How to Justify Legislation
Every problem, no matter how small or inconsequential, can never fail to be magnified, exaggerated, or – with a suitably agenda-driven Media – simply concocted out of whole cloth by partisan hacks and flacks, and then subsequently painted as requiring government intervention of one kind or another. This typically take the form of regulation, spearheaded by those fearsome warriors of the quill, our legislators! Boies Penrose, the PA legislator and US Senator (quoted in Part I) was famous for his “squeeze bills.” These were essentially extortion threats to businesses within a given industry that they would be strictly regulated by Congress…unless they paid a certain fee to the re-election campaign of a given politician. If you think this is some relic of the past, please understand: your Congressional representatives do this to businesses ALL. OF. THE. TIME. In other words, Virginia, not only is there not a Santa Claus, but Congress is also not very different in result from the Mafia in its shakedowns of legitimate businesses. It is nothing more or less than the same ol’ protection rackets, except the armed thugs who enforce it will not be Bent-Nose Tony or One-Eyed-Vito, instead it will be the police who, like good soldiers, will dutifully take to the streets to ensure the dictates of their legislative masters are not being ignored by the tax-donkeys citizenry.
If this seems unduly harsh on the police, consider the underlying circumstances that instigated the encounter between Eric Garner and New York police in 2014. All of the hoopla was around choke holds, police training, and racism, but flushed down the memory-hole is the reason police had an interaction with Eric Garner in the first place: he had been picked up previously in that same area for selling “loosies,” a term for single cigarettes. “Why is selling loose cigarettes a crime in the first place?” you might ask. Well, that was made a crime by the New York legislature, which came on the heels of massive sin taxes they placed on cigarettes, which created the black market for “loosies” in the first place. In summary then, the police killed a man, Eric Garner, who wasn’t even selling cigarettes at the time, but was in the same location where he had been arrested for it previously, and when the police encountered him trying to break up a fight, the fatal encounter began. The real tragedy goes unaddressed amidst all of the hoopla over whether the encounter/actions of the police were racially motivated or not. It wasn’t racially motivated: it was economically motivated… by the legislature. Tobacco companies, demonized (justly or not) by the public because of their actions in hiding what they knew about tobacco’s addictive properties and higher statistical propensity to cause lung cancer, became easy, easy targets for legalized extortion by your elected representatives: the legislative branch. No one stood up in defense of those companies’ rights – and that is exactly how everyone’s rights are diminished. If you won’t stand up for the rights of the most odious among us, then you don’t really believe in those rights. You just like to tell yourself that you do.
Only a rare few magazines or authors have focused on this point.
Why were the cops so hell-bent on stamping out the sales of loosies, which typically sell for 75 cents a pop in Staten Island (and two times or more that in Manhattan)? New York City boasts the highest cost for cigarettes in the nation, with a pack ranging anywhere from $12 and up. The city lays its own taxes on top of the state’s, in an effort both to raise revenue and discourage use of tobacco.
The result is a thriving market in sales of loosies and black-market cigarettes more generally. Since 2006, the tax on cigarettes in New York have risen 190 percent and cigarette smuggling has risen by 59 percent, writes Lawrence J. McQuillan of the Independent Institute. Whether it’s liquor, drugs, or cigarettes, when you try to stamp out something consenting adults want, you cause as many or more problems as you ameliorate.
– Nick Gillespie (from the above-linked article).
And if you didn’t believe these phenomenon are in any way related, note this article from the Wall Street Journal, subtitled, “The New York Police Department has made nearly 33% fewer arrests citywide so far this year for selling untaxed cigarettes.”
The police enforce the will of the legislature. The legislature sells legislation to political donors. Political donors, both corporate and individual, become ‘constituents’ only one way… You aren’t a recognized constituent until you start donating to politicians’ campaigns. Prior to that time, the only time politicians can “hear you” is if you manage to make a big, loud, angry mess that gets picked up by the Media and either (a) they see an opportunity to leverage you/your issue, or (b) might harm their reelection chances.
In summary thus far, we know that (a) even the previously-believed-to-be-a-saint Father of the Country, George Washington, bribed the voters in his district to win election; (b) no modern legislator comes anywhere moderately close to being even half of the gentlemen that George Washington genuinely was; (c) and Lord Acton was entirely correct.
Devalue Politicians by Changing the Economics
Having identified the root of the problem, the question becomes how to control the flow of money into politicians’ coffers. Every attempt has failed because even honest and well-intentioned reformers seek to attack the “money” – and not the underlying economics that are at the heart of the entire corrupt enterprise. It is unfortunately the same kind of animist thinking that sees banning guns as the only way to stop shootings, or banning drugs as the way to lower drug addiction, etc. The simplest, most effective solution is to attack the basis of the underlying economy: in this case, to make politicians not worth buying. (In the other examples, it’s to stop re-enacting Prohibition by legislative fiat over and over again, but those are separate subjects for their own space another time.)
What does it Cost for Legislation?
The primary method politicians use to avoid the sticky problem of being directly bribed by their political donors has been the “re-election campaign as front for political quid pro quo.” That is the current popular way to solicit money from paying customers. (i.e. political constituents who would be affected by a given piece of legislation). While it is true some politicians have found other, more ingenious variations on this theme, political campaigns continue to be the primary vehicle for buying legislation.*
(*One could, however, set up a really bizarre shell Foundation/corporation/non-profit with subchapters in other countries, and then launder your political payoffs through said Foundation, where all of your friends, family, political lackeys, and supporters also happen to work and draw a handsome salary… some while simultaneously drawing a government salary! You might even get your disbarred spouse to give highly-paid speaking engagement in countries where you might be able to affect United States foreign policy in favor of those paying for said speaking gigs… just an idea, of course.)
