|
Was the government more of a help or a hindrance to organizing? I remain unconvinced that unions require large invasive government to survive.That's basic US labor history, Bitter. Without state intervention, union gains were small and losses frequent in both policy and blood. Once the state started supporting unions against the bosses, most especially in the New Deal, they reaped enormous successes and helped usher in the greatest period of widespread prosperity and advancing equality in American history. When policy flipped again, all of that rapidly evaporated.
And in both cases, that was exactly what was intended in the policy change.
I'm pro trade union, but I don't buy the causality here. Organized Labor was able to expand organizing when labor was in greater demand in an expanding economy.
OTOH, it's easy to see the middle class contracting pretty hard around here. Quite a few folks made a decent living in manufacturing and construction. That has gone away for the most part.
One of the other aspects of unionized labor is the push for increased wages, which gives companies a choice: either look for cheaper employees outside of the Union (which is typically outside of the US with foreign governmental support) or to help politicians who will help them keep wages at minimum levels get into office. It's not uniform across the board, but you'll see trends. Manufacturing will move over seas, Construction will lobby for example. Others will slap a "Made in the USA" sticker on their product as a matter of pride.
It's unfortunate that the tactics used have been as successful as they were, even if they weren't intended to work in tandem, because what we end up with is a state whose jobs have gone overseas and people have little faith in some politicians to protect their livelihoods.
|
|
Oh, I certainly agree, but we aren't exactly a minarchist society. I'd have to comb through BT's posts to find it now, but there was a world he outlined where people were more regularly armed than they are today and militias were more commonplace. In such an enviornment, I could see things getting ugly when people act out against the local government.Well, to trot out an old adage, an armed society is a polite society. Most people acting out of rational self-interest wouldn't incite civil war at the drop of a hat because they'd be likely to die as a result. Think of it like the Cold War writ small: nuclear proliferation resulted in the great powers working out their differences through diplomacy and small-scale proxy wars. Even bush wars are no fun for those involved, but they're a hell of a lot better than conflict on the scale of WWII. I think the idea is that local governments would be required perforce to be very responsive to the desires of their constituents.
Not that I'm strictly speaking a minarchist... Successful defense against powerful strategic rivals requires a certain level of military power (or geographic barriers) than I don't think could be maintained by a minarchy. A state that had more central control of resources could, in theory, take advantage of economies of scale and division of labor to project more military power. It didn't work out that way for the USSR, but remember that the U.S. government had to control resources and production at the national level during WWII (via rationing, etc.) to build and project the military power that we did.
While I don't think the American Constitutional model of minarchy precludes standing armies it is certainly quite suspicious of a massive police and military industrial complex.
My take on it is that we should be a republic and not an empire, and sooner rather than later we must return to a more modest foreign policy or go bankrupt.
+1
"One of the worst fallacies in the field of economics—propagated by Karl Marx and accepted by almost everyone today, including many businessmen—is that the development of monopolies is an inescapable and intrinsic result of the operation of a free, unregulated economy. In fact, the exact opposite is true. It is a free market that makes monopolies impossible."
"In the whole history of capitalism, no one has been able to establish a coercive monopoly by means of competition on a free market. There is only one way to forbid entry into a given field of production: by law. Every single coercive monopoly that exists or ever has existed—in the United States, in Europe or anywhere else in the world—was created and made possible only by an act of government"
I don't subscribe to this. It might be a good way of considering the topic theoretically, but in reality, politics and economics are intertwined - it's not possible to separate the two. Once an industry has sufficient mass, it can use that power to influence the government and obtain the ability to create a monopoly, either directly (e.g., the phone companies and railroads) or indirectly (e.g., patent law). To assert that no monopoly is possible without governmental action assumes that economic interests don't use their power to cause governmental action. It's like asserting that people don't kill people, guns kill people.
I think this is also part of the reason that, despite my love of economics and economic theory, I'm not a strong believer in the correctness of the unfettered free market. I don't think there can be any real free market absent some type of legal regime that establishes ownership rights, dispute resolutions, etc. How you cast of frame those rights sets limits on the market and determines how it operates. Even black markets are defined (to a certain extent) by their interaction with legitimate...
The Austrian and Chicago schools do accept a role for government in the courts and for monetary policy. They are not anarcho-capitalist.
