Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

The 30-year-old in his parents' home

Recs

43

January 25, 2010 – Comments (64)

If you're wondering if it's hypocritical for me to hold that most people are, by and large, ignorant and tasteless slobs, while simultaneously advocating radical freedom (no speed limits, no drug laws, no government imposed licensing requirements, no taxes or tariffs... in fact, no government at all), I invite you to imagine a scenario that is really not imaginary at all, but is familiar to us in these times: a 30-year-old college graduate living with his parents. He has no ambition, no career to speak of, and no desire to change. He's comfortable, he's successful at the latest FPS (a style of video game), and nothing's gonna change his world. Our gut, instinctive and unrationalized, tells us that this is wrong. A wasted life.

One might say it is his responsibility to do better with his life. Quite right. Should his friends, if they are any different, help him to see the error of his ways? No doubt. But who else could do better in this unfortunate situation? Is no one else guilty? I say there's plenty of guilt to go around: to the guy, to his friends, if they know better and remain silent, but most of all to the parents. They had 18 years to raise an adult capable and willing to make his responsible, self-provisional way through the adult world, and squandered not just those but 12 more. Finally, they rob him of the one thing that can save him now at this late date: necessity. Were he exposed to true necessity, the need for food, the primal desire for shelter, and the longing for the luxuries he had when he was cradled in the second womb of untimely paternalism would spur him to find a job that would afford those things. If he could not find such a job right away, even better: he would have something to work towards, and the light of healthy ambition would spark in his erstwhile dark spirit.

So it is with the public. Coddled into our adult years, protected from drugs, prostitutes, high speeds, and unlabeled food (and soon, the option of a poor diet to entice those poor slobs in their parents' basements), we lose our ability and our desire to protect ourselves. Robbed of choices, we lose the ability to discern which choice is best. Saved from poverty by unemployment insurance and welfare, we lose our sense of why we need to work at all. So to say that the 30-year-old is a slob ill-equipped to fend for himself is no argument against his being put out on his own, but completely to the contrary, and likewise the teeming masses yearning to be swaddled. Swaddle them no more, and perhaps they, or at least their children, may once again yearn to breathe free.

I have been hearing a lot recently about Europe, particularly Scandinavian countries, and how they have this social program and that social benefit, and single-payer health care, and how their socialist government is so much better than the one here (in the U.S.). And they do it so much cheaper! This is no different from saying that the Hendersens are better at managing their 30-year-old than the Wests are, even though the Wests are richer and have more stuff. While one could argue that the Hendersens have the advantage of a more family oriented cultural background (i.e. the profound cultural differences between Norway and the U.S. make socialism somewhat more practical there than here), or that kicking them both out of their respective houses to fend for themselves would provide an eventual increase in their wealth (after an initial period of hardship and adjustment), or even that the Hendersens, being poorer than the Wests, are likely to run out of money in another 10 years or so, more important and fundamental than any of these points is that it is simply wrong for their parents to keep them. It destroys their creativity, their work-satisfaction, their ambition - it robs them of important aspects of who they are. It is cancerous to spirit and soul. At least young Mr. West knows that something is wrong. He is a violent, irascible man with no contentment or satisfaction in life. By being (marginally) better parents, the Hendersens are able to maintain their daughter's illusion that this is a good and acceptable arrangement for life; that living in your parents' shelter, and eating their food, and spending frivolously while earning little or nothing, is normal and right. The Wests are richer than the Hendersens because they were hardy, adventurous entrepreneurs, taking risks, coddled by no one, and building tremendous wealth through creativity, hard work, and ingenuity - all the qualities they are stifling in their son - and the young West intuits something of it. He can't put his finger on it, but he knows something is wrong, and he acts up, like a 2-year-old unconsciously craving discipline and boundaries. So in some ways, the Wests are closer to doing the right thing, but they still are not doing it, and the results are very messy.

Allow me a digression for a moment. In many cases those who are greediest and wealthiest are those who arose out of desperate poverty, and overcompensated for what they lacked in their early years: money and that which money can buy. They are unable to balance their desire for gain and instinctive hoarding with spiritual, familial, or artistic pursuits. On the reverse of that same token, those who are raised with everything they want are raised without that which they most need: the spark of desire. It is easy for someone raised in the lap of total luxury to assert that "Desire is the root of all suffering." Those struck by natural disaster and disease would likely offer those as other possible roots. I am not being glib, but to say that philosophy, nay, unpretentious thoughtfulness, seeks to find a balance amongst pursuit of material wealth, pursuit of spiritual understanding, pursuit of artistic expression, pursuit of familial love, pursuit of anything you might think worth pursuing. To eschew pursuit as evil, and to enshrine unproductive behavior or listlessness as the highest virtue, is a great disservice to the human spirit and to those who suffer from want. When a man is starving, it does him no good to tell him to stop wanting to eat food.

One might say that our 30-year-old slob needs his parents, that is, needs them to kick him out of their house. This is very different from saying that they should protect him, provide for him, or offer him any material help in any way. He is certainly better off if he learns to provide for himself. Someone might say that paternalism is required in the case of someone who is severely mentally handicapped, or that some other help is needed for someone who has another handicap, or that it is right for the parents to take him in if his house is destroyed in a disaster. But the metaphor easily gives way to literalism here: the handicapped and disaster victims require their real family, not the government, who is both a poor substitute for a family and a grossly codependent enabler. Those unfortunate adults who have no family can make friends, and when a child's immediate family die, a good family can adopt her. It is no problem for a civilized society to take care of its own without government; at least, it is less problematic than trying to take care of yourselves and each other despite a government and enduring its help.

64 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On January 25, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Option1307 (29.96) wrote:

Very well written piece and I basically agree 100%. Thanks for sharing.

+1

Report this comment
#2) On January 25, 2010 at 5:33 PM, miteycasey (30.68) wrote:

First law of welfare: you should do something productive to get your check.

Report this comment
#3) On January 25, 2010 at 5:40 PM, chk999 (99.97) wrote:

Given how poorly most people drive, if we abolish speed limits I'm getting an M1A1 main battle tank. People will still crash into me, but it will damage them not me.

Report this comment
#4) On January 25, 2010 at 5:54 PM, FleaBagger (28.76) wrote:

@chk999: People would crash into each other, desperately trying to avoid crashing into you.

Report this comment
#5) On January 25, 2010 at 6:33 PM, StKitt (29.87) wrote:

Interesting piece, but I think it suffers from a certain fallacy.

Governments, and the people who establish them, don't create welfare states out of any sense of altruism (pure altruism is an illusion), but directly out of their fear of the violence possible when hordes of desperately poor people aggregate in close proximity to (much fewer) comfortably wealthy people. For reference, please Google "popular revolutions/revolts."