Buying legislation (i.e. making a large donation to a campaign) for your own benefit, or to the detriment of your competitors or smaller businesses, always comes with the possibility that the legislative promise can’t be kept. The best thing the Founding Fathers did was to spread the legislative power out over a wide geographical and political area, and make it procedurally difficult to gain a consensus. Congress is filled with a myriad of committees and subcommittees and byzantine rules of procedure. That reality is already priced into the market for legislation. It’s why politicians are constantly campaigning – they don’t just get big sacks of money by promising they’re going to pass a law. It’s not that simple.
The junior Congresswoman from Nebraska, for example, is unlikely to be able to do squat legislatively for several terms. Thus, what she can expect to solicit in campaign donations is not very much. Committee Chairs, however, have power to control agendas for their committees, including what legislation gets “tabled” or considered. Consequently, those committee chairs are “worth” more on the market for legislation/campaign donations. Speakers, the Whip, and other senior party members are obviously worth even more again, and so on up the line, which is why Presidential elections are like the Super Bowl of political campaigns: the money spent is a direct reflection of the power that the “marketplace” for political control sees in the Presidency: the veto power, the right to appoint Supreme Court justices for life, foreign policy, the military, etc.
Now that we start to understand how the legislative sausage is made, or perhaps more importantly, who actually pays to have the legislative sausage made, we’re in a better position tot understand what real “reform” would look like. It also helps explain why reform never really happens: because the people who pass the laws are in no way going to slaughter their own cash cow. In the next part I explain how to change the economics around politics.
I am afraid part 3 is going to really short: You cant.
there is a big difference between possible and likely to be implemented solutions
there is a reason human history is full of fuckery
https://external-preview.redd.it/8DbvfdPGSHZ08tLhy5AGzwbL2i4pIIjLF-TLAyZhngw.jpg?auto=webp&s=2a8dccf42d2bb7055563226032ae1336092869ce
I have to admit, I laughed pretty loudly when I saw that as the first comment. Thank you. Very nice.
And to throw a little shade back on you (with love): was your school’s motto “Why even bother?”
As my grandma used to say, When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.
A society where the betters running government are not allowed to pick life’s winners & losers, is not a society worth living in! Social Justice!
/progtard
–Some old white guy
Orwell knew what he was talking about…
Adam Smith was spot on with that one.
That Ray Bradbury sure could write ’em.
Aristotle was admirably apt there.
Hitler wasn’t always wrong.
Was Bastiat a white guy? I always thought that he was French…
Your grandma was P. J. O’Rourke?
I thought P.J.’s gramma wouldn’t say “Democrats” if children were around, she’d call them bastards instead.
Paraphrasing Joe Kennedy: “Buy every damned vote that you need but remember I’m not paying for a landslide”
I have made this point repeatedly whenever the topic comes up in my NYC office. Maybe 1/3rd of those to whom I mention it seem to slowly get the connection and the broader point about how law is backed by force.
Every violation of law, tax, and regulation is punishable by death.
And if you say that to a normie, they hand wave it away.
Thanks for the article. These aren’t easy questions. I think Glibs is its best when kicking these things around.
Way to “other” TOK
Uffda. My nose hurts from snorting hot coffee out of it.
TOK better give you a slapshot to the back of the head for that cheap shot.
Good thing I work from home now. I don’t think my family notices me laughing for no apparent reason as much as my co workers did.
Reason is a cesspool.
Trump Weaponizes the Bureaucracy Against Naturalized Citizens
The guy committed fraud.
Republicans Struggle To Find a Coherent Defense During Trump Impeachment Hearings
I don’t think you watched the same hearings. They asked pointed questions relevant to the matter. And the matter turns out to be complete, partisan horseshit demonstrating, in part, that bureaucrats apparently don’t know their place on the totem poll of American government.
I’m not buying anything that ICE says in that deportation hearing. Why? Because they are a pack of charlatans and probably told the guy to leave that shit out of his application.
I’m speaking from experience. When I was going to marry my wife, we went down to the INS office in Memphis and told them our plans and asked them if we would be doing anything illegal. The guy we spoke with told us that we shouldn’t file any papers in Korea because if we did, my wife would have to stay in Korea until her case was resolved. But if she came back with me on her student visa (which was still valid) she could file once she got here and then she could stay here while her case was resolved.
Flash forward months and we have to go into the INS office for an interview to prove we are married. While we are in there the (same) guy asks my wife if she had gone back to school after we returned. She said no and the guy immediately tells us that she had committed visa fraud. Since she didn’t go back to school, her entry on a student visa was technically illegal. Luckily – he said – we could pay $200 for a waiver for that violation. The waiver was already typed up. I was flabbergasted. I told him we had talked with him and that he told us that what we were doing was fine. The pompous ass sat there and said “I would never advise anyone to break the law”.
Ever since then, I am a soft touch for anyone claiming that ICE/INS is railroading them.
I’ve never had an interaction with them that doesn’t end up spiking my blood pressure with pure rage.
…I am a soft touch for anyone claiming that
ICE/INSany government agency is railroading them.FTFY
Cops and Bueraucrats are always in a dead heat for “Occupations that attracts the worst sociopaths in society”
INS is especially bad because they have an insane amount of power to fuck you over. You can yell at a lot of bureaucrats and you might get shitty service or have to jump through a few more hoops, but INS can send you ass right back to the shit hole you crawled out of.
Better tug your forelock and grovel when you have to meet up with them.
Good reason not to tell at them.
“Not behaving like asshole” “forelock tugging”
By the way, everyone else we knew that dealt with the Memphis INS office ended up needing some sort of waiver that cost a few hundred dollars. I’m not saying they were golddiggers but….
…They were gold diggers.