That said, the definition of a coercive monopoly is essentially one that is enforced by state coercion, therefor by definition they are caused by the state, so the argument seems a bit circular.
"When people denounce the free market as “cruel,” the fact they are decrying is that the market is ruled by a single moral principle: justice. And that is the root of their hatred for capitalism.
There is only one kind of monopoly that man may rightfully condemn—the only kind for which the designation of “monopoly” is economically significant: a coercive monopoly. (Observe that in the non-coercive meaning of the term, every man may be described as a “monopolist”—since he is the exclusive owner of his effort and product. But it is not this that is denounced as evil—except by socialists.)
In the issue of monopolies, as in so many other issues, capitalism is commonly blamed for the evils perpetrated by its destroyers: it is not free trade on a free market that creates coercive monopolies, but government legislation, government action, government controls. If men are concerned about the evils of monopolies, let them identify the actual villain in the picture and the actual cause of the evils: government intervention into the economy. Let them recognize that there is only one way to destroy monopolies: by the separation of State and Economics—that is, by instituting the principle that the government may not abridge the freedom of production and trade. "
One of the other aspects of unionized labor is the push for increased wages, which gives companies a choice: either look for cheaper employees outside of the Union (which is typically outside of the US with foreign governmental support) or to help politicians who will help them keep wages at minimum levels get into office. It's not uniform across the board, but you'll see trends. Manufacturing will move over seas, Construction will lobby for example. Others will slap a "Made in the USA" sticker on their product as a matter of pride.
It's unfortunate that the tactics used have been as successful as they were, even if they weren't intended to work in tandem, because what we end up with is a state whose jobs have gone overseas and people have little faith in some politicians to protect their livelihoods.
I think trade unions can still add value to the bottom line for a company or job site. For example when the union takes care of health, pension and disability benefits that lifts a significant load from the employer and it gives mobility and (in some cases) improved stability to the worker.
Most public service unions have left me much less impressed, however.
Should trade unions get guns.............news at 11
Oh most definitely Bob! Most definitely! :)
..."One of the worst fallacies in the field of economics—propagated by Karl Marx and accepted by almost everyone today, including many businessmen—is that the development of monopolies is an inescapable and intrinsic result of the operation of a free, unregulated economy. In fact, the exact opposite is true. It is a free market that makes monopolies impossible."
"In the whole history of capitalism, no one has been able to establish a coercive monopoly by means of competition on a free market. There is only one way to forbid entry into a given field of production: by law. Every single coercive monopoly that exists or ever has existed—in the United States, in Europe or anywhere else in the world—was created and made possible only by an act of government"
I don't subscribe to this. It might be a good way of considering the topic theoretically, but in reality, politics and economics are intertwined - it's not possible to separate the two. Once an industry has sufficient mass, it can use that power to influence the government and obtain the ability to create a monopoly, either directly (e.g., the phone companies and railroads) or indirectly (e.g., patent law). To assert that no monopoly is possible without governmental action assumes that economic interests don't use their power to cause governmental action. It's like asserting that people don't kill people, guns kill people.
I think this is also part of the reason that, despite my love of economics and economic theory, I'm not a strong believer in the correctness of the unfettered free market. I don't think there can be any real free market absent some type of legal regime that establishes ownership rights, dispute resolutions, etc. How you cast of frame those rights sets limits on the market and determines how it operates. Even black markets are defined (to a certain extent) by their interaction
Interesting quotes, however they once again just do little more than decry the government as evil evil EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLL without saying why. Anyone who questions the quoter is a socialist and eats babies whilst raping puppies and therefore also EeEeEeEvVvVvIiIiIlLlLlL, and again, with no real explanation why.
I thought the fact that thew government is evil is self evident! ;)
Wait, I'm pretty sure I've committed a logical fallacy, but I don't recall the name of it. :)
On a more serious note:
I tend to view state power as the primary threat to individual liberty because the state can apply force more pervasively and violently than any other entity. That doesn't negate other potential threats to individual liberty by any means, and they must be vigilantly guarded against also.