Whether they acknowledge it or not, wealthy conservatives and wealthy liberals have the same exact goal for the larger society: to keep the peace so the wealthy can keep getting wealthier. But conservatives and liberals have diametrically opposed theories/methods for keeping said peace. The wealthy conservative wants to control the poor by means of a large police state (see politicians chest-thumping for "law & order," calling for more prisons, tougher sentencing, etc.), keeping the poor down by threat and force. Conversely, the wealthy liberal wants to control the poor by means of a large welfare state, maintaining a standard of living for the poor that is just bearable enough to extinguish the poor's ambition to revolt (or to otherwise innovate). Neither side of the wealth spectrum has any illusions about the poor moving up in the world; they just want the poor sufficiently controlled, available for necessary labor, and otherwise out of the way of the dealings of wealth.

It is a dialectic as old as civilization, and there are major flaws in both approaches. Thus, the poor will occasionally revolt. I theorize that the advent of electronic media, primarily radio and television, have been the most effective tool against popular revolt in modern western civilization. A poor man on the street, hearing or reading news for the first time, is more likely to take part in a mob than a man sitting at home listening to news via radio or TV. The listener or viewer won't usually take the extra decision to go out into the streets and join up with like-minded individuals to form a mob.

We'd just better hope that the power grids never go down for any length of time...

 

 

Report this comment
#6) On January 25, 2010 at 6:59 PM, starbucks4ever (98.67) wrote:

On the one hand, you are right and the 30-year old guy is not entirely blameless. On the other...The 10% unemployment is still a reality and if you tell all of them to go and find a job, some with succeed, but the majority will still fail.

Report this comment
#7) On January 25, 2010 at 7:40 PM, tkell31 (23.49) wrote:

So what do you propose? It's the human predicatment, absent some Orwellian intervention it is as inevitable as the sun rising in the east.  I would say we should be protecting ourselves from those that are the greediest and power hungry while letting the slovenly and lazy to their just desserts. The only remaining variable is to see where technology takes us in our evolution as a species.  Judging by the past 20 years it should be an interesting ride.

Report this comment
#8) On January 25, 2010 at 7:59 PM, bassnman45 (35.54) wrote:

If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime.    Author unknown ,to me at least

 Thanks for sharing ,Fleabagger. +1

Report this comment
#9) On January 25, 2010 at 8:02 PM, ozzfan1317 (82.25) wrote:

I'm an unemployed 24 year old college student maybe he just has no desire to work remedial labor.

Report this comment
#10) On January 25, 2010 at 11:40 PM, gartersnk (54.60) wrote:

work remedial labor??

 work is work if it provides the necessities rather than sponge off someone else

exemplifies the problem with today's generation no concept of survival - and a sense of entitlement either from the government or parents

great social commentary

Report this comment
#11) On January 25, 2010 at 11:42 PM, devoish (97.09) wrote:

What do you figure, Flea, that there are what, two maybe three hundred of those 30 year olds living comfortably off their parents with no ambition?

Obviously there a few other people in this Country who are not those thirty year olds, let's go see if we can meet some of them.

First among the not thirty year olds are the men and women who have worked for forty five years of their lives, and now live at various levels of comfort or poverty.

Second among those not thirty year olds, are the many who answered the call of distraught mothers and fathers when their sons were found pinned by an overturned farm tractor, and then  those who worked tirelessly for decades to get roll bars and safety belts and pto shields onto tractors, Those men who knew that at the end of a long day, hard working men are tired and more accident prone. And so those farmers are coddled, but left with their limbs.

Third among those not thirty year olds are the many working  Americans whose intelligence allows them to be victims of credit cards that promise a loan at one rate, then collect at another. Americans who, are not worthy of the your compassion, reserved for the severely mentally handicapped, for they are lost in limbo, not dumb enough to be helped, but still dumb enough to be victims of criminals who steal by pen and contract, in a language understood by few leaving them with no means but their parents house.

Fourth among those not thirty year olds are warriors who fought and were injured, then in their hour of weakness, those they fought for turned their backs in thanks, leaving them with no means but their parents house.

Fifth among those not thirty year olds are those who turned their back on accumulation of material wealth, and instead labor to find the poisons that sicken our children, sapping their strength and will, turning parenthood from a joy into a nightmare as the dreams of tomorrow fade before the onslaught of polluted wells.

I can go on.

Sixth among those not thirty year olds are the young men and women my age and younger, who left their parents homes encouraged to learn a trade, dreaming of a better life for their children, an opportunity to get them to college.

Seventh among those not thirty year olds are the women whose careers were derailed by cancers and heart disease.

Eighth among those not thirty year olds are the moms and dads not raising kids, sterilized by chemicals in their drinking water and swallowing a fortune in pills in the hope of more sperm and a pregnancy.

Ninth among those not thirty year olds are the unborn victims of atrazine. Conceived in love or passion or drunken cravings, their young lives aborted after conception, as they cannot connect to their mothers uterus.

I'll not go on.

Well written as your post is, it still emanates from below the tail of a bull.

most people are, by and large, ignorant and tasteless slobs

No. Most people are not. Most people are decent, wishing only to raise healthy children in a livable world.

In many cases those who are greediest and wealthiest are those who arose out of desperate poverty, and overcompensated for what they lacked in their early years: money and that which money can buy.

You only imagine this, in America very few rise out of poverty to wealth. Many, through the help of gov't assistance, rise out of poverty to the working class.

To eschew pursuit as evil, and to enshrine unproductive behavior or listlessness as the highest virtue, is a great disservice to the human spirit and to those who suffer from want.

It is not the pursuit that makes the evil. I have never met anyone who believes achievment and hard work is evil. I have met many who believe that murder is evil, and that stealing is evil. Poisoning anothers well to gain wealth is evil. Polluting a stream to wipe out competition is evil. Hiding the terms of a loan contract is evil.

Only one thing falls from the back of a bull, and you caught it on paper.

Eleventh are the parents of autism. Parents who can see the spark you so admire in their childrens eyes. Who see their children struggle to achieve, reaching but unable to grasp. Parents whose elation at a fleeting achievment, there for a moment and then lost, neither you nor I will ever know. Parents whose love drives them seek out any solution for any price at any cost to themselves. Parents whose despair neither you nor I can feel when their hope is exhausted. 

Twelfth are the thirty year olds living at home because it is cheap. Welcomed by their parents who are smart enough to know that a son or daughter who saves for a house is in a better position than one who borrows.

Thirteenth are the thirty year olds who live at home because it cheap. Welcomed by their parents who are proud of a child who researches a story on gov't waste and corruption and is not yet paid for their labors.

Fourteenth are the thirty year olds who live at home because it is cheap. Children of a single parent they passed on college and are stuck in menial jobs, putting younger siblings through college.

