Rand Paul

[barfo]

Let me put it another way. The constitution says, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Being hostile to business is anti Liberty and is harmful to the general Welfare. Anti-american by definition.

Oil spills do not insure domestic tranquility, promote the general Welfare, etc. Oil spills are un-American by definition. Criticizing companies that make oil spills is therefore defending the constitution.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

We don't believe it's a good idea for government to interfere in the private sector, period. The Libertarian saying is, "you are free to swing your fist up to the point it hits someone else's nose."

Which is entirely outside the mainstream of thought. I agree with barfo, the problem with the Libertarian school of thought is that it is far too extreme to be likely to be ever adopted. There's definitely room in the debate for a position of "less government." Plenty of people would go along with that. Essentially no government, outside of defense? No human society has ever agreed with that and my bet is that no human society ever will.

 

[Denny Crane]

I have repeated his (and my) objection to govt. interfering with peoples' private property.

It is fine for govt. to make its own rules, it's a stretch to call a lunch counter something to do with interstate commerce (otherwise the fed has no jurisdiction!).

And if you don't want my observations and analysis about Rand's statements and views, you shouldn't ask or ask loaded questions.

 

[Denny Crane]

Which is entirely outside the mainstream of thought. I agree with barfo, the problem with the Libertarian school of thought is that it is far too extreme to be likely to be ever adopted. There's definitely room in the debate for a position of "less government." Plenty of people would go along with that. Essentially no government, outside of defense? No human society has ever agreed with that and my bet is that no human society ever will.

Libertarians are not anarchists. You are putting up a strawman (anarchy) and arguing against that (I concur, but that's the point!) vs. Libertarianism.

This human society created a govt. specified by the Constitution. Libertarians (and the founders) suggest we go by that plan for govt. over the make it up as you go, over regulate after the hose has left the coral variety.

 

[Denny Crane]

That's nice, but we are talking about Rand Paul here.

You don't like the loaded questions pointed in your direction. Odd!

Ok. Are you saying that by criticizing BP for it's oil spill, Obama is favoring ChevronTexacoExxonMobil or whatever it is called nowadays?

The B in BP stands for British. I wonder what the Brits think of Obama's "criticism" of BP?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100040294/100040294/

Could the Obama administration’s bashing of BP (or British Petroleum) over the Gulf oil spill harm relations between the White House and the new Cameron administration? I think there is a good chance it could. After all, a major British corporation, which employs 29,000 Americans, has been demonised by this administration with language that it would dare not use even against America’s worst enemies, such as Iran and North Korea. In addition, it is facing xenophobic calls from some Democrats on Capitol Hill to be banned altogether from operating in the United States, a petty form of protectionism which is fundamentally against the spirit of free trade which for centuries has helped drive the prosperity of both the United States and Great Britain.

So maybe the threats that go along with the criticism are the issue?

You'd prefer that the government manufacture weapons itself? Wouldn't that be "big government"?

barfo

I'd actually prefer that companies that develop weapons on the govt.'s money not be allowed to sell weapons in the private sector as well.

 

[barfo]

I have repeated his (and my) objection to govt. interfering with peoples' private property.

It is fine for govt. to make its own rules, it's a stretch to call a lunch counter something to do with interstate commerce (otherwise the fed has no jurisdiction!).

So, it seems that now we are back again to the statement that I keep repeating, and you keep denying, but that seems to be true even though for some reason you don't want to admit it:
Rand Paul thinks the government desegregation of lunch counters was not a good idea.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

So, it seems that now we are back again to the statement that I keep repeating, and you keep denying, but that seems to be true even though for some reason you don't want to admit it:
Rand Paul thinks the government desegregation of lunch counters was not a good idea.

barfo

He said he thinks the goal of desegregation of lunch counters was a good idea, and that he supports the Act and would have voted for it.

Whatever else you're trying to make of it is talking points.

 

[barfo]

You don't like the loaded questions pointed in your direction. Odd!

You didn't ask a question, loaded or otherwise.

I'd actually prefer that companies that develop weapons on the govt.'s money not be allowed to sell weapons in the private sector as well.

