender how to make the perfect Martini. -- Ed Huntress |
#105
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner
wrote on Thu, 03 Jul 2008 04:55:28 -0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking : On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:47:05 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: tea per day. I wake up and am running at 90% by the time my feet hit the floor--without any damned drugs, TYVM. Oh..did I mention I was working at an altitude of 26 feet above floor level, just a couple feet below the (metal) roof, with an outside temp of around 99F all day? A two liter bottle of Mt. Dew, refilled once with water , refilled again, 2 bottles of Iced tea, 2 Monsters and Ive still not ****ed yet. But my clothes go crunch...crunch when I move Under similar conditions, the instructions were "Drink the cup of Gatorade. If it tastes good, keep drinking until it no longer does." You may substitute you preferred electrolyte rich fluid of choice. pyotr "Hydrate or Die!" - to use another old expression. -- pyotr filipivich "I had just been through hell and must have looked like death warmed over walking into the saloon, because when I asked the bartender whether they served zombies he said, ‘Sure, what'll you have?'" from I Hear America Swinging by Peter DeVries |
#106
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:24:00 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote: I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner wrote on Thu, 03 Jul 2008 04:55:28 -0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking : On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:47:05 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: tea per day. I wake up and am running at 90% by the time my feet hit the floor--without any damned drugs, TYVM. Oh..did I mention I was working at an altitude of 26 feet above floor level, just a couple feet below the (metal) roof, with an outside temp of around 99F all day? A two liter bottle of Mt. Dew, refilled once with water , refilled again, 2 bottles of Iced tea, 2 Monsters and Ive still not ****ed yet. But my clothes go crunch...crunch when I move Under similar conditions, the instructions were "Drink the cup of Gatorade. If it tastes good, keep drinking until it no longer does." You may substitute you preferred electrolyte rich fluid of choice. pyotr "Hydrate or Die!" - to use another old expression. Indeed. I had a couple in there as well. Survivalist, remember? G GUnner |
#107
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:24:00 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
pyotr filipivich quickly quoth: I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner wrote on Thu, 03 Jul 2008 04:55:28 -0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking : On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:47:05 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: tea per day. I wake up and am running at 90% by the time my feet hit the floor--without any damned drugs, TYVM. Oh..did I mention I was working at an altitude of 26 feet above floor level, just a couple feet below the (metal) roof, with an outside temp of around 99F all day? A two liter bottle of Mt. Dew, refilled once with water , refilled again, 2 bottles of Iced tea, 2 Monsters and Ive still not ****ed yet. But my clothes go crunch...crunch when I move Under similar conditions, the instructions were "Drink the cup of Gatorade. If it tastes good, keep drinking until it no longer does." You may substitute you preferred electrolyte rich fluid of choice. Electrolytes are one thing. Gatorade is sugar (+ carbohydrates with a few stray electrolytes) and water. Gatorade and the so-called "energy drinks" are as bad for you as most "power bars", which are sugar and oats with a few nuts and raisins tossed in for "natural" ingredients. What a freakin' scam! Most fruit juices on market shelves are dosed heavily with sugar, too. What I do: Eat more salty foods (natural, not processed) and drink lots of water during the hot months. Honest electrolytes are good, too, but expensive. (Hmmm, Pedialyte 4/$9, I guess not much more than sports drinks, huh? Medicinal elecrolytes are much higher.) Non-adiabatic exercise creates an imbalance of the intracellular and extracellular milieu. Water and salt help bring the body into homeostasis (a sort of liquid stochiometry) without undue hormonal flow. Got it? bseg -- Honor unto death, or at least unto discomfort. |
#108
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
Gunner wrote: On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:24:00 -0800, pyotr filipivich wrote: I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner wrote on Thu, 03 Jul 2008 04:55:28 -0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking : On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:47:05 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: tea per day. I wake up and am running at 90% by the time my feet hit the floor--without any damned drugs, TYVM. Oh..did I mention I was working at an altitude of 26 feet above floor level, just a couple feet below the (metal) roof, with an outside temp of around 99F all day? A two liter bottle of Mt. Dew, refilled once with water , refilled again, 2 bottles of Iced tea, 2 Monsters and Ive still not ****ed yet. But my clothes go crunch...crunch when I move Under similar conditions, the instructions were "Drink the cup of Gatorade. If it tastes good, keep drinking until it no longer does." You may substitute you preferred electrolyte rich fluid of choice. pyotr "Hydrate or Die!" - to use another old expression. Indeed. I had a couple in there as well. Survivalist, remember? Do you have any idea how many gators go into a gallon of Gatorade? -- http://improve-usenet.org/index.html If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming' sheep. |
#109