Reason IS a cesspool, but INS is, too. I was talking to a friend of mine’s girlfriend a while back who is an immigration attorney in NYC. She was telling me horror story after horror story about the absolute tomfuckery INS gets up to. It’s everything you might expect from a government agency staffed with people who’d rather be elsewhere working with people who mostly have no idea how to navigate the bureaucracy and subject to little to no oversight. Of course there are people who try to do their jobs responsibly and some who even try to be helpful, but there are also people who play fast and loose with the legal requirements on their end, people who pull the petty bureaucrat’s trick of doing the exact minimum they’re required to do and nothing else, and like you say people who use their position to essentially blackmail people they have at their mercy.
I went from reading just about every article (not necessarily agreeing but open-minded about it), to just some of the them, to just scanning the headlines, to never visiting at all. It’s depressing over there. TDS is a terrible disease.
Trump Weaponizes the Bureaucracy Against Naturalized Citizens
Obama weaponized it against citizens both naturalized and natural-born.
A coherent defense against this?
I’m really enjoying this series. I’m guessing part 4 will have liquor recommendations.
If part 3 doesn’t roughly state “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”, then it won’t work.
HK needs to learn that one, and quickly.
Figure 400k died in Syria for nothing. I suspect a successful assault on the HK governor’s mansion can be achieved for a fraction of that.
then the CCP military go in and round up a few thousand, they did it to the Uighurs
The only thing keeping HK from that is that so much of what’s going on is in the public eye, and Hong Kong is China’s golden goose. I think if they could disappear a few thousand protesters and send them to a reeducation camp they’d do it in the blink of an eye.
https://twitter.com/jwwaholic/status/1196332996049063942?s=21
Funny how this video seems to be deleted and largely avoided in the media.
Beat me to it. They are disappearing “ring-leaders”. If this really got violent, the “People’s” army would be the boot and the protestors would be the ants.
Reeducation camps? Someone is being an optimist.
Ask the Uighurs about the curriculum and tell me how optimistic “reeducation” sounds. I’d like to think that some time in the not too distant future the feeble response to what the CCP is doing to the Uighurs in what amount to concentration camps, which I’d point out is just a continuation of the government’s policy towards “ethnic minorities”, will be looked at with the same bafflement and disgust as when people talk about German civilians during the Holocaust.
It is optimistic to think they will go to a camp instead of being ground to a pulp under the tracks of the PLA tanks.
I also think there’s an upper limit on size before you really can’t have a working representative democracy, assuming that means a government where representatives are immediately beholden to the electorate and not to “special interests” or whatever and that isn’t dominated by an entrenched group of mandarins. There’s likely a geographic limitation based on transportation and communication as well as a population limit. The latter may be somewhere around five.
LOL. I’ve always said six is the upper limit of a startup. At that point you start hiring a friend of somebody and they don’t measure up. So then everyone hires a similar worthless friend and pretty soon you have a regular company.
But to your point, that is why a weak FedGov would be so much better. Each state should be able to tailor policies to their populations much better than the hacks in DC. Of course that ship has sailed, so we are stuck being ruled by Commerce Clause.
My last one was three and that ended up being too many…
I hammer that point with my proggies. Why the hell are we laundering money through Washington for things that are specific to Minnesota?
They are happy being ruled, I guess.
For sure. I know it’s a canard, but the strength of the fed relative to the states and localities causes more problems than it solves. Yes, states violate protected rights and that makes the fed a last resort to step in and restore those rights, but more often than not that is the exception to the rule. In the case of segregation, for instance, it’s the exception that *proves* the rule.
Yep – a big town is the upper limit of direct democracy – Athens proved it long ago.
A mid-sized state probably the upper limit for elected representative government.
After that, it better be a really strictly limited federation or else… well, or else you get the shitshow of grifters we have in DC right now.
The junior Congresswoman from Nebraska, for example, is unlikely to be able to do squat legislatively for several terms. Thus, what she can expect to solicit in campaign donations is not very much. Committee Chairs, however, have power to control agendas for their committees, including what legislation gets “tabled” or considered. Consequently, those committee chairs are “worth” more on the market for legislation/campaign donations. Speakers, the Whip, and other senior party members are obviously worth even more again, and so on up the line, which is why Presidential elections are like the Super Bowl of political campaigns: the money spent is a direct reflection of the power that the “marketplace” for political control sees in the Presidency: the veto power, the right to appoint Supreme Court justices for life, foreign policy, the military, etc.
The point about chairmanships is a good one. Quick question though, wouldn’t term limits (by destroying seniority that is the current system for deciding chairmenship) actually make the junior congresswoman from Nebraska more valuable? Someone is going to be in that chairmanship.
It’s a good point, leon, which is why what I’m really trying to do over the long haul is make the chairmanship itself worthless.
long haul is make the chairmanship itself worthless.
Sounds good to me.
Also, Your point still stands that the value, rather than being concentrated in a few people who you are sure to get a chairmanship, is now more distributed and the risk of picking someone who doesn’t get one goes up, so the overall value probably does drop because of the increase in uncertainty.
Organizations exist because that is the only way to get things done.
Hierarchies exist, because that is the only way that organizations can be controlled.
It is impossible to make a chairmanship worthless. The only way to control it is to increase the risk that goes with the rewards. Hence, dueling.
“because the people who pass the laws are in no way going to slaughter their own cash cow”
Herein lies the root of the problem; and it’s an issue that is unfixable. It may be a cop-out, but I’ve made the argument here before: there is no system that’s sustainable. I’m talking sustainable on human time scales, obviously nothing is truly sustainable forever. I love the idea of AnCap, but I tend to think it’s as utopian and unworkable as Marxism. However, minarchism never stays that way. Look at all the explicit limitations on power the Constitution lays out, and they’ve all been run over roughshod in just a short 250 years. Granted, constitutionally limited republic seems to be the best system so far, but the problems lie in the nature of Man, not the type of system.
That’s the crux of it. At the end of the day, humans cannot design a system that cannot be exploited by humans, even when you bake exploitation in as a design feature.
Exploit this! *Drops Nuke on DC*
Did you intend it to detonate, because it hasn’t.
