Back to the subject, does anyone remember when we had a country ruled by laws?

Oh yes I’m only 15 but I vaguely remember. Those laws were good. Yup. Isn’t living in a capitalist country just great?

Bo$$? More power to you for possessing the character to even think about these things at 15...do keep reading But, non illigitamus carborundum;)

But as a society we have repeatedly made the decision to live with some inefficiency for noneconomic reasons.

As the economist Thomas Sowell points out, there are only noneconomic values. Economics is simply a measure by which those noneconomic values are traded off against each other. My noneconomic value is this: consensual behavior that harms no one should be protected. This is a point that liberals often appreciate when it comes to speech or privacy but not when it comes to property rights. But as eminent domain illustrates, violation of property rights is every bit as much of a threat to liberty.

Just as an example - the Americans with Disabilities Act isn’t a freemarket act. 

It is interesting that you bring up the ADA. The chart below is of employment for the disabled. It reached a peak in 1989, the year the ADA was passed and has steadily declined since. The reason why is simple: it artificially increased the cost of disabled labor, and thus artificially lowered the demand for disabled labor.

Read more about the ADA here.

Eric Paulsen said:

If it is taken FOR the public good I agree with you Karen, but taking a person’s home to build a Wal Mart does not necessarily fill that bill. When private land is confiscated to be given or sold to a for-profit industry I would agree with Bo$$ that this is indeed capitalist in nature.

There is reason why the liberal wing voted for eminent domain and the conservative wing voted against it. Liberals refuse to accept the simple fact that when you give the government enormous powers, that those powers are then used by the powerful against the weak. The clear solution is to strip the government of those powers, but since liberals are all socialists at heart they refuse to do so and the little guy gets screwed.

Well Justin, that’s a good example of what I was talking about.  My comment about the ADA in its entirety was:

Just as an example - the Americans with Disabilities Act isn’t a freemarket act.  Absolutists might say; “Do away with it.â€? I would say, “Try to find a middle ground between brutal efficiency and an impractical and absurd utopia.â€?

...and your solution would be, what?  Do away with it?  And mine is to try to find a middle ground.  So there we are.

Plainly the ADA needs fine-tuning.  I work on a university campus and believe me, it is often pushed to the “impractical utopia” level.

What is your proposed middle ground then? And realize that if forces business to incur additional compliance costs then it will still increase the unemployment of the disabled.

This is the same principle that liberals have for labor in general, not just disabled labor. That is also why the very liberal EU averages about 9% unemployment compared to about 5% for the US.

No matter how bad things get in this country, we must always remember that we outnumber them. We outnumber them by a whole lot.

First of all allow me to remind you that in THIS case in New London, the objective was NOT to build a Wal Mart. The city wanted to put up a hotel and luxury homes-for the benefit of the city’s tax revenue.  Did you notice the land they want is waterfront property?

Secondly, your comment I quoted above is the REASON we need to keep capitalism alive.  If we as Americans at any point lay down our right to achieve the American dream...all is lost.  Sure you can hate Wal Mart and KMart and all the fat cats. But if you take away their right to be fat cats you also take away the little guys right to be a fat cat in his own right and in his own way. My brother in law owns a tool and die company here in Michigan. He went from being an apprentice at 9 bucks an hour to being a multi millionaire in his mid thirties.  He started out with nothing. My sister and him lived in a trailer for years until they could afford to buy their first home. THAT is the American dream and THAT is capitalism, my friend. Wether you like it or not. And not to be offensive but I suspect if you don’t like it...you are merely jealous of those who have the character and drive to achieve it. Instead of being angry over capitalism why not get out there and get your own piece of the pie?????

As I said, once we allow the liberal Socialists to destroy capitalism in this country we allow them to kill what makes America great. So keep bitchin, keep griping about it and someday you will get what you want-all of us on the same pay scale and all of us standing in line for Wonder bread.

This is the same principle that liberals have for labor in general, not just disabled labor. That is also why the very liberal EU averages about 9% unemployment compared to about 5% for the US.