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
Larry Jaques wrote: I know. I'm 54, too; 55 on Aug 5th. But I'm not out of sorts when I wake up. Morning is my brightest and clearest time and I love it. I haven't yet had time to beat up my body and wear out my mind. g My birthday is on Aug 5th, too. I shared it with an uncle who died a few years ago. I used to start work at 4) AM, and work till noon, when it got too hot in the metal building. The AC hadn't been installed yet, so it was a good compromise. I was the only one around for the first five hours, and I could concentrate on wiring the TV station I was building. -- http://improve-usenet.org/index.html If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming' sheep. |
#110
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
Gunner wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:24:00 -0800, pyotr filipivich wrote: I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner wrote on Thu, 03 Jul 2008 04:55:28 -0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking : On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:47:05 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: tea per day. I wake up and am running at 90% by the time my feet hit the floor--without any damned drugs, TYVM. Oh..did I mention I was working at an altitude of 26 feet above floor level, just a couple feet below the (metal) roof, with an outside temp of around 99F all day? A two liter bottle of Mt. Dew, refilled once with water , refilled again, 2 bottles of Iced tea, 2 Monsters and Ive still not ****ed yet. But my clothes go crunch...crunch when I move Under similar conditions, the instructions were "Drink the cup of Gatorade. If it tastes good, keep drinking until it no longer does." You may substitute you preferred electrolyte rich fluid of choice. pyotr "Hydrate or Die!" - to use another old expression. Indeed. I had a couple in there as well. Survivalist, remember? Drink a lot of citrus juice and it increases your heat tolerance almost immediately. try it. |
#111
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it stands today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would define it, is a form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that their opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you need an agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos, he's surely talking about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform, because those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly talking about the kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as explained in detail by Edmund Burke. I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here. I think I got carried away. I'll relax now. d8-) -- Ed Huntress Hey, way to go Ed. You sat on a Libertarian and made him give, you bully. I think that's a first. The fact that he agreed to bow to your logic was a real triumph. Usually when you give a Libertarian/Conservative a thumping by argument all they do is go away mad, start a fight, or call you some names, like Gunner would. You also nailed Libertarianism. It's not realistic. It's for complainers. They don't like the way things are now; with that we can all agree. But instead of coming up with real and feasible ways of making concrete changes all they can come up with is to throw out the baby with the bath water. But that explains why that party will never be anything more than a blip on the radar. As long as it can't come up with real alternatives to the status quo that might actually work it'll stay irrelevant. However, as Americans we all have at least some measure of Libertarian in us though it may be really, really small. Hawke |
#112
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
"Hawke" wrote in message ... That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it stands today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would define it, is a form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that their opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you need an agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos, he's surely talking about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform, because those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly talking about the kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as explained in detail by Edmund Burke. I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here. I think I got carried away. I'll relax now. d8-) -- Ed Huntress Hey, way to go Ed. You sat on a Libertarian and made him give, you bully. I think that's a first. The fact that he agreed to bow to your logic was a real triumph. Usually when you give a Libertarian/Conservative a thumping by argument all they do is go away mad, start a fight, or call you some names, like Gunner would. You also nailed Libertarianism. It's not realistic. It's for complainers. They don't like the way things are now; with that we can all agree. But instead of coming up with real and feasible ways of making concrete changes all they can come up with is to throw out the baby with the bath water. But that explains why that party will never be anything more than a blip on the radar. As long as it can't come up with real alternatives to the status quo that might actually work it'll stay irrelevant. However, as Americans we all have at least some measure of Libertarian in us though it may be really, really small. Hawke Now, don't get carried away. The impulse behind libertarianism is a perfectly good one. It's the thought that's lacking. -- Ed Huntress |
#113
