Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not my understanding of what they want at all.

I think you're thinking of anarchists, not libertarians.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think you're thinking of anarchists, not libertarians.

Well, one can't deny that there are certain common characteristics.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I assure you, the common law significantly predates the reign of Henvy VIII.

The pre-SoW common law rules for the inheritance of real property were just different. There was significant interesting work in England from Domesday on figuring out ways, effectively, to will real property, generally with a fair amount of success. (A very significant portion of that was wealthy priests with families ensuring their children inherited, actually.) eta: (Very like gay couples currently have to contract around the status quo to obtain rights generally available to others.)

Property was not freely transferred by will prior to the SoW. It was entailed, a transfer of the right to possess and profit therefrom. However, the right to entail property was acquired by purchase from the Crown. Hence, to the extent that transfer of property in less than fee simple was accomplished prior to the SoW, it was still accomplished only upon the payment of an excise to the sovereign.

ETA that the only body that was able to transfer property without payment of an excise was the Church, which could receive property reversions upon the expiration of an entailment. However, that was because, prior to Henry VIII, the Church was deemed to be of equal soveriegnty. Which, of course, was one of the primary reasons the SoW was enacted. Hank wanted to keep property out of the Church's hands.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Well, one can't deny that there are certain common characteristics.

Sure. But club wants property rights, and you don't have property rights unless you have governmental institutions to define and enforce those rights.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But the rights club really gets exercised about are property rights, so we can start there.

Please don't take club as representing accurately the views of libertarians. That's why I keep kicking him off the ticket.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
BR(Libertarianism is like Christianity - it's not that it's been tried and found wanting, but that it's been found difficult and so never tried)C

Libertariansim is about as practical as frogs pulling the Budweiser wagon. You only make an exception for K-12? What about the safety net? All the "liberty" in the world won't do you much good if you are starving to death. If a man's family is starving can you really expect him not to steal your food? What about the clean air act, and the clean water act? Insterstate Highway System? Do you think every street in amercia should be a toll road? What do we do with Handicapp people - just let them starve? Do you really want people to be able to buy hand grenades and M-16s? Libertariansim is a nice theory for children who have absolutely no idea how the world works. But past the age of seven one should realize how ridiculous, cruel and unworkable the theory is.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The article doesn't do a very good job of explaining why Dems like Ellen Tauscher -- who supported the bankruptcy reform bill and who has voted for free trade bills in the past -- have turned against this one. I'm guessing it has something to do with the administration's strategy of using free trade agreements to gut environmental and labor protections.

Its really politics. The Democrats don't want Bush to have any momentum going into the Congressional elections. Normally the midterm elections for a second term president are a disaster (Clinton broke this trend with the help of his impeachment trial). The Dems sense majority so they are just going to stymie Bush for now on.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Well, one can't deny that there are certain common characteristics.

"Many people say that government is necessary because some men cannot be trusted to look after themselves, but anarchists say that government is harmful because no men can be trusted to look after anyone else."

Nicolas Walter, About Anarchism

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
However, that was because, prior to Henry VIII, the Church was deemed to be of equal soveriegnty. Which, of course, was one of the primary reasons the SoW was enacted. Hank wanted to keep property out of the Church's hands.

Is this why Henry II stuck it to his old pal Beckett? Or was that something different.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
Libertariansim is about as practical as frogs pulling the Budweiser wagon. You only make an exception for K-12? What about the safety net? All the "liberty" in the world won't do you much good if you are starving to death. If a man's family is starving can you really expect him not to steal your food? What about the clean air act, and the clean water act? Insterstate Highway System? Do you think every street in amercia should be a toll road? What do we do with Handicapp people - just let them starve? Do you really want people to be able to buy hand grenades and M-16s? Libertariansim is a nice theory for children who have absolutely no idea how the world works. But past the age of seven one should realize how ridiculous, cruel and unworkable the theory is.

And transaction costs.

I can't recall whether I've ever banned the Ls from the ranks of the fuckable like I've banned the Rs. This is relevant not because of any upcoming trips, but because SOMEONE couldn't keep his assjack-y YAP shut last night. I was happy in my willful ignorance.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Damn those centrist Democrats for not making up for the opposition from within the Republican party!! I mean, the nerve of these people -- how dare they not help us to get what we want, even when some of our own posture for their constituents so that they can keep their jobs!! Why do they hate America so?

Often centrist Democrats will try and argue that Democrats are just as much for free trade as Republicans. Bull Honkey. Clinton got the fast track authority mainly from Republican votes. Nafta and the WTO passed because of Republican votes. There are exceptions, but the Republican party is clearly the free trade party.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
Libertariansim is about as practical as frogs pulling the Budweiser wagon. You only make an exception for K-12? What about the safety net? All the "liberty" in the world won't do you much good if you are starving to death. If a man's family is starving can you really expect him not to steal your food? What about the clean air act, and the clean water act? Insterstate Highway System? Do you think every street in amercia should be a toll road? What do we do with Handicapp people - just let them starve? Do you really want people to be able to buy hand grenades and M-16s? Libertariansim is a nice theory for children who have absolutely no idea how the world works. But past the age of seven one should realize how ridiculous, cruel and unworkable the theory is.

It's easy to undermine any political theory if one compares it in pure form to the practical versions of everything else.

Of course, in theory communism works too.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Please don't take club as representing accurately the views of libertarians. That's why I keep kicking him off the ticket.

The thing that bugs me about many libertarians -- OK, "a" thing -- is that they think that common law property rights are a fact of nature, and don't need government to define or enforce them. They don't have an objection to government, they have an objection to the sorts of decisions that government made in this century (perhaps not coincidentally, as the franchise became more widespread).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Its really politics. The Democrats don't want Bush to have any momentum going into the Congressional elections. Normally the midterm elections for a second term president are a disaster (Clinton broke this trend with the help of his impeachment trial). The Dems sense majority so they are just going to stymie Bush for now on.

That doesn't explain why Tauscher et al. voted for the bankruptcy bill. I think you're reading things wrong. Those blue dogs are willing to cross over for the right bill.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Often centrist Democrats will try and argue that Democrats are just as much for free trade as Republicans. Bull Honkey. Clinton got the fast track authority mainly from Republican votes. Nafta and the WTO passed because of Republican votes. There are exceptions, but the Republican party is clearly the free trade party.

I'm sure that Ellen Tauscher supports free trade in principle. (See, e.g., this.) If she's voting against it, something else is going on.