quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Budgetary sleight of hand may not be a very sexy scandal, but the reason it's really important when it happens is because budget deficits are such an enormous campaigning point, especially on the right and among Republicans, that what would ordinarily be a little sneaky accounting is in fact more serious.
Rakeesh: I really need to get back to work for a bit, but I just wanted to say... the reason budgetary sleight of hand bothers me less is because the way that our entire government calculates and explains budgets is completely batshit insane and it's almost all sleight of hand of one form or another. Every surplus is "projected" and usually vanishes. A "cut" is really just "we increased spending less than we thought," and the measures we have in place that are supposed to help with this (like the CBO) are laughable.
Also, yes, it's less sexy. But it's really just that the whole way our governments do budgets is rotten damn near to the core. I can, however, see what you mean about this issue being a bigger campaigning point on the right, and thus a bigger deal.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom, the first couple of myths you mention (about public employees, about corporations being overtaxed, etc.) are vague enough that I am interpreting you to intend them as general statements across the US, not just Wisconsin. Is that the right way to read you?
I think it's true broadly and in microcosm. Certainly public employees at the federal level are better-compensated, so it's not as universally true, but the cost is hugely overstated in either case.
quote:If so, does the second part of your statement (about these myths being lies spread by people who know the truth but profit from the lies) pertain only to the myths about Wisconsin, or does it pertain to all the myths you mentioned as well?
I think it pertains universally. There are a number of well-known groups who have made it their business -- and their rhetorical strategy -- to insert these lies into the national discourse.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: You really don't understand what I'm saying, and your attitude on this topic doesn't make me too enthusiastic about continuing the discussion.
If talking directly about testing the claims of anarcho-capitalism to you is talking past you because I don't understand what you are saying, clarify your position.
I think I understand your position perfectly. I understand that you are welcome to being proven wrong (at least, apparently, through testing these ideals, if not through hypothetical socioeconomic modeling — this is important because it's usually a big clue-in as to how someone ended up all the way on the absolute extreme end of the free market vs. government debate), that you concede that this is something that would absolutely have to be phased in gradually. That leaves the part where you support a structure which abolishes government entirely. Where the entire legal system — law enforcement, courts, and all other security services, are all necessarily managed by privately run competitors. The questions to ask are about how you think that would work. If, in earnest, you think that sort of situation would truly increase rather than decrease a person's total effective liberties.
Also.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The claim that public servants are overpaid is a myth. The claim that the rich are overtaxed is a myth. The claim that the rich are "job creators" to whom most people owe their livelihoods is a myth. The claim that corporations are burdened by excessive tax is a myth. The claim that Wisconsin was a state on the edge of economic collapse is a myth. The claim that Wisconsin's budget improved as a consequence of Walker's cuts is a myth. The claim that Walker's cuts somehow increased corporate investment in Wisconsin (and thus led to job creation) is also a myth.
And by "myth," I mean straight-up "lie." The people promulgating these myths know the truth, but it serves their purposes to spread other narratives. It is possible to do a bit of research on any one of these claims to realize how untrue they are, but the amount of money flowing into the state -- and around the nation -- to ensure that people feel like they already know the truth (when in reality they've just been misinformed by the machine) is making it very difficult to awaken people to the need for that kind of mental investment in accuracy.
This pretty much needs to be on this page too, +1 or ^ or "this" or whatever.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How about if it were asked a different way. If you had a contract with a private company and you fulfilled your part of the contract but they decided to pay you considerably less than what you had both agreed to, would you consider that you had been at least cheated?
Sure! Of course. And it sucks that that happened to Tom's wife. I wouldn't be offering so much sympathy if I didn't think that some aspects of the situation were totally lousy.
I think that the actual situation has many more variables than your example, though, Boots, and is not quite so simple. But again... Yeargh. I don't want to do this. Personalizing discussions like this just leads to people getting offended and righteously angry.