HEY! Gimme a couple of weeks to pack, man!
It’s truly amazing to me how quickly people will figure out how to game most systems to their benefit. You’ve got the obvious examples of every multiplayer computer game where it’s a constant race between min/maxers and the devs. Any compensation system gets schooled quickly (and can lead to some very interesting unintended consequences).
Raising a kid is teaching me that, too, and I’m learning the lesson good and hard. I was a born manipulator from day one and I could game the system like nobody’s business, and now my daughter is outdoing me. We’re hoping that by adding a son we’re going to disrupt the polarity of the power structure and create something closer to Europe in the post-Napoleonic “Great Powers” era.
It’s called “The Mother’s Curse;” at least, that’s what my sister and I named my mother’s constant refrain to us as children: “I hope someday you have kids just like you, ya little shit.” That was mostly at me, if I’m being honest.
It turns out it works, too.
My mom tells me the universe is not fair, because I was a monster as a child and my son turned out to be one of the most well behaved and mature kid I have ever seen. So that curse doesn’t work all the time…
Sure does.
“What’s the problem with Mlle. Naptown?”
“She’s mad because I asked her to eat a chicken nugget.”
“Why? She *asked* for chicken nuggets.”
“I know. Now she doesn’t want them because I told her she had to eat one. That’s YOUR daughter, by the way.”
“sigh…yep, sounds about right.”
Ah yes. You can tell when our kids are in trouble when they are assigned to my genes. Her Korean genes are perfect and there is no way any good Korean kid would ever do something like that. It has to be your mongrel American genes causing that misbehavior.
One time my wife was mad at one of the Altar Boys and told me “He is just like you!” to which I replied, “I thought that was the point of what we’ve been doing. Isn’t that the goal?”
Yeah, somehow, whenever my daughter is stubborn or “overreacts” about something it’s because she’s my daughter. Somehow, though, when she doesn’t pay attention to what she’s doing or won’t listen to us because she’s convinced she knows best that has absolutely nothing to do with my wife having oddly similar traits…
^This^
Watching my boys turn a simple job like mowing the lawn (I can do it in 40 minutes) into an hours long production because they spend so much time trying to wiggle out of it or arguing with each other about who has to do what exactly.
Yup. Reminds me of my sister (I was a perfect child).
Talk to any call center supervisor/WFP/WFM type person, you’ll get all kinds of tricks that they’ve seen that you would never have considered. As an example, if you’re working in a call center that is generally waiting for calls (or it’s a slow period), the next inbound call will generally be assigned to the person in a Ready status the longest. Some phone systems will take you out of ready if you take your phone off the hook, or start an outbound call. So, by just a quick tap, tap you’re back in ready and were only out for less than a second (which won’t hurt your stats), and you’ve just made sure you’re not getting the next call.
We are stuck with horrible programs because someone somewhere is always making money from that bullshit. That’s why they never get rolled back.
we need interstellar travel to get our own planet with blackjack and hookers
No booze?
No booze no deal, bro. Man cannot live on floozies and flops alone.
This man gets it…
There’s enough of us here who know how to make booze…
Interstellar Ale FTW!
That’s why the US made it hard to change the core of the rules via amendment and making laws difficult by separating the government. One idea that always had appeal to me was to make all laws expire every 5 years or so and require them to be debated again and held to a vote to maintain. This would slow down the process and encourage only well regarded legislation that is easy to debate and understand. I think the benefits would be that for each partisan majority voted law that is put in place, there would be the risk that it could be repealed by the next session once the mix of the branches change.
I’m not naive enough to not see the potential for abuse or see what happened to the Patriot act, but there is a possibility that the growth of government would slow due to old business needing to be re-debated and justified every year. Maybe make the burden to keep the law for good after 5 years 3/4 majority in both branches?
Your Jib, the cut thereof, me likey.
Thanks, I appreciate your articles, the time it takes to write them, and the time and effort it took to live them.
Sunset laws are a great idea, which is why they wont be implemented.
limited republic seems to be the best system so far,
It would be if it’s structure was adhered to. The constant flouting of the governments founding charter is an issue.
Yup, which is a weakness of limited republics
This stuff has always seemed pretty much self-evident, to me. I’m baffled that it seems so incomprehensible to most people, including some otherwise “smart” ones.
The notion of “public servants” as being somehow above or immune from venal self interest is utterly preposterous, but a lot of people seem to fall for it.
These are people that practically always make fun of people for believing in the old time religions – which had an all powerful god, and his agents doing the holy work and spreading good – but then afford the same roles here on earth for government and its bureaucrats, with the reverence those old time religion followers practice. Fucking nuts…
One of the reasons that the USSR collapsed is that they failed to acknowledge that we are all greedy bastards. Our system acknowledged that people will be greedy and harnessed that to deliver us a lot of goods and services that we would never have without greed.
Our problem is like Brooksie said, we are failing to acknowledge that public “servants” are just as greedy and venal as any other person. We think that somehow by denying that fact that it will somehow become true.
Not sure how you can harness the greed of govt drones. Maybe just acknowledging that fact will help justify limiting the number of them?
Still take something like infrastructure. Standard anarchist disclaimer aside if you need a government to build the roadz, power lines, and sewage how do you keep the pols hands out of it. Infrastructure has historically been one the dirtiest part of government.
My friend used to say that public “servants” service tax payers like bulls service cows…
On off the cuff idea to harness the greed would be to award a bonus of 10% of the amount you reduced the budget for your department next year. If you need to ask for extra money (because of bad budgeting), that bonus gets removed. So cut the budget $100,000 , get $10,000. Zero out the budget and close the department, then you’re talking some real cash.
The Ron Swanson school of Government
“….groundbreaking has been cancelled, now get off of my new lawn.”
