This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1prosfilaes
I've no real wish to bag on Steve Jackson, but according to his webpage, http://sj.sjgames.com/sjbio.html , which I believe he wrote in third person, "he now considers himself a small-l libertarian". Now his house has been hit by flood, and he writes http://www.sjgames.com/ill/archive/2013-11-12 :
This flood will be talked about for a long time, in a lot of ways. The city knew it was coming and spent some of its own money to buy out houses in the floodplain. And if that had not happened, there would have been many more flooded homes and, I'm sure, even more loss of life. But they asked for federal money, and didn't get it due to the various budget issues deadlocking Washington. Which left a lot of houses listed in their plan but not actually bought . . . and, frankly, their plan was naive, pinchpenny, and made no provision for hundreds of houses, even closer to the creek, that had flooded just a few years ago. But, again, no federal money showed up.
And then, as far as anyone can tell, the city just went into "Oh, well, we'll get to it when we can" mode. Certainly that was exactly the answer they gave when asked for progress reports. Mother Nature struck first and people died. And it appears that the city's initial emergency response was slowed, despite many 911 calls, because the electronic flood gauge for the area was showing nothing abnormal. It had been completely swept away, and apparently "no signal" was interpreted as "normal." I hope THAT gets fixed . . . But a lot of questions will be asked about why the city thought "no money from the feds" somehow made the whole problem less pressing.
How does that work at all? How do you call yourself a libertarian and blame the government for not buying houses that people bought in a floodplain that should have been no surprise to anyone? This Democrat can see problems with the government covering too much of the disaster costs of people building in places they shouldn't; how can a libertarian expect this to be the city's responsibility to handle?
This flood will be talked about for a long time, in a lot of ways. The city knew it was coming and spent some of its own money to buy out houses in the floodplain. And if that had not happened, there would have been many more flooded homes and, I'm sure, even more loss of life. But they asked for federal money, and didn't get it due to the various budget issues deadlocking Washington. Which left a lot of houses listed in their plan but not actually bought . . . and, frankly, their plan was naive, pinchpenny, and made no provision for hundreds of houses, even closer to the creek, that had flooded just a few years ago. But, again, no federal money showed up.
And then, as far as anyone can tell, the city just went into "Oh, well, we'll get to it when we can" mode. Certainly that was exactly the answer they gave when asked for progress reports. Mother Nature struck first and people died. And it appears that the city's initial emergency response was slowed, despite many 911 calls, because the electronic flood gauge for the area was showing nothing abnormal. It had been completely swept away, and apparently "no signal" was interpreted as "normal." I hope THAT gets fixed . . . But a lot of questions will be asked about why the city thought "no money from the feds" somehow made the whole problem less pressing.
How does that work at all? How do you call yourself a libertarian and blame the government for not buying houses that people bought in a floodplain that should have been no surprise to anyone? This Democrat can see problems with the government covering too much of the disaster costs of people building in places they shouldn't; how can a libertarian expect this to be the city's responsibility to handle?
2faceinbook
"how can a libertarian expect this to be the city's responsibility to handle?"
Because it became personal. He would be screaming for "gun control" if his child were gunned down in a shopping mall or at school or in an airport somewhere, as well.
It is very difficult for some individuals to practice "empathy". I am almost convinced that this is a personality issue and I believe it divides us into political parties.
The rugged Republican with the "can do it alone" attitude, along with the Libertarian who wants to distance themselves from all things government, are hampered emotionally by an inability to "walk two moons in another man's moccasins"........whether this is willful or not, I haven't a clue......sometimes I think it is, other times I am absolutely convinced that there is no way they can see the hypocrisy of their flip flopping about when circumstances become personal. I can not imagine that they are so blind to their own yammerings and the actions they take that are in direct conflict to what they say. I have spent years watching this and going back and forth between......they can not possibly know how they sound and/or they don't give a rip how they sound cause now something has affected THEM. Don't know.
My guess is that Mr. Jackson would also be the first to say "Well, the idiot built in a flood plain. What does he expect ?" If it were a neighborhood in his town but an area he wasn't living in. Fits the personality type.
Because it became personal. He would be screaming for "gun control" if his child were gunned down in a shopping mall or at school or in an airport somewhere, as well.
It is very difficult for some individuals to practice "empathy". I am almost convinced that this is a personality issue and I believe it divides us into political parties.
The rugged Republican with the "can do it alone" attitude, along with the Libertarian who wants to distance themselves from all things government, are hampered emotionally by an inability to "walk two moons in another man's moccasins"........whether this is willful or not, I haven't a clue......sometimes I think it is, other times I am absolutely convinced that there is no way they can see the hypocrisy of their flip flopping about when circumstances become personal. I can not imagine that they are so blind to their own yammerings and the actions they take that are in direct conflict to what they say. I have spent years watching this and going back and forth between......they can not possibly know how they sound and/or they don't give a rip how they sound cause now something has affected THEM. Don't know.
My guess is that Mr. Jackson would also be the first to say "Well, the idiot built in a flood plain. What does he expect ?" If it were a neighborhood in his town but an area he wasn't living in. Fits the personality type.
32wonderY
>2 faceinbook:
"I am almost convinced that this is a personality issue and I believe it divides us into political parties."
There are actually a couple of recent books with people wresting with that concept. I've been reading them trying to get a handle on the irrationality in my own family. So far, it hasn't helped.
"I am almost convinced that this is a personality issue and I believe it divides us into political parties."
There are actually a couple of recent books with people wresting with that concept. I've been reading them trying to get a handle on the irrationality in my own family. So far, it hasn't helped.
4southernbooklady
>2 faceinbook: Because it became personal.
Human beings as a species generally have to stick their fingers in the light socket before they really believe they will get shocked. It's sort of a great thing and a terrible flaw that we always have to prove everything to ourselves. It's one of the reasons why as an environmentalist I'm in favor of zoos. Because there is nothing like getting to see the tiger in person to make you understand how magnificent they are, and how much they are worth protecting.
In truth, though, I think we're probably all "libertarians with a little l" to some extent--struggling to determine where self-determination and communal necessity meet and must compromise.
Human beings as a species generally have to stick their fingers in the light socket before they really believe they will get shocked. It's sort of a great thing and a terrible flaw that we always have to prove everything to ourselves. It's one of the reasons why as an environmentalist I'm in favor of zoos. Because there is nothing like getting to see the tiger in person to make you understand how magnificent they are, and how much they are worth protecting.
In truth, though, I think we're probably all "libertarians with a little l" to some extent--struggling to determine where self-determination and communal necessity meet and must compromise.
5BruceCoulson
#4
Well said.
Well said.
6timspalding
I have no particular interest in defending Steve Jackson—a man I don't know—but I resist one particular sort of ploy: that because someone opposes a law, they should not enjoy the benefits of the law.
This is commonly used against conservatives and libertarians, and it is unfair. So, for example, we hear that someone opposes a certain tax loophole, but takes advantage of it, or opposes a certain benefit, but used it. In theory, therefore, someone who wants to downsize government should pretend as if much of what government does doesn't exist--while, of course, still paying full taxes.
