American Politics XIII: (Un)Lucky For Some

[Daniel-Franklin]

Definition of the contrast between theory and practice.
Workers owning the means of production, while scarcity existe, means limited resources ultimately become democratic, as opposed to heirarchal In a capitalist system with private ownership. In theory this can just be done, but historically the Government always takes over the industries as "embodiment" of the will of the workers. Revolutionary socialism invariably leads to autocratic control because the changes are initiated through force, and have to be maintained with force, because the capitalists always resist.

And that is what ultimately causes socialism to fail.

If it can't be avoided. I think that it can, but maybe that's optimistic of me. We have the technology nowadays to more directly, democratically control the means of production in some form or another, I trust.

[Daniel-Franklin]

If Statists had not interfered in the free market, we wouldn't have this problem. You want to get rid of shortages return to free and open markets in a free and open society where each and every individual is once again allowed to own their own selves.

Pre-"interference" the US had child labor, widespread pollution, and overall terrible living standards for everyone except the wealthy. Between that and shortages I'll pick shortages every time.

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged.

One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.

The other, of course, involves orcs."

I was about to get offended as a fan of the fantasy genre lol

Especially since the shortages will apparently happen, anyway.

[The Black Forrest]

No shortages under capitalism though, right? How you fixed for baby formula?

If Statists had not interfered in the free market, we wouldn't have this problem. You want to get rid of shortages return to free and open markets in a free and open society where each and every individual is once again allowed to own their own selves.

Oh FFS. Well……we have had one of your kind in awhile. So all will be good if we only allowed the markets to be free with no regulation!!!!! We would be in the land of oz!

Sorry to burst your bubble lad. The markets don’t self-correct and first in foremost is maximization of profit in the shortest time possible. How do you do that? In a greatly simplified explationation. Reduce the expenses. Safety protocols, Security protocols, native salaries(except management of course), and of course workers when times are hard.

More then a few times it has been expressed a businessman would never do anything to damage a company. It happens all the time. Especially at the top levels with their exit packages. A CEO of HomeDepot was terminated for failing to meet ALL OBJECTIVES! His punishment? $210 Million.

Remember the Caribbean oil spill? Safety protocols were reduced if not cut. Why? Expand profits.

Sorry. A free market would make things FAR worse. People turn into asshats when there is a great deal of money to be made.

Regulations are a good thing.

Oh as to baby shortage? The feds didn’t cause the factory to have safety violations. They also didn’t make the business consolidate production.

So please stop with this if only the markets were free nonsense……

[Daniel-Franklin]

If Statists had not interfered in the free market, we wouldn't have this problem. You want to get rid of shortages return to free and open markets in a free and open society where each and every individual is once again allowed to own their own selves.

Oh FFS. Well……we have had one of your kind in awhile. So all will be good if we only allowed the markets to be free with no regulation!!!!! We would be in the land of oz!

Sorry to burst your bubble lad. The markets don’t self-correct and first in foremost is maximization of profit in the shortest time possible. How do you do that? In a greatly simplified explationation. Reduce the expenses. Safety protocols, Security protocols, native salaries(except management of course), and of course workers when times are hard.

More then a few times it has been expressed a businessman would never do anything to damage a company. It happens all the time. Especially at the top levels with their exit packages. A CEO of HomeDepot was terminated for failing to meet ALL OBJECTIVES! His punishment? $210 Million.

Remember the Caribbean oil spill? Safety protocols were reduced if not cut. Why? Expand profits.

Sorry. A free market would make things FAR worse. People turn into asshats when there is a great deal of money to be made.

Regulations are a good thing.

Oh as to baby shortage? The feds didn’t cause the factory to have safety violations. They also didn’t make the business consolidate production.

So please stop with this if only the markets were free nonsense……

To quote Count Felix from Gore Vidal's Julian, "You cannot ask a wolf not to eat sheep. It's his nature."

In other words, you have to do for the business sector what they can't do for themselves because they aren't inclined to act altruistically, especially not in the era of "maximizing shareholder value," where they have a fiduciary obligation not to reduce the stock price.

[The Jamesian Republic]

And that is what ultimately causes socialism to fail.

If it can't be avoided. I think that it can, but maybe that's optimistic of me. We have the technology nowadays to more directly, democratically control the means of production in some form or another, I trust.

