LawTalkers - I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=879)

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 506781)

I saw it suggested that Jared went to Iraq at the military's invitation, presumably because they're trying to find a back channel to Trump. Which is not ideal, but better than if his FIL sent him.

Chris Christie prosecuted Jared's father, which has not been forgiven and is apparently why he is on the outs with Trump.

I never considered Christie THAT smart, but when I found this out I wondered how he EVER thought this was something he'd get past to get any sort of power in a Trump administration.

socks like me appreciate this

Re: L'affaire Rice

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 506744)

Maybe you can explain this to me, because I am genuinely confused about why this is a good idea.

Suppose that Congress passes a law that says, waste drainage on federal property can't be larger than standard sizes. Maybe that's a good law, maybe it isn't, but now it's in the federal code.

The EPA decides it has jurisdiction to promulgate regulations under this law (and let's assume it does), and it enacts regulations which say

- "waste drainage" includes indoor plumbing and connections to main lines, but not culverts and ditches and the like
-"federal land" includes real property managed by the GSA, but not private property on federally owned land such as national parks, and not military bases
-"standard sizes" refers to such-and-such particular set of industry standards

If you manage a concessionaire at a national park or are a contractor who builds things for the Air Force, it seems to me that it's helpful to have these regulations, because the law that Congress passed is pretty unclear, and the regulations add certainty so you can comply.

Comes along the Donald and says he's going to get rid of the regulations. How does that help you? The law is still on the books, and it's going to take Congress to fix that. If you get rid of the regulations, the concessionaire doesn't know what size culvert it can install, and the contractor doesn't know what pipes to use. Without regulations, the only way to resolve the question is to go to a federal court, which is expensive.

So why do you like his idea?

Distilled to its essence, the argument is, we need regulations to make enforcement of unnecessary and oppressive legislation easier.

I'd rather dance with the courts than the regulators. I'm also fond of Charles Murray's idea, set forth in By The People, of destroying excessive regulation and legislation by civil disobedience and drowning the agencies with endless litigation.

Regulation, and ludicrously granular legislation such as that which you cited, is one area where stalling, frustrating, and hopefully compelling repeal are the goals. The last thing I want to see is the regulatory state given more power to enforce in a more streamlined manner, and the Congress seeing an opportunity to pass more legislation.

Read The Utopia of Rules. There's a great explanation of why we embrace these overly interventionist laws and regulation. In a nutshell, they're attempts to compartmentalize, commoditize, and make uniform the workings of the world around us. They're at heart risk avoidance mechanisms that are sometimes useful, but when overused, as they are here, repress innovation. They also cause endless headaches via the law of unintended consequences.
_______
* For Flower: Yes, the Murray who wrote The Bell Curve. But also the MIT and Harvard trained political scientist Murray who writes on myriad topics, and is currently employed by AEI (that last organization only being 75% sexists, Nazis, and other messengers probably worth shooting from your perspective). And to head off any blunt arguments you might make, this is not an endorsement of his entire cannon. This is an endorsement of a concept, in a single one of his books, and the only one of them I've read.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 506783)

I never considered Christie THAT smart, but when I found this out I wondered how he EVER thought this was something he'd get past to get any sort of power in a Trump administration.

Bridgegate isn't even close to over, and he needs a powerful friend. DJT was his only play. He's fucked as soon as he's out of office. The statute of limitations for elected figures is considerably extended.

I heard he's never even tried a case. And a quick google search fails to disclose any contrary information. That slob goes on Face the Nation and claims he's this big, bad prosecutor, and he's never really prosecuted a single soul. How has he not been confronted with that?

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 506759)

So Tillerson says steps are underway to remove Assad, the administration is reportedly meeting to discuss military options, and Trump's answer on whether Assad should go was incoherent.

But he's less warlike than Hillary. :rolleyes:

He is. We'd have been there already under her.

Re: L'affaire Rice

Quote:

Really? More than yours, I'd wager. I've had one client plead guilty to a federal crime, but have been able to avoid charges for the others.

You'd be wrong there -- quite so.

Re: L'affaire Rice

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 506785)

I understand Murray's current focus is on the inferiority of women. Always a fun choice if you want to combine controversy with idiocy.

We all know one of Murray's fundamental problems is his total inability to understand the distinction between causation and correlation. This logic-101 failure is why mention of his name usually gets little more than derisive snickers. He is a perfect choice for you, Sebby. Perfect.

