Cutting in Icicle Creek Canyon

[AlpineK]

By all rights Rat is the only person qualified on this board to talk about cutting trees over in Der land.

 

Fuck yeah Pagetop Eat shit Mtn Goatfuck

Edited January 5, 2003 by AlpineK

[MtnGoat]

nothing as boring as a continuing saga of one liners, complaints about other posters, personal attacks, etc.

Edited January 5, 2003 by MtnGoat

[j_b]

ah yes! the lamo argument of people chosing not to vote. It may be difficult for you to understand but I am going to say it once nonetheless. Whatever the reason for not voting may be, poor roads and lots of rain on election day, population disenfranchised from the political process (and often for good reasons), people drunk on hamburger and cable tv, etc ... In the end, the bottom line is: this society does not give itself the means to have a large fraction of its population going to the box, which results in specific social/interest groups controlling policy.

 

So one last time since it apparently did not sink in: 18% of the potential vote is no mandate for radically changing policy. Until more people participate to the political process anyone wanting to make policy unilaterally (and against the will of the population at large) is going far beyond any legitimacy conveyed by the current level of participation.

 

and yes you are right, Reagan was elected by approx. 25% of the voting age population so it was far from the landslide the media claimed it was.

[MtnGoat]

"Whatever the reason for not voting may be, poor roads and lots of rain on election day, population disenfranchised from the political process (and often for good reasons), people drunk on hamburger and cable tv, etc ..."

 

So what you are telling me is people not interested enough to vote, should be considered as having no say in the process when being drunk on hamburgers or cable TV is apparently trumping their desire to serve their own political goals, as they see them. Interesting.

 

"In the end, the bottom line is: this society does not give itself the means to have a large fraction of its population going to the box, which results in specific social/interest groups controlling policy."

 

The means are this. Any non felon of age is eligible to vote. Anyone interested in voting need merely register, then show up a few times a year *or* get an absentee ballot.

 

Anyone so disinterested that they cannot make these very basic efforts to "franchise" themselves, is not exacly showing evidence of a commitment to saying their piece by vote, IMO.

 

"So one last time since it apparently did not sink in: 18% of the potential vote is no mandate for radically changing policy. "

 

Oh, it sinks in all right. Problem is we are not in a parliamentary system.

 

 

[j_b]

sigh.

 

since when ours not being a parliamentary democracy is a good excuse for small interest groups dictating policy to the majority?

[sexual_chocolate]

Tribout, do you really think that voting access is a serious problem in the US? I heard of instances in Florida, instances that seemed quite serious, but do you think this is widespread enough to claim that the entire process is corrupt?

 

And I really want to repeat my previous assertion: It doesn't matter whether the pres got 1% of total eligible votes or 99%; if he/she wins, that's it. Vote the ass out of office next election. Get the public off their goddamn fat asses and to the polls. People whining and moaning about the conditions, yet doing nothing about it really pisses me off.

[sexual_chocolate]

One point you bring up here I have a problem with: felons losing voting priveleges for life.

When did this law come into effect? Anyone know? Have challenges been brought against it?

It seems to me that once a person's sentence/debt to society is fulfilled, that's that. This law turns the penalty into a life sentence.

[Winter]

Hey Goat -

 

Before stepping up on your sopbox next time, why don't you rearead your own posts. I quote:

 

Lands, the economy, and commerce can take care of themselves with much less oversight.

 

I said commerce and the economy require a strong federal government and you said:

 

I could not disagree more. Some elements of transpo and many elements of defense require centralized planning. Lands, the economy, and commerce can take care of themselves with much less oversight.

 

So, it appears you were in fact arguing that the economy and commerce DO NOT NEED A STRONG FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. YOU EQUATED LANDS AND COMMERCE.

 

So, should each bank set its own interest rate? Should the government be left simply to enforce contracts? Where is the line that you draw? Should the government encourage specific behaviors, such as buying an efificent car, with tax rebates? Where is the line that you seem to argue is so clear? Should the government mandate fuel efficiency? Should the government tax dividends? Should the government regulate accounting practices? Should the government regulate production processes to prevent externalized costs? Should the government regulate consumption of our shared natural resources? Should the government make it illegal to prevent women from voting? Should the government make it illegal to prevent a poll tax of $100?

 

You seem to have this clear picture of exactly what the federal government should do. What is your principle and how do you apply it to specific policy issues?

 

Also, the Constitution is actually a document that confirms the fact that all power lies in the states EXCEPT that which is given to the federal government. It is actually a GRANT of authority to the federal government over states, not primarily a LIMIT to federal authority. The basic understanding of the framers was that the federal government had nothing that the states did not voluntarily give up. It may be a matter of interpretation, but the document is written to GIVE authority to the government not take it away. The Tenth Amendment is actually the limiting

clause of the constitution, but the framers viewed the Constitution as a GRANT of authority, which is why it was such a big deal to give up the power of self-determination.