Interesting. I hope so too,

[Narland]

There are differences in distinction and degree. There is Law, and there are statutes that must, in order to be lawful reflect the nature of Law (Nature and Nature's God in the Declaration), which is what the US congress is tasked with legislating in Article I. There are decrees, ordinances, and the like. Each has their purpose, function and limitations.

Marbury vs. Madison makes it clear that any law, (and subordinates --statutes, decrees, ordinances, and whatnot) that is Unconstitutional (arbitrarily or with vagaries denies or deprives any individual of their life, liberty, or justly gained property), is automatically null and void, and Citizens have no obligation to follow them.

No doubt you favor a Lochner era interpretation of constitutionality, I presume.

Not entirely. The Lochner court sometimes forgot that the reason for liberty is for People to enjoy their lives, productivity and property. State regulation that actually opens up or makes regular for everyone equally in common I have little problem with. Regulations that are anti-regulatory (they arbitrarily or artificially restrict otherwise lawful activity) I am totally opposed to. It seems that all regulations these days are not to open up individual, family, community, and organizational participation (to make regular), but to control, choke, retard, and eliminate free and open participation.

As a thorough Federalist, I am a strong proponent of individual autonomy expressed through family, community, one's own enterprises in lawful association which are legitimate governments in and of themselves to be amortized or voted on once the bond expires. I favor external public governance that is contracted out at the local level. The counties and municipalities cover the thousands (over 5000 special districts in my county) of other things at that level. The State protects the life, liberty and property from fraud and coercion while doing the 124 tasks (in Idaho's Constitution) delegated to it from the People, and the US Federal State confines itself to the 17 tasks delegated to it in Federal Union.

As every State's Constitution explicitly states somewhere within that all political power resides in the People, I adamantly assert that all policy decisions belong to the People and their governments (family, community, county/municipality) at the most local level feasible. Any delegated policy decisions made by the state (at any level) are a sacred trust. The state when anyone's life, liberty, property, or pursuit of happiness is criminally diminished or taken.

[Narland]

I don't see how it can. Socialism is not self-ownership of the means of one's own production in cooperation with others, but the coercive (unless freely contracted by each and every individual to opt-in) group ownership of everyone else's means. That never works as it invites the tragedy of the commons as a natural factor of every economic action.

You haven't read a lot of Marx, have you? The man wasn't perfect by any means, but his ideas have been greatly distorted into the caricature that you just described. There are plenty of models or ideas of socialism that involve just what Jamesian Republic mentioned. You'd be very confused by council-communism and anarcho-communism/syndicalism.

I have read Marx. Marx is voluminous and self-contradictory in areas. No Socialist that I know likes all property in the hands of the people as individuals to lawfully do with as they see fit. There are always exceptions beyond lawful use to justify their policy decisions over the will of the property owners in particular and the People in general.

[Narland]

If Statists had not interfered in the free market, we wouldn't have this problem. You want to get rid of shortages return to free and open markets in a free and open society where each and every individual is once again allowed to own their own selves.

Yeah, I used to buy into Paulist/Rothbardite radical libertarian fantasies, too. Then I started to live in the real economy. The market doesn't solve nearly as much as you think. There is no invisible hand.

Then you know as an entrepreneur, or businessperson, that free and open markets are that part of the solution that frees the community economically, so that they can solve the more needful problems through their families, communities, and voluntary organizations. Government (the "rational" administrative state) is not the solution, government is the problem. -- Reagan. Parenthetical statement my own.

[Umeria]

Not entirely. The Lochner court sometimes forgot that the reason for liberty is for People to enjoy their lives, productivity and property. State regulation that actually opens up or makes regular for everyone equally in common I have little problem with. Regulations that are anti-regulatory (they arbitrarily or artificially restrict otherwise lawful activity) I am totally opposed to. It seems that all regulations these days are not to open up individual, family, community, and organizational participation (to make regular), but to control, choke, retard, and eliminate free and open participation.

They didn't forget anything; they were corrupt. As I'm sure you understand when it comes to socialist systems, it doesn't matter what the theoretical ideals are when incentive structures contradict them. A "free market" is a market where corporations and the wealthy can buy off politicians and restrict economic freedom as much as they want.