I think some (a lot?) of the reason for this is the idea that civil servants are not working for profit. Therefore they are not being selfish or greedy like the rest of the people. This viewpoint is a testament to the transformation in thinking that selfishness is equated with material wealth.
I suspect people who hold that view are also confused about the financial nature of a nonprofit organization.
There’s also the agent-vs-principle issue, which can usually characterized as Parties A and B colluding to fleece Party C (the taxpayer).
I have toyed with the idea of a system structured in such a way that the representative “serves” a district other than that which elects him. Let’s say some sort of random assignment of reps to electoral districts. The person elected in upstate New York is assigned the job of representing the people of Topeka and central Kansas.
In theory, this would reduce the incentive to lavish tax money collected from the people who elected you on a bunch of people in some other part of the country, if you wanted to get re-elected.
I can’t see that working… people having no control over who is mayor or something.
I prefer drawing lots in that case.
I have thought of a similar system: you can only run for the congressional district you reside in…then it is randomly assigned to another district for voting.
You run for SC-1 but have to convince the voters in CA-14.
Not sure how you can harness the greed of govt drones. Maybe just acknowledging that fact will help justify limiting the number of them?
I think about fee-for-service policing, sometimes.
In theory, they’d get paid a lot better for focusing on crimes involving a real victim and/or demonstrable harm than chasing down victimless bullshit. I would pay the cops a nickel for busting some high school kid with a twelve pack in his pickup. Catching the little bastard breaking into cars and houses looking for guns and cash, on the other hand…
Probably doesn’t translate very well.
How about this. “We’ll keep paying you as long as you DON”T write or vote for any laws. We’ll even pay a bonus for repeals.”
Maybe a very hefty filing fee for new bills?
I learned an interesting piece of NY fire history from an older friend whose dad (in his nineties now) was an OG NYC Fire Captain: I was told that in the olde-timey days (and I don’t know if it pre-dates the govt taking over firefighting or not) people paid individually for fire protection and displayed a medallion on the house as proof. If someone else’s house caught fire and the fire guys came out and saw you hadn’t paid to get the medallion, they would simply watch the house burn.
That wasn’t just NY and the practice is still in place today with many volunteer FDs.
Yes, it was part of “fire insurance”.
Fire insurance mark
I like the idea that you can vote in 1 race of your choice. So the rest of the country could kick Pelosi, Omar or AOC to the curb.
I know it sounds like you are telling a district that they can’t have the person they want to represent them, but if they elect some knothead so silly that it arouses the ire of the rest of the country, then maybe you need help choosing representation.
Sorry for being a little late to the party, but I’ll address some of the comments in their respective threads and then comment below for larger points.
Good stuff, Ozy!
One really aware cop I know said that everyone in his world would be better off with a fraction of the laws on the books. He will never ever get promoted because he’s made non-enforcement of bullshit offenses an art.
I still want the independent city-states of Snow Crash.
That’s a good point that I learned from both govt and corporate world: anything that graduates beyond a certain scale becomes infested with bureaucracy and middle management, two of the worst things on Earth. (‘bureaucracy’ includes HR, by the way). My buddy says that HR is where all the people who volunteered to be hall monitors in third grade eventually end up employed.
Of course, the most important distinction is that govt can kill you under color of law for not complying.
Yep. Imagine the consequence of every law as a gun to your nana’s head.
Was Snow Crash supposed to be utopian or distopian?
Term limits won’t work. The money will still be there. It will flow to unelected bureaucrats that can’t be fired.
Public financing elections won’t work. Whoever gets elected first will skew the rules to protect themselves.
Things that will help: killing sovereign immunity and recognizing that everyone has standing to sue the government; re-instituting a spoils system where every bureaucrat can be fired for any reason by incoming elected officials; banishing agencies from D.C and moving them out to the real world; and bring dueling to the House and Senate
I second Kinnath’s proposal.
And if I could get my way, we should stop electing people the way we do too. Institute something like the thunderdome to pick winners. I want President Dwayne Hector Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho. Can you imagine a president that was both a wrestling champ and a porn actor?
I still want to see a Senator Kid Rock.
*kicks pebble*
The argument against the spoils system is that you lose institutional knowledge and you create an environment dominated by sinecures. I would contend two things: first, the institutions of government shouldn’t be so different from private institutions that managing them becomes its own skill set requiring multiple years to learn, and; second, our current entrenched bureaucracy simply moves the locus of sinecure-distributing power to unelected bureaucrats rather than politicians who can be voted out of office along with their cronies.
Term limits would make things slightly less bad. Term limiting senior federal employees would probably help more.
and bring dueling to the House and Senate
This. But I doubt any of our current crop would have the balls to duel someone.
Good article Ozy! Sadly we are just humans, meaning Greedy, narrow minded self serving wretches, no different than the other animals on Earth.
Except We know what we are, no excuses for us……
Some caveats:
1. I think this is a mis-named article (by me) because I don’t think term limits ALONE is the answer either. Many of the things that have been suggested here and before are on my list, as well. Sovereign immunity HAS to go.
2. I cited The Jacket’s article because I was lazy, but nothing here should be implied as endorsement. There’s a *reason* I left there; but there was also a reason I first went there. The trolls killed the comments, but the Editorial choices killed the content. I’m not sure to what degree those things are related, a la chicken and egg.
3. Sometimes I’m a collapsitarian, some times I’m more optimistic. Either way, fuck it and do nothing isn’t really baked into my DNA. While I recognize it may very well be that the whole thing has to collapse, I don’t really think that’s the best answer – and I don’t think it’s likely in my lifetime. I feel compelled to point out how it got bad – if we’re able to identify and explain the chain of causation that led us astray – because, in my opinion, the original Constitution was a brilliant attempt at something previously untried in human history. For that reason, and for “our posterity,” I believe it worth leaving a path for others to at least attempt to follow to see where it might be better directed and survive for longer. Human freedom is worth trying to preserve.
are caveats a for of to be sures?