Why would that be better?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

You didn't ask a question, loaded or otherwise.



Why would that be better?

barfo

I questioned Obama's favoritism towards Goldman Sachs. It seemed to bother you. Oh well.

The government is favoring certain companies by contracting with them to develop complex weapons systems. There should be some penalty to equalize that favoritism. Oddly, it'd be ideal if govt. did develop its own weapons, but it is so incompetent at all but a very few things it has to rely on the private sector, where all the innovation is.

 

[barfo]

He said he thinks the goal of desegregation of lunch counters was a good idea, and that he supports the Act and would have voted for it.

He's also said some other things, but since you are unwilling to discuss or even admit to the other things he said, I guess there isn't much point in continuing.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

You gloss over post #2 again.

I went into fair detail about the other things he said, and the reasoning behind them.

 

[barfo]

I questioned Obama's favoritism towards Goldman Sachs. It seemed to bother you. Oh well.

You may have "questioned" it but you didn't ask a question. You made a statement:

There is little doubt that Obama is hostile to business, other than Goldman Sachs for some reason.

It doesn't bother me. Maxiep is the one who worked for Goldman, not me. I don't agree with your statement, but that's hardly news, I don't agree with much of anything you say.

The government is favoring certain companies by contracting with them to develop complex weapons systems. There should be some penalty to equalize that favoritism. Oddly, it'd be ideal if govt. did develop its own weapons, but it is so incompetent at all but a very few things it has to rely on the private sector, where all the innovation is.

I see - you meant the government contracts give them an advantage in competing for private contracts. There's something to that view, although if the government bidding process is open and fair, the other companies would have an equal opportunity at gaining that advantage.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

You may have "questioned" it but you didn't ask a question. You made a statement:



It doesn't bother me. Maxiep is the one who worked for Goldman, not me. I don't agree with your statement, but that's hardly news, I don't agree with much of anything you say.



I see - you meant the government contracts give them an advantage in competing for private contracts. There's something to that view, although if the government bidding process is open and fair, the other companies would have an equal opportunity at gaining that advantage.

barfo

There are few companies that provide weapons to the govt., and the size of the contracts are enormous compared to what these companies would get in the private sector alone. The govt. money funds their research and development which is a distinct advantage. The govt. as a client will not go out of business - well it's headed that way in a hurry these days...

 

[barfo]

You gloss over post #2 again.

I went into fair detail about the other things he said, and the reasoning behind them.

Uhm, no. You didn't. You gave a long-winded explanation of why you thought the free market would take care of desegregation, and of how the actual problem was something else.
It's fine that you have reasons for why you (and Paul) believe the way you do. But I don't know why you aren't willing to admit what those actual beliefs are.
Does Rand Paul believe government desegregation of lunch counters was a good idea? Yes or no. It's an easy question. Every argument you make says "no", but for some reason you aren't willing to admit the answer is "no". Why not?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I wrote nine paragraphs detailing what our actual beliefs are.

You are fixated on the process and not on the result, which makes your confusion understandable.

Put another way, if the goal is to have desegregated lunch counters and it can be accomplished 100 different ways, why is the one you are in love with the only one?

 

[barfo]

There are few companies that provide weapons to the govt., and the size of the contracts are enormous compared to what these companies would get in the private sector alone. The govt. money funds their research and development which is a distinct advantage. The govt. as a client will not go out of business - well it's headed that way in a hurry these days...

Again, if it were a fair competition (and I don't mean to suggest it is, there are lots of problems with government contracting), what's the problem? It's the same effect as competing for a big private contract. The winner has a big advantage in either case. There are gonna be winners and losers, that's capitalism. You aren't one of those commie pinkos are you Denny? Trying to level the playing field?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Again, if it were a fair competition (and I don't mean to suggest it is, there are lots of problems with government contracting), what's the problem? It's the same effect as competing for a big private contract. The winner has a big advantage in either case. There are gonna be winners and losers, that's capitalism. You aren't one of those commie pinkos are you Denny? Trying to level the playing field?

barfo

When govt. is picking the winners and losers, it isn't capitalism.