However, in America we seem to be blazing down the slippery slope of state power growing entirely out of control in the name of protecting us from our various fears. Whether those fears are terrorism, H1N1, financial, health care, climate, crime, corporations, corruption, or what have you the result of the response seems to always be the government ending up with more power and the response not making much difference. For example we spent a stunning amount of money on our various reactions to 9/11. What have gotten in return for it. Did the patriot acts and increased military and intelligence spending really make us much safer? We spent trillions on bailouts and stimulus. We're told it would have been much worse if we had not, but we lost millions of jobs anyway, and we're far deeper in debt, and the government has grown substantially.
I don't think my distrust of government power is merely visceral. I think it has a very strong evidential base.
I think it was Washington who called government a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
I don't want to do away with government, but I certainly believe we have far far far too much of it, and I believe far too much power is concentrated at the federal level. I also believe we can't continue like we are without catastrophe. I think it's pure hubris for us to think we could never go the way of the old USSR. Neither party has a serious plan for balancing the budget (let alone paying down the debt) and dealing with entitlements. If our history is any guide, when this blows up in our face the politicians will have the stones to act surprised and blame the other party.
|
I thought the fact that thew government is evil is self evident! ;)
Wait, I'm pretty sure I've committed a logical fallacy, but I don't recall the name of it. :)
On a more serious note:
I tend to view state power as the primary threat to individual liberty because the state can apply force more pervasively and violently than any other entity. That doesn't negate other potential threats to individual liberty by any means, and they must be vigilantly guarded against also.
However, in America we seem to be blazing down the slippery slope of state power growing entirely out of control in the name of protecting us from our various fears. Whether those fears are terrorism, H1N1, financial, health care, climate, crime, corporations, corruption, or what have you the result of the response seems to always be the government ending up with more power and the response not making much difference. For example we spent a stunning amount of money on our various reactions to 9/11. What have gotten in return for it. Did the patriot acts and increased military and intelligence spending really make us much safer? We spent trillions on bailouts and stimulus. We're told it would have been much worse if we had not, but we lost millions of jobs anyway, and we're far deeper in debt, and the government has grown substantially.
I don't think my distrust of government power is merely visceral. I think it has a very strong evidential base.
I think it was Washington who called government a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
I don't want to do away with government, but I certainly believe we have far far far too much of it, and I believe far too much power is concentrated at the federal level. I also believe we can't continue like we are without catastrophe. I think it's pure hubris for us to think we could never go the way of the old USSR. Neither party has a serious plan for balancing the budget (let alone paying down the debt) and dealing with entitlements. If our history is any guide, when this blows up in our face the politicians will have the stones to act surprised and blame the other party.
+1
To assert that no monopoly is possible without governmental action assumes that economic interests don't use their power to cause governmental action. It's like asserting that people don't kill people, guns kill people.Companies don't force the governmental action. Government does it of its own accord.You can't be serious. Lobbying is a major industry. Companies do influence government action, at all levels of government, ranging from city to the federal level. I don't know that I would say "force" but they most certainly do influence. And Alexander Graham Bell most certainly lobbied heavily to be granted a monopoly.
Conversely, if a government is weak enough, private industry can run rampant and get a monopoly on its own through lack of enforcement. This happens routinely in countries without a strong rule of law.
Saying that the only way to have a monopoly is through government action is a misleading statement. The government is not magically sealed away from the markets or the rest of the world, and it can (and regularly is) influenced by such markets. On top of that, there are scenarios where governments are too weak to enforce the laws against monopolists.
There's enough to discuss on the topic without resorting to crude and inaccurate generalizations that fail to acknowledge the nuance and complexity of human interactions.
I can get behind the idea that the "robber barons" did some good, and were not pure evil, but at the same time, I'm not going to plug my ears and say they were pure awesome and never done any wrong. I don't truck in black and white thinking.
Let me try to approach this from a different angle.
I think we can agree that, like any group of people, corporations and entrepreneurs will have their good eggs and bad. I am more likely to view market entrepreneurs as good and political entrepreneurs as bad for several reasons, but lets assume for discussion that that isn't absolute.
I would suggest that there was a great deal of corruption by powerful business interest before Teddy's anti trust laws, and a great deal of that corruption used the power of the US government.
I would also suggest that there is a huge amount of corruption by powerful business interests today, and a great deal of that corruption used the power of the US government.
We have massive regulatory structures in place at most levels of government that are supposed to police things like food safety, drilling in the gulf, banking and securities, workplace safety, civil rights, consumer protection, and virtually everything else. We have seen these government regulatory structures suffer truly massive failures to engage in oversight in a meaningful way which has contributed to the Gulf oil disaster and the financial melt down to cite some prominent ones.