This might have something to do with it…

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2004/06/14/us_jobless_rate_misses_hidden_unemployed/

That is what is called U6 unemployment, which is higher than the more commonly reported U3 unemployment. All countries have different levels of unemployment depending on how you define the unemployed. But after harmonizing for different definitions, the BLS (US) the ILO (United Nations) and Eurostat (Europe) all agree that unemployment runs about five percent higher in Europe.

harmonized unemployment methods show unemployment still lower in the US by about 5%

Wether you like it or not. And not to be offensive but I suspect if you don’t like it...you are merely jealous of those who have the character and drive to achieve it. - Karen

No Karen, you are projecting. Your lust for money and slavish devotion to carrot and stick Capitalism is NOT what I secretly desire. I am not jealous of those who acheive, I am concerned about those who do not - it’s called compassion (any dictionary should have a definition for you). You think it takes character to get rich? You are joking right? Maybe you should try paying attention to the stories in the news. If you still believe it takes character to get rich in this country I have a company named Enron, Tyco, and Halliburton (to name but a few) I want to sell you.

The people with character are working to make the system of government we now labor under fair for all of us, not just the remarkable few like your brother. So he worked his way up from $9.00 an hour, fantastic, that IS an inspirational story. But does that mean we discard those who for whatever reason can not, or perhaps do not desire the accumulation of material wealth? Your disdain for me is apparent, I hope my disdain for your views is now equallly apparent.

And don’t worry, I plan on working to make this a fair and equatable country for everyone. Maybe you should invest in Wonder bread.

You think it takes character to get rich? You are joking right? Maybe you should try paying attention to the stories in the news. If you still believe it takes character to get rich in this country I have a company named Enron, Tyco, and Halliburton (to name but a few) I want to sell you.

This is what liberals refuse to accept: they have given the government the ability to control every aspect of business activity. Then they get outraged because the wealthy use that power for personal greed.

The logical solution is to get government out of the business world. Let’s replace “survival of the politically connected” with “survival of the fittest”

...or perhaps do not desire the accumulation of material wealth?

AKA “voluntary simplicity.”

The logical solution is to get government out of the business world. Let’s replace “survival of the politically connected� with “survival of the fittest� - Justin

On this we agree, at least as far as the ‘survival of the fittest’ meme goes. I do not find oversight of business illogical because there are many issues in regard to public health and safety that need outside attention. As long as the only motivator of business is profit they will continue to cut corners at the expense of the safety of the worker and the well being of the consumer. I trust business to sink or swim on its own without government assistance, but without oversight I think they might just end up dragging too many people and communities down with them when they go.

This is what liberals refuse to accept: they have given the government the ability to control every aspect of business activity. - Justin

While I will not dismiss this as a partisan attack can you please explain how this is all the fault of the big bad liberal cabal? On the face of it I would have to put this statement in the same category of ‘the liberal media’ blather I hear so much about yet see little to support the claim.

I trust business to sink or swim on its own without government assistance, but without oversight I think they might just end up dragging too many people and communities down with them when they go.

Let’s deal in specifics. Without the “oversight” of the liberal Supreme Court, those people would still be in their homes. It is the government’s “oversight” that allows businesses to drag down people and their communities. Licensing, zoning (and getting the variance), and regulations allow the politically connected to dominate the disenfranchised.

This is what liberals refuse to accept: they have given the government the ability to control every aspect of business activity. - Justin

While I will not dismiss this as a partisan attack can you please explain how this is all the fault of the big bad liberal cabal?

Have you forgotten what this thread is about? Scalia, Thomas and Rhenquist all dissented (joined by O’Conner who is a centrist), and the liberal judges ruled in favor of this gross abuse of government power.

No Karen, you are projecting. Your lust for money and slavish devotion to carrot and stick Capitalism is NOT what I secretly desire.

Sorry, not projecting.  I was appreciating and showing respect for those who have gone from nothing and have achieved personal wealth and comfort.  I myself do not strive to be overly wealthy. My husband and I have a new home and nice things, yes.  But not wealthy and no desire to be.  I only desire to be comfortable enough to provide for my precious children-we have 2 and 2 on the way.  Like it or not, it takes money to survive and provide for a family. We all must earn it.  Wether you choose to live simply or not is up to you.  Please don’t assume I am some greedy wealth monger. I just have great respect for those who work hard to achieve their OWN wealth. Maybe I should have clarified that I have no respect for anyone who achived it through breaking the law or breaking the backs of others. Happy?