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:27:58 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote: Gunner wrote: On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:24:00 -0800, pyotr filipivich wrote: I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner wrote on Thu, 03 Jul 2008 04:55:28 -0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking : On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:47:05 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote: tea per day. I wake up and am running at 90% by the time my feet hit the floor--without any damned drugs, TYVM. Oh..did I mention I was working at an altitude of 26 feet above floor level, just a couple feet below the (metal) roof, with an outside temp of around 99F all day? A two liter bottle of Mt. Dew, refilled once with water , refilled again, 2 bottles of Iced tea, 2 Monsters and Ive still not ****ed yet. But my clothes go crunch...crunch when I move Under similar conditions, the instructions were "Drink the cup of Gatorade. If it tastes good, keep drinking until it no longer does." You may substitute you preferred electrolyte rich fluid of choice. pyotr "Hydrate or Die!" - to use another old expression. Indeed. I had a couple in there as well. Survivalist, remember? Do you have any idea how many gators go into a gallon of Gatorade? 42 "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." -- Norman Thomas, American socialist |
#114
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
Ed Huntress wrote:
Now, don't get carried away. The impulse behind libertarianism is a perfectly good one. It's the thought that's lacking. Many philosophies of governance seem to ignore or deny that those who rise to positions of power and influence (both in government and in the governed society) are capable of abusing the system and the other people in the society. The other philosophies tend to deny that most people are inclined to honesty and even altruism. As the constitution was conceived, it seems to emphasize individual freedom and liberty until that freedom interferes with another person's freedom and liberty, at which point a court can step in and weigh the relative burdens on each person's freedoms. Governments also exist to represent the whole of the community, since a company might claim the freedom to dump dioxin in the river, and it would be hard to show that the dioxin represented harm for any given person, but easy to make a case that it presents a risk to all of society. Stuart |
#115
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Hawke" wrote in message ... That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it stands today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would define it, is a form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that their opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you need an agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos, he's surely talking about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform, because those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly talking about the kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as explained in detail by Edmund Burke. I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here. I think I got carried away. I'll relax now. d8-) -- Ed Huntress Hey, way to go Ed. You sat on a Libertarian and made him give, you bully. I think that's a first. The fact that he agreed to bow to your logic was a real triumph. Usually when you give a Libertarian/Conservative a thumping by argument all they do is go away mad, start a fight, or call you some names, like Gunner would. You also nailed Libertarianism. It's not realistic. It's for complainers. They don't like the way things are now; with that we can all agree. But instead of coming up with real and feasible ways of making concrete changes all they can come up with is to throw out the baby with the bath water. But that explains why that party will never be anything more than a blip on the radar. As long as it can't come up with real alternatives to the status quo that might actually work it'll stay irrelevant. However, as Americans we all have at least some measure of Libertarian in us though it may be really, really small. Hawke Now, don't get carried away. The impulse behind libertarianism is a perfectly good one. It's the thought that's lacking. Ed: You criticize the Libertarians for the lack of thinking thru their ideas. Where is there any evidence that the other parties have thought thru their ideas? The present method of dealing with problems is called "Knee Jerk". I'll repeat what has been ignored: Get on the internet and look into the Democrat and Republican parties. Try to find a statement of philosophy. The Libertarian party is the only one willing to state theirs clearly. I'm not an registered Libertarian, but I'm sure a supporter of smaller less intrusive government. Ed: You don't like monopolies. I agree they tend to run away with themselves in an unbridled manner. The Federal, State, County and to a lesser extent even City governments are simply monopolies. They have no competition. They are not held accountable by any other than themselves for their actions. I wish I had a job where I could vote myself pay raises and create my own retirement system that someone else pays for. No it has been said that no alternatives have been proffered. Wrong. Ron Paul offered up some alternatives, granted not all would be acceptable or work, but he evened offered a method to fix that: Constitutional Amendment. His ideas of restricting the government to those powers granted by the Constitution would be a big step in the right direction to at least curtail some of the Federal Governements monopolistic behaviours presently viewed as the way of doing business. What do the Centrists offer to get us out of our current Morass? It seems their technique is to wait and see what happens. Stu Ed Huntress |
#116