The fact is, the law is the law. Good or bad, we all pay for it and we all benefit--or suffer--from it. It is moral and appropriate to use a law even if you voted against it, and this is true whether you're on he right or the left. Thus, it is no more inconsistent for a libertarian to take a tax benefit that exists in the law than it is for an American leftist to pay only half his income in taxes, despite wanting a Scandinavian system where he would pay 3/4. Similarly, conservatives do not ask leftists who opposed Cold War defense spending to drink radium and speak Russian. ;)
The same applies to "expectations." I think we'd be better off de-federalizing most disaster relief. It's too often used politically, and wastefully. (I'm not against relief; I just think it should be state-level, with a federal backstop.) But if a hurricane hit Portland, Maine, I'd expect to get us roughly the same relief as other parts of the country and, since I paid for it, whatever relief I paid for. Also, even if I'm a libertarian, I can complain that the government designed a water-detection system in a backwards-ass way…
This is commonly used against conservatives and libertarians, and it is unfair. So, for example, we hear that someone opposes a certain tax loophole, but takes advantage of it, or opposes a certain benefit, but used it. In theory, therefore, someone who wants to downsize government should pretend as if much of what government does doesn't exist--while, of course, still paying full taxes.
The fact is, the law is the law. Good or bad, we all pay for it and we all benefit--or suffer--from it. It is moral and appropriate to use a law even if you voted against it, and this is true whether you're on he right or the left. Thus, it is no more inconsistent for a libertarian to take a tax benefit that exists in the law than it is for an American leftist to pay only half his income in taxes, despite wanting a Scandinavian system where he would pay 3/4. Similarly, conservatives do not ask leftists who opposed Cold War defense spending to drink radium and speak Russian. ;)
The same applies to "expectations." I think we'd be better off de-federalizing most disaster relief. It's too often used politically, and wastefully. (I'm not against relief; I just think it should be state-level, with a federal backstop.) But if a hurricane hit Portland, Maine, I'd expect to get us roughly the same relief as other parts of the country and, since I paid for it, whatever relief I paid for. Also, even if I'm a libertarian, I can complain that the government designed a water-detection system in a backwards-ass way…
7southernbooklady
>6 timspalding: if a hurricane hit Portland, Maine, I'd expect to get us roughly the same relief as other parts of the country and, since I paid for it, whatever relief I paid for.
I agree that there is nothing hypocritical about following the law you live under. God knows there are 18 million laws on the books I don't like, but I don't think I'm being hypocritical when I obey them. It would take something fairly major to push me into civil disobedience.
But I think the question still has merit when you look at it from the perspective of making the law. For example, I think you can fault the Republican senators from Iowa for voting against relief for victims of Sandy, but then asking for it for victims of the tornadoes in their own state. At the very least, you can charge them with inconsistency.
Large scale disasters, like wars, are an area where I think a Federal hierarchy is probably necessary. The scale of the relief required just seems to demand it. And the rest of the country does have a vested interest when, for example, New Orleans is flattened by a category four hurricane.
I agree that there is nothing hypocritical about following the law you live under. God knows there are 18 million laws on the books I don't like, but I don't think I'm being hypocritical when I obey them. It would take something fairly major to push me into civil disobedience.
But I think the question still has merit when you look at it from the perspective of making the law. For example, I think you can fault the Republican senators from Iowa for voting against relief for victims of Sandy, but then asking for it for victims of the tornadoes in their own state. At the very least, you can charge them with inconsistency.
Large scale disasters, like wars, are an area where I think a Federal hierarchy is probably necessary. The scale of the relief required just seems to demand it. And the rest of the country does have a vested interest when, for example, New Orleans is flattened by a category four hurricane.
8BruceCoulson
Rising Tide: The Great by John Barry is a good start to the beginnings of Federal Disaster relief in the U.S.
9timspalding
>7 southernbooklady:
I just don't agree. The laws are the laws. Until we charge democrats with hypocrisy for advocating for higher taxes, but not voluntarily paying them themselves, this will remain a cheap shot.
Large scale disasters, like wars, are an area where I think a Federal hierarchy is probably necessary. The scale of the relief required just seems to demand it. And the rest of the country does have a vested interest when, for example, New Orleans is flattened by a category four hurricane.
I agree. But a lot of disaster relief is for "expected" disasters—disasters that reoccur on a regular basis because of the state's geography and climate and ought to be budged at the state level.
Worse, they are more and more political.
Take a look at the chart on http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/01/congress-should-limit-the-presi...
Basically, yearly FEMA declarations have gone from 13 under Eisenhower, to 47 under Carter, to 89 under Clinton, to 129 under Bush to 153 under Obama. Every single presidential term has seen an increase in the yearly rate. That's insane. And it has fuck-all to do with the prevalence of important disasters. It has to do with the fact that disasters are declared by the President, and amount to free money and free good will wherever he declares them. Give a president a free way to spend money that gets credited to him—makes him look good—he'll do it.
I just don't agree. The laws are the laws. Until we charge democrats with hypocrisy for advocating for higher taxes, but not voluntarily paying them themselves, this will remain a cheap shot.
Large scale disasters, like wars, are an area where I think a Federal hierarchy is probably necessary. The scale of the relief required just seems to demand it. And the rest of the country does have a vested interest when, for example, New Orleans is flattened by a category four hurricane.
I agree. But a lot of disaster relief is for "expected" disasters—disasters that reoccur on a regular basis because of the state's geography and climate and ought to be budged at the state level.
Worse, they are more and more political.
Take a look at the chart on http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/01/congress-should-limit-the-presi...
Basically, yearly FEMA declarations have gone from 13 under Eisenhower, to 47 under Carter, to 89 under Clinton, to 129 under Bush to 153 under Obama. Every single presidential term has seen an increase in the yearly rate. That's insane. And it has fuck-all to do with the prevalence of important disasters. It has to do with the fact that disasters are declared by the President, and amount to free money and free good will wherever he declares them. Give a president a free way to spend money that gets credited to him—makes him look good—he'll do it.
10prosfilaes
#6: that because someone opposes a law, they should not enjoy the benefits of the law.
But as far as I can tell, there was no law telling Austin, Texas to be more aggressive in buying houses in that flood plain. He praised Austin for spending money to bail out homeowners and criticized them for not spending enough. The only thing a libertarian should be saying about "Oh, well, we'll get to it when we can" referring to something the city shouldn't be doing is that they shouldn't "get to it" at all.
I think federal disaster relief is only tangentially on-topic; most of the complaint is about the actions of the city.
Also, even if I'm a libertarian, I can complain that the government designed a water-detection system in a backwards-ass way…
Sure, but you don't get to ask for it to be fixed. It's been swept away; it's an excellent opportunity for you to demand that the government get out of the business of water-detection systems and let a private organization handle it.
But as far as I can tell, there was no law telling Austin, Texas to be more aggressive in buying houses in that flood plain. He praised Austin for spending money to bail out homeowners and criticized them for not spending enough. The only thing a libertarian should be saying about "Oh, well, we'll get to it when we can" referring to something the city shouldn't be doing is that they shouldn't "get to it" at all.
I think federal disaster relief is only tangentially on-topic; most of the complaint is about the actions of the city.
Also, even if I'm a libertarian, I can complain that the government designed a water-detection system in a backwards-ass way…
Sure, but you don't get to ask for it to be fixed. It's been swept away; it's an excellent opportunity for you to demand that the government get out of the business of water-detection systems and let a private organization handle it.
11lriley
#6--one caveat with that though if after that hurricane hit Maine and you received federal and/or state aid to get back on your feet then when next an earthquake hit California you shouldn't gripe about those residents there receiving similar federal and/or state aid. That's where the hypocrisy of some people really kicks in. When it is for themselves it is fine--when it's for others it is not. The libertarian ideal is that it's all on the individual--or to quote Margaret Thatcher--'there's no such thing as society'. Well that works until she needed to send troops to the Falklands. Then it's Britons unite.
12prosfilaes
#9: I just don't agree. The laws are the laws. Until we charge democrats with hypocrisy for advocating for higher taxes, but not voluntarily paying them themselves, this will remain a cheap shot.