If you still believe it takes character to get rich in this country I have a company named Enron, Tyco, and Halliburton (to name but a few) I want to sell you.

I stated it takes character for a man to start with nothing and work hard to achieve financial independence.  I did NOT say all men who are wealthy have GOOD character.  YOu chose to read into my statement more than was there-if only to support your argument that all men with money are bad, evil, bad, bad!  Get over it, man.  Funny you mentioned Tyco. My husband worked for Tyco for YEARS. It provided security for our family while it lasted-good medical, paid time off, they were good to him.  Without Tyco, my husband may have not had a job back then. You can look at this world and the big corporations with pessimism and anger all day long but the facts are what they are-without them there would be little to no substantive employment for the little guy. They serve their purpose.  Do some break the law? Are they some bad apples? YES! But you don’t do away with the entire system because of that.  Just as we don’t do away with all healthcare because a few doctors or nurses are bad.  Use your reason.

The people with character are working to make the system of government we now labor under fair for all of us, not just the remarkable few like your brother.

Translated to mean you want everyone to be on equal footing and everyone to be given the same exact opportunities to earn money-regardless of their worth and benefit to a company-and you desire to see all of us earn the same or close to the same because, awe gee, it all needs to be FAIR!  That tired old thinking did nothing for the Soviet Union and is doing nothing for any of the countless Socialist countries that have tried that “fairness for all” system and failed dismally.  Fairness is living in a country where the opportunity to accell is there...but for YOU and you alone to achieve, not for some government entity to hand it to you on a stick.  And my brother in law is by no means exceptional-just a very hard working man who wasn’t afraid to take risks, work 80 hours a week and put his heart in to it.  He shouldn’t have to stay at 9 bucks an hour because the next guy is too lazy or incompetent to do what he did.  That’s where your cry for “fairness” will land us.

But does that mean we discard those who for whatever reason can not, or perhaps do not desire the accumulation of material wealth?

Do we discard them? We have more than enough social programs to assist people who can not for whatever reason work or support their families. It’s called welfare, medicare, FIA, etc, etc ad nauseum.  Look, you can’t implant the desire or the ability into every man to be a hard worker or have drive and determination. We can’t hold someone’s hand throughout their life and make sure they succeed. It is neither your job nor the government’s job to babysit all of America and make sure no one man has more than the next and no on man doesn’t fail in life.  Why not let your fellow man take care of himself? He doesn’t NEED you.

Finally, I never meant to impart any disdain for you. I hardly know you.  I only disagree with the tired, old as mold Socialistic pipe dream that you seem to admire that has been tried and failed in the past numerous, countless times across the face of this earth.  You can hate me all you want if it makes you feel better. Only proves my point that you seem to be a tad bit resentful and bitter of anyone who you perceive may have more than you.

Oh and I never invested in Wonder Bread-wish I had. I invested in Fruit of the Loom-who seems more inclined to make stupid commercials than they do getting their company back on track. ARGH!

Justin:What is your proposed middle ground then? And realize that if forces business to incur additional compliance costs then it will still increase the unemployment of the disabled.

You sure seem to have a strong belief in the desire of businesses to hire the handicapped if only those darn libberules would leave them alone.

It is not usually that difficult to draw a distinction between handicaps that interfere with the core tasks of work, versus those which do not.  The principle is; “We can’t fix everything, but what can we fix with a good balance of expense and reward?”

The argument (and handicap advocacy on one side of it) is essential because businesses will ALWAYS yell “Yer killin’ me here!” if they have to spend a dime to hire a handicapped person. It took the ADA law for some very simple, obvious things to be done that should have been done a long time ago.

I don’t agree that (if some common sense is applied) the net result will always be lower employment of handicapped people.

For example in a California case I recently learned about, the city was forced to hire 3 blind caseworkers and three “readers” who would read their paperwork to them and do all their typing, filing, etc.  Their jobs consisted of about 80 percent paperwork and 20 percent phone work.  Clearly this example violates common sense.

On the other hand if one of those caseworkers had been a wheelchair user, forcing the city to put in a ramp and install wheelchair-accessible bathrooms would make a lot of sense.