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message .. . "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Hawke" wrote in message ... That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it stands today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would define it, is a form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that their opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you need an agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos, he's surely talking about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform, because those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly talking about the kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as explained in detail by Edmund Burke. I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here. I think I got carried away. I'll relax now. d8-) -- Ed Huntress Hey, way to go Ed. You sat on a Libertarian and made him give, you bully. I think that's a first. The fact that he agreed to bow to your logic was a real triumph. Usually when you give a Libertarian/Conservative a thumping by argument all they do is go away mad, start a fight, or call you some names, like Gunner would. You also nailed Libertarianism. It's not realistic. It's for complainers. They don't like the way things are now; with that we can all agree. But instead of coming up with real and feasible ways of making concrete changes all they can come up with is to throw out the baby with the bath water. But that explains why that party will never be anything more than a blip on the radar. As long as it can't come up with real alternatives to the status quo that might actually work it'll stay irrelevant. However, as Americans we all have at least some measure of Libertarian in us though it may be really, really small. Hawke Now, don't get carried away. The impulse behind libertarianism is a perfectly good one. It's the thought that's lacking. Ed: You criticize the Libertarians for the lack of thinking thru their ideas. Where is there any evidence that the other parties have thought thru their ideas? Over 200 years of successful governance. And if you don't think it's been successful, compare our legal, economic, and other situations with those of almost any other country. The present method of dealing with problems is called "Knee Jerk". I'll repeat what has been ignored: Get on the internet and look into the Democrat and Republican parties. Try to find a statement of philosophy. Thank God, they really don't have one, beyond a few things that might better be called attitudes. The Libertarian party is the only one willing to state theirs clearly. Deliver us from ideologues who have a philosophy. Philosophy is for college classes and books. When it comes to governance, it's a prescription for disaster. Every time. No exceptions. I'm not an registered Libertarian, but I'm sure a supporter of smaller less intrusive government. So is 90% of the US population -- until you try to make *their* favorite project smaller. Ed: You don't like monopolies. I agree they tend to run away with themselves in an unbridled manner. The Federal, State, County and to a lesser extent even City governments are simply monopolies. No, they're democratically elected governments. That's the exact opposite of a monopoly. You can get rid of them as easily as by voting them out. That's our job. They have no competition. Of course they do -- every politician who wants their job is a competitor. They are not held accountable by any other than themselves for their actions. That's why we have a tripartite government with a distribution of powers and an institutionalized system of checks and balances. I wish I had a job where I could vote myself pay raises and create my own retirement system that someone else pays for. So do I. d8-) No it has been said that no alternatives have been proffered. Wrong. Ron Paul offered up some alternatives, granted not all would be acceptable or work, but he evened offered a method to fix that: Ron Paul is a half-baked crackpot who should stay in Arizona, where nothing destructive that he could do matters very much. If he goes out in the sun much, maybe he'll be fully baked some day. Constitutional Amendment. His ideas of restricting the government to those powers granted by the Constitution would be a big step in the right direction to at least curtail some of the Federal Governements monopolistic behaviours presently viewed as the way of doing business. Bull. What do the Centrists offer... Government that works. ...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"? It seems their technique is to wait and see what happens. Stu What are you, a radical who has a program for overturning tradition? g Of course it's to wait and see what happens. What is it you want, Stu? Is it 6,000-pound, 6-liter SUVs and pickup trucks forever? A McMansion for everyone, with a 40-mile commute? Didn't you realize 10 years ago, or even 20 years ago, that we were sliding downhill on a waterslide into a swamp? We get caught by our own wretched excess from time to time. That's the product of a hot economy and an....uh, expansive attitude. That's the US. It means we'll swing up and down, and drive ourselves silly, probably forever. I happen to like the system, and the people in it, silly or not. But spare us the talk about "morass." There is no morass. There is only the roller coaster. Hang on tight. -- Ed Huntress |
#117
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