As a response to
#7: For example, I think you can fault the Republican senators from Iowa for voting against relief for victims of Sandy, but then asking for it for victims of the tornadoes in their own state. At the very least, you can charge them with inconsistency.
that seems a little unfair. As long as the law is the law, it should apply equally; and that's not even about the law is the law, that's about what senators vote for. If you're going to vote special disaster relief, don't vote yourself money and complain that the federal government shouldn't be giving money to other's disaster relief. A senator could easily vote equally against all disaster relief.
As a response to
#7: For example, I think you can fault the Republican senators from Iowa for voting against relief for victims of Sandy, but then asking for it for victims of the tornadoes in their own state. At the very least, you can charge them with inconsistency.
that seems a little unfair. As long as the law is the law, it should apply equally; and that's not even about the law is the law, that's about what senators vote for. If you're going to vote special disaster relief, don't vote yourself money and complain that the federal government shouldn't be giving money to other's disaster relief. A senator could easily vote equally against all disaster relief.
13southernbooklady
>9 timspalding: Until we charge democrats with hypocrisy for advocating for higher taxes, but not voluntarily paying them themselves
I'm not really following this analogy. Presumably, if Democrats advocated for higher taxes and that was passed into law, they would also pay them?
But I think in the hands of the lawmakers, it becomes mostly a question of "not in my backyard" and "what will get me re-elected" rather than a question of real principle. I am, however, abysmally cynical about the motivations of elected officials.
disasters that reoccur on a regular basis because of the state's geography and climate and ought to be budgeted at the state level
It's simplistic, though. The economic pressures to develop in precisely those high-risk areas are ridiculously strong, and those pressures don't respect our arbitrary state lines. Nor, for that matter, does Mother Nature.
I'm not really following this analogy. Presumably, if Democrats advocated for higher taxes and that was passed into law, they would also pay them?
But I think in the hands of the lawmakers, it becomes mostly a question of "not in my backyard" and "what will get me re-elected" rather than a question of real principle. I am, however, abysmally cynical about the motivations of elected officials.
disasters that reoccur on a regular basis because of the state's geography and climate and ought to be budgeted at the state level
It's simplistic, though. The economic pressures to develop in precisely those high-risk areas are ridiculously strong, and those pressures don't respect our arbitrary state lines. Nor, for that matter, does Mother Nature.
14LolaWalser
Until we charge democrats with hypocrisy for advocating for higher taxes, but not voluntarily paying them themselves, this will remain a cheap shot.
How do you know democrats wouldn't voluntarily pay the taxes they themselves are advocating?
Is this based on some evidence, or is it just, ironically, a cheap shot?
#13
x-post!
How do you know democrats wouldn't voluntarily pay the taxes they themselves are advocating?
Is this based on some evidence, or is it just, ironically, a cheap shot?
#13
x-post!
15timspalding
one caveat with that though if after that hurricane hit Maine and you received federal and/or state aid to get back on your feet then when next an earthquake hit California you shouldn't gripe about those residents there receiving similar federal and/or state aid.
Agree about not griping. But I think you can say "Although I'm glad the residents of California got their due, I maintain that California--the sixth largest economy on the planet--can afford to pay for the fires that reoccur every year and which are caused by its own disastrous water management."
I'm not really following this analogy. Presumably, if Democrats advocated for higher taxes and that was passed into law, they would also pay them?
No, if conservatives shouldn't take benefits they're entitled to by law, despite advocating cuts to the benefits, liberals should pay more taxes by choice, since they advocated for increases.
Can I get someone to look at the increase in FEMA declarations. I submit that it is an obvious sign of political abuse--bipartisan abuse.
Agree about not griping. But I think you can say "Although I'm glad the residents of California got their due, I maintain that California--the sixth largest economy on the planet--can afford to pay for the fires that reoccur every year and which are caused by its own disastrous water management."
I'm not really following this analogy. Presumably, if Democrats advocated for higher taxes and that was passed into law, they would also pay them?
No, if conservatives shouldn't take benefits they're entitled to by law, despite advocating cuts to the benefits, liberals should pay more taxes by choice, since they advocated for increases.
Can I get someone to look at the increase in FEMA declarations. I submit that it is an obvious sign of political abuse--bipartisan abuse.
16timspalding
How do you know democrats wouldn't voluntarily pay the taxes they themselves are advocating?
Huh? Very very few Americans pay more taxes than they owe—sending Uncle Sam a donation because they want to. I'd be surprised if it were 1,000 people every year. If democrats we're all overpaying their taxes to match what they they'd pay if their laws all passed, we'd know about it.
Mind you, I THINK we should pay more taxes too. And I think my social security should be cut now, before I start taking it and and doom future generations to penury. But I'm not going to start paying more taxes voluntarily. I'll wait for it to become law. Similarly, I think we should cut our military. I recognize that there are also dangers there. But I'm not going to try to take those dangers by myself—play a 1/1,000 Russian roulette game?—until we are all forced to face them.
Huh? Very very few Americans pay more taxes than they owe—sending Uncle Sam a donation because they want to. I'd be surprised if it were 1,000 people every year. If democrats we're all overpaying their taxes to match what they they'd pay if their laws all passed, we'd know about it.
Mind you, I THINK we should pay more taxes too. And I think my social security should be cut now, before I start taking it and and doom future generations to penury. But I'm not going to start paying more taxes voluntarily. I'll wait for it to become law. Similarly, I think we should cut our military. I recognize that there are also dangers there. But I'm not going to try to take those dangers by myself—play a 1/1,000 Russian roulette game?—until we are all forced to face them.
17prosfilaes
#13: The economic pressures to develop in precisely those high-risk areas are ridiculously strong,
Then surely those economic pressures can generate the money to cover the risk with insurance. I don't know how to do it fairly and reasonably, but the people who insist on living in Galveston should cover the costs of a once in a fifty years hurricane hitting the island. It's going to happen again, and if we let those residents pay it, it will provide financial incentive to not live there. Same thing with LA; the residents of LA should have to budget for a once in a fifty years earthquake. These are known costs of building in these areas; putting on the shoulders of those who chose to live there instead of asking everyone to pay for their known poor choices that they will go back and make again (because they have no financial reason not to) is a good thing.
Then surely those economic pressures can generate the money to cover the risk with insurance. I don't know how to do it fairly and reasonably, but the people who insist on living in Galveston should cover the costs of a once in a fifty years hurricane hitting the island. It's going to happen again, and if we let those residents pay it, it will provide financial incentive to not live there. Same thing with LA; the residents of LA should have to budget for a once in a fifty years earthquake. These are known costs of building in these areas; putting on the shoulders of those who chose to live there instead of asking everyone to pay for their known poor choices that they will go back and make again (because they have no financial reason not to) is a good thing.
18RickHarsch
>16 timspalding: I have quite often heard criticism of lawmakers paying less in taxes than what they would like people to pay.
>6 timspalding: 'It is moral and appropriate to use a law even if you voted against it, and this is true whether you're on he right or the left.' This kind of wretched statement makes me convulse. Do you really mean this? We often post rapidly and don't give a great deal of thought to what we write--I've often expressed myself badly and often been called on it. But A) are you really with a straight face beginning a sentence with 'It is moral and appropriate...'?; and B) Do you really feel that we are all to be utterly obedient to all laws?
>6 timspalding: 'It is moral and appropriate to use a law even if you voted against it, and this is true whether you're on he right or the left.' This kind of wretched statement makes me convulse. Do you really mean this? We often post rapidly and don't give a great deal of thought to what we write--I've often expressed myself badly and often been called on it. But A) are you really with a straight face beginning a sentence with 'It is moral and appropriate...'?; and B) Do you really feel that we are all to be utterly obedient to all laws?
