Authoritarianism and American politics

[Warren Dew]

(01-21-2017, 01:39 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-20-2017, 05:34 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-20-2017, 03:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-20-2017, 02:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-20-2017, 01:56 PM)David Horn Wrote: Why is private power acceptable to libertarians, but public power is not?

Because public power is held by a monopoly:  the government can be as unreasonable as it wants, and the individual can do nothing about it.

Private power is normally held by competing providers; if one provider is unreasonable, the individual can switch to a different provider.

Not if the providers are in a virtual monopoly; choices are limited. The individual can do nothing about the decisions of the owners, and (s)he has no voice and no vote.

Agreed,  which is why it's crucial to prevent government from facilitating monopolies by creating barriers to the entry of new competitors through regulatory requirements and such.  Some antitrust enforcement may also be required.  For natural monopolies, regulation may be appropriate, or even government supply where usage cannot reasonably be metered and charged.  However, natural monopolies are very much the exception rather than the rule.

I agree; I just don't see "regulation" as the bugaboo that you do. Regulations are often needed. Sometimes it's good to purge them if all they do is hinder business. But the Republicans purge just the ones we most need, like environmental regulations and minimum working conditions standards and wages. The way I've seen small businesses get eaten up fast by chains, especially in the media and new fields like coffee houses, video stores, office supply shops, etc. etc., it's seems clear to me that it's the greedy capitalists who create monopolies; it's always been that way going back to the time of the railroads and the trust companies.

You haven't been keeping track of the regulatory capture that has been happening.  The latest EPA mileage requirements, for example, give bonuses to larger SUVs relative to smaller cars - the allowed fuel consumption is proportional to width times length, with a 50% increase for SUVs - which provides exactly the wrong incentives from an environmental perspective.  Either Obama doesn't really care about the environment or he dropped the ball on that one.  It's par for the course, though; there's a revolving door between the regulators and the industry they regulate, and over time regulations tend more and more to protect big business rather than working for the consumer.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:In the government, the public is the boss and the people have a voice and a vote. The major task is to make sure government is controlled by the people, and not the bosses. If this is done, then the government's only boss is the people. It belongs to them.

"The people" are not monolithic.  What you describe, even in a democracy, is a recipe for dictatorship of the majority.  You may be fine with that when you are in the majority, but I bet you wouldn't be so happy with a government controlled by the religious right and willing to impose their religion on you.

Well, we've got one. And no, I'm already unhappy. And I was unhappy in the extreme under Bush and Reagan. These disasters happened because the people were deceived into voting for the bosses. When the people vote their own interests, I get a government that I'm happy with. That kind of "dictatorship," in which the government we elect has to answer to the people, expressed in their letters, emails and calls and in their votes, and not to the lobbyists for the big bosses, is one I am fine with.

The government is far from controlled by the religious right; they are only one of three major factions in the Republican party.

However, my interests certainly coincide with voting for Republicans at the federal level; I was much better off under Reagan, and even Bush, than I was under Obama or even Clinton.  It sounds like what you want is a government that's responsive to your needs but not to mine.

[Eric the Green]

What's wrong with looking at political issues from a point of view beyond your own personal fortunes?

[Warren Dew]

You're the one who said, "When the people vote their own interests, I get a government that I'm happy with." I didn't realize that you meant you get the government you're happy with when you vote in your own interest, but other people vote against theirs to favor yours. I don't think that's a reasonable expectation.

[David Horn]

(01-21-2017, 09:28 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-21-2017, 11:50 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-20-2017, 02:37 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: ... As to "the question", *shrug*.  Victorian Britain and the pre-1930s US had comparatively minimal bureaucracies.  The Soviet one was quite extensive.  Somalia doesn't have one to speak of.  It is presently fashionable for big tech companies to have relatively flat hierarchies.  Mid-20th century industrial companies had much more structured ones.  I don't think the evidence bears out a claim of "bureacracies good, no bureaucracies bad" or vice versa.  The technological substrate, the presence or not of unifying norms mores and values, the security environment, etc. influence the extent of formal organization required...

In a way, that makes my point.  At one point in time, Chicago was served by 9 railroads that all used different track spacing and profiles.  Needless to say, moving goods from rail system A to rail system B involved unloading by hand, transport between rail yards in some cases and reloading by hand.  That is intolerable today.

And yet, there is still no freight rail link between North Station and South Station in Boston, last I checked.  Somehow we tolerate it.