 

[barfo]

I wrote nine paragraphs detailing what our actual beliefs are.

And yet you can't answer a yes-or-no question. Interesting.

You are fixated on the process and not on the result, which makes your confusion understandable.

I'm fixated on Rand Paul's fixation. Civil rights is not my battle. I didn't bring it up.

Put another way, if the goal is to have desegregated lunch counters and it can be accomplished 100 different ways, why is the one you are in love with the only one?

Me? It's not about me. I'm not the one running for senator. Given that the goal has been accomplished in one of those 100 different ways (I'd like to see that list, by the way), why does Rand Paul object to the way it was done? It seems an act of political idiocy and cluelessness on multiple levels.

barfo

 

[barfo]

When govt. is picking the winners and losers, it isn't capitalism.

If it were a blind bidding process, would you be ok with it? The government picked, anonymously, the bid that best suits them? Or does government money itself taint the purity of capitalism?
Obviously that's not practical for something like a fighter jet, this is just a hypothetical question.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

Libertarians are not anarchists. You are putting up a strawman (anarchy) and arguing against that (I concur, but that's the point!) vs. Libertarianism.

You may be right, as it regards the Libertarian party. I haven't studied their platform. I'm really going by what many of the libertarians I've talked to/debated with. And articles from libertarian sites. What I've often found them espousing is a government that is limited almost entirely to defense, international treaties and enforcing "property rights." No FDA, many of them even feel there should be no police, that police forces should be privatized.

But you're right, that's probably not the stance of the actual party. Just explaining what I was thinking about when it came to "Libertarians."

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Fair question. BP has said they'd pay whatever it takes to clean up the mess. I don't see why BP would have purposefully caused the spill, so it must have been an accident.

Exxon said the same thing, it just took 20yrs before they were finally forced to pay the bills.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I'm confused a bit...companies like Boeing and LockMart lose money on the R&D phase of systems contracts, to be made up in production. For instance, for the P-8 program Boeing won the contract award of somewhere around 4.8B -- deliverables being a 9-year program to develop 6 fully-tested prototypes that fly, 2 that don't (for static load testing and destruction) and 3 full-side mock-up labs (as well as the associated training manuals, flight pubs, etc). That part of the contract isn't profitable. The profit comes when the government orders 100 of them, based on the prototypes working. Which is risk.

How are you going to delineate what's for "commercial" vs. "government" use? If Boeing designs a winglet that super-magically reduces drag as an offering to the government on their new tanker, for instance...you're saying that they can't use that tech on their next gen of airplanes? All that would ensure was that the gov't didn't get the good stuff...the highest bidder would. Right now, at least, when Boeing sells an airplane to India or Australia or whoever, the gov't gets a say on if they can sell it and a cut of the profits. I think the entire process, while able to be streamlined, is one of the lower concerns being talked about in this thread.

 

[BrianFromWA]

And I hate to bring it up without numbers or links, but while I was in West Africa a couple of years ago there were somewhere on the order of a couple of dozen wells just in Nigerian water that were in process of, or have had, "significant" spills (I didn't ask the contractors for specifics). Let's not pretend that a) this is the first oil spill since Valdez and b) that we're all about "protecting the environment" when really it's just the wetlands of LA and the Gulf Coast that we care about. If we were about "protecting the environment' we'd be pressuring a lot of these multinationals about safety records worldwide.

And I fully agree with the article's point that we use language with "Big Business", especially multi-national "Big Businesses" that we wouldn't dream of using (justifiably) against Iran or N. Korea. That makes us hypocrites, bullies and cowards. And that's not just on this administration, though they're running with it.

 

[barfo]

"Rand Paul's philosophy got in the way of reality."

-- RNC Chairman Michael Steele, in an interview on Fox News Sunday, on Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul's (R) recent controversial statements.


Scary when Michael Steele and I agree on something.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

You may be right, as it regards the Libertarian party. I haven't studied their platform. I'm really going by what many of the libertarians I've talked to/debated with. And articles from libertarian sites. What I've often found them espousing is a government that is limited almost entirely to defense, international treaties and enforcing "property rights." No FDA, many of them even feel there should be no police, that police forces should be privatized.