Fifteenth are the thirty year olds who live at home with a demented parent. Children who work long hours then come home to wipe their fathers ass. Thankful for the nurse supplied by the Gov't handout known as Medicaid and the sibling who comes by for the four hours after he leaves and before the nurse arrives.

I could go on..

I really did not enjoy this pompous, self righteous exaggeration of a stereotype, believe you over estimate its population, and frankly think you need to meet more people.

It is no problem for a civilized society to take care of its own without government.

And yet, it has never happened.

Unless you have found an model? Because so far, none of you small Gov't guys have.

Report this comment
#12) On January 26, 2010 at 12:16 AM, buildgreen (< 20) wrote:

Why is labor remedial? Great joy can come from actually doing. In fact the highest intellects among us discovered this and disproportionately do "your remedial labor" Look up mensa professions. Don’t be another entitled college graduate.. be an American, pay homage to our forefathers and work for your future however it comes to you. 

Report this comment
#13) On January 26, 2010 at 2:20 AM, nthought (< 20) wrote:

One thing that always ticks me off is when people assume that Scandinavian countries have a cultural affinity for socialism and the U.S. more with laissez-faire capitalism. Since when have we seen laissez-faire work better here?  It's been a disaster.  I don't really understand this and furthermore think that the American system seems to be coming completely unhinged under its current economic configuration, just as it did in the late 1920's. 

Report this comment
#14) On January 26, 2010 at 3:54 AM, FleaBagger (28.76) wrote:

@devoish: as much as I enjoyed your comment, I have only two things to say in response. 1) Do you not know what a metaphor is? and 2) I don't know how you define model, but here's what I think of as a winner of a model: absolute, uninfringed freedom of all kinds; freedom from the violence and threats you advocate.

@StKitt: I don't see the part where what you said contradicts what I said. It looks like you and I agree here.... except that I believe a power grid failure could have some serious benefits, e.g. another government inadequacy being exposed, in a way that grabs attention and makes the weapons of totalitarian rule more difficult to wield.

@zloj & ozzfan1317: as a 26-year-old unemployed man who has lived with his parents more than he would like, I can sympathize. That's why instead of just complaining and blaming, I use the metaphorical value to advocate something useful, like absolute freedom.

@tkell31: I'm proposing absolute freedom.

@bassnman45: That reminds me of a saying that a friend of mine had: "Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and you keep him warm for the rest of his life."

Report this comment
#15) On January 26, 2010 at 3:57 AM, Tacomatight (71.34) wrote:

I hardly think that kicking an 18 year old out of the house to teach-em-good...real goooood boy, is a great way of parenting nor the way to prop up "family values."

Something to think about: you talk about Scandanavia....might as well talk about Zimbabwe.

How about we talk about the new #2 economy in the world that has risen from absolute ashes in 50 years...China.

As the family is at the foremost in all interactions in the Middle Kingdom it is seen as a great loss of face if you kick your kids out of the house. In fact, Chinese families prefer children and grandkids living within walking distance. Also, it's not uncommon at all for '30-year-olds' to live with their parents until they can buy their own house and get married to start a family. Even after that, they spend great amounts of time at their parents house.

Your concept of necessity and hardship (as was mine until living in China for several years) is based on your idea of a hard life in America. In other words you are spoiled brat, even if you dig ditches in America.  

My point? Folks that know real hardship (you can't imagine) think its the optimum choice to live with family and have their kids around. This to them is the most secure and best way to have a strong successful family. And also to have successful children in the long term.

Something to think about.

-Tacomatight

Report this comment
#16) On January 26, 2010 at 4:32 AM, ozzfan1317 (82.25) wrote:

Just to clarify I am not saying you shouldnt work but this sense that if you don't go get a job right out of Highschool or college your automatically lazy is misguided. I grew up in poverty and I refuse to raise a family paycheck to paycheck on minimum wage. I was just saying if he cant find work in his career field being unemployed would be understandable. I personally want a career that intellectually challenges me. I have worked factory work and even fast food before I joined the service to pay for school just not for me.

Report this comment
#17) On January 26, 2010 at 8:01 AM, devoish (97.09) wrote:

2) I don't know how you define model, but here's what I think of as a winner of a model: absolute, uninfringed freedom of all kinds; freedom from the violence and threats you advocate.

Clink the link - models. 

You substituted a stereotype of a lazy thirty year old for modern day USA. You used a metaphor.

I think your metaphor missed by a mile, and I hope I made my point.

I also have a metaphor for those who worship a world with no Gov't. - sucker.

In the models post I asked you to find an example of a small Gov't to model yours after.

Perhaps instead you could find a model where there are no elections, and we can all pray the good king lives forever.

Or that all CEO's put self interest aside, and hope they all play nice.

Sorry if I feel my skepticism is rational.

Report this comment
#18) On January 26, 2010 at 8:34 AM, ragedmaximus (< 20) wrote:

well alot of 30 year olds living at home with his parents might be alot happier than say a 30 year old college grad with 100k in school debt, and laid off for more than 1 year and divorced with 2 kids with child support to pay and no health care and a forcelosed house with 75 percent of his 401k taken by his ex,market crash and 35% penalty.I wish I had parents like that! ha ha ha I'm sure it is REALITY for alot of MALES right NOW!

Report this comment
#19) On January 26, 2010 at 8:43 AM, gartersnk (54.60) wrote:

Is that not part of the point - China does not have "social programs" but family values - people care for each other out of necessity and dare I say love - they do not depend on the government to meet even their basic needs - actually I would assume they distrust their government even more than Americans.  Sure we need a federal government to provide national defense, etc but not to decide what an individual can or can not do or have - that is a local issue - leave it at the local level

I don't believe freedom means no rule of law - taken to the lowest level - a family still has rules - that is what makes us civilized - what has changed is the loss of individual responsibility - the freedom to succeed or fail - today it seems for many everything is someone elses fault or responsibilty and we are owed success - so far to say because you go to school and earn a degree you deserve the type of job you want - where is that guaranteed - you earned an education (hopefully) now go earn a job if that means working below your "standard" so be it but be productive. You started your education in K and worked your way time to do the same in the workplace.

BTW productive doesn't always mean paid "monetarily"

I have met many of the people (i think I met all 300 - seems weird they all lived in MN oh no I guess some live here in GA - maybe if I move I'll leave them all behind) who see ambition and hard work as evil - they see listlessness and sloth as the ultimate - maybe it depends where you have spent your time meeting people??  They define corporate America and people who have "made it" ie are happy - not necessarily rich but happy as evil  - IMO because they are NOT and despise  - no demonize - those that are.

Socialism breeds equality - which dooms a society to failure as there is not incentive to achieve - except for those driven by an inner desire to achieve - and change that which they see as evil. Capitalism has its faults as well but embodies the idea that the original post was written about FREEDOM.

