Because a lot of Republicans are socially and economically conservative?

Abortion comes to mind.

That and banning gay marriage, I totally see that. I suppose depending on how you look at it, the definition of government = regulate behavior and lives. My only thing is I think the left wants to do this more than the right.

In what respect? Left and right are meaningless terms, there's more than one axis here. But in terms of Democrats vs Republicans, Republicans are generally much less socially liberal.

I feel like maybe I should receive some sort of prize for this. I don't want some stupid organicly-grown tie-dyed Che Guevara t-shirt either. I'm thinking something like a bracelet made of slave skin w/ blood diamonds sown in to it w/ the hair of burned witches. Maybe even a Statue of Liberty lamp where she's bent over & taking it from behind by the charging bull of Wall Street.


Republicans aren't interested in deficits so long as the money goes to the leveling & rebuilding of foreign countries. They can't be bothered w/ domestic issues such as healthcare reform or economics when Bin Laden might still be out there somewhere. Everyone knows that the best way to avenge the deaths of the 3000 that died on 9/11 is to make sure that hundreds of thousands more die in Afghanistan &/or Iraq. Besides, what's the point in worrying about issues that you created when you can just ensure that they carry over in to the next guy's administration, blame it all on him as if you were never there & then use all of this as a strategy for re-election the time after?

Guys I think Tim Robbins should be president.

The two posts I made that were, um, over looked.



That's fairly silly. It is true that it is most advantageous to Republicans to be able to continue to campaign against the Obama agenda, which is what will make it interesting to see if Obama faces any serious primary challenges, but it's preposterous to think that the Republican House would vote down legislation sent to it from the Senate that is entirely Republican based. Of course, that's not going to happen. What's going to happen is anything the House sends to the Senate is going to get hacked apart, watered down, and sent back to the House, if it isn't filibustered, where it will be dead on arrival like most anything else the Senate is likely to send them. Unless, of course, Senate Democrats up for reelection in '12 actually want to keep their jobs. Then they might side with Republicans.



As far as I can tell the results of this recent election demonstrate that it isn't broken. Yet.



Well, some of the angry posts here are pretty reminiscent of MSNBCs coverage of the election last night. I wonder if anyone here caught any of it. I clicked over and have to admit, it didn't disappoint. A panel of five angry liberals "discussing" the election. Univision's coverage was pretty good too. Jorge Ramos looked like he was going to cry and they had staffers reading email or chat comments about how amnesty was out of the question now.

As far as I can tell, all the results in this election have demonstrated is that Americans have slipped even deeper into the mentality that we have to fight the enemy for control. Apparently in most cases by electing even more scary neo-conservative republicans. Also, reactionary and fear based ballot initiative votes.

I can't personally attest to ballet initiatives, mine were only in regards to the state constitutional right for the individual right to arms and the right of the legislature to restrict the right to vote. If we can incrementally reduce the footprint of the federal government that will be a good thing but I'm not optimistic about it.

The end of the United States will come in our lifetimes. Probably 25-50 years. Civilizations rise and fall and we are no exception.

Well, wookie, my state banned sharia and international law, and made english the sole official language. We also elected a super-neo-conservative likely-two-face Republican governor.

whooaaa, redundancies.

I hope it's sooner. Really, I do...

We:

• passed a state constitutional amendment (not a law, but an amendment that says that county assessors must be elected. This would effect two counties in Missouri, but one is exempt because the amendment does not effect counties with populations between 600,001 and 699,000. I voted against it.
• passed a proposition to help make dog breeding facilities more human. Voted for, barely passed.
• a proposition that requires the voting on the 1% earnings taxes levied by Kansas City and St. Louis. Voted against, because they need to pay for their services somehow. Yes, I pay the tax, and, no, I am not a direct beneficiary of the expenditure of the taxes (i.e., I do not live within Kansas City proper).
• a constitutional amendment that gives former American POWs a discount on their property taxes. Voted against, because they already get up to $1,100 back each year, and a constitutional amendment is not the correct way to set this up.
• yet another constitutional amendment which repeals sales taxes on property (because: "Hurp durr, I pay property taxes so I shouldn't have to pay sales tax when I buy property, too."). Voted against, lost.

Gotta love that the piece of legislation to increase state expenditure was voted in, while, simultaneously, multiple legislative decisions to decrease state income were voted in. I love how people vote states into bankruptcy and then complain about how the state isn't providing good enough services.

The mistake there isn't the people voting, it's that these things were voted on in the first place. This is why we live in a republic, not a democracy.

But...

But...

GUBBERMINT!

Have you noticed that the people who most hate government interference in their lives are the same people who most want the church to interfere in the lives of everybody else?

They're also most likely to be closet gay porn afficianados.

No I have not. Would you like to back this up in any way, or are you just suffering from diarrhea of the mouth again?