I'm just not convinced that our much larger government today is so much greater as a counter point to corporate power and corruption that it was back in the days of the robber barons.
I would suggest that part of the problem is bloated and incompetent bureaucracy, but I would also make a more radical suggestion. Massive and invasive government may be inherently more vulnerable to graft, corruption, and incompetence. Lobbying is a huge industry because it works so well. It is an exceptionally good investment. I dare say the financial giants who got bailed out would agree that their political dollars were well spent.
Even if all other things are equal I'm skeptical that bigger government (even within reason) is necessarily better government in terms of this discussion.
EDIT: I found this quote to be compelling.
"The Interstate Commerce Commission soon created a bureaucratic monstrosity that attempted to micromanage all aspects of the railroad business, hampering its efficiency even further. This was a classic example of economist Ludwig von Mises's theory of government interventionism: one intervention (such as subsidies for railroads) leads to market distortions which create problems for which the public "demands" solutions. Government responds with even more interventions, usually in the form of more regulation of business activities, which cause even more problems, which lead to more intervention, and on and on. The end result is that free-market capitalism is more and more heavily stifled by regulation.
And on top of that, usually the free market, not government intervention, gets the blame. Thus, all of the railroad men of the late nineteenth century have gone down in history as "robber barons" although this designation definitely does not apply to James J. Hill. It does apply to his subsidized competitors, who deserve all the condemnation that history has provided them. (Also deserving of condemnation are the politicians who subsidized them, enabling their monopoly and corruption.)"
In terms of anti trust and predatory pricing, I'm curious what folks think of this part of the essay.
I'm some what skeptical of the predatory pricing theory. Kirth's example seems like a reasonable counter locally at minimum. Although I don't think there are laws in place now that would prohibit Wal Mart from pricing the local hardware store out of business, and I'm not convinced there should be.
|
|
In terms of anti trust and predatory pricing, I'm curious what folks think of this part of the essay.
I'm some what skeptical of the predatory pricing theory. Kirth's example seems like a reasonable counter locally at minimum. Although I don't think there are laws in place now that would prohibit Wal Mart from pricing the local hardware store out of business, and I'm not convinced there should be.
OK, according to most numbers I've seen, small businesses are responsible for the majority of jobs and jobs growth. Wal-Mart (and other big businesses) already offers low prices due to the way they control costs (ie.-hiring as few employees as possible among other things). AFAIK, there are laws on the books to prevent stores from doing what was in in Kirth's example. If, however, there weren't you and I both know that these big businesses would do whatever it took to drive their competition away. Once there are no SBs to compete with them, they go back to what they were doing...only problem is all of the people employed by those SBs are now unemployed, but the last major source of jobs in the area isn't hiring because hiring extra people isn't cost effective.
OK, according to most numbers I've seen, small businesses are responsible for the majority of jobs and jobs growth. Wal-Mart (and other big businesses) already offers low prices due to the way they control costs (ie.-hiring as few employees as possible among other things). AFAIK, there are laws on the books to prevent stores from doing what was in in Kirth's example. If, however, there weren't you and I both know that these big businesses would do whatever it took to drive their competition away. Once there are no SBs to compete with them, they go back to what they were doing...only problem is all of the people employed by those SBs are now unemployed, but the last major source of jobs in the area isn't hiring because hiring extra people isn't cost effective.In terms of anti trust and predatory pricing, I'm curious what folks think of this part of the essay.
I'm some what skeptical of the predatory pricing theory. Kirth's example seems like a reasonable counter locally at minimum. Although I don't think there are laws in place now that would prohibit Wal Mart from pricing the local hardware store out of business, and I'm not convinced there should be.
I presume it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and I don't know of a federal predatory pricing law.
I'm curious if anyone has any information on the state of these kinds of laws in the US today.
OTOH, do you really want laws that give less efficient higher priced small businesses an artificial advantage to prop them up?
How do you write such a law?
What does it incentivize, and what does it dis-incentivize?
What are the unintended consequences?