Are you purposely obtuse?  The issue was standardization of the track. not where it was laid.  Once you standardize, a railcar on System A could be transferred to System B.  Nothing forces the two to merge operations, but having incompatible equipment makes the option moot.

[Warren Dew]

(01-23-2017, 11:26 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-21-2017, 09:28 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-21-2017, 11:50 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-20-2017, 02:37 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: ... As to "the question", *shrug*.  Victorian Britain and the pre-1930s US had comparatively minimal bureaucracies.  The Soviet one was quite extensive.  Somalia doesn't have one to speak of.  It is presently fashionable for big tech companies to have relatively flat hierarchies.  Mid-20th century industrial companies had much more structured ones.  I don't think the evidence bears out a claim of "bureacracies good, no bureaucracies bad" or vice versa.  The technological substrate, the presence or not of unifying norms mores and values, the security environment, etc. influence the extent of formal organization required...

In a way, that makes my point.  At one point in time, Chicago was served by 9 railroads that all used different track spacing and profiles.  Needless to say, moving goods from rail system A to rail system B involved unloading by hand, transport between rail yards in some cases and reloading by hand.  That is intolerable today.

And yet, there is still no freight rail link between North Station and South Station in Boston, last I checked.  Somehow we tolerate it.

Are you purposely obtuse?  The issue was standardization of the track. not where it was laid.  Once you standardize, a railcar on System A could be transferred to System B.  Nothing forces the two to merge operations, but having incompatible equipment makes the option moot.

Lack of a rail link also prevents transfer of rail cars.  Since we have that situation right here in Boston, that's obviously not "intolerable today", as you claim.

[David Horn]

(01-21-2017, 09:25 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-21-2017, 11:54 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-20-2017, 02:44 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-20-2017, 02:02 PM)David Horn Wrote: This is all true, but it avoids the question: can larger, a more complex human society exist without a bureaucracy to organize and manage it?  If yes, can it manage that over an extended period of time?  A 'no' to either question answers the mail.

The bronze age to iron age transition I mentioned resulted in a decrease in bureaucracy despite increases in population level.  The largest iron age empires, such as the Roman Empire, had a more distributed governmental structure that relied less on bureaucracy than the bronze age empires despite being larger.  That reduced level of bureaucracy was sustained for over two millenia until the advent of Communism and partially socialist mixed states.

OK then, let's limit our discussion to modernity, since that's the time frame we occupy.  There is very little infrastructure that doesn't require standardization, and the days or snake oil remedies, unsafe food and competing fire departments is no longer tolerable by anyone.

Standardization needn't imply bureaucracy.  Modern tech standards, for example, were mostly selected by choices of individual users from competing standards for similar purposes.

Really?  In the US, we have two wireless standards: GSM and CDMA.  That was a result of the industry getting its way.  So you have CDMA (Verizon) and GSM (everyone else).  Of course, the devices need to support both, so they are necessarily more complex and expensive.  Solution: merge the two standards ... and soon!  LTE (Long Term Evolution for the uniformed) is the merging process.  5G will see full merger.  That happened because the FCC pushed and pushed hard.

[David Horn]

(01-23-2017, 11:29 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-23-2017, 11:26 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-21-2017, 09:28 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-21-2017, 11:50 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-20-2017, 02:37 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: ... As to "the question", *shrug*.  Victorian Britain and the pre-1930s US had comparatively minimal bureaucracies.  The Soviet one was quite extensive.  Somalia doesn't have one to speak of.  It is presently fashionable for big tech companies to have relatively flat hierarchies.  Mid-20th century industrial companies had much more structured ones.  I don't think the evidence bears out a claim of "bureacracies good, no bureaucracies bad" or vice versa.  The technological substrate, the presence or not of unifying norms mores and values, the security environment, etc. influence the extent of formal organization required...

In a way, that makes my point.  At one point in time, Chicago was served by 9 railroads that all used different track spacing and profiles.  Needless to say, moving goods from rail system A to rail system B involved unloading by hand, transport between rail yards in some cases and reloading by hand.  That is intolerable today.

And yet, there is still no freight rail link between North Station and South Station in Boston, last I checked.  Somehow we tolerate it.

Are you purposely obtuse?  The issue was standardization of the track. not where it was laid.  Once you standardize, a railcar on System A could be transferred to System B.  Nothing forces the two to merge operations, but having incompatible equipment makes the option moot.

