Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In other news, the Titanic sunk because it filled with water, contrary to the terms of the specifications given to the shipbuilders, not because it hit an iceberg.

Icebergs are judgement proof, but shipbuilders aren't so of course it was the shipbuilder's fault.

eta: Signed Yours Truly, John Edwards.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"Hey Laura, Teddy here says he wants to take me for a ride in his new car. Isn't that niiiiiice?"

"Hey Laura, maybe you oughtta drive. Well, maybe not."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Interesting argument based on Cold War deterrence stuff that Saddam acted rationally.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Here's a hypthetical for you... What would happen if the Dems suddenly dropped the plank of their platform which supports govt regulation/babysitting? What if suddenly they became the party of less govt and more social freedom? How would the traditional GOP deal with all the liberal republicans who've only voted GOP for tax reasons suddenly switching to a liberal republican alternative party? I think at a minimum, such a move would create a more honest debate in this country. It would force the alleged "copnservatives" to admit they're actually not for freedom and liberty at all, but for freedom and liberty for people to act as they see fit.

That would be interesting, but its truly a hypothetical. I've been waiting for years for a third party to emerge. Call it the "Guiliani Party." I think it would have broad based support, provided that it could pull away enough recognizable people from both sides to give it legitimacy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Icebergs are judgement proof, but shipbuilders aren't so of course it was the shipbuilder's fault.

Although you jest, recent examinations of the wreck suggest that the Titanic sank because faulty rivets popped open.

• Recent discoveries indicate that the loss of the Titanic -- the greatest maritime disaster ever -- may have resulted from nonconforming product, not collision with an iceberg (although the iceberg is still a culprit).
  
  In 1996, Polaris Imaging Inc. explored the Titanic wreckage using low-frequency sonar to scan the damaged hull. Instead of a 300-foot gash, six lateral openings equal to the area of a closet door were found. Studies of steel plates recovered from the ship suggest that the 2,000 plates used in the hull varied in quality.
  
  On Feb. 10, 1998, Tim Foecke of the National Institute of Standards and Technology published a paper concerning a metallurgical study of iron rivets recovered from the ship. His research indicates that the rivets' microstructure may have contributed to their failure on April 14, 1912. Theoretically, the rivets could have popped along the hull's seams where the ship collided against the iceberg.
  
  Foecke found that, unlike standard wrought-iron rivets containing 2 percent slag, the Titanic's rivets had up to 9 percent, which made them brittle. In addition, the streaks of slag in the rivets didn't follow the normal pattern, which also weakened the metal.

The guy's name might make you think this is a joke, but apparently not.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Call it the "Guiliani Party."

That will be the Republican party 2008.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That would be interesting, but its truly a hypothetical. I've been waiting for years for a third party to emerge. Call it the "Guiliani Party." I think it would have broad based support, provided that it could pull away enough recognizable people from both sides to give it legitimacy.

My gut is that you will see that part emerge only when one of the other parties takes a dive. The model for a party going away and being replaced is the Whigs getting replaced by the Republicans, and in our system, I think its very unlikely to happen any other way.

Maybe 30-40 years ago, Massachusetts used to have multi-person state legislative districts - two or three reps elected from each district. In that system, a third party could have emerged more easily on a statewide level, but it never did.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Most people are "liberal republicans" (less govt/taxes + as much social freedom as possible).

Or: Libertarians. There is already a party for you, too.

The real crux of the difference between the Right and Left in this country is that the Right wants to regulate people's social lives and the Left wants to regulate their pocketbooks. I lean left a lot more these days because I can always ,make more money if the Left's in charge, but I don't know how to go about creating liberties once they're taken away from me.

Not to be entirely cynical (or flippant), but you can usually buy them (or buy your way free of restrictions) if you have money. What, you didn't know there are effectively different social freedoms/rights for the rich and the poor? See: abortion. The debate is, as a practical matter, irrelevant to anyone with the means to hie themselves across the state border (or to Canada in the event of fed. regulation). See, also: voting. Voting is a much less effective way to cause your gov't to represent your opinions than gaining access to and incurring obligation from your representatives by judicious use of funds. See, also: 4th A/5th A/criminal rights. OJ.

BR(I vote we adjust our terms to "progressive" and "conservative," which shall not be confused with "Democrat" or "Republican", which are political parties each of which espouse some progressive and some conservative causes, or "liberal" which is what Adam Smith, the Institute for Justice and I are)C

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
My gut is that you will see that part emerge only when one of the other parties takes a dive. The model for a party going away and being replaced is the Whigs getting replaced by the Republicans, and in our system, I think its very unlikely to happen any other way.