[Narland]

No shortages under capitalism though, right? How you fixed for baby formula?

Not for nothing, but the theory isn't that shortages won't happen under capitalism, rather a decentralized private economy is more innovative and will market correct a shortage better than centralized economy for controlled by a bureaucratic government.

i.e, in the 2020 beer shortage, a centralized economy would be doing the DC two-step across the whole beltway trying to figure out how to increase beer production. Instead the people at Whitelaw realized their time had come and pushed a hard marketing bid, which effectively market corrected the beer shortage with the emergence of the hard seltzer market. Every major beer company, even Corona, rushed to fill this gap with seltzers of their own. Which is why today in states of Tennessee, Florida, and Idaho, you can enjoy a Mountain Dew Baja Blast hard seltzer. I'd say drink responsibly, but that is the definition irresponsible consumption.

I wish there had been several companies to fill the gap for the milk formula shortage. For over 50 years, there has been a concerted effort to deindustrialize the United States. Tens of thousands of family run businesses have been methodically shut down, and the manufacturing sent overseas. In the early 2000s when I needed a batch of custom made refrigerators there were several factories in the US that I could contract out to. Now, there is nothing domestic. How many baby milk facilities were there before NAFTA and how many are their now? Who owns them-- families run, or corporate run? Chances are it is a family barely hanging on by a shoestring, or a corporate acquisition by an umbrella group that could care less about the local community.

[Narland]

Not entirely. The Lochner court sometimes forgot that the reason for liberty is for People to enjoy their lives, productivity and property. State regulation that actually opens up or makes regular for everyone equally in common I have little problem with. Regulations that are anti-regulatory (they arbitrarily or artificially restrict otherwise lawful activity) I am totally opposed to. It seems that all regulations these days are not to open up individual, family, community, and organizational participation (to make regular), but to control, choke, retard, and eliminate free and open participation.

They didn't forget anything; they were corrupt. As I'm sure you understand when it comes to socialist systems, it doesn't matter what the theoretical ideals are when incentive structures contradict them. A "free market" is a market where corporations and the wealthy can buy off politicians and restrict economic freedom as much as they want.

My brain is turning off for the evening, so please bear with me. We will probably disagree on what constitutes corruption, and which courts adjudicated constitutionally well vs which courts were lacking.

A free market is a free market. Corporations (as they exist especially since 1953/1954 -- and since LBJ force all of us to convert our business over to a corporate structure (1967/68 by force of armed agents)) are creatures of the state, and part of the state apparati. They are a de facto hinderance to the free market. I grew up with some areas still free, but in my old age there is very left in America that can truly be called free enterprise. We probably both agree that corporations as practiced in the US are from the pit of a very hot place.

[Tillania]

We probably both agree that corporations as practiced in the US are from the pit of a very hot place.

Yes, but they arise naturally in an environment like the US. If you weaken the state in the face of corporations, the corporations take over and become the government.
Essentially, libertarians sound no different from communists:
"If only people weren't people, my system would work perfectly."

[Prima Scriptura]

I find it very troubling that there is a rush to codify homosexual civil marriage rights before codifying Gideon(the right for poor defendants to have an attorney at the government’s expense). I’ve said this before, but there seems to be no concern for poor people charged with a crime.

[Necroghastia]

I find it very troubling that there is a rush to codify homosexual civil marriage rights before codifying Gideon(the right for poor defendants to have an attorney at the government’s expense). I’ve said this before, but there seems to be no concern for poor people charged with a crime.

Has Gideon been called out by a sitting supreme court justice as being a case that might be on the chopping block? Not to say that it's not important, but there is that sense of urgency, you realize.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I find it very troubling that there is a rush to codify homosexual civil marriage rights before codifying Gideon(the right for poor defendants to have an attorney at the government’s expense). I’ve said this before, but there seems to be no concern for poor people charged with a crime.

Because both sides prioritize the culture war. That being said, there's nothing wrong with codifying gay marriage.

[American Legionaries]

I find it very troubling that there is a rush to codify homosexual civil marriage rights before codifying Gideon(the right for poor defendants to have an attorney at the government’s expense). I’ve said this before, but there seems to be no concern for poor people charged with a crime.