Don't worry about it being personal. If an employee of a private company would be cheated if the company unilaterally changed the contract, why wouldn't it be cheating a public employee?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: (at least, apparently, through testing these ideals, if not through hypothetical socioeconomic modeling — this is important because it's usually a big clue-in as to how someone ended up all the way on the absolute extreme end of the free market vs. government debate),
So the reason I am at the "absolute extreme end" of this debate is really simple.
I lean slightly towards free markets over government. And I am an optimist.
That's it. That's really all it takes. Something that looks roughly like anarcho-capitalism is an inevitable conclusion from those two points.
I guess I'll add this for clarification: By optimist, I don't mean I have a sunny outlook on life, see the glass as half full, and think everything is just fine and dandy like sour candy. I mean that I think that all problems, every single problem that will ever be discovered in the entire universe, can be solved. I don't know how to solve them all. Hell, I don't personally know how to solve even a tiny fraction of a percent of every conceivable problem. But I think they can be solved.
If this is confusing I can probably go into more detail later.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I lean slightly towards free markets over government. And I am an optimist.
That's it. That's really all it takes. Something that looks roughly like anarcho-capitalism is an inevitable conclusion from those two points.
Hm. I would say that I lean slightly -- strongly, even -- toward free markets over government-controlled markets. And I'm certainly an optimist. And yet I don't think anarcho-capitalism will ever exist as a functional state of affairs, much less a quasi-utopian one.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I lean slightly towards free markets over government. And I am an optimist.
That's it. That's really all it takes. Something that looks roughly like anarcho-capitalism is an inevitable conclusion from those two points.
Okay, I guess there are issues of confusion. You're an anarcho-capitalist, which is pretty literally as far and as extreme as you can go on the sliding scale towards unhindered free market with literally no state apparatus. The axiom at the core of anarcho-capitalism is inviolate over any considerations over whether the system largely improves or degrades people's quality of life, you just absolutely cannot have any government because it is morally wrong. Period. This really does not sound like "lean slightly towards free markets over government (plus optimism)."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it helps you sleep, Sam, you can stop referring to me as an anarcho-capitalist, because it seems like that you're getting hung up on your understanding of that movement. A movement of which I am not a part.
It's sort of the way that I think that objective truth exists, but you should probably not think of me as an "Objectivist," because that will conjure specific, incorrect connotations in your head.
(This also reminds me of how at numerous times on this forum I have said things like "I'm sort of a minarchist/anarcho capitalist at heart, but pragmatically right now I think we should do...")
If you want an axiom I might be willing to stand behind, it'd be something like: "I think that people should have the autonomy to make their own decisions for their lives. In areas where this is difficult or impractical today, I think that a solution nevertheless exists and should be found."
It's not: "Government is evil and we should get rid of it come hell or high water."
Once again... not Ron Paul.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not: "Government is evil and we should get rid of it come hell or high water."
Then you are not an anarcho-capitalist nor do you believe in anarcho-capitalism as a theory or principle. And, to respond to you acting on frustration, I am only 'hung up' on it insofar as that is what you described your beliefs as, and I'm dutifully responding to what that actually means.
To note:
quote: "I'm sort of a minarchist/anarcho capitalist at heart, but ...
minarchism is firmly and and irreconcilably incompatible with anarcho-capitalism. If you look at why, you will probably go "yeah I'm really not an anarcho-capitalist."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I lean slightly towards free markets over government. And I am an optimist.
That's it. That's really all it takes. Something that looks roughly like anarcho-capitalism is an inevitable conclusion from those two points.
Hm. I would say that I lean slightly -- strongly, even -- toward free markets over government-controlled markets. And I'm certainly an optimist. And yet I don't think anarcho-capitalism will ever exist as a functional state of affairs, much less a quasi-utopian one.
This is interesting, because I definitely think you have a valid point.
I'm reading this a few ways. It sort of seems like you could be saying that you think there will be problems that cannot be solved, and thus we will always have to use force to ensure X minimum standard. Which would lead me to believe you're simply not as much of an optimist as me, maybe? That'd be fair.