This is one of the few things you've said, once I get past your inflammatory, computerized Canadian accent, I don't wholly agree with.

There are lots of angry bisexual atheists who scream about government interference.

Granted, these people on welfare, but we're talking about people who 'hate government interference'. These angry bisexuals would rater that Miskatonic University control other people's lives.

Reading Ayn Rand does not mean you have "pulled yourself up by your bootstraps," mailman.

I have never made such a claim or read Ayn Rand. So I wonder at what your point is. The simple fact is, no, the same people *****ing about government control are not the same people wishing for the church to be involved. I expect you believe this because you conflate libertarians and republicans, or libertarians and tea partiers, when in fact neither is libertarian at all. Your description fits no group at all. The bible-thumping republicans do not ***** about government control; they just want the government to control you the way the church says it ought. The tea partiers also do not ***** about government control, to the exception of the original whom the party has been stolen from by Palin and Beck, but rather wish for the exact same thing as the bible thumpers and expect it to be done with less tax revenue. There is no example of this imaginary libertarian you describe, and I can give you two examples right here to disprove your claim. I am a minarchist libertarian, and I do not support the church. Freelancer is a heathen athiest anarchist. Now tell me, with a straight face, that those that do not support government control would cede that personal liberty to the church. I dare you.

That is pretty true. Now, I know Massassi hardly represents an accurate cross section of Americans, but the majority of people here who oppose excessive government interference are also extremely far from being religious zealots. To add to JM's short list, for example, I am an atheist. Hell, half of my path to less government interference is paved in religious zealots that would make laws against me for being a heathen.

JM, you know how a lot of employers have a term in their employment contract that says any idea you have while working for them is their property? If you invented Rearden metal, would the US government own it?


Trick question. The real answer is laissez-faire economics will always fail because an unregulated free market does not produce efficient market outcomes.

Edit: In case you still don't have a clue, wanting to surrender all authority to a higher power for which no evidence exists ("the invisible hand") is basically the same thing as surrendering it to God. Congrats, you're basically a right-wing religious fundamentalist. Your beliefs are hilarious and incongruent with your income level.

Except, that's not my position at all. I recognize that the free market isn't the solution to all the world's ills. That's why I'm a minarchist, and not an anarchist. The only higher power I am surrendering a thing to is a belief that man is fundamentally good, and that if we just stopped forcing our will upon others the world would be a better place. If that's the same as God, and that makes me a right-wing religious fundamentalist, then fine. That's what I am.

I'm going to presume "unregulated" means "lacking anti-trust regulations".
As for the invisible hand, do you not believe in the concepts of supply and demand?

Hey Admiral where did you download your vast networks of knowledge from

lol, no. Natural monopolies probably don't even exist.

Demand and supply do not account for externalities and will not result in the production of an efficient quantity of public goods.

I don't think Adam Smith was talking about missile defenses or smog in the invisible hand analogy.

I'm sure he would have, if he had anticipated a legion of basement-dwelling pseudo-intellectuals in a couple hundred years treating his metaphor as an economic panacea.

irrelevant because all scots are basement dwellers.

oh also let me use this opportunity to declare that i will be writing the autobiography of jon c


yeah you heard me, autobiography.

are you going to make a suit of out my skin

space suit

Cool! What are you going to use for the visor?

Jon is right here Potato. The invisible hand has nothing to do with supply or demand. The invisible hand are just the invisible forces that make people behave a certain way.

When it comes to public goods, the very idea that they are non-rivalorous and non-excludeable will lead to undersupply of the good. It's the classic "freerider" problem. For example, take fireworks. Let's say your utility is a function of how many fireworks are on display. The thing about fireworks is that you get the benefit of them without having to own them and no one can "ban you" from watching fireworks. Therefore, there is much less incentive to contribute to fireworks, EVEN though buying more fireworks would always raise your utility. Some decide to free - ride off each other and thus inefficient fireworks results.

Before you tell Jon'C about the concepts of supply and demand, just notice that when drawing a simple supply and demand graph, you always have to add too it to represent an externality. That by its definition assumes that sometimes markets don't adjust for what we deem are negative externalities. One might argue that "Well, a free market would adjust and you could always just contract everything!", but the transaction costs of this are sometimes so high that it leads to greater inefficiency to make things even clearer. For more on that, check out Normative Coase vs Normative Hobbes.

But but but but. Abstinence only education works! It's all those secularists trying to push out God from our schools. If we only let Him in our schools, libraries, and other government bodies none of world would be like this. Every school should start off with a morning prayer!

We don't have basements, *****.

Because Scotland is a basement.

Don't be sad, my beard is red too! My given name is even Scottish. It's just that since I have a REAL basement I'll be safer at the end.

If anything we're an attic over a garage.