Just my two cents  - now worth less as the printing presses roll on

Report this comment
#20) On January 26, 2010 at 8:51 AM, ralphmachio (26.83) wrote:

The most f---ed up valueless uneducated thieving drug addicted parents of multiple uncared for children are all products of pious parents who did not approve of their lifestyle, and kicked them out. What I realize is, both the parents and the children are not very bright to begin with. 

And as for driving... I believe you can drive as fast as you can think. It is a display of overall competence. If you drive slow, it is because you cannot process too much at one time, or can't see well, or are frightened, or your car sucks, or you are exhibiting passive-aggressive road rage. If you drive fast, but cannot compute the necessary vectors, the learning curve is fast. It all boils down to, you may not be too bright to begin with. Luckily for the slow, the law is there to slow the rest of the world down to their speed, but we all know what the law was made for...

As for chemicals, how much and which you choose are critical to the outcome on the psyche. If Dr. Crick, first to suggest the double helix, was not on a heavy dose of LSD whilst comtemplating the structure of DNA, we would have had to wait for the next guy with that much imagination. Art, music, and science would not be what they are today if not for geniuses and their chemicals. So, once again, it's about aptitude. You either got it, or you don't. If your stupid, have no will power, and don't think much of yourself in the first place, please, for all our sakes, don't take drugs.

 

There used to be a show on HBO called Fragal Rock. In this show, there were doozers, and fragals. The doozers worked all day constructing virually useless buildings that the fragals ate, and they were psyched, cause it gave the doozers more work to do. The fragals just dealt with issues involving personal development, and had a lot of fun. They were always on some adventure, getting in trouble, having exciting, eventful lives. They were colorful, and unlike the doozers, all dressed differently. Once, a doozer wanted to become a fragal, but never did the doozers whine about the fragals, because what the hell else were they good for except building useless structures for the fragals to eat?

I think Jim Henson was on to something... or maybe it was my father who told me HBO and MTV would rot my brain.   

Either way, if you are a doozer, be proud! Don't hate! Life's too short to bitch about the fragals! Get yourself a little family of doozers, and be happy in the knowledge that the fragals would starve without you.

PS. Fleabagger, you have a very eloquent way with words. Very well written. 

PPS. Fragals don't live with their parents. 

Report this comment
#21) On January 26, 2010 at 9:11 AM, lemoneater (78.55) wrote:

I think a woman had more to do with the discovery of the double helix of DNA than an LSD trip for Crick. Without her foundational work, who can say what would have happened. Give credit where it is due:)

http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Rosalind_Franklin.php

Report this comment
#22) On January 26, 2010 at 10:29 AM, StKitt (29.87) wrote:

Flea,

You said in #14 above:

...here's what I think of as a winner of a model: absolute, uninfringed freedom of all kinds; freedom from the violence and threats you advocate.

How can you be free from violence and threats with "absolute, uninfringed freedom of all kinds"? The two are mutually exclusive; just take a look at the whole of human history!! What exactly are you so un-free to do in this nation that you seek to abolish government? Be careful what you wish for...

From the Devil's Dictionary:

FREEDOM, n.  Exemption from the stress of authority in a beggarly half-dozen of restraint's infinite multitude of methods. A political condition that every nation supposes itself to enjoy in virtual monopoly. Liberty. The distinction between freedom and liberty is not accurately known; naturalists have never been able to find a living specimen of either.

~ Ambrose Bierce

Report this comment
#23) On January 26, 2010 at 10:35 AM, ClandPhoenix (81.05) wrote:

devoish: you saved me a lot of trouble. This nonsense drives me crazy enought to actually respond to it but now i do not have to waste the time.

Why do exteem right wingers want to go back to despotism/anarchy? That is what you are talking about.. no laws, no formal governance, everyone for themselves. If you look back in history it goes anarchy (what you want) > despotism > monarchy or simplistic republic or theocracy > democracy. 

You really want to go hunt your own food and sleep with a firearm under your pillow.... its a foolish fantasy.

Report this comment
#24) On January 26, 2010 at 10:40 AM, ralphmachio (26.83) wrote:

Dr. Crick is just one example. Fact is, if hallucinogens did bring clarity to the astute, or any altered state of mind for that matter, it would not be publicized. Have you ever read about a respected scientist who regularly takes acid? Do most people that know Crick discovered the double helix know that he came up with that idea on LSD? I wonder why... 

The majority's beliefs control reality making truth unreal. Of course, this is something you will never know unless you put yourself on the other side of reality than the majority.

Having not yet read your post, lemoneater, I have no doubt that Crick used previous studies to make his theory, as that is how science works. There is plenty of room for credit without taking credit from LSD, which is like taking candy from a baby. I'm not suggesting LSD is good for everyone, just intelligent adults. I also prefer meditation.

Report this comment
#25) On January 26, 2010 at 11:25 AM, ayekappy (< 20) wrote:

What happens if that 30 year old college graduate had not lived with his parents since 18, saved up tens of thousands of dollars at a decent job, but then gets unemployed with a decent sized mortgage and car payment plus maybe a few other bills... over 2 years, the graduate attempts to find a good job, while maintaining an $8.50 an hour retail job, but just eventually burns through all his savings.  After a few more months, the graduate has to foreclose on his house and move back in with the parents just to be able to eat, stay off the streets, and begin saving again.  Kind of works that way with the socialist welfare too

Report this comment
#26) On January 26, 2010 at 11:29 AM, floridabuilder2 (99.35) wrote:

People are missing the point of this blog post.  The Henderson's are Scandanavian.  They have a 30 year old daughter.  She lives at home because she is hot and never had to work because her boyfriend's spent so much on her to get her in bed. 

If more Northern Europeans had hot daughters we would all be happy living under some form of socialism.  Even the most unworthy man with no drive would have so much to select from.

Report this comment
#27) On January 26, 2010 at 12:05 PM, gartersnk (54.60) wrote:

ayekappy #25 made perfect sense until the last sentence ??

How does a college grad starting over equate to a leach on welfare ???

Report this comment
#28) On January 26, 2010 at 1:52 PM, outoffocus (23.25) wrote:

#24. Dang you ralph, now the Fraggle Rock themesong is stuck in my head. >:l

Dance your cares away *clap clap* worries for another day...

Report this comment
#29) On January 26, 2010 at 7:31 PM, FleaBagger (28.76) wrote:

@devoish: If you think people are so wonderful, why do you think you and your supercilious government friends need to rule over them and control their lives? And is your definition of model something so complicated that you can't define it in a sentence or two? No wonder my simple "model" isn't even a model by your standards. Gotta run, but I'll be back to deflate devoish's pretense at scientific superiority.

Report this comment
#30) On January 26, 2010 at 10:58 PM, devoish (97.09) wrote:

Fleabagger,

Nice name calling. Go for substance, it looks smarter.

I'll simplify the model concept for you for the second time.