Firstly, I there's no real rumblings on the subject of Gideon, secondly, there are gay legislators, there aren't any poor legislators.

[Prima Scriptura]

I find it very troubling that there is a rush to codify homosexual civil marriage rights before codifying Gideon(the right for poor defendants to have an attorney at the government’s expense). I’ve said this before, but there seems to be no concern for poor people charged with a crime.

Has Gideon been called out by a sitting supreme court justice as being a case that might be on the chopping block? Not to say that it's not important, but there is that sense of urgency, you realize.

Yes, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have said in recent dissents that they believe Gideon should be overturned. Poor people and the criminal justice system is more important to me. It also has more of a chance to get over a filibuster. There are more poor people that are impacted by the criminal justice system than homosexuals that want civil marriage rights.

[Prima Scriptura]

I find it very troubling that there is a rush to codify homosexual civil marriage rights before codifying Gideon(the right for poor defendants to have an attorney at the government’s expense). I’ve said this before, but there seems to be no concern for poor people charged with a crime.

Firstly, I there's no real rumblings on the subject of Gideon, secondly, there are gay legislators, there aren't any poor legislators.

Criminal justice reform has wide bipartisan support. It is just that people care more about middle class and rich homosexuals than they do poor people.

[The Black Forrest]

I find it very troubling that there is a rush to codify homosexual civil marriage rights before codifying Gideon(the right for poor defendants to have an attorney at the government’s expense). I’ve said this before, but there seems to be no concern for poor people charged with a crime.

Why? Taking away rights from homosexuals is easier then taking away rights to counsel. I am sure the cabal on the court would love to. It’s more of a social publicity problem.

If the codify gay rights; great. It’s the end of one bullshit fight they love to throw out so we lemmings get distracted from the other issues.

[Saiwania]

So, for the first time in 20+ years, the US dollar is equal or worth more to the Euro. Is it a good time for Americans to travel to Europe or elsewhere? Should many bother to make the trip and spend some money there if they have it and the time off for such a vacation or adventure?

Americans are allegedly famously travel adverse compared to people from other developed nations. The US is big enough to make it so residents can vacation all they want away from home, but won't have any language/passport/legal/culture challenges they might get if going abroad.

https://www.businessinsider.com/strong- ... ates2022-7

[Greater Miami Shores 3]

As I said at least Pence could have tried, then it would have been decided at the US Supreme Court, but the fact that they are declaring it in this law as not legal to do so, means it is open to different interpretations, that would have been decided at the US Supreme Court, and Trump would probably have lost and that would have been the end of it.

I agree. They took the time and the effort to put it into the Constitution and did so for a reason. They weren't trolling future generations by putting in superfluous nothings as some would have us believe.

"***Snicker, snicker*** hey Madison, snicker, let's have the Vice-President only pretend preside over certification. ***Snicker, snicker*** That'll show those stupid dolts who want self-government, 'cuz Murika!.' ***guffaw***"

"Capital idea! Now, how can we waste the rest of the week in this God-forsaken convention."

Thanks for agreeing with me and backing me up, I agree with you and back you up on many issues too.

[Thomasi]

This may be an unpopular opinion, but I think the ruling by the supreme court that police can't be held liable for not telling someone their Miranda rights is the best ruling all year. If I get elected into government at the city level I will instruct police to stop saying the Miranda warning all together. Criminals who aren't well versed in their constitutional and legal rights shouldn't be reminded of them, their ignorance should be used against them.

Got a violent crime/homicide problem, use the lack of knowledge about the right to a lawyer and the right to remain silent and start getting people to talk and rat each other out under threat of long prison sentences, within a year problem solved, the gang leaders and higher ups in prison, the rest disbanded on parole and getting reintegrated into normal society.

Basically we can finally use criminals ignorance of the bill of rights against them and that's a good thing.

[Thomasi]

So, for the first time in 20+ years, the US dollar is equal or worth more to the Euro. Is it a good time for Americans to travel to Europe or elsewhere? Should many bother to make the trip and spend some money there if they have it and the time off for such a vacation or adventure?