Lack of a rail link also prevents transfer of rail cars.  Since we have that situation right here in Boston, that's obviously not "intolerable today", as you claim.

Again, the two can work together if they chose.  If they had equipment that was incompatible, the option wouldn't exist. That's the purpose of standards.  The same logic applies broadly to most technologies, old or new.

[SomeGuy]

(01-23-2017, 11:36 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-23-2017, 11:29 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-23-2017, 11:26 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-21-2017, 09:28 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-21-2017, 11:50 AM)David Horn Wrote: In a way, that makes my point.  At one point in time, Chicago was served by 9 railroads that all used different track spacing and profiles.  Needless to say, moving goods from rail system A to rail system B involved unloading by hand, transport between rail yards in some cases and reloading by hand.  That is intolerable today.

And yet, there is still no freight rail link between North Station and South Station in Boston, last I checked.  Somehow we tolerate it.

Are you purposely obtuse?  The issue was standardization of the track. not where it was laid.  Once you standardize, a railcar on System A could be transferred to System B.  Nothing forces the two to merge operations, but having incompatible equipment makes the option moot.

Lack of a rail link also prevents transfer of rail cars.  Since we have that situation right here in Boston, that's obviously not "intolerable today", as you claim.

Again, the two can work together if they chose.  If they had equipment that was incompatible, the option wouldn't exist. That's the purpose of standards.  The same logic applies broadly to most technologies, old or new.

It causes friction, to be sure, but even incompatible track is not a deal-breaker.  Russia/FSU/Mongolia and China (or Russia/FSU and Europe) do plenty of trade by rail, and yet the FSU/Mongolia's track is incompatible and requires that the bogies be changed/containers be transferred to a new train.  What does this have to do with a need for a higher level of bureaucracy, again?

[Warren Dew]

(01-23-2017, 11:32 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-21-2017, 09:25 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-21-2017, 11:54 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-20-2017, 02:44 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-20-2017, 02:02 PM)David Horn Wrote: This is all true, but it avoids the question: can larger, a more complex human society exist without a bureaucracy to organize and manage it?  If yes, can it manage that over an extended period of time?  A 'no' to either question answers the mail.

The bronze age to iron age transition I mentioned resulted in a decrease in bureaucracy despite increases in population level.  The largest iron age empires, such as the Roman Empire, had a more distributed governmental structure that relied less on bureaucracy than the bronze age empires despite being larger.  That reduced level of bureaucracy was sustained for over two millenia until the advent of Communism and partially socialist mixed states.

OK then, let's limit our discussion to modernity, since that's the time frame we occupy.  There is very little infrastructure that doesn't require standardization, and the days or snake oil remedies, unsafe food and competing fire departments is no longer tolerable by anyone.

Standardization needn't imply bureaucracy.  Modern tech standards, for example, were mostly selected by choices of individual users from competing standards for similar purposes.

Really?  In the US, we have two wireless standards: GSM and CDMA.  That was a result of the industry getting its way.  So you have CDMA (Verizon) and GSM (everyone else).  Of course, the devices need to support both, so they are necessarily more complex and expensive.  Solution: merge the two standards ... and soon!  LTE (Long Term Evolution for the uniformed) is the merging process.  5G will see full merger.  That happened because the FCC pushed and pushed hard.

And we don't know yet whether that will make things better or worse.  I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with the energy inefficiency of CDMA and the spectrum inefficiency of GSM, giving us the worst of both worlds.

[Marypoza]

(01-23-2017, 03:12 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-21-2017, 11:56 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-20-2017, 03:45 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-20-2017, 03:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-20-2017, 02:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Because public power is held by a monopoly:  the government can be as unreasonable as it wants, and the individual can do nothing about it.

Private power is normally held by competing providers; if one provider is unreasonable, the individual can switch to a different provider.

Not if the providers are in a virtual monopoly; choices are limited. The individual can do nothing about the decisions of the owners, and (s)he has no voice and no vote. In the government, the public is the boss and the people have a voice and a vote. The major task is to make sure government is controlled by the people, and not the bosses. If this is done, then the government's only boss is the people. It belongs to them. And only the public institutions can regulate them. Without that regulation, they are ruthless and care only about themselves. Private power unhinged oppresses workers with low wages and unhealthy working conditions. It poisons the environment. It rips off consumers with absolute impunity. It speculates, buys out, concentrates, outsources and destroys the economy. It buys the government. These facts are not disputable. Ignoring them is inexcusable.