In the models post I asked you to find an example of a small Gov't to model yours after.

Oh wait, those are exactly the same words I used before.

So where is your small Gov't model?

For models of small govt's I offered Zimbabwe, Sudan, and now Haiti as small Govt's. Some of you said I was being unfair to choose those, yet failed to offer a "fairer" model. One of you chose a Country that Nationalized (stole is the word you usually use) Shell's property. Another chose 1870's USA, a Gov't that used extermination to steal the property of savages.

No. I don't believe in your imaginary utopia. I really wish it existed. A world where no-one pollutes because it is wrong. I live in a world where those who would not pollute cannot compete with those who do. Because those who do, don't get punished.

What happens to polluters in the land of the flea? All you flea marketeers get together and form some sort of organization to stop them? What do you call that Organization? Do you elect the members? Vote on rules?

Or do you give polluters the look, and they are reminded to stop.

C'mon, get real.

If you think people are so wonderful, why do you think you and your supercilious government friends need to rule over them and control their lives?

Well put question. Read about the wonderful people again. Were there any antagonists in those little shorts I wrote that you might have missed? Maybe some not so wonderful people you hope to ignore and forget? Maybe some not so wonderful people who need some rules to live by because they do not rise to you high hopes of morality? Because they do not fit in the same company as our capitalists heroes but instead fall short and cause harm to others?

Gotta run, but I know you won't acknowledge the bad guys in my storys exist - if they have money. You'll compare them as equals to men who do honest work for their wealth.

Bring on that example of free market utopia. 

Wait-n for the deflat-n.

 

 

Report this comment
#31) On January 26, 2010 at 11:01 PM, FleaBagger (28.76) wrote:

Also, FB2 is hereby appointed Minister of Hermeneutics for my blog posts.

Report this comment
#32) On January 27, 2010 at 10:54 AM, floridabuilder2 (99.35) wrote:

Fleabagger,

Sounds good to me, just don't be putting blogging bible passages

Report this comment
#33) On January 27, 2010 at 1:58 PM, FleaBagger (28.76) wrote:

Devoish -

Briefly, let me just say that your attitude toward freedom is like saying to JFK "Mr President, can you give us an example of a successful moon mission? Where is your model? This is too dangerous, it won't work, it can't be done."

Have you ever heard of the scientific method? I'm in a freshman biology course right now, and it's being taught as 

1) Observe

2) Question

3) Hypothesize

4) Predict

5) Test predictions

6) Draw a conclusion

And repeat the process as necessary until scientific understanding is advanced. Applying that same method to life, we can observe that, historically, people in a total state (Nazi Germany, USSR, today's Zimbabwe, etc.) have very few material belongings. We question what the cause of that correlation is. We hypothesize that government control consistently fails an economy. We predict that, if our hypothesis is correct, government solutions to problems will be boondoggles that cost more than the problem itself, both financially and in human life. Unfortunately, those predictions are tested day after day, program after program, with too many experiments to count, and are borne out again and again. We draw the conclusion that our hypothesis is probably correct. It is also falsifiable, because if you can demonstrate one actual failure in the private sector, and show that government control solves the problem without unintended consequences.

So the need for a conrete example is yours, not mine. Feel free to falsify my hypothesis. Any time now. The problem is that every time an imperfection in the free market rears its ugly head, the government nukes it and everything around it, "solving" the problem with huge collateral damage, and you ignore the collateral damage and sweep it under the rug. But I'll just pull it out into the daylight and you'll deny its existence, and we'll be at an impasse yet again.

Report this comment
#34) On January 27, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Turfscape (40.91) wrote:

"It is no problem for a civilized society to take care of its own without government; at least, it is less problematic than trying to take care of yourselves and each other despite a government and enduring its help."

Hmmm...there's really been no government to speak of in Somalia for years. I don't see Utopia, though. I see exactly what I would expect to see in a true Libertarian society: warlords, criminally based enterprise, and justification of all actions through adherence to a rather flimsy and baseless regional jus cogens. A bit of 'honor among thieves' if you will.

All Libertarian theories ignore the principle that man is greedy by nature and will annex, accumulate and hoard to the detriment of society and species unless there are rational agreements and barriers accepted by multiple parties. Those agreements and barriers form the basis for what we call "Government".

Libertarians are as flaky as the hippies of old...pie in the sky ideals that simply have no grounding in reality.

Report this comment
#35) On January 27, 2010 at 9:23 PM, devoish (97.09) wrote:

Flea,

No acknowledgement of your missing, ignoring, or needing the other people not to be there, in my little stories.

Oh well. Dissapointing, but not surprising. I could insist you acknowledge their presence in my stories before we move on. And insist that you acknowledge there are good people and bad people in the world.

I did not know that you were in college. You are not in High School are you? Twenty year old college kids are not thirty. What you see around you are young adults, not adults. There was a time before higher education that you and your classmates would be adult by now, but that time is not now. Had I known I would not have expected that you have the experience of living as an adult with other thirty year olds.

In my models post, Dare used the similar example of comparing my insistence on a model to the first airplane. As though if I had insisted upon a model flight would have never occured. I suppose Dare assumes Orvill had never seen birds or kites fly.

In your space flight example, you are probably forgetting that the trip to the moon was preceded by trips to space, rocketry and satellites. And test monkeys.

This part is important (that means it will be on the test;-). In neither example, space flight or air flight, were the entire population of the United States on the rocket ship. The first flight, in air and space was the model. Since that first air flight enough trips have been made to fly the entire population of the world. But we did not risk them all on the first flight. That would be dumb.

Cute analogies for the inexperienced or simple minded. But if you are in college you should be thinking. D-

Lets see how well you are using that scientific method.

First, and most importantly, your observation is wrong. There were certainly wealthy people in Nazi Germany, and Russia. Your excusion of all but totalitarian gov'ts means you can only conclude totalitarian gov't fails. Certainly there are some gov'ts doing well. Brazil, China, Chile, Qatar,Saudi Arabia, Israel, Norway, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Hong kong, Dominican Republic.

You also demanded concrete examples from me that did not exhibit unintended consequences. Why would you not expect the unexpected. Let me offer some phrases from history that should have taught you about the unexpected. "Be prepared", "expect the unexpected", "shit happens", "whatever can go wrong will go wrong", "butter side down rule", "we're sinking", "in the event this flight becomes a cruise", "crap" "run", "hide".

Test your predictions.

Excellent, show me where you test your prediction that having no Gov't will end unintended consequences.

In your science experiment you need to test your hypothesis. And your hypothesis is that having no Government is a better solution than having one. You have concluded that you are correct without having even found a test of it.

And worse, your theory of life without Gov't has been tested and failed and you do not even know it, yet it you speak on.