OK, it sucks to be blind but we can’t fix everything.  My neurologist has MS, yet she has a very high-paying job.  She might be able to do her job if she were blind.  But she could not do it if she were dumb.  That’s definitely in the “common handicap we can’t fix” category.

It’s an 80/20 concept.  Probably 80% of ADA-related expense comes from serving 20% of the handicapped.  Yes, it’s difficult and messy to make those kinds of distinctions and it won’t always be fair.

I trust business to sink or swim on its own without government assistance, but without oversight I think they might just end up dragging too many people and communities down with them when they go.

Eric, please.  That is life.  You can’t force companies to give control to the government..just in case they fail and take their employees down with them.  Companies fail every day. People lose their jobs every day.  IT’s called LIFE.  Nothing is foolproof-especially with the government’s help! Time and again government involvement has proven to only muck up a companies progress.

Look, I don’t know where this dream of eutopia came from-this idealism that all companies should succeed and nobody should ever suffer because they get laid off from a drowning company.  But it seems to me it can only lead to the proverbial throwing the baby out with the bathwater and as I have stated this would be devastating to this country’s economy as well as the world’s economy. Is this what you want, Eric???  Please be more specific in your ideals and not just this “fairness for all” routine that is so easy to say. What ARE your solutions for fixing the current problems as you perceive them in the business world?

So four “liberal” judges = all liberals? Pretty sweeping statement, yet when I am asked not to judge all christians based on a few abortion clinic bombers, or not to judge all conservatives based on Ann Coulter’s screeching hate filled bile, I can hardly judge all liberals based on the actions of a few supreme court justices. Do you want so badly to smear liberals that you have to resort to generalization in support of your argument?

And yes, let’s do deal in specifics.

Without the “oversight� of the liberal Supreme Court, those people would still be in their homes.

The judiciary (one of three branches of our government) rules on laws that are enacted by congress and approved by the president (more or less). Without the oversight of this horrendous branch we would all be in a nirvana of republican domination. The courts do not make the laws, they enforce and interpret them. Got a bad law? Talk to your congressman and work to get it repealed. Tearing down the third branch of government which is keeping you from realizing a monopoly of power is unacceptable and frankly, quite literally, unamerican.

It is the government’s “oversight� that allows businesses to drag down people and their communities.

Explain please. I see that it is the governemnts acquiesence and fealty to wealth and power that allows businesses to harm the country, not oversight. Maybe we are not using the same definition of the word, When I say it I mean:

1. Watchful care; superintendence; general supervision.

I guess I don’t see how watchful care or supervision translates into the seizure of private property.

Licensing, zoning (and getting the variance), and regulations allow the politically connected to dominate the disenfranchised.

They can, yes. But how is this connected to oversight of business? Again I see that it is governments desire to kneel before power that brings these sort of abuses to bear. I don’t believe that making a business transparent and accountable is the problem here and I figure we would have far fewer Kenneth Lay’s, Jeffery Skilling’s, and Dennis Koslowski’s if they were not hidden by a LACK of oversight. Let me ask, did you reach into the cookie jar to sneak a cookie when your mother was looking right at you or did you wait until she was no longer in the room? As children we know that oversight works, how is it different now that we are adults?

So four “liberal� judges = all liberals? Pretty sweeping statement, yet when I am asked not to judge all christians based on a few abortion clinic bombers

Other than Les, I’m not seeing a parade of liberals distancing themselves from this decision.

I guess I don’t see how watchful care or supervision translates into the seizure of private property.

That is the liberal problem. They are willfully blind to the reality of how these powers are actually used. Liberals intended to use Big Government to provide watchful care. In reality, that power is used by the strong to bully the weak. If we crippled the government from having these powers, the strong would not be able to use them.

Let me ask, did you reach into the cookie jar to sneak a cookie when your mother was looking right at you or did you wait until she was no longer in the room? As children we know that oversight works, how is it different now that we are adults?

If only the government were as loving and incorruptible as our mothers! If that were so then I convert to socialism!

not to judge all conservatives based on Ann Coulter’s screeching hate filled bile, I can hardly judge all liberals based on the actions of a few supreme court justices.