OK, according to most numbers I've seen, small businesses are responsible for the majority of jobs and jobs growth. Wal-Mart (and other big businesses) already offers low prices due to the way they control costs (ie.-hiring as few employees as possible among other things). AFAIK, there are laws on the books to prevent stores from doing what was in in Kirth's example. If, however, there weren't you and I both know that these big businesses would do whatever it took to drive their competition away. Once there are no SBs to compete with them, they go back to what they were doing...only problem is all of the people employed by those SBs are now unemployed, but the last major source of jobs in the area isn't hiring because hiring extra people isn't cost effective.In terms of anti trust and predatory pricing, I'm curious what folks think of this part of the essay.
I'm some what skeptical of the predatory pricing theory. Kirth's example seems like a reasonable counter locally at minimum. Although I don't think there are laws in place now that would prohibit Wal Mart from pricing the local hardware store out of business, and I'm not convinced there should be.
I presume it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and I don't know of a federal predatory pricing law.
I'm curious if anyone has any information on the state of these kinds of laws in the US today.
OTOH, do you really want laws that give less efficient higher priced small businesses an artificial advantage to prop them up?
How do you write such a law?
What does it incentivize, and what does it dis-incentivize?
What are the unintended consequences?
|
|
I presume it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and I don't know of a federal predatory pricing law.
I'm curious if anyone has any information on the state of these kinds of laws in the US today.
I could be wrong on this...any info would be welcomed.
OTOH, do you really want laws that give less efficient higher priced small businesses an artificial advantage to prop them up?
It was my understanding that large stores were taking a loss on the sale of items in order to drive out other businesses. They can afford to do so, not because of their efficiency, but because of the sheer volume of sales.
How do you write such a law?
Unless an item is being sold on clearance b/c it will no longer be stocked or has been discontinued by the manufacturer, stores are prohibited from selling items at a loss. The aforementioned two scenarios and doing so to drive a competitor out of business are the only reasons I can see selling items for a loss. Now if a larger store can compete in a fair manner by selling a product and making a small profit (or at least breaking even) and the smaller business can't compete then they should go out of business...they were simply outmatched.
What does it incentivize, and what does it dis-incentivize?
It incentivizes fair business dealings. It discourages stores from using deceptive and under-handed tactics in order to establish a monopoly.
What are the unintended consequences?
There could be some backlash over a store selling at a loss with the intention of driving away competition...but there won't be enough outrage and by the time enough people are made aware it will be too late for a SB in most cases.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
We have massive regulatory structures in place at most levels of government that are supposed to police things like food safety, drilling in the gulf, banking and securities, workplace safety, civil rights, consumer protection, and virtually everything else. We have seen these government regulatory structures suffer truly massive failures to engage in oversight in a meaningful way which has contributed to the Gulf oil disaster and the financial melt down to cite some prominent ones.
I'm just not convinced that our much larger government today is so much greater as a counter point to corporate power and corruption that it was back in the days of the robber barons.
I would suggest that part of the problem is bloated and incompetent bureaucracy, but I would also make a more radical suggestion. Massive and invasive government may be inherently more vulnerable to graft, corruption, and incompetence. Lobbying is a huge industry because it works so well. It is an exceptionally good investment. I dare say the financial giants who got bailed out would agree that their political dollars were well spent.
Capture theory of regulation. The big idea is that the companies being regulated co-opt the regulators to serve their own interests.
Case in point is the trucking industry in the 70s. Prices set by a government agency acted as price collusion in the industry, creating cartel-like barriers to entry. The interests of industry incumbents were served. When the trucking industry was deregulated, all of a sudden there was *poof* competition, and prices were driven down. Established trucking companies were begging us to bring back regulation.
The Paul Harvey is that if you're worried about corporate power, government regulation tends to compound rather than solve the problem.
A Consumer's Guide to the Latest Credit-Card Traps
I suppose this is all the government's fault for passing the Card Act.
A Consumer's Guide to the Latest Credit-Card Traps
I suppose this is all the government's fault for passing the Card Act.
In many ways it is. The government can only do so much to protect people who don't use credit wisely from themselves. Everyone with the slightest clue knew this is precisely how the industry would react. The regulatory bodies that will be created by this legislation will be captured by the industry before they are even formed. They will be just as corrupt and incompetent as the MMS, and the situation will be worse than before. The "too big to fail" institutions will continue to expand, and they will buy up more and more community banks who are hurt by the new regulatory structures. They will make even more money because of their rent seeking, and small businesses and local banks will be driven out of business by the results of rent seeking. The larger more invasive government is actually the instrument to make the huge multinational corporations more huge by choking out the smaller competitors of the rent seekers. The biggest rent seekers win the game.