19Michael_Welch
I used to know a young woman who is a libertarian and she noted that "libertarians today" have all sorts of "positions" (uh not THOSE hmm) including being FOR social security, medicare and even a national health care system!
I noted that that may well be but it seemed contradictory to what I had known as "libertarian"; she shrugged. Mainly it seemed it had to do with taxes -- I had this "Where's Robin Hood When You Really Need Him?!" t shirt with "Errol Flynn" pointing the arrow at ya and she said that one could make the argument that Flynn er Robin was protesting taxation.
Sure I said but also there's the "Take from the rich and give to the poor" angle. She shrugged.
We once had a lengthy argument about Woodrow Wilson too -- unusual in everyday life -- but then I saw her after she came back from Washington where she had some kind of internship; I said I thought she got a job in Washington with some politician!
She shrugged -- but then she smiled...
I noted that that may well be but it seemed contradictory to what I had known as "libertarian"; she shrugged. Mainly it seemed it had to do with taxes -- I had this "Where's Robin Hood When You Really Need Him?!" t shirt with "Errol Flynn" pointing the arrow at ya and she said that one could make the argument that Flynn er Robin was protesting taxation.
Sure I said but also there's the "Take from the rich and give to the poor" angle. She shrugged.
We once had a lengthy argument about Woodrow Wilson too -- unusual in everyday life -- but then I saw her after she came back from Washington where she had some kind of internship; I said I thought she got a job in Washington with some politician!
She shrugged -- but then she smiled...
20timspalding
This kind of wretched statement makes me convulse.
Of course. I mean it, and it's a perfectly justifiable principle. Are you saying I shouldn't drive on a road if I didn't vote for it? I should pay more in taxes if I voted for a tax reduction that failed? Should I put myself in prison for sodomy if I failed to vote an anti-sodomy law down?
Shall we go through everything you've voted for? And how about people? I'm sure we both agree Bush shouldn't have lowered our taxes. Are you paying the pre-Bush rate? Why not?
Of course. I mean it, and it's a perfectly justifiable principle. Are you saying I shouldn't drive on a road if I didn't vote for it? I should pay more in taxes if I voted for a tax reduction that failed? Should I put myself in prison for sodomy if I failed to vote an anti-sodomy law down?
Shall we go through everything you've voted for? And how about people? I'm sure we both agree Bush shouldn't have lowered our taxes. Are you paying the pre-Bush rate? Why not?
21RickHarsch
>20 timspalding: Interesting set of examples. You ever jaywalk?
22timspalding
>20 timspalding:
Your inability to defend your absurdly hyperbolic reactions with reasons and examples makes me convulse.
Your inability to defend your absurdly hyperbolic reactions with reasons and examples makes me convulse.
23Michael_Welch
Libertarianism is un"work"able but interesting!...
24RickHarsch
>22 timspalding: From what did you conclude I hadn't the ability to defend anything? Or Something? And please, point out the absurdly hyperbolic and make the case for absurd hyperbolism, then perhaps we can move on.
More than anything, I have so long avoided people who would consider saying such things as 'It is moral and appropriate...' that it rather stunned me to read it here.
More than anything, I have so long avoided people who would consider saying such things as 'It is moral and appropriate...' that it rather stunned me to read it here.
25prosfilaes
#15: But I think you can say ... California--the sixth largest economy on the planet--can afford to pay for ...
I don't think you can say that. If it's not e pluribus unum, if big states should take care of themselves, then Maine has no right to leech off them. If you want to go that way, Maine should annex itself to a larger nation, I mean state, that can take care of them since they obviously don't want to work with California.
I don't think you can say that. If it's not e pluribus unum, if big states should take care of themselves, then Maine has no right to leech off them. If you want to go that way, Maine should annex itself to a larger nation, I mean state, that can take care of them since they obviously don't want to work with California.
26timspalding
>24 RickHarsch:
Does anyone else agree that the principle of following laws that exist, not the laws you voted for, is absurd, "wretched," cause you "convulsions" and the rest? Because I'm tiring of Rich's silly hyperbole.
I don't think you can say that.
I agree in principle with your point. But you budget for what you can reasonably expect too, and a larger state should lay aside more money. If a gang of murderers descended upon a Maine Island and killed 500 people one year, I'd expect the government to sweep in with the FBI or even the National Guard. When that happens in Chicago, that's terrible, but it's not cause for Federal intervention, because Chicago knows it's coming. States should budget a reasonable amount for fires—less for Maine because it's smaller, more for California because it's larger. If fires hit either that are way outside the normal range, that's when the federal government should step in.
Does anyone else agree that the principle of following laws that exist, not the laws you voted for, is absurd, "wretched," cause you "convulsions" and the rest? Because I'm tiring of Rich's silly hyperbole.
I don't think you can say that.
I agree in principle with your point. But you budget for what you can reasonably expect too, and a larger state should lay aside more money. If a gang of murderers descended upon a Maine Island and killed 500 people one year, I'd expect the government to sweep in with the FBI or even the National Guard. When that happens in Chicago, that's terrible, but it's not cause for Federal intervention, because Chicago knows it's coming. States should budget a reasonable amount for fires—less for Maine because it's smaller, more for California because it's larger. If fires hit either that are way outside the normal range, that's when the federal government should step in.
27RickHarsch
>24 RickHarsch: You've yet to point out the hyperbole. I believe it is absurd in principle for a human being to consider himself pledged to follow all laws. That's to keep it simple.
And I repeat: 'More than anything, I have so long avoided people who would consider saying such things as 'It is moral and appropriate...' that it rather stunned me to read it here.'
And I repeat: 'More than anything, I have so long avoided people who would consider saying such things as 'It is moral and appropriate...' that it rather stunned me to read it here.'
28timspalding
>27 RickHarsch:
I agree. Deeply unjust laws shouldn't be followed. But even if you think spending $1m on that new bridge is a poor use of money, but it passes anyway, you can drive on it.
I agree. Deeply unjust laws shouldn't be followed. But even if you think spending $1m on that new bridge is a poor use of money, but it passes anyway, you can drive on it.
29Michael_Welch
Unless it goes "nowhere"?...
30RickHarsch
We clearly have some moments of agreement. I am currently opposing a parking plan that would make parking for me more convenient but would work against my vision of what this little city would benefit from. I think opposition has worked, that the plan has been defeated, but if it hasn't been there will certainly be times in the future when I would park in the new spaces.
31timspalding
That was $25 million! :)
32timspalding
How is this different from a conservative who voted for cuts in welfare using welfare when he's laid off?
33RickHarsch
>32 timspalding: Are you asking me? If so, first I don't know why; second, a conservative who voted for cuts in welfare and then needs it should, in my view, use it. Further, I would hope that this conservative would learn something from the experience and vote more humanely next time.
The disagreement between you and I that has erupted here is clearly far greater and deeper than this particular issue, a difference of world view that may be antipodal.
The first post makes a good point. Your response reflects a defensiveness that suggests you identify yourself as right of democrat, so to speak, and you feel unjustly accused, apparently, of hypocrisy ('...I resist one particular sort of ploy: that because someone opposes a law, they should not enjoy the benefits of the law.') As you state it, it is easy to agree that in many cases--such as with infrastructure--one should be able to benefit from what one opposes. But the spirit of the thread is clearly different: the thread is about hypocrisy.
Generalizations are really of no help here. Someone who votes against the right to abort should really probably never take advantage of the freedom to abort. (One simple example.) (Also a simple example of a law I would not follow: if my gal wanted to abort and it was not legal and we could manage it safely and illegally, we surely would disobey the law, not finding it moral and appropriate to follow said law...)