Ban all private campaign financing, consider any candidate who accepts foreign money to be committing treason.

In other words, elect Trump!

The opposite. No Russian money, no NRA money, etc, etc.

Only tax payer funded candidates allowed.

-- iow elect Bernie. But we all saw what happened to him

[Eric the Green]

(01-22-2017, 11:39 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: You're the one who said, "When the people vote their own interests, I get a government that I'm happy with."  I didn't realize that you meant you get the government you're happy with when you vote in your own interest, but other people vote against theirs to favor yours.  I don't think that's a reasonable expectation.

You Warren look at politics (at least in this recent post above) from the point of view of how it affects only you personally. But when people vote in their own interest, aware of how policies will affect them and others like them, then they will get a government they are happy with. When they are brainwashed by economic-libertarian and/or religious-right ideology, they get a government that deceives and screws them.

In your post you said, "I was better off under Reagan and Bush" etc. so I vote Republican. That's a very narrow point of view. You were just lucky; most people got royally-screwed under Reagan.

But, some folks will always do better under Republicans. But if people vote their interests, the Democrats will always win, because there are more common people than wealthy ones. And ironically, increasingly so under Republican rule. The problem is, people are also increasingly ignorant under Republican rule.

[Warren Dew]

(01-24-2017, 01:16 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-22-2017, 11:39 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: You're the one who said, "When the people vote their own interests, I get a government that I'm happy with."  I didn't realize that you meant you get the government you're happy with when you vote in your own interest, but other people vote against theirs to favor yours.  I don't think that's a reasonable expectation.

You Warren look at politics (at least in this recent post above) from the point of view of how it affects only you personally. But when people vote in their own interest, aware of how policies will affect them and others like them, then they will get a government they are happy with. When they are brainwashed by economic-libertarian and/or religious-right ideology, they get a government that deceives and screws them.

In your post you said, "I was better off under Reagan and Bush" etc. so I vote Republican. That's a very narrow point of view. You were just lucky; most people got royally-screwed under Reagan.

But, some folks will always do better under Republicans. But if people vote their interests, the Democrats will always win, because there are more common people than wealthy ones. And ironically, increasingly so under Republican rule. The problem is, people are also increasingly ignorant under Republican rule.

Your post was the one that talked about when "people vote their own interests".  I responded with what happened when I, a person, voted my own interests.  That doesn't mean I always vote my own interests; it was following your lead.

Most of the middle class is far better off under Republicans.  The government you like is only good for billionaires, urban hipsters who don't have kids, and folks who treat welfare as a career.

[Eric the Green]

Quote:(01-22-2017, 11:39 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

You're the one who said, "When the people vote their own interests, I get a government that I'm happy with." I didn't realize that you meant you get the government you're happy with when you vote in your own interest, but other people vote against theirs to favor yours. I don't think that's a reasonable expectation.

You Warren look at politics (at least in this recent post above) from the point of view of how it affects only you personally. But when people vote in their own interest, aware of how policies will affect them and others like them, then they will get a government they are happy with. When they are brainwashed by economic-libertarian and/or religious-right ideology, they get a government that deceives and screws them.

In your post you said, "I was better off under Reagan and Bush" etc. so I vote Republican. That's a very narrow point of view. You were just lucky; most people got royally-screwed under Reagan.

But, some folks will always do better under Republicans. But if people vote their interests, the Democrats will always win, because there are more common people than wealthy ones. And ironically, increasingly so under Republican rule. The problem is, people are also increasingly ignorant under Republican rule.

Quote:Warren Dew
Your post was the one that talked about when "people vote their own interests". I responded with what happened when I, a person, voted my own interests. That doesn't mean I always vote my own interests; it was following your lead.

Most of the middle class is far better off under Republicans. The government you like is only good for billionaires, urban hipsters who don't have kids, and folks who treat welfare as a career.

You can dispute the statistics that show otherwise, but you can't make it stick. It is a fact that Republican policies fail, except for the billionaires and some in the other upper classes like you. It is also a fact according to polls I posted here already that billionaires vote Republican and are conservative. The middle class always does way better under Democrats; there wouldn't have even been a middle class without Democratic policies in the thirties. When Reagan came in, it started shrinking. Clinton at least reversed the decline a little bit with his half and half policies, and Obama at least tried.