Back in the real world, does anyone here (other than Sebby) have thoughts on what this strike does to our strategy regarding ISIS? We've got these things going on in Raqaa and Mosul....

Quote:

No market emerges without a government already involved.

Incorrect. They emerge without govts all the time. They're a necessary element of modern human existence. And they predate modern govt.

Quote:

If you buy and sell something, you do it against a backdrop of law and enforcement that makes the market possible. The idea that you can somehow have a "normal" market that doesn't involve the government is a fiction.

You can. But because most states have govts, yes, it's not a likely thing.

However, where there's a will (say, to sell illegal arms), there's a way to have a lawless state wih a very robust market: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria See also: Aghanistan's warlord controlled areas, Somalia.

Quote:

They may be intertwined in your mind, but they are different things. If you are locked up in a room, you are not at liberty to do much. You may or may not have a right to get out, but you don't have liberty. If you're locked up in a federal penitentiary, your rights under federal law are very relevant. If you're locked up because your brother locked the basement door and went to the movies, those rights are less important. Either way, though, you lack liberty.

That you cannot buy something you'd like to buy does not mean you are deprived of liberty. Say I'd like a Faberge egg. Even if I had the cash, my "liberty" to purchase that egg is constrained, as they are not available. Or maybe I'd like to buy beachfront property in Iowa. Well, my liberty's a bit constrained there.

I don't think you can get to where you seek to arrive.

Quote:

Here is the crux: That "liberty" is utterly specious if the market gives you only one choice. It really isn't a liberty. It's a right -- a meaningless, useless right.

See above.

Quote:

You are the guy, shipwrecked on a desert island without food or water, who says, this is great! I am finally free of onerous FDA regulation!

No. Once the market has been established, the govt will step in and regulate things to make sure they are safe. (I'd prefer the minimum of that, yes, which is a different discussion.) But regulating things for safety is a much different thing than directing that a certain product be provided to consumers.

Quote:

Whose liberty? If you have a market that's going to tip, no one really has the ability to offer products that other people want to buy. That's not liberty.

Only if you define liberty to mean that, in the absence of the market providing you what you want, the govt must compel it to do so.

The govt can also step in and provide the product here: Medicare Expansion.

Quote:

Ah, the old slippery slope argument. Like the many, many other things that government does, deciding these questions involves balancing different, often incommensurable interests and reaching a compromise.

Medicare Expansion.

Quote:

Again, you are not reading what I'm saying. If you get rid of the requirement to offer maternity care (for example), insurers will not be able to offer it, because the only people who will buy it are the people who need it. The producer can't offer it, the consumer is less likely to be able to afford the care, the doctors and hospitals won't be able to provide as much care, and so on. All of those people are harmed in a real way that you are blind to.

That being an enormous market, it will be serviced. There is no scenario under which insurers would not market such a product.

Quote:

This is pointless intellectual gamesmanship. You see a harm from having to give money to another private party, but not from paying the government?

Yes. That's a disturbing precedent. We're already corporatist enough. Do we want to invite other corporations with the power of health insurers to follow suit in other arenas?

Quote:

Fine, we'll set up a government broker that you have to use when you buy insurance, so the money goes only to the government. OK, so that's more gamesmanship. We'll set up single-payer, where the government provides the insurance itself instead of using private markets. Under your cramped concept of liberty, we are all freer without the option of using something like the current system, and being forced into socialized medicine to get maternity care. More "correct," more rights, but fewer choices and less actual liberty.

The private market will always service maternity care. But yes, as to everything the market will not service, Medicare expansion. It's also administratively 100X simpler.

Quote:

For the person who wants to buy meaningful health insurance, your concept of liberty is nonsensical.

For the person who wants to buy meaningful health insurance, it will provide more choice. And for the person who fits into the Medicare expansion bracket, it will make life a lot simpler.

Quote:

There are some nice things we can't have without government regulation. For example, national defense, air travel, and Social Security. Good health insurance too.

Medicare expansion for that which the market will not provide would do that. You're arguing with me against a single payer alternative? In favor of a precedent that could potentially be abused by corporations to compel people to purchase things in other areas?

Quote:

So we could get healthcare reform by saying that if you want to drive on public roads, or use public water or electricity, you have to buy a certain health insurance. By your way of thinking, not a problem for libertarians because all of those things are "privileges."

I think you could make that argument. I'd argue that the cost imposed has to be tied to the privilege against you, but that'd be an interesting case.