The disagreement between you and I that has erupted here is clearly far greater and deeper than this particular issue, a difference of world view that may be antipodal.
The first post makes a good point. Your response reflects a defensiveness that suggests you identify yourself as right of democrat, so to speak, and you feel unjustly accused, apparently, of hypocrisy ('...I resist one particular sort of ploy: that because someone opposes a law, they should not enjoy the benefits of the law.') As you state it, it is easy to agree that in many cases--such as with infrastructure--one should be able to benefit from what one opposes. But the spirit of the thread is clearly different: the thread is about hypocrisy.
Generalizations are really of no help here. Someone who votes against the right to abort should really probably never take advantage of the freedom to abort. (One simple example.) (Also a simple example of a law I would not follow: if my gal wanted to abort and it was not legal and we could manage it safely and illegally, we surely would disobey the law, not finding it moral and appropriate to follow said law...)
34prosfilaes
#26: Yes, you have to follow the laws that exist; but I think that's avoiding the subtleties of what most of us are arguing for. Again the example of senators who vote their states emergency funds and complain about other states. And the fact that if you really oppose a law, you should oppose it; if you think the government should not be spending money on bridges, but the government builds one near your house and you drive on it, and it falls down, it's not a principled position to demand the government replace it with one better. Just because something has been convenient to you doesn't mean you're not a hypocrite for supporting it and dismissing things that would be convenient to other people.
To be fair to Steve Jackson, I don't know what his position on such things outside of Austin is. I still find that either he's using libertarian to represent a position confusingly far from what we think of as libertarian, one practically mainstream, or that he's one of those libertarians who has big ideas but refuses to apply those to the small cases.
To be fair to Steve Jackson, I don't know what his position on such things outside of Austin is. I still find that either he's using libertarian to represent a position confusingly far from what we think of as libertarian, one practically mainstream, or that he's one of those libertarians who has big ideas but refuses to apply those to the small cases.
35prosfilaes
#32: Part of the problem is most of us have heard conservatives who have used welfare or food stamps, and they always claim that they were justified and the rest of the people were lazy bums. Also, a conservative on welfare who supported cuts in welfare should have a good explanation of what they would be doing in the case of those cuts. I don't know of many cases of conservatives in that situation who are honestly willing to say "I was in the same boat as the other people; without welfare, I and those other people would be doing _____ and that would be just fine."
36southernbooklady
>17 prosfilaes: Then surely those economic pressures can generate the money to cover the risk with insurance. I don't know how to do it fairly and reasonably, but the people who insist on living in Galveston should cover the costs of a once in a fifty years hurricane hitting the island.
See, this seems facile and unrealistic to me, however "moral high ground" it sounds. And it seems to disregard the interconnected nature of the economy and our society.
Personally, I don't think people who insist on building in a flood plain should be bailed out when they get flooded. It's not like they didn't know it was a flood plain. It's not like there wasn't eventually going to be a flood. It's 100% certain that eventually there will be, because it is a floodplain.
But if we were to follow this philosophy strictly and to the letter, why then the state of Florida would be uninhabitable. It sticks out there in into the ocean. Hurricanes can't avoid tripping over it. But are you really going to say to "hell with Miami"? You're not.
The truth is, all states do better or worse at preparing for the different kinds of disasters to which they are prone. I grew up in Buffalo, New York and let me tell you, their ability to plow out from under a blizzard is second to none. The army could learn a thing or two from the way they prepare for each winter season.
But having endured any number of years of severe ice storms that brought down electrical grids and repeated heavy blizzards that ended up shutting down normal commerce, traffic and operations for weeks at a time, (and having lived now through something like 10 major named storms making landfall in my immediate neighborhood in North Carolina), I'm more realistic about what's feasible at local and state levels.
And I know that the threat of something that might happen always loses out against the money to be made if it doesn't happen. Or at least, doesn't happen within the next couple years.
See, this seems facile and unrealistic to me, however "moral high ground" it sounds. And it seems to disregard the interconnected nature of the economy and our society.
Personally, I don't think people who insist on building in a flood plain should be bailed out when they get flooded. It's not like they didn't know it was a flood plain. It's not like there wasn't eventually going to be a flood. It's 100% certain that eventually there will be, because it is a floodplain.
But if we were to follow this philosophy strictly and to the letter, why then the state of Florida would be uninhabitable. It sticks out there in into the ocean. Hurricanes can't avoid tripping over it. But are you really going to say to "hell with Miami"? You're not.
The truth is, all states do better or worse at preparing for the different kinds of disasters to which they are prone. I grew up in Buffalo, New York and let me tell you, their ability to plow out from under a blizzard is second to none. The army could learn a thing or two from the way they prepare for each winter season.
But having endured any number of years of severe ice storms that brought down electrical grids and repeated heavy blizzards that ended up shutting down normal commerce, traffic and operations for weeks at a time, (and having lived now through something like 10 major named storms making landfall in my immediate neighborhood in North Carolina), I'm more realistic about what's feasible at local and state levels.
And I know that the threat of something that might happen always loses out against the money to be made if it doesn't happen. Or at least, doesn't happen within the next couple years.
37Michael_Welch
It's like "the means of production" -- it'd be BETTER in the hands of "the people" as per their government UNLESS that government decides it has very little to do with "the people" after all but use them as per Sov Russia and (formerly) communist China...
38RickHarsch
>36 southernbooklady: 'Personally, I don't think people who insist on building in a flood plain should be bailed out when they get flooded. It's not like they didn't know it was a flood plain. It's not like there wasn't eventually going to be a flood. It's 100% certain that eventually there will be, because it is a floodplain.'
Is that all there is to it? People just up and move into flood plains?
Is that all there is to it? People just up and move into flood plains?
39prosfilaes
#36: It's not really meant to be "moral high ground"; there should be some disincentive to building in high-risk areas. In our capitalist society, making that disincentive monetary, possibly letting the insurance companies figure out exactly how much money that should be, is a reasonable solution. (My biggest concern with insurance companies is that I feel they're going to get that money and then when the 50 year disaster comes, they'll either go bankrupt or find some other way to dump it on the government.)
I don't get your distinction between Florida and floodplains. I'll see Miami and raise you every city on a river, including New York, New Orleans, Boston, Memphis, etc. I am ready to say "hell with Miami" if the people who live there are not willing to pay for what it costs to keep Miami a viable city. I think Miami can probably hack it, that they can manage their hurricane problem at a reasonable expense. But I don't think it's a silly question whether it's reasonable to divert the money from Social Security and Medicare and everything else our government does to repeatedly rebuilding structures that could be better built (once) elsewhere.
I don't get your distinction between Florida and floodplains. I'll see Miami and raise you every city on a river, including New York, New Orleans, Boston, Memphis, etc. I am ready to say "hell with Miami" if the people who live there are not willing to pay for what it costs to keep Miami a viable city. I think Miami can probably hack it, that they can manage their hurricane problem at a reasonable expense. But I don't think it's a silly question whether it's reasonable to divert the money from Social Security and Medicare and everything else our government does to repeatedly rebuilding structures that could be better built (once) elsewhere.
40southernbooklady
>38 RickHarsch: Is that all there is to it? People just up and move into flood plains?
Here on the coast of NC the pressure to approve new coastal development is immense. It's gone so far that the state legislature actually made it illegal to consult the latest scientific studies regarding rising sea levels when doing coastal and environmental impact studies, largely because they are trying to maximize the land that can be called "buildable," for lack of a better word. The pressure to meet the demand for waterfront and waterfront-accessible property is incredible. But local towns and the state in general encourage it because of the potential tax revenue.