When you just say "I did well under Reagan, so I vote Republican," it is not about your interests. Individuals can be fortunate because of their own circumstances, while most people like them are not because of government policies. If, like you, they fall victim to libertarian economics slogans, then they vote against their interests, because trickle-down economics only works for the billionaires and millionaires. There was not the slightest connection between your good fortune in the 80s and Reaganomics/Republican policies.

[pbrower2a]

One of the hallmarks of authoritarians is that they question legitimate authority and sponsor not-so-valid authority. Authoritarian groups can speak frequently of "rights" as in "Right to Life", "Right to Work (for much less)", and of course, "Gun Rights". The "rights" for them implies onerous duties or losses for others.  

Interests of a foreign power hostile to American and other democracy are not legitimate rights in America.  

Quote:Of all the so-called dark money groups involved in the 2016 election, none spent more than the N.R.A. The $30 million it expended to elect Trump was three times more than the N.R.A. spent on Mitt Romney’s behalf in the 2012 election.

That $30 million, however, is just what the N.R.A. spent on the presidential race. It also backed other candidates, reportedly spending $55 million overall. The organization helped Republicans cement control of Congress. If it did so with Russia’s assistance, the whole party is implicated.

Of course, the citizenry has no way of knowing where any of that money came from. But the F.B.I. almost certainly does. We’re far from understanding what role, if any, the N.R.A. played in helping Russia help Trump. But a scandal that encompasses both the Trump campaign and the right’s most powerful lobby would be bigger than most people imagined before Thursday.

“In terms of what the Russians are doing in the United States, it’s far broader than just the Trump campaign,” Schiff told me. “In that sense when people think that the Russian intervention was just about tipping the scales to one of the candidates in 2016, they’re thinking far too narrowly.”

from the New York Times on the Russia-NRA connection

[Kinser79]

(01-23-2017, 03:12 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: The opposite. No Russian money, no NRA money, etc, etc.

Only tax payer funded candidates allowed.

The rumors of Russians spending money on the election are over blown and even if they did they probably spent it in favor of HRC in 2016 as she is a known intitity and thus predictable.  As of yet the only credible evidence is that some Russians bought some adds on Facebook.  So unless you want to ban ads on facebook (and thus their revenue stream) that isn't happening.

The rest of it will result in only establishment candidates being presented unless an insanely rich person is driven to run for president or other office through self-funding.

For someone who yells loudly about being anti-authoritarian and anti-totalitarian this policy would result in  both an authoritarian and totalitarian government.  I'm unsure if this is due to a lack of self-awareness, paranoia or a more basic ignorance of the law of unintended consequences.

Thankfully we usually don't write laws on the whims of the ignorant, unaware or mentally ill, well, unless one lives in Commiefornia.

[pbrower2a]

(01-21-2018, 06:21 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(01-23-2017, 03:12 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: The opposite. No Russian money, no NRA money, etc, etc.

Only tax payer funded candidates allowed.

The rumors of Russians spending money on the election are over blown and even if they did they probably spent it in favor of HRC in 2016 as she is a known intitity and thus predictable.  As of yet the only credible evidence is that some Russians bought some adds on Facebook.  So unless you want to ban ads on facebook (and thus their revenue stream) that isn't happening.

You have responded to a post from nearly a year ago. The problem isn't that the Russians bought ads on Facebook; the problem is that they deliberately misrepresented themselves. I would not have a problem with Exxon-Mobil, or even Toyota buying advertising space for promoting their political agenda -- so long as they make clear who they are. I expect an apartment owner to warn tenants that if the millage increases, then so will rents. Cheap rent or better schools -- take your pick. But as a rule, I prefer that those who buy the ads disclose themselves and hence the sources of the ads. The Russians who put in the advertising pretended to be Americans. American election laws prohibit foreigners from making campaign contributions that include the purchase of advertising.

Speaking of the Narodni Rifle Association... ahem, officially National Rifle Association... it apparently served to funnel funds from Russian oligarchs and mobsters into the Trump campaign and the GOP in general. This is a recent exposure.

Quote:The rest of it will result in only establishment candidates being presented unless an insanely rich person is driven to run for president or other office through self-funding.

For someone who yells loudly about being anti-authoritarian and anti-totalitarian this policy would result in  both an authoritarian and totalitarian government.  I'm unsure if this is due to a lack of self-awareness, paranoia or a more basic ignorance of the law of unintended consequences.