I would tend to blame the uneducated consumer, the government, and the rent seekers.
|
Hey BT. Got a question for you and curious on your take (and possible definition?) on this.
I heard recently that there is talk that we may be looking at a "constitutional convention". I wasn't even sure what that was until I looked it up. Curious on your take -- good, bad, indiferent, a load of crap, whatever. ;-)
Hey BT. Got a question for you and curious on your take (and possible definition?) on this.
I heard recently that there is talk that we may be looking at a "constitutional convention". I wasn't even sure what that was until I looked it up. Curious on your take -- good, bad, indiferent, a load of crap, whatever. ;-)
I'm even more skeptical of a modern day constitutional convention than I am of modifying the 14th amendment. I simply don't trust either party to modify the constitution. It seems unlikely that they would make changes that expand or protect individual liberty.
I'm not sure what would be required to initiate a new convention, but I doubt it could happen in the current political climate any way.
I simply don't trust either party to modify the constitution. It seems unlikely that they would make changes that expand or protect individual liberty.
Indeed, they both show a great willingness to curtail individual liberty at every turn.
I'm not sure what would be required to initiate a new convention, but I doubt it could happen in the current political climate any way.In theory, 2/3 of the state legislatures.
I think it would collapse into a partisan issue before then, and I suspect second amendment groups would oppose it out of self defense.
|
|
I think it would collapse into a partisan issue before then, and I suspect second amendment groups would oppose it out of self defense.I'm not sure what would be required to initiate a new convention, but I doubt it could happen in the current political climate any way.In theory, 2/3 of the state legislatures.
It also makes me wonder what Governor Swartzenegger thinks out in ol' Cal-eye-forn-eye-ay. His voice is going to influence a lot of people nation wide, especially on the Republican side.
|
|
It also makes me wonder what Governor Swartzenegger thinks out in ol' Cal-eye-forn-eye-ay. His voice is going to influence a lot of people nation wide, especially on the Republican side.I think it would collapse into a partisan issue before then, and I suspect second amendment groups would oppose it out of self defense.I'm not sure what would be required to initiate a new convention, but I doubt it could happen in the current political climate any way.In theory, 2/3 of the state legislatures.
And once again I'm reminded of Demolition Man. Schwarzenegger for President.
"I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener"."
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I think it would collapse into a partisan issue before then, and I suspect second amendment groups would oppose it out of self defense.I'm not sure what would be required to initiate a new convention, but I doubt it could happen in the current political climate any way.In theory, 2/3 of the state legislatures.
I consider the possibility of rescinding the 2nd Amendment highly unlikely. Certainly, some people would try.
I consider the possibility of rescinding the 2nd Amendment highly unlikely. Certainly, some people would try.I think it would collapse into a partisan issue before then, and I suspect second amendment groups would oppose it out of self defense.I'm not sure what would be required to initiate a new convention, but I doubt it could happen in the current political climate any way.In theory, 2/3 of the state legislatures.
They can have my rights when they pry them from my cold dead fingers.
I'm pretty sure GOA and the NRA have expressed concerns about the possibility of a constitutional convention.
I consider the possibility of rescinding the 2nd Amendment highly unlikely. Certainly, some people would try.I think it would collapse into a partisan issue before then, and I suspect second amendment groups would oppose it out of self defense.I'm not sure what would be required to initiate a new convention, but I doubt it could happen in the current political climate any way.In theory, 2/3 of the state legislatures.They can have my rights when they pry them from my cold dead fingers.
I'm pretty sure GOA and the NRA have expressed concerns about the possibility of a constitutional convention.
BT, you always find new and different ways to scare me. Who is the GOA again?
BT, you always find new and different ways to scare me. Who is the GOA again?I consider the possibility of rescinding the 2nd Amendment highly unlikely. Certainly, some people would try.I think it would collapse into a partisan issue before then, and I suspect second amendment groups would oppose it out of self defense.I'm not sure what would be required to initiate a new convention, but I doubt it could happen in the current political climate any way.In theory, 2/3 of the state legislatures.They can have my rights when they pry them from my cold dead fingers.