Here on the coast of NC the pressure to approve new coastal development is immense. It's gone so far that the state legislature actually made it illegal to consult the latest scientific studies regarding rising sea levels when doing coastal and environmental impact studies, largely because they are trying to maximize the land that can be called "buildable," for lack of a better word. The pressure to meet the demand for waterfront and waterfront-accessible property is incredible. But local towns and the state in general encourage it because of the potential tax revenue.
41jjwilson61
15> I maintain that California--the sixth largest economy on the planet--can afford to pay for the fires that reoccur every year and which are caused by its own disastrous water management."
Water management? I'm not sure what water management has to do with wildfires. Do you imagine we catch the water before it falls to the ground over the forests and send it to the cities? If you're thinking of the reservoirs, those capture water that would have flowed into the ocean, which may have its own environmental consequences, but not wildfires.
A couple of years ago the state passed a fee on properties that encroach on the wilderness to pay for their fire protection, but the conservatives have fought back so hard over it that it never was implemented.
Water management? I'm not sure what water management has to do with wildfires. Do you imagine we catch the water before it falls to the ground over the forests and send it to the cities? If you're thinking of the reservoirs, those capture water that would have flowed into the ocean, which may have its own environmental consequences, but not wildfires.
A couple of years ago the state passed a fee on properties that encroach on the wilderness to pay for their fire protection, but the conservatives have fought back so hard over it that it never was implemented.
42LolaWalser
Huh? Very very few Americans pay more taxes than they owe—sending Uncle Sam a donation because they want to. I'd be surprised if it were 1,000 people every year. If democrats we're all overpaying their taxes to match what they they'd pay if their laws all passed, we'd know about it.
So if Dems are bad people (or bad leftists anyway) because they don't overpay, are you a rubbishy Christian because you still seem to have a shirt on your back?
Why should anyone (want to) overpay into your current system? Instituting higher taxes shouldn't be a mechanism to funnel off more dough into bombing brown people, it should--and as I gather from at least some Democrat programmes, would--mean multiplying and extending the current services (or even just restoring them to what you used to have). Higher taxes might pay for universal health insurance, free higher education, public transport etc.--none of which currently exist in your country as a given, or adequately.
So if Dems are bad people (or bad leftists anyway) because they don't overpay, are you a rubbishy Christian because you still seem to have a shirt on your back?
Why should anyone (want to) overpay into your current system? Instituting higher taxes shouldn't be a mechanism to funnel off more dough into bombing brown people, it should--and as I gather from at least some Democrat programmes, would--mean multiplying and extending the current services (or even just restoring them to what you used to have). Higher taxes might pay for universal health insurance, free higher education, public transport etc.--none of which currently exist in your country as a given, or adequately.
43BruceCoulson
On the Slopes of Vesuvius covers why people just 'up and move' to places that will, inevitably, be destroyed by acts of nature.
Basically, if that's where you can earn a living; where you can live; you go there, even if you know that it won't last. You just hope that it won't happen while you're around.
Of course, back when we were hunter/gatherers, moving away from trouble when it happened was a lot easier...
As to Tim's point; is it the law, or not? There are a LOT of laws we're required to obey, whether or not we agree with them. Saying 'Well, you opposed that law, so you can't take advantage of it' doesn't make any sense. If you opposed Social Security, but the law passed and you have to pay into it, are you supposed to reject getting any benefits from a plan you were required to fund?
Basically, if that's where you can earn a living; where you can live; you go there, even if you know that it won't last. You just hope that it won't happen while you're around.
Of course, back when we were hunter/gatherers, moving away from trouble when it happened was a lot easier...
As to Tim's point; is it the law, or not? There are a LOT of laws we're required to obey, whether or not we agree with them. Saying 'Well, you opposed that law, so you can't take advantage of it' doesn't make any sense. If you opposed Social Security, but the law passed and you have to pay into it, are you supposed to reject getting any benefits from a plan you were required to fund?
44prosfilaes
#43: If you opposed Social Security, but the law passed and you have to pay into it, are you supposed to reject getting any benefits from a plan you were required to fund?
No, but if you stand around and complain about how little you're getting out of Social Security, then you're a hypocrite. The average couple who retired in 1980 got 3 times what they put into Social Security*; any still alive have got more then that. A lot of senior citizens have gotten way more out of Social Security then they ever put in. If they're honest about not wanting entitlements, they should understand that their Social Security check is unearned income being transferred from those with incomes to those without.
It's not a principled moral stand to change your stance because of how it helps you. If you don't believe in Social Security, your goal should be to shut it down, not complain about how little you're getting.
Please, stop beating the straw man, or at best engaging with the most extreme of us, and engage with the rest of us. The point of #1 was never about him taking advantage of government services; it was about him complaining that clearly anti-libertarian government practices didn't go far enough.
* Adjusted for a 2% return above inflation.
No, but if you stand around and complain about how little you're getting out of Social Security, then you're a hypocrite. The average couple who retired in 1980 got 3 times what they put into Social Security*; any still alive have got more then that. A lot of senior citizens have gotten way more out of Social Security then they ever put in. If they're honest about not wanting entitlements, they should understand that their Social Security check is unearned income being transferred from those with incomes to those without.
It's not a principled moral stand to change your stance because of how it helps you. If you don't believe in Social Security, your goal should be to shut it down, not complain about how little you're getting.
Please, stop beating the straw man, or at best engaging with the most extreme of us, and engage with the rest of us. The point of #1 was never about him taking advantage of government services; it was about him complaining that clearly anti-libertarian government practices didn't go far enough.
* Adjusted for a 2% return above inflation.
45Michael_Welch
In the Phippines at this time I think they would like to see MORE "government" and one that works as well as the US' does...
47Michael_Welch
"WWRPD"?
I suppose apropos libertarian philosophy "nothing"?...
I suppose apropos libertarian philosophy "nothing"?...
48BruceCoulson
#44
Sorry; anything you pay for (or are forced to pay for), is not an 'entitlement', unless you feel that just because you pay for a driver's license, you're 'entitled' to legally operate a motor vehicle. Social Security is something people pay for; it's not handed out as a gift, and there are people who pay into it, retire, and never see a penny of the money. 'Unearned income' could be applied to anyone who ever invested money and got a return from someone else's labor.
The general point is 'whose ox is being gored'? There are a lot of programs that people tend to dismiss and think are a waste of money...until suddenly those programs become vital to their well-being.
There's also the point of 'if 'X' pledges to do 'Y', then ends up not doing 'Y', and I'm in trouble because 'X' failed to uphold their pledge...' Then yes, people are going to complain about it, because even if they didn't agree with 'Y' initially.
Principled moral stands are very rare; we as a species are pretty selfish, and tend to grab onto every advantage we get or are given, earned or not.
Sorry; anything you pay for (or are forced to pay for), is not an 'entitlement', unless you feel that just because you pay for a driver's license, you're 'entitled' to legally operate a motor vehicle. Social Security is something people pay for; it's not handed out as a gift, and there are people who pay into it, retire, and never see a penny of the money. 'Unearned income' could be applied to anyone who ever invested money and got a return from someone else's labor.
The general point is 'whose ox is being gored'? There are a lot of programs that people tend to dismiss and think are a waste of money...until suddenly those programs become vital to their well-being.
There's also the point of 'if 'X' pledges to do 'Y', then ends up not doing 'Y', and I'm in trouble because 'X' failed to uphold their pledge...' Then yes, people are going to complain about it, because even if they didn't agree with 'Y' initially.
Principled moral stands are very rare; we as a species are pretty selfish, and tend to grab onto every advantage we get or are given, earned or not.
49jjwilson61
44> Please, stop beating the straw man, or at best engaging with the most extreme of us, and engage with the rest of us. The point of #1 was never about him taking advantage of government services; it was about him complaining that clearly anti-libertarian government practices didn't go far enough.