Another could be that you think that using force on people to ensure X minimum standard is a viable solution to certain problems. In which case you're just as much of an optimist, but then I disagree as to what is the best possible solution to the problem, because I think a better solution than force would be voluntary persuasion via argument.
It's also very possible (or likely!) that I have totally misread you and the place of divergence is somewhere else. That's cool too. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not: "Government is evil and we should get rid of it come hell or high water."
Then you are not an anarcho-capitalist nor do you believe in anarcho-capitalism as a theory or principle. And, to respond to you acting on frustration, I am only 'hung up' on it insofar as that is what you described your beliefs as, and I'm dutifully responding to what that actually means.
To note:
quote: "I'm sort of a minarchist/anarcho capitalist at heart, but ...
minarchism is firmly and and irreconcilably incompatible with anarcho-capitalism. If you look at why, you will probably go "yeah I'm really not an anarcho-capitalist."
Okay, so, again, I'm not actually a Minarchist or an Anarcho-Capitalist in the sense of these terms as cohesive political movements like Democrats or Libertarians. Are you familiar with people who say they are "a small l libertarian" to distinguish themselves from the Libertarian party's stance on issues, and at the same time convey a lot of short-hand information about how they look at government?
I think the endgame of my philosophy looks pretty indistinguishable from anarcho-capitalism (and the not-quite-as-end-game would look a lot like minarchy!). I've used it in the past as a convenient short-hand, but I will happily concede that it's not totally accurate if you're intimately familiar with what "Anarcho-Capitalists" most commonly are.
This is why I spent so much time trying to stress that the place I differed from Anarcho-Capitalists was in the process of getting there. I clearly need to work on explaining this, though.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Okay, so, again, I'm not actually a Minarchist or an Anarcho-Capitalist in the sense of these terms as cohesive political movements like Democrats or Libertarians.
Yes. And, going forward, know that Anarcho-Capitalist doesn't have a sense as a cohesive political movement. It and minarchism are both political philosophies, both strains of libertarianism, and they have a very specific philosophical belief structure. They also have had their respective proponents at each other's throats as philosophical camps.
The only question that really remains is what, short of somehow reaching a minarchist government and then pushing it into statelessness to 'see what happens' and testing the "there is a solution and we can and should find it" theory directly to a real-life application of pure NAP, would convince you that the anarcho-capitalist model is unfeasible? Is there any non-demonstrated model, deriving from what we know now about sociopolitical systems and models, that could do this? Or is it something you are guaranteed to hold in lieu of it being tried and failing?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, fair warning, I think that a lot of "what we know" from socio-political systems and models is bullshit. I'm generally really, really wary of the soft sciences (sociology, psychology, etc.) because I think they are really extensively corrupted by terrible philosophy and psuedoscience. And while it might be awesome to get into a discussion of that with you, I don't think I've got it in me right now.
That being said, I also have zero interest in "pushing" into statelessness or anything like that. I think that some sort of quasi-anarcho-capitalist state would be a natural evolution of people getting better and better understanding of epistemology. I think this transition would be aided by better and better technology. I'm more interested in the "people getting better epistemology" stuff than in the "we end up anarcho-capitalists" stuff, because I think that one is really just a consequence of the other.
Soooo I guess to answer your question about what would convince me... here are a few ideas:
You'd need to convince me that wanting people to be able to live autonomously is a bad idea. (I think this is unlikely) -OR-
You'd need to convince me that most people are too stupid to ever get better epistemology (again, unlikely, though if you caught me on a bad day I might agree ) -OR-
You'd need to convince me that no matter how much progress is made and how many problems are solved, there will always be new problems that are critical enough that allowing autonomous individuals to approach them as they see fit will be unsatisfactory and force will be required to ensure the survival of the human race. That last one is the most likely, and, in fact, is something I grapple with frequently.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"I think that people should have the autonomy to make their own decisions for their lives. In areas where this is difficult or impractical today, I think that a solution nevertheless exists and should be found."