Uhhh…
“You’re coming in broken and unreadable.”
Just call in for a repeat.
Yeah, I was a FAC(A) and I had a rule that if I saw a round land somewhere way off yonder, I’m first gonna get on the radio and make sure we’re all using the same map pointing in the same direction before I start asking for more of the same.
Nice. From the other end, it’s never, ever, ever, ever fun to hear a correction of “Um…. Add 400”
Hey, I was also flying artillery, so I’ve been on that end of the radio call, too.
“From leads impacts…uhhh… come right 500.”
That costs you a beer or 10 later at the club.
a form of “to be sure / to be fair”
The ‘m’ was missing on ‘form’, so I couldn’t quite make out what you were saying. But if you’re making a statement about my fine had of hair being like Robby’s, why thank you (for ignoring that balding spot in the back)!
If you’re saying I take a position in my writing that sounds like Fruit Sushi does, then I demand satisfaction, Suhh!!
*declares war on the Union*
Well said, Ozy. And I agree with you. I try to teach my kids how amazing this experiment has been and how long it has actually worked.
Further to that, and in part as a response to the “nothing will work” folks, what happened under the Constitution was a miracle in human productivity that has arguably still not been matched. The inventions, the increase in the standard of living, the steady progress in human rights despite Man’s tendency to oppress and destroy Others… in short, the 130 or so years from the Country’s founding until, I don’t know, the income tax, probably, stands as evidence that the Constitution wasn’t just a fluke. Preserving it is a worthy endeavor. They even gave us a process for doing so.
Yeah but before the income tax the country was controlled by evil capitalists. The worker was kept down.
“Preserving it is a worthy endeavor”
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Glibness aside; I wouldn’t say it was a fluke, but it was a black swan. Freedom and liberty is a 6-sigma aberration that gets corrected quickly. The natural state of Man is brutality, violence and slavery. We are extremely lucky to have inhabited this particular slice of time. It won’t repeat.
Now who’s stating facts not in evidence? 😉 but seriously — and this debate can get out of hand fast, because we haven’t defined where we draw the line between liberty and not) — but i don’t think that bears out, or at least not that extreme. Liberty is not so precarious that its existence is a fluke.
I’m not *quite* that pessimistic. I think it’s just good ol’ fashioned entropy. To the extent that we’ve ever had a government that best supported the ideal of individual liberty we had it because a lot of people who wanted it were willing to kill for it, and then a lot more people were willing to forego acting in their most selfish immediate interests. That has to happen on a recurring basis, and each time it doesn’t you incur a debt. That’s why, for instance, once you’ve got an income tax (as an example) it’s not enough to have a whole bunch of politicians who refuse to turn the ratchet further. You have to have people willing to shear the bolt. We haven’t had that, and we need it. Until we get it, we’re just bailing enough to keep from sinking further.
And to be absolutely clear I’m not necessarily saying there has to be another revolution or anything like that, and I’m certainly not advocating violence. I’m not *not* advocating it, mind you, but I’m not proposing it. I’m just saying that it’s going to take a hell of a lot more than a Rand Paul being upset about drones to undo the incremental damage of state creep over two hundred plus years.
I wouldn’t even call it Glibness – the idea “preserving it is a worthy endeavor” wasn’t a fact. It was the conclusion of the sentences that preceded, which include facts to support that final conclusion, none of which you’ve refuted.
Additionally, I don’t think you’re even near correct on human liberty. As a matter of human evolution, we spent a BIG CHUNK living in autonomous tribes in which we were answerable only to the mores of the local culture, with which we would have been inculcated. It may have been tough living, but there was a certain plenty of “free time” within the constraints and protection of the tribe. The Kuchi tribemen in Afghanistan still live like that, by the way, and the local farmers get into it with them all the time. They’re nomadic tribes and they answer to fuck all kings or sovereigns, US or Afghan alike. I had a great deal of respect for those people. They would simply wonder through with their herds in their tents, find a place on the river, plop down and graze their animals, and when people came and bitched, they had AKs and would use them to back it up.
I use that story to stand in for the larger proposition that it hasn’t always been tyranny and slavery. California has an amazing history of autonomous native tribes that traded and left each other largely the fuck alone. Hey, you’re living in paradise, the weather is awesome, but there’s still some hardship, fruit and veggies and all kinds of game abounds, plus the entire Baja coastline up to Washington. Why fight?
The Greeks city states, the Italian states, etc. As another matter, even 200 years ago there was nowhere near the kind of control that there is over the daily lives of the citizenry. Even 100 years ago you could simply go out in the wilderness and live your own life and say fuck all to anyone. A hearty man with a good dog and the will probably still could in Alaska and further North. We’re slaves by choices we make to the things we want and think we’re entitled to, really. OTOH, we’re entitled to build a government for free people, but that seems to be largely a product of independent people. Our school systems teach dependence; our government teaches dependence by its policies; and too many people think screeching on twitter makes them “brave.”
Term limits don’t matter without an independent people. That’s why I wrote the piece on education, as well. They’re not separate thoughts for me, really.
It wasn’t really meant as an argument, just, if not glibness, flippancy I guess? Basically the system has worked in the past and still works to some extent. I’m just very pessimistic about the future. The fundamental freedom of primitive tribes is alluring, but it’s always a no-win situation IMO. People start banding together for safety and prosperity, then eventually that group gets big enough for some kind of *process* to be necessary. Then it’s all over, throw in the towel because the cycle is going to start up again.
3. Sometimes I’m a collapsitarian, some times I’m more optimistic. Either way, fuck it and do nothing isn’t really baked into my DNA. While I recognize it may very well be that the whole thing has to collapse, I don’t really think that’s the best answer – and I don’t think it’s likely in my lifetime. I feel compelled to point out how it got bad – if we’re able to identify and explain the chain of causation that led us astray – because, in my opinion, the original Constitution was a brilliant attempt at something previously untried in human history. For that reason, and for “our posterity,” I believe it worth leaving a path for others to at least attempt to follow to see where it might be better directed and survive for longer. Human freedom is worth trying to preserve.
It’s a worthy goal, and one I think should be pursued, although I am a bit pessimistic on the ability to achieve it. Still, as they say, you miss all the shots you don’t take, so why not try, even if it’s from half-court.
Another problem which is probably directly related is that for decades congress has gotten a terrible approval rating, yet incumbents get re-elected 90% of the time or more.
People seem to not like OTHER PEOPLE’S reps.
Gadfly had a late comment on the last thread with numbers that something more like 86%, IIRC, but I take your point. People pick incumbents because incumbents have the ability to spread enough grift around their districts to be *perceived* as “taking care of their people.” The times that incumbents fail is when they completely give up even trying to control that perception.
I can’t see that working… people having no control over who is mayor or something.
I prefer drawing lots in that case.
You are drawing lots, from a small pool, selected by other voters. My theory (faulty and delusional as it is) is that without a direct localized payback, the voters might be more inclined toward thinking in big-picture terms. Of course, if you were the district who got stuck with Gulag Barbie, you might think the whole idea sucks. Or maybe she wouldn’t care who she gave free shit to, as long as she got to hand out a bunch of free shit. In that case, her political career might come to an abrupt end at the conclusion of her first term in office.
The theoretical goal is to break the direct link between buying (voting for) and selling political favors and spoils.
Last week I suggested a meteor strike.
State sanctioned lynch mobs set loose in DC?
It finally stopped snowing. About 2 feet all told.
Damn, Q. Where in the frozen north are you?
Monument, CO.
It’s more about the 7600 feet than the latitude.
Huh. Just checked it out on Google Maps. Cool-looking place — and a target-rich environment for photographers, too . . .
Yeah, Spawn has a flight tonight. Looks like they are still getting planes out.
Damn. Still some light snowfall here, but we only got ~4 inches.
Sixties here after weeks of forties.
My other pet delusion is selection by lottery. You may purchase tickets for yourself or someone else, in any number. That’s *purchase*, with the proceeds going directly into the Treasury. I would allow advertisements encouraging people to buy tickets on behalf of their preferred candidate.
Yes, the possibility of “buying” an office might be enhanced (it might be reduced, for that matter); there is still the limiting factor of the element of chance. Some schmoe who bought a single ticket for himself could still win.
We cannot ignore the ugly truth. Government has expanded in large part based on the demand for expanded government. From, “Them hopheads and dope fiends are getting out of line” to “That asshole’s house is too big and it’s wrecking my viewshed”, people are generally all too willing to bring the hammer of government down on their fellow man.
It’s a feedback loop. Government schools teach people they need more government and government schools, government gives them more…
We come back to the team mentality of the average Joe and Jane. Short sighted and unwilling to consider that “there ought to be a law” can be said by the opposite team as well and listened to by the Pol wanting to be re-elected. Said Pol will pack the nice sounding legislation full of pork and gimmies for their re-election funding.
People are douchebags.
My local city council has legislated a 5 cent tax on plastic bags
https://cbs3duluth.com/top-stories/2019/11/25/bag-it-ordinance-clears-duluth-city-council/
What will they legislate next? What brand of toilet paper I can use? How much toilet paper I can use? The setpoint on my furnace?
My property taxes went up 18% from last year yet my street still looks like it has been bombed by Germany. It hasn’t been repaved in the entire 13 years I have lived here.
Yes. Yes, I am pissed off. I will now have to buy bags so I can pick up dog shit before I mow.
My wife bitches about plastic bags. I point out to her that we use them to clean the cat box. She says that’s not a good enough reason. I counter with, “Well, what would you propose I use?” She suggests paper. I come back with, “Well, if you’d like to pick up damp cat litter and put it in a paper bag to place on top of plastic garbage bags, knock yourself out.” That generally fixes it.
Bring in contraband plastic bags from the iron range.
What will they legislate next? What brand of toilet paper I can use? How much toilet paper I can use?
Hey you brought it up…but just curious, has anyone installed one of those bidet attachments to their toilet seats?
A friend at work has and swears by it. I won’t do it while I have pre-teen children, but I’ve started buying the flushable wipes as a middle ground. I imagine it’s a little like when my great grandmother stopped using a bucket and a washcloth in an outhouse and got onto this whole “toilet paper” fad.
I would install one in our master bath first before introducing it to the other toilets for the kids to mess with. I think I would probably like switching to it, but instead I will agonize over it for another few years first.
I waffle over it. In some respects, the seat-mounted ones that just point straight at the undercarriage might not be a bad idea for us considering the…casual…approach my daughter has towards wiping. I just have this perfect image in my mind of my hearing the bidet going off for like five minutes straight, going in to see what the hell’s going on, and seeing my kid there giving her ponies a bath or pretending it’s a fountain or, with my luck, spraying herself in the face with it.
You sure about that friend?
https://glibertarians.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Say-what-2.jpg
You have my attention.
They are easy to install as long as there’s a power outlet nearby. We had two of them installed in the old house. But in the new home the bathrooms are larger and the toilets are too far from power outlets. Back to barbarity for now.
Flushable wipes are not flushable.
Just a warning from someone who deals with a lot of plumbers.
Jerryrigged sanitation infrastructure, what could possibly go….OMG SHUT OFF THE MAINS!
No one needs 23 brands of deoderant…
That’s enraging. My city is cooking up something similar. Who will the next Eric Garner be?
The county I live in (Cuyahoga), banned plastic bags. It’s supposed to take effect January first, but there’s been some push back from the cities. To the point that the county is thinking about letting it go for 6 months.
My county banned plastic bags and instituted a 5-cent tax on paper bags, the fuckers.
C’mon PON, are you surprised?