I have a theory too. My theory goes like this. Once upon a time in Africa at the dawn of mankind, one man named Devo roamed the Earth. He hunted, fished, ate fruits and nuts and bugs and was happy. Another man named Flea also roamed the Earth, and he too, was a happy bug eater. All was well and there was no Gov't. Then along came winter, and hunger. There was no food and only mammoths to hunt. Devo and flea joined forces and hunted and killed a mighty mammoth and defended that kill from a Saber tooth. We grunted and tore and ripped and divided that mammoth.

And so Gov't was born.

In the winter we got together and hunted, in the spring we split apart. One day a mighty warrior arrived and tried to slay devo, but Devo ran away. The he tried to slay Flea and flea bounced. Eventually Flea and Devo joined together and slew the mighty warrior and took back the land they hunted. And so gov't grew and became involved in justice.

Look around you Flea. You see 200 Gov'ts around the world. They all exist on land that once had no Gov't. Your model has been tried and has failed, 100% of the time.

Report this comment
#36) On January 28, 2010 at 3:16 PM, FleaBagger (28.76) wrote:

You're comparing voluntary cooperation to a government that takes resources by force! How deceitful is that! If you study, you might find that there is a demonsrtable difference between Society and State, and that they are natural enemies. One is voluntary, the other forces participation by force. I have another theory for why governments are universal across the face of the globe: a mighty warrior arrived with a goverment of twenty other mighty warriors. They killed Devo and Flea and their children, and marry their wives. The mighty warriors teach their own children that government is necessary and good.

In another land, where there is society and no government, and all interactions are voluntary, a family is slain by the neighboring warrior government, led by the warrior king. The society, who could band together voluntarily and kill the warrior government, cave in to their fears, and decide they need some way of forcing everyone to participate in the battle. So they establish their own monarchy, conscription, etc. So they discard voluntary association and just society for monarchy and coercion, because of fear. They are then surprised to find that you cannot go back again once you have replaced voluntary society with government.

You say that my proposed experiment is dumb because every American would be on the rocket ship, as it were. Fair enough. All I want is one county that's free from outside government interference, where other libertarians and I can gather and have a governmentless society. You can publicly cut us loose from the protection of the U.S. military and egg other countries on to attack us for sport. I'd still like to try it.

But you would probably rather follow Lincoln's example of attacking and punishing secession with slaughter, all for the sake of preserving the Union. We wouldn't have slavery. What would your excuse be for keeping us unfree? Why not let Free County secede from the Union? Obviously, you're afraid that your Government is Necessary hypothesis will be falsified.

Report this comment
#37) On January 28, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Turfscape (40.91) wrote:

Fleabagger wrote:
"You're comparing voluntary cooperation to a government that takes resources by force! How deceitful is that! If you study, you might find that there is a demonsrtable difference between Society and State, and that they are natural enemies. One is voluntary, the other forces participation by force"

Uh...democracy. If that single word doesn't counter everything in #36, then you haven't been taught the definition. If the plurality or majority want it, why should it not be so?

Report this comment
#38) On January 28, 2010 at 6:49 PM, StKitt (29.87) wrote:

Flea,

Your argument, never sea-worthy, is now dashed upon the rocks.

Time to abandon ship and see the world with wiser eyes.

 

Report this comment
#39) On January 29, 2010 at 8:45 AM, whereaminow (24.34) wrote:

@ #37 and #38

Uh.....income tax, inflation tax, withholding tax, estate tax, sales tax, regulatory tax, subsidy tax, bailout tax, etc...

None of these are voluntary.

I guess it might be time to see the world with wiser eyes.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#40) On January 29, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Turfscape (40.91) wrote:

whereaminow wrote:
"Uh.....income tax, inflation tax, withholding tax, estate tax, sales tax, regulatory tax, subsidy tax, bailout tax, etc..."

All put into place by the representatives we elected to do just those sorts of things. There are lots of candidates each election that campaign on getting rid of those things. They don't win. Plurality or majority don't want 'em in office. Democracy wins.

Report this comment
#41) On January 29, 2010 at 1:01 PM, StKitt (29.87) wrote:

Turfscape is right again @ #40!!

Democracy's wisdom, the wisdom of a peaceable society, is the majority's (or plurality's) voluntary willingness to be taxed for the greater good.

Real libertarians can only be found in the jungles of the world, plotting the demise of their neighbors, who just can't seem to see things in the same libertarian way.

Report this comment
#42) On January 31, 2010 at 7:48 PM, FleaBagger (28.76) wrote:

StKitt said:

Real libertarians can only be found in the jungles of the world, plotting the demise of their neighbors, who just can't seem to see things in the same libertarian way.

On the contrary, StKitt, I live in the 100% jungle-free Sterling, VA, and I'm as real a libertarian as they come. You and Turfscape seem to confuse theft with fairness. If I have 10 brothers and we all declare you part of our democratic state, and vote to take your property by force, how is that just or fair or right or good in any way? It is still evil even if a majority want it.

Report this comment
#43) On January 31, 2010 at 11:14 PM, devoish (97.09) wrote:

Flea,

suppose somebody upstream with 12 brothers, decides to build their toilet over your drinking stream so they don't have to flush.

They knew you lived downstream when they built it.

Are you going to get dysentary, move, or form a Gov't to remove their property by force?

I love this silly game :-)

Report this comment
#44) On February 01, 2010 at 12:13 AM, FleaBagger (28.76) wrote:

About the polluted river: move. As obnoxious as that would be, it doesn't justify violence, war, bloodshed, killing 12 people and risking the lives of my brothers, one of whom is just 18 years old.

You can come with hypothetical justifications for government, and we can argue about those thin justifications, but the injustices of democracy are real, present, and dangerous to our everyday lives. Democracy is a false god to whom we have sacrificed tens of thousands of the Iraqi people.

Report this comment
#45) On February 01, 2010 at 8:14 AM, devoish (97.09) wrote:

Where are you going to go?

Downstream from Dupont in Bhopal? Or a CocaCola that bottled your water? Want to live in the Catskills whose water was acidified by Tennessee's right to burn high sulfur coal? Or would you like to live with me, on Long Island, where it is a good thing we have glacial lakes below ground because we cannot drink alot of our groundwater, but we have the right to put bug spray in our hedges?

Hypothetical my ass.

The Exxon Valdez spilled oil on the property of Alaskans and would have left it there if Government had not made them clean it up. And much of that oil is still there, they only did what Gov't made them do.

In the case of the Exxon Valdez, Gov't failed. In the case of the Catskills, Gov't succeeded because Gov't had the support of Americans and low sulfur coal was available.

In both cases, the obligation of profit for shareholders and the fear of lost income to employees, caused the companys to spend as little as possible to clean up after themselves. No single coal company could afford to install scrubbers until they knew Gov't would force them all to install scrubbers.

You are right, that the injustices of Democracy are real. But I don't hear you appealing to Lockheed Martin or NOC to stop killing people. They have lots of customers, most of them are not Democracys.