But you're right, that's probably not the stance of the actual party. Just explaining what I was thinking about when it came to "Libertarians."

The constitution enumerates the rights and powers of the federal govt. They are not restricted to defense, enforcing property rights, and international treaties.

Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The constitution grants congress the right to make laws and spend money from the treasury.

It also guarantees that all states will have a republican form of government, but it is mostly silent about the powers of state governments. Other than the limits on making treaties and putting duties on imports.

The 10th amendment reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As a Libertarian, I have no beef with the states hiring police and firemen, providing public education, laying taxes, providing welfare programs, etc., etc.

 

[Denny Crane]

You may be right, as it regards the Libertarian party. I haven't studied their platform. I'm really going by what many of the libertarians I've talked to/debated with. And articles from libertarian sites. What I've often found them espousing is a government that is limited almost entirely to defense, international treaties and enforcing "property rights." No FDA, many of them even feel there should be no police, that police forces should be privatized.

But you're right, that's probably not the stance of the actual party. Just explaining what I was thinking about when it came to "Libertarians."

I know you've indicated in the past that you feel the constitution is a "living document" and the words don't have much meaning...

Do you see the danger in this POV? There are no limits on government if they're not held to its own by-laws. You will talk about Bush spitting on the constitution for doing X, but look the other way while other administrations do the same for doing Y.

You may be happy with the federal highway system, but at the time it was opposed by the Democrats (among others) as unconstitutional of all things. The way it got passed was in the name of national defense. Though the list I provided above indicate the founders saw the federal govt. as (weak!) with the powers to provide infrastructure (post office, courts, etc.) and the highways are within that spirit.

The constitution never talks about direct transfer of money between the govt. and the people or vice versa, though it clearly (originally) had the power to tax the states and redistribute those funds as it saw fit. Until the 16th amendment, that is.

 

[Minstrel]

I know you've indicated in the past that you feel the constitution is a "living document" and the words don't have much meaning...

That doesn't correctly state my position on the Constitution, no.

I know you've indicated in the past that you feel that the federal government's powers should be virtually unlimited and citizens should obey without question. Do you see now how dangerous that POV can be?

 

[maxiep]

I'm in favor of more local government and less national government. If a business wants to be so stupid as to discriminate against someone for their race, creed, religion or sexual orientation, then that should be their right. It would also be my right to never frequent such an establishment and to protest it on public property, like the sidewalk in front of said business.

 

[Minstrel]

I'm in favor of more local government and less national government. If a business wants to be so stupid as to discriminate against someone for their race, creed, religion or sexual orientation, then that should be their right. It would also be my right to never frequent such an establishment and to protest it on public property, like the sidewalk in front of said business.

The problem with that philosophy, and the reason for the civil rights legislation, is that the market legislates what's popular not what's right. If most people, unlike you, are fine with racism and frequent such places, the market won't punish such behaviour. From a "free market" perspective, perhaps that's fine: the people decided that racism is fine and oppressing people of colour is fine. Live with it. But not everyone is okay with letting the majority decide everything, when the decision is oppressive to a minority.

Free market solutions are fine in certain cases, but certainly not where it creates a tyranny of the majority to oppress a minority.

 

[maxiep]

The problem with that philosophy, and the reason for the civil rights legislation, is that the market legislates what's popular not what's right. If most people, unlike you, are fine with racism and frequent such places, the market won't punish such behaviour. From a "free market" perspective, perhaps that's fine: the people decided that racism is fine and oppressing people of colour is fine. Live with it. But not everyone is okay with letting the majority decide everything, when the decision is oppressive to a minority.

Free market solutions are fine in certain cases, but certainly not where it creates a tyranny of the majority to oppress a minority.

I prefer my racists and homophobes to be self-identifying. Getting rid of Jim Crow laws didn't stop racism, it just pushed it underground. I say the best way to deal with racism is to shine a light on it.