"Stuart Wheaton" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: Now, don't get carried away. The impulse behind libertarianism is a perfectly good one. It's the thought that's lacking. Many philosophies of governance seem to ignore or deny that those who rise to positions of power and influence (both in government and in the governed society) are capable of abusing the system and the other people in the society. The other philosophies tend to deny that most people are inclined to honesty and even altruism. As the constitution was conceived, it seems to emphasize individual freedom and liberty until that freedom interferes with another person's freedom and liberty, at which point a court can step in and weigh the relative burdens on each person's freedoms. OK, that's a good basic description. Governments also exist to represent the whole of the community, since a company might claim the freedom to dump dioxin in the river, and it would be hard to show that the dioxin represented harm for any given person, but easy to make a case that it presents a risk to all of society. Stuart Then what the polluter has to do is to get a good lobbying firm. That worked for decades. We'll see how much longer it works. My feeling is that there are too many watchdogs, and there is too much Internet, for that to go on forever. However, it does work both ways, as we've seen with global warming. If there's a perceived public interest in ignoring the facts, the facts will be turned upside down and pseudo-facts inserted into the equation. For example, there's Larry... d8-) -- Ed Huntress |
#118
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
Gunner Asch wrote: On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:27:58 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: Do you have any idea how many gators go into a gallon of Gatorade? 42 Correct. Give that man a cigar! ;-) -- http://improve-usenet.org/index.html If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming' sheep. |
#119
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 07:51:35 -0700, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields"
wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Hawke" wrote in message ... That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it stands today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would define it, is a form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that their opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you need an agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos, he's surely talking about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform, because those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly talking about the kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as explained in detail by Edmund Burke. I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here. I think I got carried away. I'll relax now. d8-) -- Ed Huntress Hey, way to go Ed. You sat on a Libertarian and made him give, you bully. I think that's a first. The fact that he agreed to bow to your logic was a real triumph. Usually when you give a Libertarian/Conservative a thumping by argument all they do is go away mad, start a fight, or call you some names, like Gunner would. You also nailed Libertarianism. It's not realistic. It's for complainers. They don't like the way things are now; with that we can all agree. But instead of coming up with real and feasible ways of making concrete changes all they can come up with is to throw out the baby with the bath water. But that explains why that party will never be anything more than a blip on the radar. As long as it can't come up with real alternatives to the status quo that might actually work it'll stay irrelevant. However, as Americans we all have at least some measure of Libertarian in us though it may be really, really small. Hawke Now, don't get carried away. The impulse behind libertarianism is a perfectly good one. It's the thought that's lacking. Ed: You criticize the Libertarians for the lack of thinking thru their ideas. Where is there any evidence that the other parties have thought thru their ideas? The present method of dealing with problems is called "Knee Jerk". I'll repeat what has been ignored: Get on the internet and look into the Democrat and Republican parties. Try to find a statement of philosophy. The Libertarian party is the only one willing to state theirs clearly. I'm not an registered Libertarian, but I'm sure a supporter of smaller less intrusive government. Ed: You don't like monopolies. I agree they tend to run away with themselves in an unbridled manner. The Federal, State, County and to a lesser extent even City governments are simply monopolies. They have no competition. They are not held accountable by any other than themselves for their actions. I wish I had a job where I could vote myself pay raises and create my own retirement system that someone else pays for. No it has been said that no alternatives have been proffered. Wrong. Ron Paul offered up some alternatives, granted not all would be acceptable or work, but he evened offered a method to fix that: Constitutional Amendment. His ideas of restricting the government to those powers granted by the Constitution would be a big step in the right direction to at least curtail some of the Federal Governements monopolistic behaviours presently viewed as the way of doing business. What do the Centrists offer to get us out of our current Morass? It seems their technique is to wait and see what happens. Stu Hear Hear!! "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." -- Norman Thomas, American socialist |
#120
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
OT-143 days
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message news On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 07:51:35 -0700, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote: snip What do the Centrists offer to get us out of our current Morass? It seems their technique is to wait and see what happens. Stu Hear Hear!! That's the trouble, Gunner. You only hear half the story, so you have mostly half-assed opinions. -- Ed Huntress |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
O/T: It' Been One Of Those days | Woodworking | |||
Win XP goes off after 30 days | Electronics Repair | |||
Is everything around $400 these days? | Home Repair | |||
Those were the days! | Electronics Repair | |||
$759,350.00 in 20 to 60 days!!!!!!!!! | Woodturning |