What's the solution for people who are completely paralyzed from the neck down, Dan?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You'd need to convince me that most people are too stupid to ever get better epistemology...
I don't think we'll be able to get sufficiently better epistemology without circumventing our own biology, and perhaps even the laws of causality -- in the sense that we are hard-wired to prefer outcomes that are beneficial to our immediate social sphere, that we are physically incapable of accurately perceiving reality, and are unable to predict the future with anything like the accuracy that'd be required of a truly voluntary, autonomous, and non-predatory lifestyle.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:"I think that people should have the autonomy to make their own decisions for their lives. In areas where this is difficult or impractical today, I think that a solution nevertheless exists and should be found."
What's the solution for people who are completely paralyzed from the neck down, Dan?
So, I just want to say first that if we're going to play a game of "Pose a question about a social problem to Dan and see if he can answer it" then I concede immediately. I've said numerous times I don't think I have all the answers. (Edit: I may have been too defensive here, Destineer, since you have thus far been arguing with me in what I'd consider incredibly good faith, and not trying to create a "Gotcha" moment. So, I apologize if I overreacted.)
That said, I'm also not sure what you mean by this question. Do you mean, how do we help such people be able to exert more autonomy in their lives?
I guess we continue to create better and better mechanisms by which they can interact with the world and achieve independence. Wheelchairs powered by something they can control, like breath or brainwaves, is a good place to start, but we have plenty more totally feasible not-quite-within-our reach technologies too, ones that could radically improve such peoples' lives. My mom is a paraplegic, and it makes me sad to think that it's unlikely she'll live long enough to see advancements like those.
It also helps that as our society advances technologically, mental work becomes more and more valuable, so even without full ambulation via a robot body or whatever a quadriplegic can make a living using his mind and then pay someone to help him with his physical needs.
I'm actually more concerned with people with severe mental handicaps than with severe physical handicaps. It seems like a much more severe debilitation. And it's an area where no really good answers spring to mind.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I was alluding to an issue I posed earlier. Namely that, even if we get fancy technological work-arounds for some of these problems, children who are born with them--and without wealth--will just die unless they get assistance.
But you're right, mental disabilities are an even worse problem.
I'm glad you're honest about not being able to answer these questions, but then I don't see why you don't conclude, as I do, that they simply rule out the view you're espousing (unless we permanently upgrade the whole genome, or something similar, to prevent people from ever being born disabled). If there's an existing social problem that can't conceivably be solved under your preferred political philosophy, it's time to go back to the drawing board.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: So, fair warning, I think that a lot of "what we know" from socio-political systems and models is bullshit.
That makes sense. You would absolutely have to, to hold your position.
quote:That being said, I also have zero interest in "pushing" into statelessness or anything like that.
I'm .. pretty sure this doesn't jive with things you have said on the subject of politics and government. Multiple things.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: So, fair warning, I think that a lot of "what we know" from socio-political systems and models is bullshit.
That makes sense. You would absolutely have to, to hold your position.
quote:That being said, I also have zero interest in "pushing" into statelessness or anything like that.
I'm .. pretty sure this doesn't jive with things you have said on the subject of politics and government. Multiple things.
Then either I was unclear then, I was unclear just now, you misunderstood me then, or you're misunderstanding me now.
If people can't be persuaded via argument that less government is a good thing, then I don't think it makes sense to reduce the size of government. You could argue how many people need to be persuaded, and that's a good question. I think a convenient default answer for now would be "however many is necessary to affect a change in our current political system."
So, today, I think in practical terms the size and scope of our government could do with a bit of paring down. In broad strokes, if enough people disagree with me, then we'll probably end up with a candidate who will do that. If not many people are persuaded that this is a good idea, then we won't!
I'm not going to become enraged either way, I think we'll still make progress and debates will still carry forward and perhaps next time more people will be persuaded.
If we're talking about some theoretical future date where we're trying to convince everybody that dissolving the last remnants of authoritarian government is a good idea, we'd probably need to convince an even larger group of people before it could be enacted.