Quote:

The government certainly subsidizes those who drive cars by building and maintaining paved roads, which other people don't need. But that's not really the issue -- the point is, you're not even trying to defend these various rules for cars as libertarian. Once they become well established, you become blind to the things the government is doing and accept them as part of the background. In that way, you're conservative -- you don't object to much of what the government does, you just object to changing it.

Oh, no. I never said that. I'd gut so many things from govt control I doubt we have the bandwidth to list them all. This is part of my distaste for conservatives. They're just a different flavor of unnecessary govt intervention. Liberals and Modern Conservatives are pretty much indistinguishable in terms of govt spending. It's just who gets the goodies. Both want to use govt to constrain social behaviors they don't like, both want to give things to people doing things they do like, and neither really wants to shrink the govt. They both just want control over it.

Quote:

In this, too, you're a typical conservative. Instead of defending libertarianism, you attack the Left, which we weren't discussing.

To defend Libertarianism, I'd have to be blunt about holding live and let die views that would trip the emotional triggers of a lot of people. That's not a conversation worth having.

Quote:

I don't think I have an ideology. I'm pretty pragmatic. I believe that markets usually work pretty well, and that government intervention is warranted when they don't. I also think that institutions produce better results when they make decisions with input from a variety of viewpoints -- that in itself is anti-ideological.

I think you do. You're exceptionally open minded and understand concepts at a level way above 99.9% of people. But you lean left. Not emotionally, but based on logic and compassion. I think we differ in the most simplest of ways. I do not view govt as mostly a force for good results. I view it as a lamentably necessary referee when people fail to create good results. The only place I struggle with that view is research and development, where the govt really does kickstart some of the great advances we enjoy. It's impossible to conclude govt intervention in science, tech, and medicine haven't vastly improved our lives. Thankfully, realizing Libertarianism, like Liberalism, and Conservatism, is a necessarily flawed concept, I don't claim to follow it 100%. I'd just like to see more of it incorporated.

Most people are such a mix of numerous ideologies, labeling them becomes absurd. I'm a liberal on some things, conservative on others, libertarian on yet others.

Re: L'affaire Rice

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 506785)

_______
* For Flower: Yes, the Murray who wrote The Bell Curve. But also the MIT and Harvard trained political scientist Murray who writes on myriad topics, and is currently employed by AEI (that last organization only being 75% sexists, Nazis, and other messengers probably worth shooting from your perspective). And to head off any blunt arguments you might make, this is not an endorsement of his entire cannon. This is an endorsement of a concept, in a single one of his books, and the only one of them I've read.

Just calm the fuck down. I didn't go to Middlebury.

Re: L'affaire Rice

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 506789)

I read one of his books. And it dealt solely with bureaucracy. Deal with that one and we can talk. As I stated, I cannot speak to the remainder of his cannon.

Or perhaps skip Murray and deal with David Graeber. His Utopia of Rules is far nastier toward bureaucracy than Murray. Why don't do a deep dive on his C.V. and offer my your indictments of his bona fides.

Also, what have you read of Murray's work? Perhaps you have a better understanding of the man's scholarship. And no -- criticism of him does not count. Because it would seem to me that for you to raise the claim you have, you'd need to be familiar with the subject from the horse's mouth, yes?

Re: L'affaire Rice

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 506792)

Just calm the fuck down. I didn't go to Middlebury.

Oberlin?

(I'm just being petty there. Couldn't help myself.)

Re: L'affaire Rice

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 506785)

I have worked at a business that has to comply with federal regulations. No one wants to "dance" with either courts or regulators. Businesses want to avoid legal problems altogether, and regulations help that by giving clarity. I'm not sure what all you're trying to say here, but you haven't convinced me that getting rid of regulations will make anyone's life better, or to read Murray's book. Thanks for trying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 506790)

Back in the real world, does anyone here (other than Sebby) have thoughts on what this strike does to our strategy regarding ISIS? We've got these things going on in Raqaa and Mosul....

I actually considered asking you about how Trump may impact EB-5 financing. I'm sure you'd have decent input.

But given your incessant poor attempts at glibness, it's difficult to interact with you. It's like listening to Richard Simmons on Howard. There's just this urge to slap whatever body that voice is coming from across the face. Not in a mean or aggressive manner. Just a quick jolt -- "Richard, shut the fuck up. And drop the shtick. Just for a second."

Re: L'affaire Rice

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 506795)

Read Graeber. Trust me. It's good. He's coming to it from a classical liberal perspective.

He wrote the highly amusing little piece, "Bullshit Jobs": http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee...bour-markets-0