That's worth repeating. Well said.
That's worth repeating. Well said.
50jjwilson61
This message has been deleted by its author.
51IreneF
>39 prosfilaes:
One of the downsides to letting the insurance companies decide what the cost of building ought to be is that they change their minds. We had to drop our earthquake insurance when the premiums rose to over $400 a month.
With global warming, areas that weren't in flood plains suddenly are, and "100 year storms" are becoming more frequent. Personally, I think it's unwise to live in an environmentally unstable area, but it's hard to up and move because the entire world is changing.
One of the downsides to letting the insurance companies decide what the cost of building ought to be is that they change their minds. We had to drop our earthquake insurance when the premiums rose to over $400 a month.
With global warming, areas that weren't in flood plains suddenly are, and "100 year storms" are becoming more frequent. Personally, I think it's unwise to live in an environmentally unstable area, but it's hard to up and move because the entire world is changing.
52prosfilaes
#48: anything you pay for (or are forced to pay for), is not an 'entitlement',
I don't see any difference from anything else in the tax code, except for Social Security getting its own lines. There's some farce here, but you're not really investing anything.
'Unearned income' could be applied to anyone who ever invested money and got a return from someone else's labor.
The problem here is as investments go, what we have here is a classic Ponzi scheme; the money people get from Social Security comes from the money other people are "investing". That's basically your options; entitlement or Ponzi scheme.
Principled moral stands are very rare
I don't see the relevance to whether we should be amused by flagrantly unprincipled moral stands. And I hold libertarians, anarchists and communists to a higher standard. The rest of us are standing in the middle accepting that our system of government is a pragmatic mess, piled upon and reshuffled year after year, that is held together by the underlying principle that pissing off too many voters is bad. When they start lecturing us about the true principles that should make up a government, about the ideal Utopia, falling back on the pragmatic mess whenever things become real is a bad sign.
I don't see any difference from anything else in the tax code, except for Social Security getting its own lines. There's some farce here, but you're not really investing anything.
'Unearned income' could be applied to anyone who ever invested money and got a return from someone else's labor.
The problem here is as investments go, what we have here is a classic Ponzi scheme; the money people get from Social Security comes from the money other people are "investing". That's basically your options; entitlement or Ponzi scheme.
Principled moral stands are very rare
I don't see the relevance to whether we should be amused by flagrantly unprincipled moral stands. And I hold libertarians, anarchists and communists to a higher standard. The rest of us are standing in the middle accepting that our system of government is a pragmatic mess, piled upon and reshuffled year after year, that is held together by the underlying principle that pissing off too many voters is bad. When they start lecturing us about the true principles that should make up a government, about the ideal Utopia, falling back on the pragmatic mess whenever things become real is a bad sign.
53prosfilaes
#51: That was not a polished plan, and if and how insurance companies are included could long be discussed. But my problem is that if we figure that damaging earthquakes happen every 20 years, that's the company saying you're going to cost them 10s of thousands of dollars every time a damaging earthquake hits, averaged out over everyone like you. Moving is not easy, but it would be good to encourage people to do so over the long run, or at least move into buildings that are more disaster proof.
54AsYouKnow_Bob
re: Tim's link at ##9, and Tim's plea at #15
"Can I get someone to look at the increase in FEMA declarations. I submit that it is an obvious sign of political abuse--bipartisan abuse."
OK - I'm home from work, I'll bite.
Thanks for the link, that was interesting.
Once again we see that anything you read from the Heritage Foundation, you have to watch them like a game of three-card monte to see where they've palmed the card.
Let's look at their table: 106 declarations in 8 years of Ike, 1037 declarations in 8 years of Bush the Lesser, so Federal declarations are up by a factor of 10x in 50 years.
Well, first off, the US population has doubled since then: so, just on a population basis, there are now twice as many people around to be hit by any given natural disaster;
(A simple chart of "Declarations / per capita / per year" would be a lot more honest than Heritage's 60-some years of raw numbers at the link.)
The economy has grown - - today's standard of living - despite the best efforts of Republicans -
is now far higher than it was back in the 1950s.
Using "per capita income" as a quick dummy variable for "Amount of wealth lying around to be damaged by natural disaster" today's per capita income is three times or so what it was under Ike.
(I'd guess that the installed infrastructure is probably even higher than that:
today's houses are bigger, home ownership is a lot more common, people own twice as many cars, etc..)
So - just on the basis of national growth, you would expect the number of natural disasters that harm people enough for a federal response would be up by a factor of 2x X 3x - that is, up by a total factor of 6x or so.
Instead, we see that it's actually up by a factor of 10x.
I can think of any number of hypotheses to explain that last factor of 1.7x or 2x growth.
- long-term climate change? We are absolutely in a period where there IS more severe weather than there used to be.
- changes in settlement patterns? (In the '50s, nobody lived in California chaparral country, now ten million people do. More "interstate" settlement? more metro areas now sprawl across state lines, where a Federal response may be the appropriate scale. There's more ocean-front development.)
Either one of these factors might explain some or all of the rest of the difference.
- I'm wondering if a Declaration of "Your community is now eligible for low-interest loans" is rated the same as "The entire might of the United States is coming to your rescue": both are likely to be counted as a single "Declaration", but the growth might be entirely in the first sort of response rather than in the second sort of response.
- It wouldn't surprise me a lot if the states - especially "Hey, let's cut essential state services!" red states - were cutting back on their local preparations and sitting back and letting the Federal govertment foot the bill for more of their local problems.
(This hypothesis is interesting enough to warrant more research.)
How about
- Today's economy is drastically less local, and more dependent upon interstate and international commerce? It wouldn't surprise me at all if commerce made today's economy twice as vulnerable to disruption today. (It wouldn't surprise me a great deal if today's economy were five times as vulnerable to disruption.)
So a moment's thought shows that once again, the Heritage Foundation is lying in pursuit of some sort of right-wing agenda: in this case, the idea that the power of the government to aid disaster victims needs to be curtailed. (THIS is what strikes the Heritage Foundation as a pressing public policy problem? that more people are getting helped by disaster assistance?)
Conclusion: From this little exercise, we can safely conclude that the Heritage Foundation remain a bunch of lying assholes who should never be trusted.
"Can I get someone to look at the increase in FEMA declarations. I submit that it is an obvious sign of political abuse--bipartisan abuse."
OK - I'm home from work, I'll bite.
Thanks for the link, that was interesting.
Once again we see that anything you read from the Heritage Foundation, you have to watch them like a game of three-card monte to see where they've palmed the card.
Let's look at their table: 106 declarations in 8 years of Ike, 1037 declarations in 8 years of Bush the Lesser, so Federal declarations are up by a factor of 10x in 50 years.
Well, first off, the US population has doubled since then: so, just on a population basis, there are now twice as many people around to be hit by any given natural disaster;
(A simple chart of "Declarations / per capita / per year" would be a lot more honest than Heritage's 60-some years of raw numbers at the link.)
The economy has grown - - today's standard of living - despite the best efforts of Republicans -
is now far higher than it was back in the 1950s.
Using "per capita income" as a quick dummy variable for "Amount of wealth lying around to be damaged by natural disaster" today's per capita income is three times or so what it was under Ike.
(I'd guess that the installed infrastructure is probably even higher than that:
today's houses are bigger, home ownership is a lot more common, people own twice as many cars, etc..)
So - just on the basis of national growth, you would expect the number of natural disasters that harm people enough for a federal response would be up by a factor of 2x X 3x - that is, up by a total factor of 6x or so.