I know liberal activists who have. I know them personally.

After you left your property, those twelve brothers picked up their toilet and moved it to where the stream left the property you just abandoned and set it back up, upstream of the land you now occupy. They have begun farming the land you just left.

What now?

Sometimes this silly game makes me sad.

Report this comment
#46) On February 01, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Turfscape (40.91) wrote:

FleaBagger wrote:
"You and Turfscape seem to confuse theft with fairness"

No...I just don't live in a fantasy world that pretends all people will magically adhere to goodness and morality if we just got rid of all the stinkin' laws and such.

Report this comment
#47) On February 01, 2010 at 12:17 PM, FleaBagger (28.76) wrote:

@devoish: Can you show me an example of anyone ever doing that in a libertarian society? A society without government? Then it is hypothetical. As for "appealing to Lockheed Martin or NOC to stop killing people," I think it would be more fruitful to stop their customers from killing people. If Lockheed and NOC (whoever they are) ceased to exist tomorrow, somebody else would be feeding government's insatiable lust for the tools of control, coercion and power preservation. You have to stop governments from killing each other, and as long as they are tyrannies, that won't happen. As long as they are democracies, we will be betting everything on at least 51% of the people magically adhering to goodness and morality all the time, forever (to paraphrase Turfscape's eloquence). That wasn't a good bet for Selma, Alabama, it wasn't a good bet for the Weimar Republic, and it's not a good bet for the U.S. today. In fact, the risk/reward profile for investing society in democracy is pathetic. Democracy is a 1-star stock.

Investing in liberty is like having an index fund with every stock in the whole world: it's okay for society if one or two (or a thousand) companies fail, because our future will weight itself to the successes as failures lose capital. As for your hypothetical persistent polluters, shouldn't we try diplomacy first? If we had liberty, we could voluntarily associate ourselves with enough people that such vermin would be afraid to treat us unjustly. You're advocating making that association involuntary: conscription into, and slavery for, the state.

Report this comment
#48) On February 01, 2010 at 2:11 PM, devoish (97.09) wrote:

As long as they are democracies, we will be betting everything on at least 51% of the people magically adhering to goodness and morality all the time, forever (to paraphrase Turfscape's eloquence). That wasn't a good bet for Selma, Alabama, it wasn't a good bet for the Weimar Republic, and it's not a good bet for the U.S. today.

You are betting people will adhere to goodness almost all of the time. My bet with Democracy is that if the same law that applies to me, applies to you, we'll be ok. And right now, that is not working. And it is not working because we have elected people who have abdicated the responsibility of ensuring that equal application of the law. We call those people small Gov't advocates.

When Massey coal strips the top off of an Appalachian mountain and dumps the tailings into a farmers stream and lays waste to his property, it is not Gov't that motivated Massey it was profit. But Gov't is the only hope that farmer has. And Massey might prefer the more expensive and less polluting shaft mining to destroying a farmers land. But Massey has to compete, and that means price. As long as any coal company strips the top off mountains and disregards the surrounding property, Massey has to compete. Free markets, by their very structure, force a company to off load as much cost as possible onto someone else, in this case the farmer. Only a Gov't, regulating coal mining, can force Massey and his competitors to compete without harming that farmer. And only a big Gov't, with the support of its populace has that strength. And only a Democracy tries to ensure that laws are applied evenly to all coal companys, not favorites.

America is failing in that endeavor. We have been persuaded for thirty years that Gov't should step aside and hope for the best corporate behaviour without interference and we have moved in that direction. It was only a matter of opportunity that a campaign of distrust of individual rights, became a campaign for entrenched interests.

It has been a mistake to elect politicians who run on the platform of abdicating responsibility to private interests. It is difficult to select politicians who genuinely work for equal rights and our interests. There are some out there, and right now they mostly reside within the Dems, and Bernie Sanders, IMHO. Al Franken, has no past political debt. Grayley seems like he might kick some butt. But each year as corporations spend more and more to influence elections and votes, Americans lose.

When I hear an environmental group scream to clean up water, they are motivated to help everyone downstream, not just themselves. When I hear a coal company plead economics in order to pollute a river, I know that is just for themselves.

 

Report this comment
#49) On February 01, 2010 at 2:15 PM, devoish (97.09) wrote:

Can you show me an example of anyone ever doing that in a libertarian society? A society without government?

Who put you up to asking that question? Can you show me a libertarian society anywhere in the world? They are all gone, failed models of oppression.

Report this comment
#50) On February 01, 2010 at 2:44 PM, alexxlea (52.40) wrote:

Yawn.

You do realize that now that we don't have to do any of this whole making stuff part, they just put all us restless folk in jobs that do nothing, and pay us play money to buy debt with so that we don't do anything disorderly, right?

Now that it's all falling apart and the illusion imploded and will implode again shortly in our faces we're really going to have to come up with cool new ways to tell other people and ourselves our money is still good.

Report this comment
#51) On February 01, 2010 at 4:03 PM, devoish (97.09) wrote:

alexxlea,

You can yawn, but you read the whole thing ;-)

The investment bank and hedge fund employees have been way over compensated for shifting money around without creating any value at all. That is the part we cannot afford. The taxes we pay Gov't builds us roads, and water supplys, and things that have real value, and some things that have value only to some of us, and some things some of us believe are a complete waste.

They're collecting the most money, eating the best food, driving the best cars, and frankly, not producing a whole lot of anything but "Gov't is bad propaganda" and problems for the rest of us trying to keep their leeching bodys sated.

JMHO and all that.

Report this comment
#52) On February 03, 2010 at 3:59 PM, FleaBagger (28.76) wrote:

You want to force people to do what you think is right, even if it doesn't affect you either way, and I want people do be free to do whatever they want as long as they're not hurting other people. You impute to me the assertion that I want people to be free to hurt other people, which is an obviously misleading treatment of what I said. We're at an impasse, because you debate like an irritable, choleric idiot.

By the way, we've got your wonderful, precious Democracy. How's that working for ya? Two pre-emptive wars, the pollution and environmental destruction you keep mentioning, high taxes and high unemployment, Halliburton... seriously, how is Democracy working out? Every single one of those things is directly attributable to people having the power to control other people's lives by controlling the central government.

Report this comment
#53) On February 03, 2010 at 9:15 PM, devoish (97.09) wrote:

I want people do be free to do whatever they want as long as they're not hurting other people.

And if someone hurts someone do you;

 force people to do what you think is right

And do you decide what is right yourself like a King, or does your society by voting like a Democracy?

You impute to me the assertion that I want people to be free to hurt other people,

No. I'll take back the terrorist comment I made if it helps.

My argument is simple. There has never been and will never be a society where someone does not come along and hurt other people. Whether that someone is the innocent fool who thinks it is his right to drink and drive, and hurts someone with his recklessness, or a malicious bastard who dumps chromium into your drinking water knowing someone will get sick.