I'm pretty sure GOA and the NRA have expressed concerns about the possibility of a constitutional convention.
:D
Gun Owners of America! Because the NRA/ILA just isn't hard core enough!
BT, you always find new and different ways to scare me. Who is the GOA again?I consider the possibility of rescinding the 2nd Amendment highly unlikely. Certainly, some people would try.I think it would collapse into a partisan issue before then, and I suspect second amendment groups would oppose it out of self defense.I'm not sure what would be required to initiate a new convention, but I doubt it could happen in the current political climate any way.In theory, 2/3 of the state legislatures.They can have my rights when they pry them from my cold dead fingers.
I'm pretty sure GOA and the NRA have expressed concerns about the possibility of a constitutional convention.
:D
Gun Owners of America! Because the NRA/ILA just isn't hard core enough!
OOOH. Okay. I remember these dudes from the news.
Did you click on the Nugent video on the NRA/ILA site?
The vid of Walken dancing scared me.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
They can have my rights when they pry them from my cold dead fingers.
I'm pretty sure GOA and the NRA have expressed concerns about the possibility of a constitutional convention.
I'm mainly unconcerned about it because the idea of people who don't have rifles trying to take them away from people who do is just absurd. "Give up your guns... or we'll start using... uh, strong language!"
I'm mainly unconcerned about it because the idea of people who don't have rifles trying to take them away from people who do is just absurd. "Give up your guns... or we'll start using... uh, strong language!"They can have my rights when they pry them from my cold dead fingers.
I'm pretty sure GOA and the NRA have expressed concerns about the possibility of a constitutional convention.
I may be missing your point entirely here, but law enforcement and the military obviously have rifles, so I don't follow.
Honestly, Ted Nugent scares me. I haven't even watched the video yet.
I like uncle Ted.
I thought the video made a good point.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I may be missing your point entirely here, but law enforcement and the military obviously have rifles, so I don't follow.
The folks who have them in an official capacity are also likely to have them in an unofficial capacity--and probably about as unlikely as the rest of the gun-owning population to give them up.
I may be missing your point entirely here, but law enforcement and the military obviously have rifles, so I don't follow.The folks who have them in an official capacity are also likely to have them in an unofficial capacity--and probably about as unlikely as the rest of the gun-owning population to give them up.
I follow your meaning now. I tend to see incremental erosion as the primary threat for the moment, but I think what happened in New Orleans after Katrina should serve as a warning to us all. Southern law enforcement disarmed and brutalized law abiding citizens when they needed their arms the most. Laws passed since then make this kind of unconscionable stupidity harder in the future, but the fact that it happened on a significant scale in a pro gun state should be eye opening.
I like uncle Ted.
I'm still having nightmares after surviving Feline Laceration induced Pyrexia.
Cat Scratch Fever, Dog Eat Dog, classics.
Ah come on it's TED, lets go out Bow hunting!!!!
I like uncle Ted.
I'm still having nightmares after surviving Feline Laceration induced Pyrexia.
I'm back.
Freedom lost.
While I mourn for freedom, it's damn good to see you about the boards again, BT.
Welcome back, where did you go?Ah come on it's TED, lets go out Bow hunting!!!!
I like uncle Ted.
I'm still having nightmares after surviving Feline Laceration induced Pyrexia.
I'm back.
Freedom lost.
I was working an oil refinery job in Tacoma for a couple of months.
One reason assassination attempts are so low in democracies, is that if you take out the leader, the guy who'd replace him, her, it; runs on the same ticket and is at least twice as worse as the old boss. I think some US vice presidents got the job strictly as assassination or impeachment insurance.
Roosevelt - Wallace, Truman
Truman - Barkley
Eisenhower - Nixon
Kennedy - Johnson (Fail, we got him anyway)
Johnson - Humphrey (I think we'd have gotten the better man there)
Nixon - Agnew, Ford (Why Agnew went first, still a Fail on Ford)
Reagan - Bush the Elder
Bush - Quayle
Clinton - Gore
Bush - Cheney
Obama - Biden
I'm sure Europe has had the same thing in their selection of ministers in line of succession, and I feel at the Lt. Governors position in several states, its even more true than at the federal level.
(Note: I had to put up with Agnew as County Executive and Governor so I'm a bit biased here, even though bribery IS what makes county government work in America)