Instead, we see that it's actually up by a factor of 10x.
I can think of any number of hypotheses to explain that last factor of 1.7x or 2x growth.
- long-term climate change? We are absolutely in a period where there IS more severe weather than there used to be.
- changes in settlement patterns? (In the '50s, nobody lived in California chaparral country, now ten million people do. More "interstate" settlement? more metro areas now sprawl across state lines, where a Federal response may be the appropriate scale. There's more ocean-front development.)
Either one of these factors might explain some or all of the rest of the difference.
- I'm wondering if a Declaration of "Your community is now eligible for low-interest loans" is rated the same as "The entire might of the United States is coming to your rescue": both are likely to be counted as a single "Declaration", but the growth might be entirely in the first sort of response rather than in the second sort of response.
- It wouldn't surprise me a lot if the states - especially "Hey, let's cut essential state services!" red states - were cutting back on their local preparations and sitting back and letting the Federal govertment foot the bill for more of their local problems.
(This hypothesis is interesting enough to warrant more research.)
How about
- Today's economy is drastically less local, and more dependent upon interstate and international commerce? It wouldn't surprise me at all if commerce made today's economy twice as vulnerable to disruption today. (It wouldn't surprise me a great deal if today's economy were five times as vulnerable to disruption.)
So a moment's thought shows that once again, the Heritage Foundation is lying in pursuit of some sort of right-wing agenda: in this case, the idea that the power of the government to aid disaster victims needs to be curtailed. (THIS is what strikes the Heritage Foundation as a pressing public policy problem? that more people are getting helped by disaster assistance?)
Conclusion: From this little exercise, we can safely conclude that the Heritage Foundation remain a bunch of lying assholes who should never be trusted.
55AsYouKnow_Bob
A further thought:
OK, the 50-60 years from Ike to Bush-the-Lesser saw Federal disaster declarations go up by a factor of ten.
But the 50-60 years (from, say, McKinley?) to Eisenhower saw it grow from around zero/yr? to around 13/yr. A near-infinite rate of growth.
That's because the world has gotten richer - and because one of the functions of society is to help people in need. The federal government now commands the resources that it CAN come to aid of communities in trouble.
At some level, helping people who need help is the entire point of civilization; it's what governments are instituted to DO.
The Heritage Foundation is opposed to this.
OK, the 50-60 years from Ike to Bush-the-Lesser saw Federal disaster declarations go up by a factor of ten.
But the 50-60 years (from, say, McKinley?) to Eisenhower saw it grow from around zero/yr? to around 13/yr. A near-infinite rate of growth.
That's because the world has gotten richer - and because one of the functions of society is to help people in need. The federal government now commands the resources that it CAN come to aid of communities in trouble.
At some level, helping people who need help is the entire point of civilization; it's what governments are instituted to DO.
The Heritage Foundation is opposed to this.
56IreneF
>53 prosfilaes:
The point is that a payment that was affordable one day increased to non-affordability the next, and it wasn't based on anything different about the house or the region. Same house, same soil, same faults. There are only a couple of companies offering earthquake coverage in Northern California, and it's high-deductible.
It's also difficult to get good information on earthquake remediation for older buildings.
The point is that a payment that was affordable one day increased to non-affordability the next, and it wasn't based on anything different about the house or the region. Same house, same soil, same faults. There are only a couple of companies offering earthquake coverage in Northern California, and it's high-deductible.
It's also difficult to get good information on earthquake remediation for older buildings.
57BruceCoulson
#52
Why? Why do you hold anyone to a higher standard? Are you saying that certain people should be 'better' than the rest of us? On what basis?
If you passively accept the way things are now, then you should accept that people behave in certain ways when their interests are involved. It's not a bad sign; it's just how things are.
As far as the investment of social security: you have to pay in, and you get very limited control over how the plan is administered. Just like most other managed investment schemes, albeit with even fewer options. So, if you want to claim that Social Security is an 'entitlement', then everything you ever get by paying for it is an 'entitlement'. Like roads, police, sewer systems, etc. I'm sure the government could save lots of money if it simply ended those entitlements as well.
Why? Why do you hold anyone to a higher standard? Are you saying that certain people should be 'better' than the rest of us? On what basis?
If you passively accept the way things are now, then you should accept that people behave in certain ways when their interests are involved. It's not a bad sign; it's just how things are.
As far as the investment of social security: you have to pay in, and you get very limited control over how the plan is administered. Just like most other managed investment schemes, albeit with even fewer options. So, if you want to claim that Social Security is an 'entitlement', then everything you ever get by paying for it is an 'entitlement'. Like roads, police, sewer systems, etc. I'm sure the government could save lots of money if it simply ended those entitlements as well.
58krolik
>54 AsYouKnow_Bob:
Interesting.
Interesting.
59prosfilaes
#57: Why do you hold anyone to a higher standard?
Because Republicans and Democrats are mostly on the same page; they're playing the same game, with the same rules, and what one group does the other can more-or-less undo, if they get the votes to do so. What libertarians want is apocalyptic; they want to blow everything up and play by a whole new set of rules. That's a lot bigger and more dangerous.
A Republican or Democrat, because they believe in the norm (plus or minus), can more reasonably argue that local conditions demand a move against the general flow of what they argue for. A libertarian doing that is arguing for a state that would impossible, inconceivable, under their proposed future state of the US. That's far less reasonable.
If you passively accept the way things are now, then you should accept that people behave in certain ways when their interests are involved. It's not a bad sign; it's just how things are.
I don't passively accept the way things are now. I can't imagine someone who would and be interested in politics. It's also in people's interests to poke at their enemies when they espouse broad principles and are willing to break them to line their pockets. If we're going purely descriptive, that's just how things are.
I'm sure the government could save lots of money if it simply ended those entitlements as well.
Yep. Of course, then the politicians involved would lose their jobs and their changes get reversed.
Everyone gets roads and police. The foreign ambassador who has avoided paying a cent of sales tax still gets to drive his car on the road and the protection of the police if it gets stolen.
Because Republicans and Democrats are mostly on the same page; they're playing the same game, with the same rules, and what one group does the other can more-or-less undo, if they get the votes to do so. What libertarians want is apocalyptic; they want to blow everything up and play by a whole new set of rules. That's a lot bigger and more dangerous.
A Republican or Democrat, because they believe in the norm (plus or minus), can more reasonably argue that local conditions demand a move against the general flow of what they argue for. A libertarian doing that is arguing for a state that would impossible, inconceivable, under their proposed future state of the US. That's far less reasonable.
If you passively accept the way things are now, then you should accept that people behave in certain ways when their interests are involved. It's not a bad sign; it's just how things are.
I don't passively accept the way things are now. I can't imagine someone who would and be interested in politics. It's also in people's interests to poke at their enemies when they espouse broad principles and are willing to break them to line their pockets. If we're going purely descriptive, that's just how things are.
I'm sure the government could save lots of money if it simply ended those entitlements as well.
Yep. Of course, then the politicians involved would lose their jobs and their changes get reversed.
Everyone gets roads and police. The foreign ambassador who has avoided paying a cent of sales tax still gets to drive his car on the road and the protection of the police if it gets stolen.
60jjwilson61
57> So, if you want to claim that Social Security is an 'entitlement', then everything you ever get by paying for it is an 'entitlement'. Like roads, police, sewer systems, etc. I'm sure the government could save lots of money if it simply ended those entitlements as well.
Is this a Republican definition of entitlement? You seem to be saying that if it's an entitlement then it can be taken away? But that's pretty close to the opposite of what it means.
Is this a Republican definition of entitlement? You seem to be saying that if it's an entitlement then it can be taken away? But that's pretty close to the opposite of what it means.