So, I was mostly objecting to your use of the word "Push" which seems to me to indicate making a change regardless of these sort of factors. Like I said, either I misunderstood you, or you misunderstood what sort of change I'm interested in. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I'm glad you're honest about not being able to answer these questions, but then I don't see why you don't conclude, as I do, that they simply rule out the view you're espousing (unless we permanently upgrade the whole genome, or something similar, to prevent people from ever being born disabled). If there's an existing social problem that can't conceivably be solved under your preferred political philosophy, it's time to go back to the drawing board.
It's not clear to me why you think that this existing social problem can't be solved without authoritarian force. I mean, you've already offered one potential solution that would not require the continued existence of a central government(upgrading the genome so that nobody is born with disabilities).
If we don't have a better solution to a problem than the solution we are currently using, I don't advocate abandoning the current solution.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, I don't think you're really an anarcho-capitalist. You're primarily, as you put it, an optimist above all, to the extent of being a techno-utopian. Some Christians believe that sound governance is unnecessary because Christ will eventually return and make all our social problems moot; your own position seems to be that eventually the Singularity will happen and we won't need government anymore. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
But I do also think that there are plenty of areas in our current society where we already have better solutions for problems. Solutions that frequently involve scaling back government control and freeing up the market.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: It's not clear to me why you think that this existing social problem can't be solved without authoritarian force. I mean, you've already offered one potential solution that would not require the continued existence of a central government(upgrading the genome so that nobody is born with disabilities).
Well, even that wouldn't solve the problem on a true anarchist system, I don't think. Because you know there will always be the occasional sicko who cripples his kids on purpose (psychologically or physically), and there will always be the occasional religious nut who doesn't want "unnatural" genetically engineered babies. And then, if the system is truly anarchist and these people are allowed to make their own reproductive and child-rearing decisions, you will always have some disabled children who are going to die without help.
But I think Tom's read on your position is basically correct. I mean, I too am open to the possibility that anarchy would work very well in some future posthuman epoch. That doesn't make my political philosophy anarchist. My political philosophy is liberal (in the sense that the word gets used in political philosophy), because I believe that no matter what technology, resources and circumstances we're surrounded by, a liberal system would work at least as well as any alternative.
(Although when I put it that way, I'm a little less certain of my views. If every human had the power to telepathically kill anyone with a thought, or something like that, a more authoritarian system than liberalism might well be needed.)
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I think Tom's read on your position is basically correct.
I am going to balk and pout needlessly at this. It was me that figured out that dan wasn't actually an anarcho-capitalist. Me. I won't be robbed of my place in the history books.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You'd need to convince me that most people are too stupid to ever get better epistemology...
I don't think we'll be able to get sufficiently better epistemology without circumventing our own biology, and perhaps even the laws of causality -- in the sense that we are hard-wired to prefer outcomes that are beneficial to our immediate social sphere, that we are physically incapable of accurately perceiving reality, and are unable to predict the future with anything like the accuracy that'd be required of a truly voluntary, autonomous, and non-predatory lifestyle.
quote:. The existence of most of the particular cognitive biases listed below has been verified empirically in psychology experiments. Cognitive biases are influenced by evolution and natural selection pressure. Some are presumably adaptive and beneficial, for example, because they lead to more effective actions in given contexts or enable faster decisions, when faster decisions are of greater value for reproductive success and survival. Others presumably result from a lack of appropriate mental mechanisms, i.e. a general fault in human brain structure, from the misapplication of a mechanism that is adaptive (beneficial) under different circumstances, or simply from noisy mental processes.
people who really believe in the just world theory — and by god there's a lot of them — often describe feeling very uncomfortable reading this page. Solutions leading to utopia involve, fundamentally, 'solving' our own innate nature.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wisconsin will use a chunk of its $140 million share of a national settlement over foreclosure and mortgage-servicing abuses to help the state budget rather than assist troubled homeowners, Gov. Scott Walker and state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said Thursday.