And when that someone arrives in Libertianland you will have to deal with him. And in that moment you will decide if you will be a Democracy and pass a law making that hurtful action illegal for everyone, or a Democracy and make a law that applies only to that person, or sit idly by until one among you stands up for you all and punishes the villian of his own volition.

But in that moment, you will no longer be the Libertarian society you wish to be, and I wish you could be. You will have passed and enforced a law, whether formally or informally. Or you will have allowed someone into your society, that is hurting people and violating their rights and no longer be the Libertarian society you want to be.

I'm sorry. I really am.

 

"Precious Democracy".

 Yes indeed.

 

Report this comment
#54) On February 05, 2010 at 11:35 AM, FleaBagger (28.76) wrote:

Okay, so can we try it? Obviously, you see yourself as our parent, deciding how to raise us to your adult level of understanding, so all I'm asking is that you be the kind of parent who allows us to try something on our own, instead of the kind of parent who always makes our decisions for us? Will you stand those who want to go to war to stop us if we try to peacefully secede and conduct our experiment?

Report this comment
#55) On February 05, 2010 at 11:37 AM, FleaBagger (28.76) wrote:

And yes, if you it didn't really reflect what you believe, or you've sincerely changed your mind about it, withdrawing the terrorist label really does help.

Report this comment
#56) On February 05, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Turfscape (40.91) wrote:

Fleabagger wrote:
"Okay, so can we try it? Obviously, you see yourself as our parent, deciding how to raise us to your adult level of understanding, so all I'm asking is that you be the kind of parent who allows us to try something on our own, instead of the kind of parent who always makes our decisions for us? Will you stand those who want to go to war to stop us if we try to peacefully secede and conduct our experiment?"

There are islands out there for purchase. I say 'knock yourself out'. But, if you're thinking you'll foist this ridiculousness on some section of the U.S.A., well I'll be voting against that. I'm betting that most people will vote against that, as well. Despite my cynicism, I believe that most people aren't completely frivolous and will know that setting up a Libertarian society would be as much folly as building a giant escalator to nowhere.

Report this comment
#57) On February 06, 2010 at 11:34 AM, FleaBagger (28.76) wrote:

Why should you get to vote what we do with property we bought and paid for?

Report this comment
#58) On February 06, 2010 at 12:41 PM, wolfman225 (64.44) wrote:

There was recently a proposal that like-minded Libertarians converge on the state of New Hampshire and begin the process of peaceably taking over the state and local governmental systems by getting themselves elected to office in order to bring about just the kind of experiment in individual liberty and responsibility you are talking about.  Unfortunately, only a relative handfull have yet made the move, and those have met with more than a little opposition from the locals (to be fair, many of those locals are transplanted liberals from Massachusetts).  Such a process is a task of decades, not merely years, and I hope they keep faith with the original intent.  If nothing else, it will provide a fascinating insight into the possibilities offered by truly a cooperative society.

As a resident of what was, at one time, the conservative state of Vermont I am quite interested in the outcome of this experiment.

Larry

P.S.  I have read the term "democracy" thrown about quite a bit.  I wonder what Devo and others' think about democracy when they happen to be firmly in the minority while still being just as firmly convinced that their way is the only right and just way to be.  Healthcare Reform comes to mind. More than 50% oppose, only about 35% support it, yet the wishes of the majority are largely ignored by our so-called "representatives".

P.P.S.  You mentioned in passing the electrical grid and it's possible failure.  My concern is that with the advent of "Smart Grid" technology, we may soon see the de facto rationing of energy to the populace based on the notion of apportioning resources "fairly" (democractically voted on, to be sure).  When government can monitor individual energy use it is a very short step to controlling access and allowed usage.

Report this comment
#59) On February 06, 2010 at 11:04 PM, devoish (97.09) wrote:

Why should you get to vote what we do with property we bought and paid for?

The Constitution put the vote first.

God Bless America

Report this comment
#60) On February 06, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Turfscape (40.91) wrote:

wolfman225 wrote:

"Healthcare Reform comes to mind. More than 50% oppose, only about 35% support it, yet the wishes of the majority are largely ignored by our so-called "representatives"."

Healthcare Reform was signed into law? How did I miss this news? Oh...my mistake, you were showing an example of how democracy is working exactly as it should.

 

Report this comment
#61) On February 07, 2010 at 9:04 AM, devoish (97.09) wrote:

I wonder what Devo and others' think about democracy when they happen to be firmly in the minority while still being just as firmly convinced that their way is the only right and just way to be.

I think that Democracy is still better than mortal combat.

Report this comment
#62) On February 07, 2010 at 9:47 AM, d4winds (< 20) wrote:

Historically, the political force behind true economic socialism (i.e., actual government ownership of the means of production, not mere safety nets and certainly not necessarily with any implications about central planning) was the application of your rants not to a mythical 30-year-old, but to very real coupon-clippers.  

Report this comment
#63) On February 07, 2010 at 1:29 PM, wolfman225 (64.44) wrote:

@Turfscape:

"Healthcare Reform was signed into law? How did I miss this news? Oh...my mistake, you were showing an example of how democracy is working exactly as it should."

Obama has said repeatedly that he's "not giving up" on healthcare and Reid and Pelosi are still trying to finagle a way to pass the bill w/out having to put it to another vote in the Senate. After all, can't have the "uninformed" masses have a voice, now can we?  Keep in mind that the previous votes on the healthcare bill in both the House and Senate were taken while more than 50% of the American people were opposed to it.  Obama blames this on people who "don't clearly understand" the bill.

@Devoish,

I wonder what Devo and others' think about democracy when they happen to be firmly in the minority while still being just as firmly convinced that their way is the only right and just way to be.

"I think that Democracy is still better than mortal combat."

I'm SO glad to hear that.  Perhaps you could get your fellow liberals together and embark on a letter writing campaign to promote this viewpoint to your representatives in the Congress?  They still don't seem to grasp the idea behind that "We The People" stuff......

Speaking of which,

Why should you get to vote what we do with property we bought and paid for?

You wrote:

"The Constitution put the vote first.

God Bless America"

The Constitution also makes express provision for the establishment of a right to personal property.  To be secure from unlawful seizure by the government.  Just one of the many things that makes our system of governance different (and, IMO better) than almost anywhere else on the planet. 

Report this comment
#64) On February 07, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Turfscape (40.91) wrote:

wolfman225 wrote: "Obama has said repeatedly that he's "not giving up" on healthcare"

Yup...just as he said during his campaign, after which he was elected by a majority of the population.

I've always found it peculiar how Libertarians turn into Republicans during elections and when Republicans are in office...and then magically they become Libertarians again when Democrats win elections, no matter the policies.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement