Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Of course, a Black Swan is, as the name implies, a rare and unpredictable event. OK, that does happen. Typically, Black Swans are triggered by events outside the prediction envelope, with natural disasters and political folly being the most likely triggers. But in the end, Black Swans are either rare, and should be dealt with on that basis, or they are common. If they are common, then we live in an unpredictable world. Planning is then futile and random happiness is the best we can expect.

Black Swans are rare and inherently unpredictable. Taleb's thesis, however, is that these are the only events that really matter in an economic sense. Everything else is simply linear extrapolation. Black Swans are non-linear.

James50

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Looking back at the anti-war protests of the late 60s and early 70s, how many of the movement goals were actually reached? We exited the Vietnam War, but the revulsion of most older Americans manifested itself as the Silent Majority backlash, which created a new political center far to the right of the previous center. From that point to today, the shift has favored private interests over public ones and wealth over all. I can't see this a victory for the left. Why would another similar effort create a different outcome this time?

We need to be clear on which issues the left won during the Awakening. On foreign policy they lost quite handily, but that's because on foreign policy the left-wing view was never in the majority. On social issues the left tended to win, because although social conservatives became increasingly vocal, that was largely an attempt to overcome the evolving socially liberal majority. So, the reason why a better outcome can be expected is that on certain key issues the public is ready for a far more left-wing position than our present government delivers -- particularly in foreign policy, but also in social issues. On economics, it really depends on the specific policies being advocated -- with the left's primary liability being a tendency to want to fix problems with transfer programs rather than legal and regulatory reforms. There certainly is a package of governing principles which a solid and growing majority would support, which means that success is possible.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Isn't is possible that the Tea Party may trigger a similar shift, but to the left this time? A lot of what they champion is going to start hurting average Americans, and that never augers well for a movement.

It depends exactly what the political system starts doing in the wake of the GOP victory. I can see a variety of possiblities:

a) The GOP could actually continue to win if they suddenly became deal makers rather than obstructionists. However, this would enrage the Tea Party probably leading to a demise of that movement similar to what happened to hippies in the wake of Vietnam.

b) The House could churn out bills unacceptable to the President and Senate causing a persistent gridlock. This would please the Tea Party but likely trigger a backlash that would save the Democrats if the Dems seemed to be fighting strongly against the GOP.

c) Same as above, except the Democrats cave on key legislation and produce compromises unacceptable to liberals. This would probably energize a mass movement on the left.

Based on recent history, the most likely of these scenarios is obviously c). So, you could be right, but that would require some uncharacteristic changes in how national politicians have acted of late.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I agree on this wholeheartedly. I was just as taken by the rhetoric as anyone. Count me among the totally disillusioned now . . . This time, rival = enemy. I see even less willingness than usual.

Yeah, which is another reason why scenario a) is unlikely. There are no equivalents of the Southern Democrats and Rockefeller Republicans to drive across-the-aisle compromises. There will be long angry debates about utterly marginal policy distinctions that only allude to bigger changes that could occur if one camp won -- and whichever side's politician's blink first will face fury from their base. My guess is that the Tea Party will prevent the GOP from blinking first. Thus, scenario c).

Originally Posted by James50

When everyone "knows" something, its time to look a second look.

We were close to building a new facility anyway but I took the election of Jerry Brown as a big positive. With unified government, I think we will be amazed how quickly things begin to look better. Like the old Vulcan proverb says: Only Nixon can go to China.

I highly recommend this if you are anxious about CA.

You may be right. Brown has always been idiosyncratic, and when you combine his willingness to stand up to interests within the Democratic Party with the recent Proposition that allows a majority vote to pass a budget -- there is definitely reason to be optimistic.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Did those electoral vote forecasts take account of the coming shift of Congressional seats to red states?

Obama carried a great many states that he would not, I think, carry today, including Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, and Ohio. Giving all those to McCain/Palin would not have given them the election--Obama they would have had 259 electoral votes, 11 short. I suspect that those states will gain a few seats overall, with the first three gaining and the last two losing. Meanwhile other red states will gain some seats. Bottom line--those states, plus one more good size state (Wisconsin or Michigan?) would give a Republican candidate the election. (It's hard to imagine a state Democrats could actually gain next time.)

It's true that things may improve, but the auto bailout is working just like the bank bailouts: profits are up, jobs are still down. We saved a General Motors that is shipping more and more jobs overseas. The housing market is again in free fall. I am not sanguine about the next election at all.

Let's start with the 17 states and DC that haven't voted for any Republican nominee after 1988: in short DC and all states north of the Potomac except New Hampshire; all states bordering the Great Lakes except Indiana and Ohio; and the states bordering the Pacific Ocean except Alaska. Those states comprise 243 electoral votes (down from 248). Granted, one has to go through some severe contortions should President Obama lose any one of those states. The GOP nominee can win the election decisively (295-248) if it holds onto everything else, but in effect the GOP will have a difficult time winning any one of those states. It has probably lost 90% of the electoral votes that it can lose and get away with before the election begins.

Sure, I am contradicted should Senator Pat "Corporate Stooge" Toomey prove wildly popular in Pennsylvania... watch his approval ratings this spring, and see if Pennsylvania has gone irrevocably to the Right.

Next come the three states that either Gore (New Hampshire) or Kerry (Iowa, New Mexico) lost (officially, which means that I am not assuming that there was electoral hanky-panky in either Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004). Except for Iowa those states have been trending decidedly to the Left of America as a whole. Those three states comprise fifteen electoral votes, so winning all such states that Democrats have won in four or five of the last five elections, President Obama has 258 electoral votes and 95% of 270 reasonably lined up.

The Senate results in Colorado and Nevada suggest that should the Mexican-American vote appear, then those two states solidify the election. They may be more solidly D than some of the states that have voted four or five times in the last Presidential election for a Democrat. Unless the GOP nominee should pick up something among states that have rarely or never voted for Republicans after 1988 (Iowa or New Hampshire, most likely), they will have to make amends among Mexican-Americans... fast.

It gets worse for any GOP nominee.

The most recent PPP poll in Virginia shows the President with a 50% approval rating. That is good enough for an incumbent President to win at election time if the opponent has no ties to the state. I can't see any GOP nominee having ties to Virginia even though Virginia now has a very right-wing state government. To be sure, President Obama must keep his approval rating near 50% in Virginia to win the state, and if his approval there goes down substantially it will go down substantially in a bunch of other states as well. Virginia may be a better chance for President Obama than many states that have voted more than once since the 1964 shellacking of Barry Goldwater.

North Carolina hadn't voted for any Democratic nominee for president since 1976. A current PPP poll shows the President's approval at 45%. In that poll, President Obama is shown in head-to-head matchups and although he loses to Huckabee and ties Romney, he beats Gingrich and Palin. The GOP loses if North Carolina is close.

Florida was close to electing a Democratic Governor, and its incoming Senator won with less than 50% of the vote in a midterm election. I wouldn't bet against Florida going for Obama in 2012.

Ohio depends upon the auto industry, and the auto bailout may have made the state much more D-friendly in 2012 than it was a month ago.

Sure, the right-wing "Hate Everything Liberal" apparatus will likely be out again in 2012. Will Americans be any wiser? Will younger, largely-Millennial, voters turn out as they did in 2008?

Republicans voting "no" with the Auto bailout will be their Achilles' heel in 2012. Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania will ultimately be Democratic because they saved jobs from globalism.

Right-wingers complaining about globalism is hilarious, some of the funniest stuff I have read in a long time. No wonder they are sheep if they don't even know key policies of their movement.

Originally Posted by James50

When everyone "knows" something, its time to look a second look.

We were close to building a new facility anyway but I took the election of Jerry Brown as a big positive. With unified government, I think we will be amazed how quickly things begin to look better. Like the old Vulcan proverb says: Only Nixon can go to China...

I agree that California has been a strong economic engine, but a hobbled one. Having a military presence in this very martial time is a good offset, but the state can no longer be a net payer when it's revenue is capped by the need to get a 2/3 majority to raise or shift taxes, but spending is a simple majority or, in some cases, mandatory. That's not viable any longer, period.

Originally Posted by James50...

BTW- suppose we met in five years and this new facility is doing really well - say 75 employees averaging near $20/hr in wages and benefits - and my personal net worth has gone up by $500K. Would that make me a rapacious capitalist? Suppose it went up $1M? $5M? Is there a point where you would want the government to step in and take away this money (assuming I am paying income tax right along)? Where does it get to be unfair?

James50

If you earn your money, you deserve to keep most though not all of it. You seem to be in a productive industry (you never have said specifically, but something related to construction is my impression). You aren't the problem. The problem is what used to be called the tertiary economy, which extracts money for itself by involving itself in moving money around. You aren't a lawyer or an accountant, and you are certainly not an investment banker.

Originally Posted by James50

Black Swans are rare and inherently unpredictable. Taleb's thesis, however, is that these are the only events that really matter in an economic sense. Everything else is simply linear extrapolation. Black Swans are non-linear.

James50

That ignores cyclical, so I'll have to give that opinion a pass. 9/11 was a Black Swan, and it has made its mark on the country. So was the financial crash. Of the two, the cyclically triggered financial collapse seems to be the one that we either conquer or it conquers us.

If we walk out of Afgaistan today, only the Afghanis suffer for it. If we find the world too scary to address, we can slam the door and survive. Can China? In short, the truly random event seems less overwhelming.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

We need to be clear on which issues the left won during the Awakening. On foreign policy they lost quite handily, but that's because on foreign policy the left-wing view was never in the majority. On social issues the left tended to win, because although social conservatives became increasingly vocal, that was largely an attempt to overcome the evolving socially liberal majority. So, the reason why a better outcome can be expected is that on certain key issues the public is ready for a far more left-wing position than our present government delivers -- particularly in foreign policy, but also in social issues.

OK, but note the disparity between the movement of the 60s/70s and the results. The movements were about foreign policy (this one failed) and civil rights (which succeeded then and has expanded since). 2Ts are about social issues, so that may be par for the course.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner...

On economics, it really depends on the specific policies being advocated -- with the left's primary liability being a tendency to want to fix problems with transfer programs rather than legal and regulatory reforms. There certainly is a package of governing principles which a solid and growing majority would support, which means that success is possible.

This is very telling. Transfer programs need money, but that's all. Regulations and legal reforms require political support. The left, and let's just use the term Dems, have done a piss-poor job of rallying support for anything that may hurt, even a little.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner...

It depends exactly what the political system starts doing in the wake of the GOP victory. I can see a variety of possibilities:

a) The GOP could actually continue to win if they suddenly became deal makers rather than obstructionists. However, this would enrage the Tea Party probably leading to a demise of that movement similar to what happened to hippies in the wake of Vietnam.

b) The House could churn out bills unacceptable to the President and Senate causing a persistent gridlock. This would please the Tea Party but likely trigger a backlash that would save the Democrats if the Dems seemed to be fighting strongly against the GOP.

c) Same as above, except the Democrats cave on key legislation and produce compromises unacceptable to liberals. This would probably energize a mass movement on the left.

Based on recent history, the most likely of these scenarios is obviously c). So, you could be right, but that would require some uncharacteristic changes in how national politicians have acted of late.

You can't win if you don't play. Until I see the Dems in the ring exchanging a few blows, my money is on c).

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner...

Yeah, which is another reason why scenario a) is unlikely. There are no equivalents of the Southern Democrats and Rockefeller Republicans to drive across-the-aisle compromises. There will be long angry debates about utterly marginal policy distinctions that only allude to bigger changes that could occur if one camp won -- and whichever side's politician's blink first will face fury from their base. My guess is that the Tea Party will prevent the GOP from blinking first. Thus, scenario c).

Yeah, it seems it's eat of be eaten. The GOP has an entire stable of predators, but ones used to just prancing out there, making a kill and dining at their ease. A real opponent may set them far enough off their game to win a decisive victory. I can't see Obama in that role, though.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I can't see Obama in that role, though.

This is what happens when you elect Harry Truman in the 1930s. Too bad Obama couldn't have the spitfire of Elizabeth I.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

This is what happens when you elect Harry Truman in the 1930s. Too bad Obama couldn't have the spitfire of Elizabeth I.

~Chas'88

Harry Truman was a fighter.
I think that a better match for Obama would be a go along/ get along like like Ben Harrison.

Note the commentary on the outcome of Harrison's midterm in 1890.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

His administration is most remembered ... for annual federal spending that reached one billion dollars for the first time. Democrats attacked the "Billion Dollar Congress", and used the issue, along with the growing unpopularity of the high tariff, to defeat the Republicans, both in the 1890 mid-term elections and in Harrison's bid for re-election in 1892.

Hummm, a president who gets saddled with the big spender label and other economic policies and loses Congress big time. New Guilded age perhaps?

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Harry Truman was a fighter.
I think that a better match for Obama would be a go along/ get along like like Ben Harrison.

Note the commentary on the outcome of Harrison's midterm in 1890.



Hummm, a president who gets saddled with the big spender label and other economic policies and loses Congress big time. New Guilded age perhaps?

A Unravelling often reflects the High and halts the accomplishments of the Awakening. And since we seem to be entering a Mega-Unravelling... entering a Neo-Gilded Age should be expected. However it probably will be the last time that America has such an economic system. Because the Unravelling's policies are the last furloughs of a dying breed.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Because the Unravelling's policies are the last furloughs of a dying breed.

~Chas'88

After all this time, against all evidence, people still believe the most absurd element of Marx's theology. Regardless of the extent to which the individual embraces Marx's whole philosophy, the belief in the inevitability of socialism (despite no evidence to support that belief) is the article of faith that binds the far left together. It has become clear, unfortunately, that a lot of people see S&H as a way to update "dialectical materialism" for a new era, even though it does not support any such thing, and in fact directly repudiates the linear view of history that Marx's fantasy rests upon.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You seem to be in a productive industry (you never have said specifically, but something related to construction is my impression).

I will take that as a compliment.

You aren't the problem. The problem is what used to be called the tertiary economy, which extracts money for itself by involving itself in moving money around. You aren't a lawyer or an accountant, and you are certainly not an investment banker.

I really don't think I could live with myself if I was an investment banker, yet I can't tell you the times I have been in a social setting and realized the richest people in the room were all involved in finance of one kind or another. Someone said Goldman Sachs was like a giant squid sitting on the face of America sucking out our life blood. Sounds about right to me. I think we are in the process of evolving away from that in fits and starts. Allocation of capital will always be highly compensated, but it has gotten out of hand and out of proportion. Its time for a correction although I am not sure you can accomplish a correction with the tax code alone, and there will always be unintended consequences.

The other thing that bothers me when I compare myself is all the philanthropy the finance and real estate guys seem to have time for. I would like to do more, but where is the time? Last night I was still responding to emails at 8 PM from China and the west coast. What we do is not easy (not many things are) and requires seemingly constant attention. I was laughing at myself a few days ago when I realized I was thinking about the company even when standing in the shower . Our company employs about 175 people today (down from 240 a couple of years ago). I try to comfort myself that providing work and a decent living for that many people and their families is a worthy endeavor. Still I doubt my obituary will run on for a long time like I see with some people who have served on numerous boards of various schools or charitable institutions. People like that always seem to have made a short but lucrative career in finance or real estate.

I am not complaining, but it seems that working in a mature manufacturing industry does not bring near the compensation or free time of some other occupations.

James50

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

After all this time, against all evidence, people still believe the most absurd element of Marx's theology. Regardless of the extent to which the individual embraces Marx's whole philosophy, the belief in the inevitability of socialism (despite no evidence to support that belief) is the article of faith that binds the far left together. It has become clear, unfortunately, that a lot of people see S&H as a way to update "dialectical materialism" for a new era, even though it does not support any such thing, and in fact directly repudiates the linear view of history that Marx's fantasy rests upon.

You brought up Karl Marx as the representative of anyone to the left of Simon Legree. In effect anyone who fails to recognize the worst vices of plutocracy as virtues is a Marxist.

MARXISM IS DEAD almost everywhere. Start with Marx himself: he was terribly provincial in his history. His theory of historical progress in predictable stages ignored the Islamic world, China, and India. His explanation of feudalism as progress from classical slavery (Huh? The early Middle Ages were a reversion to primitivism in what had been Gaul, Britain, and what would later become Germany, Austria, and western Hungary) and capitalism as a sharp and revolutionary break from feudalism is nonsense. He couldn't recognize that economic realities of Ancient Rome and contemporary America could have at the same time capitalist, feudal, and slave elements with big government sectors. He could not predict that technological advances would require capitalists to make consumers out of the proletariat. He could not predict the mixed economy that became the norm in western Europe about seventy years after his death. He predicted that socialist revolutions would occur in the countries with the most advanced stages of capitalist 'rot' even though revolutions adopting his name tended to occur in places undergoing the hard transition from agrarian poverty to early capitalism in a dog-eat-dog world. He also failed to recognize that bureaucratic elites would command the economy of 'socialist' states and enforce the rules harshly and enrich themselves as an exploitative class even to the extent that they began to live like aristocrats -- much like the dominant pigs and to a lesser extent the canine enforcers in Orwell's Animal Farm.

Marxist socialism succeeds in grabbing power when capitalism fails, especially ethically. A capitalist order that enriches only a few plutocrats while keeping others destitute (or as it looks to be doing, making people other than the economic elite destitute and helpless), that rewards people mostly for being born in the "right" family or acting like a criminal implies a sick society that needs radical change. An economic order that rewards about 5% of the people well and $crews the rest is in need of moral change by elites if those elites are not to be overthrown and dispossessed (if not evicted or exterminated).

"Arise, ye pris'ners of starvation/arise ye wretched of the Earth!" isn't so appealing when people aren't in gross need and aren't suffering for people for whom they find unable and unwilling to grant any worldly happiness or even make it possible. The Megabucks Lottery doesn't count as a promise of the Good Life.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

After all this time, against all evidence, people still believe the most absurd element of Marx's theology. Regardless of the extent to which the individual embraces Marx's whole philosophy, the belief in the inevitability of socialism (despite no evidence to support that belief) is the article of faith that binds the far left together. It has become clear, unfortunately, that a lot of people see S&H as a way to update "dialectical materialism" for a new era, even though it does not support any such thing, and in fact directly repudiates the linear view of history that Marx's fantasy rests upon.

OK, let's talk about inevitability, shall we? Within the next saeculum, we will reach a point where the need for human endeavor disappears. Self managing machines will be more than capable of producing everything in the way of goods and services we need to survive, and AI systems will provide us with excellent medical care and virtually all other knowledge-based services. What, then, is to become of humans? We no longer are needed, in fact we are becoming less needed even now. Show me an economic model that works in that situation other than socialism (small "s") and some form of oligarchy that presides over a powerless underclass. In other words, we either move the Gini index dramatically down or up, because it can't be stable in the middle.

So I assume you opt for oligarchy, since socialism is so utterly repugnant. Assuming a typical oligarchy, let me be the first to welcome you to the 98% in virtually slavery ... or living the lives of human pets, perhaps.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

OK, but note the disparity between the movement of the 60s/70s and the results. The movements were about foreign policy (this one failed) and civil rights (which succeeded then and has expanded since). 2Ts are about social issues, so that may be par for the course.

Are they? The Progressive Era was mostly focused on economics.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You can't win if you don't play. Until I see the Dems in the ring exchanging a few blows, my money is on c).

Which means a mass movement on the left, or some combination of social disintegration and right-wing political dominance -- or maybe even a combination of all three. You can blame Democratic politicians for being spineless, but the fact that many liberals and moderates keep endlessly waiting for the Dems to grow a spine makes me wonder how much we can really blame the politicians anymore.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

even though [the saeculum theory] directly repudiates the linear view of history that Marx's fantasy rests upon.

JPT, this, and your continued conviction that 9/11 had to be the Crisis catalyst, demonstrate beyond any doubt that you have no understanding of the saeculum theory whatsoever. It does NOT repudiate a linear view of history; in fact, it depends on it. Without linear change and progress, there would be no saeculum. And you haven't grasped the most basic concept underlying the theory: generations create Turnings and vice-versa.

There has never been a human society that exhibited genuinely cyclic change without any linear progress. The ancient world featured many stable, conservative societies that did not progress in any significant degree (either technologically or socially), but without exception those societies were also non-saecular. The saeculum as S&H described it is exclusively a feature of modern history. There's a reason for that: it's an impact of generational sequencing on how linear progress occurs -- in rhythms, with periods of cultural and political reform alternating with periods of conservative retrenchment. Absent linear progress, there is nothing to wave, and hence no saeculum.

All right, that's fairly arcane and you can be excused for not really understanding it. But your insistence that 9/11 HAS to be the catalyst runs smack into this fact:

In 2001, the youngest Silent were 59 -- six or seven years short of elderhood.

In 2001, the oldest Boomers were 58 -- there were NO Boomers anywhere near elderhood.

In 2001, the oldest Xers were 40 -- there were NO Xers anywhere near midlife.

In 2001, the oldest Millennials were 19 -- NO Millennials had as yet come of age.

If generations drive Turnings, that is simply an impossible date for the Crisis' beginning. All you are doing is jumping on that date for the Crisis' beginning because it supports your own political preconceptions, but even the most basic understanding of saecular theory shows that you simply cannot be right about that. Either 9/11 was not the start of the Crisis era -- or the saecular theory is wrong, in which case it still isn't because there is no such thing as a Crisis era.

In fact, 9/11 is a good illustration of the power of the theory. It was a perfectly appropriate event to be the catalyst. It was shocking, and it related to a genuine failure of our national institutions put in place at the end of the last Crisis. But because the generations weren't ready, the Crisis did not begin.

As for the inevitability of socialism (although not necessarily in the Marxist form) -- what M&L said.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

In 2001, the youngest Silent were 59 -- six or seven years short of elderhood.

In 2001, the oldest Boomers were 58 -- there were NO Boomers anywhere near elderhood.

In 2001, the oldest Xers were 40 -- there were NO Xers anywhere near midlife.

In 2001, the oldest Millennials were 19 -- NO Millennials had as yet come of age.

58 year olds aren't in elder-hood career roles? 40 year olds aren't in midlife? 19 isn't coming of age?

Come on, get with the program!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

OK, let's talk about inevitability, shall we? Within the next saeculum, we will reach a point where the need for human endeavor disappears. Self managing machines will be more than capable of producing everything in the way of goods and services we need to survive, and AI systems will provide us with excellent medical care and virtually all other knowledge-based services. What, then, is to become of humans? We no longer are needed, in fact we are becoming less needed even now. Show me an economic model that works in that situation other than socialism (small "s") and some form of oligarchy that presides over a powerless underclass. In other words, we either move the Gini index dramatically down or up, because it can't be stable in the middle.