Walker and Van Hollen said the majority of the settlement amount earmarked to Wisconsin under a $25 billion proposed nationwide agreement announced Thursday still would go to aid consumers in Milwaukee and other communities struggling with the specter of home foreclosure.
But of a $31.6 million payment coming directly to the state government, most of that money - $25.6 million - will go to help close a budget shortfall revealed in newly released state projections. Van Hollen, whose office said he has the legal authority over the money, made the decision in consultation with Walker.
"Just like communities and individuals have been affected, the foreclosure crisis has had an effect on the state of Wisconsin, in terms of unemployment. . . . This will offset that damage done to the state of Wisconsin," Walker said.
Bear in mind, though, Walker considers it essential to his campaign that he be able to say that Wisconsin did not run a deficit under his leadership. If he has to repurpose money given to help homeowners to make that happen, he will.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I'm actually curious to see where those cities end up ten, twenty years in the future. Apparently, these gangbuster deconstructions of local government don't have the best reputation, but .. oh well, the state's republicans have given themselves the ability to do this all they want.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, the article has me a little confused. What was the $31.6 million going to the state government supposed to be used for?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: My political philosophy is liberal (in the sense that the word gets used in political philosophy), because I believe that no matter what technology, resources and circumstances we're surrounded by, a liberal system would work at least as well as any alternative.
Also responding to this because I just noticed it, Destineer I hope you check this thread.
I 100% agree with you in the above quoted text. If you're looking at liberalism in its proper philosophical context, I'm a liberal. That's why, when discussing contemporary politics, I try (and sometimes fail, to forestall Sam finding quotes of my failures) to avoid using the term "liberal" at all.
I usually try to say leftist, not because I'm trying to be insulting or whatever (I know some leftists don't like the term leftist) but to have something to call them other than liberal (I sometimes say Democrat, too, but not all leftists are Democrats and vice versa, so...)
Fiscal "conservatism," for example, is totally compatible with liberalism, but not with leftism (which gets called liberalism by most conservatives today).
Seems like some people try to resolve this disconnect by using the term "progressive" which has come back in vogue on both sides of the aisle in recent years. I hate this trend too, because I think progress is amazing and I don't think that very much of leftism is actually going to help with the progress of the human species.
Whew, that was a lot of labels in a relatively short space! I hope it wasn't confusing.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm actually curious to see where those cities end up ten, twenty years in the future. Apparently, these gangbuster deconstructions of local government don't have the best reputation, but .. oh well, the state's republicans have given themselves the ability to do this all they want.
But hey it's okay Sam, Michigan still has the most liberal city in America (that's liberal in the Democrat/Republican dichotomy sense), so they can lead by example! Once the governor sees how well that city's doing, he's sure to change his policies.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, well, it's certainly terribly crude. It's just the voting demographics of the people in the city, as far as I can tell, rather than an analysis of the policies in said city. The BACVR is based out of Berkeley, so I guess we shouldn't be too surprised.
So, of course, this begs the question... do you think Detroit doesn't have a solid history of leftist policies?
If so, could you elaborate? I mean, it certainly seems that the city does to me, with it's living wage ordinance, high per pupil spending rates, a teacher's union that defends them against things like performance pay, high tax rates, etc.
And if you agree that Detroit is largely an example of a city that instituted a lot of leftist policies, then... well, I guess we agree!
In which case I guess you were just criticizing the study, which I agree was only worth it for the headline. That is to say, it provided a convenient shorthand for me to convey everything in this post, but in just two sarcastic sentences. That's cheap at twice the price, even if it's actual value as a study is pretty negligible.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Detroit has instituted a lot of "leftist" policies, but I think it's a mistake to look at the state of the city and conclude that the policies in place there are primarily responsible for its dire situation. Consider the "high per pupil spending rates," for example, which are necessary to a) maintain armed police in public schools; and b) attract teachers who have to work somewhere armed police are stationed; it's not clear how many of Detroit's policies are holdovers from a late-'60s era of what seemed like boundless, car-driven prosperity, and how many are last-gasp, desperate attempts to keep their citizens alive after the crash.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, that's fair. I think that blaming all of Detroits ills on bad policy (as many on the right do) is definitely a very simplistic view. I don't think they helped, either, of course. But I agree with you that it's a mistake to assume they are the sole driving factor that put it in such a terrible state.