Americans are allegedly famously travel adverse compared to people from other developed nations. The US is big enough to make it so residents can vacation all they want away from home, but won't have any language/passport/legal/culture challenges they might get if going abroad.

https://www.businessinsider.com/strong- ... ates2022-7

What is a good idea is to talk with your bank about setting up a foreign currency account and putting all your dollars into Euros wait a year and you will have gained 33% interest on your money.

[Spirit of Hope]

This may be an unpopular opinion, but I think the ruling by the supreme court that police can't be held liable for not telling someone their Miranda rights is the best ruling all year. If I get elected into government at the city level I will instruct police to stop saying the Miranda warning all together. Criminals who aren't well versed in their constitutional and legal rights shouldn't be reminded of them, their ignorance should be used against them.

Got a violent crime/homicide problem, use the lack of knowledge about the right to a lawyer and the right to remain silent and start getting people to talk and rat each other out under threat of long prison sentences, within a year problem solved, the gang leaders and higher ups in prison, the rest disbanded on parole and getting reintegrated into normal society.

Basically we can finally use criminals ignorance of the bill of rights against them and that's a good thing.

That isn't what the ruling said. If you use un mirandized statements from a criminal they can still be thrown out of the court, the person who's statements are used just can't sue the police for taking an un mirandized statement and violating his constitutional rights.

Its a stupid decision that only makes it so the police continue to get away with not doing their jobs properly, but it actually doesn't allow the police to gather un mirandized statements or for them to be used in a courtroom.

[Ifreann]

The federal investigation of Hunter Biden is reportedly reaching a critical juncture.

The probe is led by David Weiss, the US Attorney of Delaware and a Trump appointee. He was one of the few to remain in his position since he's leading an investigation that's been classified as politically sensitive. While there's been no final decision yet, there's a debate on whether to charge Hunter and they are examining a variety of issues including money laundering, campaign finance, tax and foreign lobbying laws, as well as whether Hunter broke federal firearm and other regulations. Yet, it has narrowed on tax and gun related charges. The issues for the delay stems from two reasons:

1. Hunter's openness that he used drugs during that period of time, which may weakened the prosecutors case because the drugs "mentally" effected him in a way that he wouldn't have been normal though that argument might not be the strongest and;

2. The Midterms. There's an unwritten rule that prosecutors avoid bringing politically sensitive cases within 60 days of an election. But there's a debate on whether Hunter should be exempt from that rule because he and his father are not on the ballot (funny, I can make that same argument for a certain someone).

It should be made clear, however, that President Biden himself is not being investigated. And unlike Trump, who intervened in investigations to either protect allies or himself, Biden has not done that. That said, whether Hunter is charged is irrelevant to the GOP: they have vowed to investigate the Biden Family when they take back the majority. Either way, if Hunter broke the law, he should face consequences for it. Too bad Trump's kids never faced such consequences and possibly Trump himself.

Hunter Biden is a fucking stupid degenerate.

Disgusting way to talk about a man with a disease. I'd say you should be ashamed, but clearly shame is beyond you.

Plus, he is rich and white, why the fuck does he smoke crack when he can some of the best powder money can buy?

Maybe because the very nature of drug addiction is that one does not tend to make rational decisions about one's drug consumption habits.

---

No shortages under capitalism though, right? How you fixed for baby formula?

If Statists had not interfered in the free market, we wouldn't have this problem. You want to get rid of shortages return to free and open markets in a free and open society where each and every individual is once again allowed to own their own selves.

This shortage happened because one company had such lax health and safety standards, a deliberate choice they made to save money, that they were producing tainted formula. Poison baby food. If it had gone to market then babies would have gotten sick, and knowing America some of them would have died.

---

This may be an unpopular opinion, but I think the ruling by the supreme court that police can't be held liable for not telling someone their Miranda rights is the best ruling all year. If I get elected into government at the city level I will instruct police to stop saying the Miranda warning all together. Criminals who aren't well versed in their constitutional and legal rights shouldn't be reminded of them, their ignorance should be used against them.

Got a violent crime/homicide problem, use the lack of knowledge about the right to a lawyer and the right to remain silent and start getting people to talk and rat each other out under threat of long prison sentences, within a year problem solved, the gang leaders and higher ups in prison, the rest disbanded on parole and getting reintegrated into normal society.

Basically we can finally use criminals ignorance of the bill of rights against them and that's a good thing.

And what about the ignorance of innocent people?