So I assume you opt for oligarchy, since socialism is so utterly repugnant. Assuming a typical oligarchy, let me be the first to welcome you to the 98% in virtually slavery ... or living the lives of human pets, perhaps.

This reminds me of a brief discussion I had with James50, over "productivity" being a principle cause of today's unemployment. He said productivity is good because it means higher wages. But if, as M&L points out, this productivity means that fewer humans are needed to do jobs, then the fact is that high unemployment is now endemic, and will only grow (and maybe wave elections every 1 or 2 terms are endemic too).

I think humans are still needed for some things; machines can't do everything, unless we want to live in a machine. However, what are we to do with all these people that the machines and CEOs put out of work? Obviously, the social safety net is even more needed, and the companies getting rich off the machines need to pay for it. Machines are not really rugged individual entrepreneurs, even though the Tea Party thinks so.

Beyond that, if machines are supposed to do all this for us and make life easier (otherwise, why were they invented?), then our work structure needs to change so everyone can get a job. Work hours need to be reduced, at the same pay. Part-time work needs to be available, and no overtime allowed. Who is going to decide these things and enforce them, except a horrible "socialist" government?

So it must, unless by some miracle "the market" gets it that, without these policies, there won't be anyone to buy their products. But that will take a while. Selling and making their products overseas will work for a while, until the other countries catch up. Meanwhile, unemployment remains extremely high.

JPT and his vast crowd thinks the solution is always to let business do whatever it wants. But what it wants, is only what will benefit itself. The people need to decide what they want, and take action, or they won't get it.

Something I've wanted to say for a while. So-called conservatives and free-marketers complain about "the nanny state." We can't have a nanny state, one where people who think they know better, but don't, make decisions for us. The answer? Well, if people behave like stupid little children (which in America they frequently do), then they NEED a nanny state! Who knows better? The law, which we can hope is developed by a long deliberative process by representatives of the people, and interpreted by qualified judges.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Something I've wanted to say for a while. So-called conservatives and free-marketers complain about "the nanny state." We can't have a nanny state, one where people who think they know better, but don't, make decisions for us. The answer? Well, if people behave like stupid little children (which in America they frequently do), then they NEED a nanny state! Who knows better? The law, which we can hope is developed by a long deliberative process by representatives of the people, and interpreted by qualified judges.

Indeed, the more you listen, the more clear it is that the left is an anti-democratic, illiberal force in society. There is no doubt about it. The only thing that distinguishes me from the "vast crowd" is that I've been paying attention. I figured you all out a long time ago.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well, if people behave like stupid little children (which in America they frequently do), then they NEED a nanny state! Who knows better? The law, which we can hope is developed by a long deliberative process by representatives of the people, and interpreted by qualified judges.

Congratulations! You live in the perfect US state for your philosophy.

James50

Originally Posted by independent

58 year olds aren't in elder-hood career roles? 40 year olds aren't in midlife? 19 isn't coming of age?

Come on, get with the program!

According to S&H:

Childhood: 0-20
Young Adulthood: 21-41
Midlife: 42-62
Elderhood: 63-83
Late-Elderhood: 84-

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Something I've wanted to say for a while. So-called conservatives and free-marketers complain about "the nanny state." We can't have a nanny state, one where people who think they know better, but don't, make decisions for us. The answer? Well, if people behave like stupid little children (which in America they frequently do), then they NEED a nanny state! Who knows better? The law, which we can hope is developed by a long deliberative process by representatives of the people, and interpreted by qualified judges.

Sorry, Eric, but that is a really disgusting post. I've had my own run--ins with the Nanny State and it F*CKING SUCKS.

Originally Posted by James50

Congratulations! You live in the perfect US state for your philosophy.

James50

Banning happy meals! *rolls eyes*