You are the home of Linda “Slippery Slope” Krug, city councilwoman extraordinaire who said this when debating a vaping ban:
The junior Congresswoman from Nebraska, for example, is unlikely to be able to do squat legislatively for several terms. Thus, what she can expect to solicit in campaign donations is not very much. Committee Chairs, however, have power to control agendas for their committees, including what legislation gets “tabled” or considered. Consequently, those committee chairs are “worth” more on the market for legislation/campaign donations.
I think, as I have said before on the subject of term limits, that this is flawed reasoning. You take the situation as it is now without term limits; see that the corruption is focused on the long term incumbents; then proceed to the conclusion that eliminating the long term incumbents will reduce corruption. It will not. It will get rid of long term incumbents, but that will simply ‘democratize’ the corruption. In other words instead of senior members being worth more, everyone will be worth the same, lower, amount.
Term limits get rid of Pelosi quicker, but they also get rid of Paul quicker, and Pelosi is likely to be replaced by someone as bad or worse, Paul is unlikely to be replaced by someone as good or better.
I disagree. When you put people who are worthless in bureaucracies, the machine comes grinding to a halt. Worthless people will make the committees worthless. Even people trying to bribe pols don’t want to try to bribe morons. And morons have a hard time getting things done.
Let me offer an analogy: the best piece of criminal justice reform would be if people stopped pleading guilty. It’s terrifying in the individual instance, but systematically it would be crippling if everyone pled not guilty and said, “fuck you, prove it.” The courts would be quickly overrun and shut down – and the deals get really, really fucking good.
I was in the Marine Corps defense bar (active and reserve) for almost twenty years and when I got high enough up in it with a great boss with a similar idea, we started training all of our defense attorneys – in the entire active and reserve community – to have a “fuck you, prove it” starting point for their negotiations. You have to win some cases, too, but we did. And people would, too – juries are not stupid. I sat on a civilian one for a crim trial: not guilty. Black kid, too. Juries are one of the last bastions for liberty in the country. MOST of the time, they get it right.
Anyway, you’re assuming that your conclusion as to my future hypothetical that hasn’t happened yet is the correct one and then saying that I’m using “flawed reasoning?” I don’t think that’s quite the correct term for what just went on in that exchange.
This is off topic, but I wanted to pool the Glis to see if they have seen what I’m about to describe in your area.
Over the past 2 months I have seen large interstate sized billboards with content based on popular movies from the 1980’s.
For example:
In late October there was a RE-Elect Goldie Wilson for Mayor that replicated same from Back to the future. I thought it was great by the way
Saturday I saw a “Delta City: The Future has a Silver Lining” Bill board in a similar area on a major interstate. Again a great Robo cop reference.
Has anyone seen something similar in their area? Will there be a classic cinema or drive in opening in my area? Who has the cheddar for a practical joke of this magnitude if thee is no other explanation.
I’m seeing it in tee-shirts, for sure, and I chalked it up to nostalgia, in the same way that my generation had a lot of nostalgia for the 50’s, even though I’m certain it wasn’t paradise. The 80s seems to be making a resurgence right now.
So many typos.
Glibs not Glis
There instead of thee.
my apologies.
You mean, like raising the funds to install a Robocop statue in Detroit?
Isn’t that going to fund the rest of the Robocop remake? (NSFW)
To re-iterate, these billboards have no obvious markings or stated purpose other than those in the original movies. It’s a geek dog whistle which is why I noticed right away.
And Flax, let’s continue this discussion in the last article of this series. I have an appointment in an hour and I have to run. Putting dirt in the gears can grind Leviathan to a halt. And I want to add to this some of the thoughts I have from being in China about a different conception of freedom, too. I haven’t started those articles yet, but I’ve promised TPTB. I’ll try to do so over the holiday weekend and we can continue this as we go along (I hope).
Thanks,
Ozy
While term limits may get rid of the powerful incumbents, it will likely merely shift the power centers to unelected officials. Imagine the people who go into politics as a career; then imagine the people who go into politics as temp work. The likelihood that you are going to get more independent people by hiring temps than by hiring career-minded folk is low. Rather, the temps will likely belong to temp agencies (political machines, activist agencies, unions, business groups, etc) and just rubber stamp whatever their bosses want. If every election is between blank slates, how is one to judge who would make the better politician? And if every election is a one and done, what incentive is there for the politicians to be in any way honest? If anything, term limits will make the problem worse, not better. Rather than plugging the hole in your leaking boat, it is like applying dynamite to it. The Senators and Representatives will entirely become lapdogs to the organizations that provide their security, and the voters won’t be able to know who that is until it is too late. Either that, or politics will become even more of a rich man’s game than it already is, since term limits don’t decrease the barrier to entry.
Look at how distorted a picture you’re painting however without putting details on it. For example, imagine a Senator’s limit is two terms – that’s 12 years! It’s not like the guy is there for a week for cripes sake. He’s there for twelve bleeping years. The same is true if you set it at three or four terms for a Congresscritter. It’s not like no one will remain in power. But with staggered election cycles, it means it’s much much more difficult to conduct operations the way they do now. Add in some other tweaks: like a 5 year presumptive end to funding for any piece of legislation (which must be renewed by majorities in both houses to continue), and if people want socialism, I say we give them what Sweden did: balanced budget amendment with military exigencies being automatically capped at 60 days of funding and a supermajority or declaration of war required for anything beyond that. You could grind that sucker down in a hurry. Add in a minor tweak of the commerce clause and you’ve also wiped out a big chunk of shitty Supreme Court case law.
True, I probably jumped the gun a bit making assumptions – I’m not always a patient man, and it will probably be another week until the next article. A lot of the results would be dependent on how it is implemented, and especially if it were implemented in conjunction with other reforms it could potentially offer some improvement. What you describe is not unreasonable – I guess I’ll have to wait until next time to get the plan in full.