 

I don't quite get your point when you allege I think the Constitution makes what I want "convenient" or "efficient." Name a policy I am in favor off and then tell me why federal regulation in that arena violates the Constitutional grants of authority to the federal government. You may not agree with many federal policies, but you are way off base (according to the Supreme Court) if you think the federal government has overstepped its constitutional authority in most of those cases. Your constitutional arguments fail in almost all cases. You would be better off arguing the policy issues and not some pie in the sky concept of what the federal government's roll in life should be.

 

Finally, you seem to constantly spout off about private "rights" ... the "right" to control ones own resources ... the "right" to hiring etc. etc. Where exactly do these rights come from? The constitution contains a Bill of Rights and the courts have interpreted what that document means. Are you refering to a Constitutional "right" to control one's own resources - i.e. private property - however one wants without regard to the interests of other individuals or the common good? Is there some other source for the rights you hold so central to individual existence? What is the source of your basic guiding principles?

 

 

 

[fleblebleb]

Whoah. Welcome to the land of the long posts. How about some LONG POSTS ABOUT CLIMBING y'all? Try to throw some in there when you get time off from saving the world.

[sexual_chocolate]

Devil's son.

[sexual_chocolate]

Is there some other source for the rights you hold so central to individual existence? What is the source of your basic guiding principles?

 

He has been heavily influenced by Libertarian thought. I believe Ayn Rand is only one (small) example of this influence.

[j_b]

didn't you read my post? I didn't say it is lack of access. I say that whatever the reason for not voting does not fundamentally change the issue of legitimacy and special interest group dictating policy.

 

You may vote him out of office next term but the damage to the environment, internal security, our image abroad, etc ... will take a lot more than voting him out of office to fix. Have you ever heard about the balance of power in government?

[AlpineK]

OK

 

I just want to say

 

JB and Goatfuck can FUCK OFF TOGETHER.

 

I vote, I'm willing to argue and listen to political stuff.

 

BUT WHAT YOU GUYS DO IS BORING

 

If you want to jack off then do it in private.

[j_b]

[fleblebleb]

Or alternatively jb and goat can go off and climb something and write about it afterwards. Call it penance, hahaha

[sexual_chocolate]

I agree: whatever the issue for not voting doesn't change the legitimacy; not voting itself does that very well.

 

Would you say that Hugo Chavez has no mandate, even though elected by a popular majority, but less than 50% of the public?

[allthumbs]

Who gives a shit. Put a sock in it hoe.

[allison]

With all due respect, the Goat does not climb. I don't climb very much, but he does not climb at all. So I guess if it is possible to say so, he climbs even less than I do.

 

He does, however, bring Jiffy Pop and safety equipment on long hikes.

[allthumbs]

is he the same mtn. goat as the wanker from nwhikers.com ?

[MtnGoat]

"since when ours not being a parliamentary democracy is a good excuse for small interest groups dictating policy to the majority?"

 

I can't really answer that for you, since I don't think it's an excuse, I believe it is a reason, and a good one.

 

What I'm interested in is how you intend to justify any action you propose or support, since the same standard you propose for measuring majority, likewise will show a small number of people imposing their will on a majority.

 

[MtnGoat]

"So, it appears you were in fact arguing that the economy and commerce DO NOT NEED A STRONG FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. YOU EQUATED LANDS AND COMMERCE. "

 

It appears we have a confusion in terms here, and it is my fault for making assumptions about how we view the same set of issues from drastically different perspectives.

 

From my perspective, rule of law and enforcement are not the same as directing *outcomes* of commerce, such as interest rates, monopoly regulation (and creation) for example, which are examples of how some people expect a strong govt to fix desired outcomes of a free market, rather than upholding self determination and rule of law.

 

When I say I expect an economy to not need a strong federal govt, that means I do not expect the federal govt to pick winners and losers, create "incentives" for one industry over another, pay subsidies, or any other number of marketplace manipulations which have nothing whatsoever to do with maintaining a currency or enforcing contract law between consenting parties.

 

It's my fault for not making clear that I do not see a need for a strong federal govt in manipulating outcomes of a marketplace as the examples I have provided, but I do see a need (and a mandate) for one that preserves law that creates stable commerce due to reliable prohibition agaisnt fraud, and theft. My bad. I hope I've cleared it up a bit.

 

"So, should each bank set its own interest rate?"

 

Of course.

 

"Should the government be left simply to enforce contracts?"

 

Yes.

 

"Where is the line that you draw?"

 

The govt is mandated (IMO) to maintain a legal structure that preserves self determination, private property, enforcement of contracts, anti fraud, and other basic elements law.

 

"Should the government encourage specific behaviors, such as buying an efificent car, with tax rebates?"

 

No. Subsidies distort the market.

 

"Should the government mandate fuel efficiency?"

No.

 

"Should the government tax dividends?"

 

Not if they are already taxed elsewhere.

 

"Should the government regulate accounting practices?"

 

As relates to fraud prevention, yes.