Let’s put this in perspective, Eric.  Ann Coulter’s “screeching” can hardly be compared to APPOINTED liberal judicial nominees taking it upon themselves (once again) to expand the power of government, thereby changing the landscape of US law.  Their decision will affect thousands if not millions over time in a negative way. Their decision reflects the basic attitude of the party that assured their NOMINATION for the positions they hold: that government powers should supsercede the rights of the citizens.

The courts do not make the laws, they enforce and interpret them. Got a bad law? Talk to your congressman and work to get it repealed. Tearing down the third branch of government which is keeping you from realizing a monopoly of power is unacceptable and frankly, quite literally, unamerican.

This statement would be amusing if it weren’t so grossly erroneous in light of what is happening within the scope of so called out of control, run away state Supreme Courts (like the ninth circus in Cali) and their decisions which are obvious creation of laws rather than interpretation of law-as they should be doing. I can only wonder what planet you are on Eric! I am not trying to be rude here...but come on!

I would clarify Karen’s post to point out that some of those liberal judges were appointed by Republican presidents. After the lynching of Bork, and with a Democratic majority congress, Republicans have had to nominate judges like David Souter. Frankly, I’m amazed that they were able to get Scalia, Rhenquist and Thomas confirmed with fewer than 50 Republican senators.

As children we know that oversight works, how is it different now that we are adults?

How ironic that you would use THIS particular simile.  Typical liberal thinking that we all need to be babysat by big brother because a few misbehave.  I don’t know about you, Eric, but I am an adult and I don’t need to be babysat by my government. That was never the intention of the founding fathers of this great nation when they established a federal government.  If you want to volunteer YOUR life for supervision and “oversight” by someone else then go right ahead but please don’t volunteer me for it against my will.

I would clarify Karen’s post to point out that some of those liberal judges were appointed by Republican presidents.

Thankyou for the clarification, Justin. But it is worthy to note that the ONLY dissenting judges WERE conservatives-appointed BY conservatives.

No problem - I just didn’t want anyone to jump in and say “Hey, Souter was a Republican appointee, so it goes to show that they are also in favor of stealing people’s homes!” Thomas, Scalia, and Rhenquist are the kinds of judges the Republicans favor even if they can’t always get them confirmed.

Karen,

Wow, where to begin. I’m not sure what you were reading, it kind of sounded like my posts, but maybe they had been translated into Urdu then back into english. Firstly I NEVER said anything about hating you, it was disdain for your capitalist ideology I alluded to. I specifically avoided a direct attack on you personally, don’t know you well enough, unlike Darryl.

And for someone who thinks I unfairly characterized her as a greedy wealth monger, you seem to have no problem ascribing ridiculous beliefs to me. No, not all rich and powerful people are “bad, evil, bad, bad” (man, what are you, like six?), I work to avoid generalizations. If I didn’t I would have to lump my uncle, great uncle, grandfather, and a few cousins into the category of monster. While a few of them have some god awful big sticks jammed up their asses they tend to be very decent people, and one or two are quite philanthropic. Yay for them. But while my cousin plays video games on his enormous projection television in his gigantic house set on 100 acres of land, you would ask me to ignore countless others who work unbelievably long hours for a sub-living wage living in squallor and agree with you that the system is fair? Not in this lifetime.

I came from money, maybe not Bill Gates money, or even your brother-in-law money, but my parents did very well and I have never wanted for anything. I once made the mistake of mentioning that I thought I would like to learn to play the bagpipes so they, not realizing I was just talking out of my ass, bought me some for my birthday. I have since learned not to seem interested in things around them lest they buy them for me. I am not envious of anyone because of what they OWN I envy people who find happiness, or contentment, or whatever the hell it is that makes life something worth living. Now maybe you don’t agree that everyone should be allowed to find some happiness in life which is what you are arguing when you argue for the unfairness our system supports, maybe people need to have a value you can quantify before you see them as equals, I don’t have that hang up.

And for the record, I am not asking you to agree with me, I will continue on in spite of your disagreement. Now I may never see a change in my lifetime but if I accept the system as is, I certainly never will. When you see a homeless person do you see a failure in that person because I just see a failure in the system.