Maybe 30-40 years ago, Massachusetts used to have multi-person state legislative districts - two or three reps elected from each district. In that system, a third party could have emerged more easily on a statewide level, but it never did.

The only reason to see a rise of a third party is if there's a significant bloc of voters not served by the two existing parties. In fact, there is a party that serves the voters sebby is thinking of. It's called the Democratic Party. As baltassoc noted, the party has moved quite a bit in the last several years. E.g., over GOP opposition, Clinton balanced the budget. If you're looking for a party that's fiscally responsible and not socially conservative, that's your party, and John Kerry is your man. The people who argue otherwise are looking at the Maxine Waters of the world and caricatures of their own devise.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The only reason to see a rise of a third party is if there's a significant bloc of voters not served by the two existing parties. In fact, there is a party that serves the voters sebby is thinking of. It's called the Democratic Party. As baltassoc noted, the party has moved quite a bit in the last several years. E.g., over GOP opposition, Clinton balanced the budget. If you're looking for a party that's fiscally responsible and not socially conservative, that's your party, and John Kerry is your man. The people who argue otherwise are looking at the Maxine Waters of the world and caricatures of their own devise.

No, the Dems are still too in favor of stuff like environmental regulation and food and drug regulation and, oh, ERISA-type protections for Sebby to like them. Sebby wants to be able to dump his car oil and sewage wherever he thinks best, to have to go inspect farms and slaughterhouses himself to make sure his food isn't utterly disgusting and, after he starts his own business, take away people's pensions when things start to go bad. It's not THAT hard to find people to hire who won't notice that they have no enforceable contractual promises for stuff like that.

Seriously, I think that people who want all those kinds of regulations to go away have a point. I just think that having large, densely populated urban areas and markets across the world makes the information costs for replacing the governmental regulation too high. Honestly, it would not occur to me not to dump oil on the ground or whatever. I only know it's bad because I know you aren't allowed to do it, and I asked why.

This is soooo totally outable to a libertarian friend of mine, but I'm 99 9/10% sure he doesn't know this place exists.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

And then there are the many people who want a judgmental, socially conservative government. They organize and vote.

These people confuse the living piss out of me. I don't get them at all. Why? Where does this desire to control other people you don't even know come from? Am I missing that gene? I think I got the gene that blocks understanding why people want to meddle in other people's business. I just don't get it. Its hard enough to keep control of your own life in this world... why the fuck would you want to go fucking around with other people's lives? Am I nuts? I've tried looking for studies about what sort of personality defects make people want to control others, but I find little good literature (lots of stuff about the Nazis and such). Other than fear, the anthropoligists offer no explanation for the phenomenon. Why is "live and let live" such a hard concept for so many? This is an earnest question - I think it goes to the heart of the present political debate.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Sebby wants to be able to dump his car oil and sewage wherever he thinks best, to have to go inspect farms and slaughterhouses himself to make sure his food isn't utterly disgusting and, after he starts his own business, take away people's pensions when things start to go bad.

Oh, OK, sorry for the misunderstanding. The Democratic Party is still against all that stuff. For motherhood, apple pie and national security; against oil and sewage dumping, farm non-inspection, and pension theft.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
These people confuse the living piss out of me. I don't get them at all. Why? Where does this desire to control other people you don't even know come from?

Parenthood.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
These people confuse the living piss out of me. I don't get them at all. Why? Where does this desire to control other people you don't even know come from? Am I missing that gene? I think I got the gene that blocks understanding why people want to meddle in other people's business. I just don't get it. Its hard enough to keep control of your own life in this world... why the fuck would you want to go fucking around with other people's lives? Am I nuts? I've tried looking for studies about what sort of personality defects make people want to control others, but I find little good literature (lots of stuff about the Nazis and such). Other than fear, the anthropoligists offer no explanation for the phenomenon. Why is "live and let live" such a hard concept for so many? This is an earnest question - I think it goes to the heart of the present political debate.

I don't want 3 or 4 more of these types on the Supreme Court. Other than that W is a moron, this is the main reason I'll be voting for Kerry.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Oh, OK, sorry for the misunderstanding. The Democratic Party is still against all that stuff. For motherhood, apple pie and national security; against oil and sewage dumping, farm non-inspection, and pension theft.

It's easy to spin that way, but it really is a pain in the ass to comply with regulations. I think that while it seems inefficient, it's more efficient than having all these individual actors roaming around doing their own things and then having to fix it (which is nearly always more expensive than just doing it differently the first time around) when you get sued, or whatever. I mean, WAY easier to dispose of my oil properly than to compensate people for the diseases they get from polluted groundwater, or to dig up all the earth that was touched by the oil and then find someplace to dispose of that hugely larger hunk of stuff.

But, obviously, opinions differ.