 

"Should the government regulate production processes to prevent externalized costs?"

 

No. If market costs externalized from production can be assessed to the consumer, such as disposal of what they use, in a free market manner free of manipulation, that's perfectly acceptable. Having someone just decide what they think external costs "should" be, free of market forces, is not valid, because costs only apply if there is a market in the first place to determine them.

 

"Should the government regulate consumption of our shared natural resources?"

 

No. Free market prices regulate consumption in direct proportion to the cost of producing the resource. This is why subsidies for production should not be in place, it creates resources that are priced lower than actual production cost and in turn consumption rises to an artificially high level due to the unnaturally low price.

 

"Should the government make it illegal to prevent women from voting?"

 

Yes.

 

"Should the government make it illegal to prevent a poll tax of $100?"

 

Yes.

 

"You seem to have this clear picture of exactly what the federal government should do. What is your principle and how do you apply it to specific policy issues?"

 

The federal govt is to take care of national defense, foreign policy, currency maintaince, interpretation of the constitution, and other extremely high level issues. Not education. Not arts. Not a space program. Not retirement. Not medical care. Only the barest minimum of national, non social, issues that are delegated by the constitution.

 

"It may be a matter of interpretation, but the document is written to GIVE authority to the government not take it away. The Tenth Amendment is actually the limiting

clause of the constitution, but the framers viewed the Constitution as a GRANT of authority, which is why it was such a big deal to give up the power of self-determination."

 

I agree it is a matter of interpretation, but in the end it works out the same, grant or limit, the powers not specifically vested in the fed by the constitution are reserved to the states or the people. This covers the areas I detailed above as having no federal mandate.

 

"I don't quite get your point when you allege I think the Constitution makes what I want "convenient" or "efficient." "

 

My mistake. Often I have been told that my gosh, if every state has to do the same thing, it won't be as efficient as one big body doing it all. I apologize if I was appearing to put words in your mouth, or did so.

 

"You may not agree with many federal policies, but you are way off base (according to the Supreme Court) if you think the federal government has overstepped its constitutional authority in most of those cases. Your constitutional arguments fail in almost all cases. "

 

That even the supreme court ignores the explicit instructions in the 10th as to jurisdiction over non mentioned powers is something I cannot explain other than a desire not to upset many applecarts, in favor of ignoring a very explicit amendment. The amendment specifically says those powers not delegated, or granted to use your terms, are not federal ones. This necessarily includes the issues I mentioned.

 

"You would be better off arguing the policy issues and not some pie in the sky concept of what the federal government's roll in life should be."

 

I do argue the policy issues, but without a pie in the sky goal no issues have direction or meaning. You asked above for principles, which are impossible to follow perfectly in practice, yet they provide direction and goals, so I submit pie in the sky ideas are vital and relevant to defining direction.

 

"Where exactly do these rights come from?"

 

Innately yours by right of birth. A secular but religious viewpoint.

 

"Are you refering to a Constitutional "right" to control one's own resources - i.e. private property - however one wants without regard to the interests of other individuals or the common good?"

 

No. Each of us judges the state of our constitution and our nation by our own principles, outside of any constitution, and applies them to what change we think is needed.

 

"Is there some other source for the rights you hold so central to individual existence? What is the source of your basic guiding principles?"

 

Your self ownership of your body and mind, and your labor and life. And others self ownership of their bodies and minds, and their labor. For all intents and purposes, the closest philosophy is Objectivism. The guiding principle is that save for using violence against others, taking their self determination via fraud, or other likewise crimes of person or property, your life and values are your own to live and determine.

 

Any person with even a smattering of understanding realizes cooperation is extremely valuable, so these principles do not mean isolation, but it does mean giving up on "cooperation" at gunpoint, as a social tool.

 

Thanks for the fun, great to have a principled opponent not given to personal attacks and a serious discussion. I apologize for my role in any confusion as I stated above.

 

 

Edited January 5, 2003 by MtnGoat

[sexual_chocolate]

"Should the government mandate fuel efficiency?"

No.

 

Mtgoat, you've changed your mind on this one. I didn't bother reading the rest of your opinions, but this one stood out. Earlier you had said some intervention was called for, but you had misgivings. Why the change of heart?

 

Confidential to Tarasque: Are you drunk again?

[Fairweather]

So you, J_B, naturally lay claim to 100% of these "disenfranchised" citizens?

[Fairweather]

Sc,

 

You mean Hugo Chavez, the trojan horse communist leader who shoots peaceful union protesters dead in the streets? That Hugo Chavez?

Are you a member of a (now armed) Bolivarian Circle?

 

Is he another one of your "revolutionary" heros?

 

.....oh yeah; and I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that the US government intentionally killed native americans with smallpox..... your silence is killin' me!

Edited January 5, 2003 by Fairweather

[To_The_Top]

Jees MtnGoat, do you just cut and paste all day. Try giving cliff notes for those who go to sleep reading what you say.

You should start climbing and trying to get rid of your angst.