PS: The scare quotes around leftist suggest to me you're one of the people I mentioned above, that see the term as a slur. I don't want to insult you, or anyone else here! Is there a term you personally prefer?
Kate: Wow, that's pretty funny. People find all sorts of wacky conclusions when they jump to them.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not that I think "leftist" is a slur; it's that I think paying a lot of money to put armed guards into schools isn't necessarily leftist.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: WASHINGTON -- A Wisconsin judge declared a state law requiring people to show photo ID in order to be allowed to vote unconstitutional on Monday, issuing a permanent injunction blocking the state from implementing the measure.
"Without question, where it exists, voter fraud corrupts elections and undermines our form of government," wrote Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess in his decision. "The legislature and governor may certainly take aggressive action to prevent its occurrence. But voter fraud is no more poisonous to our democracy than voter suppression. Indeed, they are two heads on the monster."
posted
As I recall, you did need an ID or someone to vouch for you and proof of residence. Can't check that as their web site still has the photo ID requirement on it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You need to be registered with your state. Other rules vary from state to state. In mine, I just have to tell them who I am (name and address) so they can find me on the list, and then I have to sign on my designated line.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh hey the talk of voter ID's being a form of vote suppression reminds me about an old argument about this issue (maybe it was in this thread? I haven't checked back to confirm).
So, if I remember correctly, the reason voter ID is a form of vote suppression is because even something as ubiquitous as a Driver License costs money and there are scads of driver license-less poor people who will turn out to vote Democrat but can't without an ID, right?
Is that the argument? If I misrepresented it, let me know!
Assuming I did not: It's come to my attention that in virtually all states that have voter ID (certainly in WI, according to the WI DMV website) ID cards for the purposes of voting are free. So... I'm confused how the above argument is in any way compelling, or truly indicates an intent to suppress voters.
I'm also surprised that people were vociferously arguing this issue under the belief that requiring a voter ID would cost money, since it doesn't. Seems like that was an integral part of the opposing argument, so for it to have been wrong surprises me.
Oh! I remember someone mentioning the homeless, I think. So even though it's free, you have to give them an address maybe? Therefore it's still suppressing people!
I don't see details one way or the other on the DMV, so that's plausible.
So are voter ID laws suppression because they keep homeless people with no mailing address from being able to vote?
Do most homeless people (who have no friends or family whose address they could use for the purposes of receiving mail) tend to vote? Is that a big bloc that's being suppressed? And either way, since that's the only bloc that seems to be negatively impacted by voter ID laws, wouldn't an alternate solution be to not require people to provide an address for their voter ID cards?
I mean, we already have the special rule that if it's for voting you don't have to pay the normal fee, why not also say you don't have to give an address, and can instead just come back in 2 weeks and pick it up in person or something?
If we get this covered, then I think the only suppressed voters will be people who can't go into the DMV and get an ID under any circumstance, like because they have no Social Security Number, or because they're dead.
I'm pretty sure it's okay to disenfranchise those guys, though.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, if I remember correctly, the reason voter ID is a form of vote suppression is because even something as ubiquitous as a Driver License costs money and there are scads of driver license-less poor people who will turn out to vote Democrat but can't without an ID, right?
For me, it's not the money; it's the time. There are several counties in Wisconsin without a DMV at all, and many DMVs are only open during standard business hours. By putting up even a weak barrier to entry, it suppresses the likelihood of voting among certain populations.
For no good reason, mind, because no one has ever demonstrated any statistically significant voter fraud. Almost all the fraud that occurs is performed by voting officials.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) 