Thankfully we usually don't write laws on the whims of the ignorant, unaware or mentally ill, well, unless one lives in Commiefornia.

The nexus between big money and politics has developed to the point that for all practical purposes, lobbyists now run Congress. Government by lobbyist is a novel form of undemocratic rule.

[Kinser79]

(01-21-2018, 02:36 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: You have responded to a post from nearly a year ago.

Irrelvant. Though I have noticed that even Alphabet has dropped off the forum. Perhaps he's embarassed himself enough with his #NeverTrump agenda.

Quote:American election laws prohibit foreigners from making campaign contributions that include the purchase of advertising.

Not quite. American election laws prohibit foreigners from making contributions to campaigns and purchasing ads for campaigns. Foreigners are free to advertise their political agenda all they want provided they don't touch the campaign. It is a loophole that the Democrats have used before too.

Quote:Speaking of the Narodni Rifle Association... ahem, officially National Rifle Association... it apparently served to funnel funds from Russian oligarchs and mobsters into the Trump campaign and the GOP in general. This is a recent exposure.

Citation needed. Oh wait...there isn't one because if there was the MSM would be screaming about it from the roof tops.

Quote:The nexus between big money and politics has developed to the point that for all practical purposes, lobbyists now run Congress. Government by lobbyist is a novel form of undemocratic rule.

I agree which is why Trump self-funded (with some aid from small donations and merch sales) (besides the fact he could) and why HRC was largely bought and paid for by large dollar donors and only was interested in making speeches if she could get at least 1 Million from doing so. Only the rich have the cash to waste in that manner.

[David Horn]

(01-21-2018, 10:43 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(01-21-2018, 02:36 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The nexus between big money and politics has developed to the point that for all practical purposes,  lobbyists now run Congress. Government by lobbyist is a novel form of undemocratic rule.

I agree which is why Trump self-funded (with some aid from small donations and merch sales) (besides the fact he could) and why HRC was largely bought and paid for by large dollar donors and only was interested in making speeches if she could get at least 1 Million from doing so.  Only the rich have the cash to waste in that manner.

I should assume you're joking, but on the off chance you're not, where do you get this idea? Trump has been the biggest shill in the nation's history, and has handed the keys to the government to private interests almost exclusively. I'm no Hillary fan, but she pales in comparison.

Government has been broken every since Saint Ronald declared that the government is the problem. Assuming Trump gets 8 year, we may be nearing the point where it will be fully privatized. Let's see how you like high fees but lower taxes. I suspect the out of pocket cost will grow dramatically. The PPP that expanded I-66 in NoVA has "congestion pricing" on its tolls that can run as high as $40 for a one-way ride home from work ... no viable alternative available.

[pbrower2a]

(01-22-2018, 12:37 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-21-2018, 10:43 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(01-21-2018, 02:36 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The nexus between big money and politics has developed to the point that for all practical purposes,  lobbyists now run Congress. Government by lobbyist is a novel form of undemocratic rule.

I agree which is why Trump self-funded (with some aid from small donations and merch sales) (besides the fact he could) and why HRC was largely bought and paid for by large dollar donors and only was interested in making speeches if she could get at least 1 Million from doing so.  Only the rich have the cash to waste in that manner.

I should assume you're joking, but on the off chance you're not, where do you get this idea?  Trump has been the biggest shill in the nation's history, and has handed the keys to the government to private interests almost exclusively.  I'm no Hillary fan, but she pales in comparison.

Government has been broken every since Saint Ronald declared that the government is the problem.   Assuming Trump gets 8 year, we may be nearing the point where it will be fully privatized.  Let's see how you like high fees but lower taxes.  I suspect the out of pocket cost will grow dramatically.  The PPP that expanded I-66 in NoVA has "congestion pricing" on its tolls that can run as high as $40 for a one-way ride home from work ... no viable alternative available.

I can think of alternatives -- staying at a motel overnight, or staying at work until 7PM or so. Neither is good for family life, especially if one has a spouse who assumes that instead of commuting in a traffic jam you are playing hide the salami with the cute secretary or that steamy hunk in the office.

Note that monopoly pricing ordinarily approaches the cost of some expensive alternative. Unregulated monopoly  under the control of rapacious plutocrats or unfeeling bureaucrats is a harsh way to run things.

[Mikebert]

Looks like Kinser has left.