On conservative and libertarian stupidity

[Simple Minded]

lets start small.

some poor bastard has a car accident and cant afford much beyond food and rent - this is not a crazy theory, the USA has ~5000 serious motor vehicle injuries a month and ~60% have no money in the bank

do we have the slippery slope to death panels, which the communist people call triage, or do we then put them in debtors prison, or should they die in the street as nature intended ?

the theologians and the Darwnists have the answer God's will or survival of the fittest.

that's the tricksy unending discussion, cause it involves all sorts of fuzzy concepts like compassion, fair, just, etc. my point is costs are never discussed as a starting point to lowering costs. more fun to moralize and insult, than it is to focus on reality.

when it is Fred deciding how to spend his own money, it is a non-issue. only get complicated when other people's money comes into play.

in the above case, if the poor bastard is old, and society" has been overcharging the "poor bastard" for years for food, clothing, housing, and energy then "society" should have put that money aside as a contingency if he gets hurt. or if the poor bastard is young, and society" plans to overcharge the "poor bastard" for the rest of his life for food, clothing, housing, and energy then, then society will get their money back.... eventually. just like in the case of Alex's motorcycle accident, or social security, "society owes him" because that's the social contract that was agreed upon.

my young Brit friends were upset about Alex's situation simply because the social contract was signed into law before they were born.

all depends upon the concept of overcharging for staples, is it already in practice, or is it an idea that one is trying to get the people to buy into?

US problem is the cartel Nonc mentioned, and like not joining a Christmas club in January, Merkins don't put the money that they are not overcharged aside for a rainy day, or use it to buy insurance.

provided of course they are not at the bottom of the economic ladder.

[Simple Minded]

She was in real bad shape and in need of serious care and a long road to recovery- who was footing that bill?

sales of soylent green apparently.

finally! a solution!

[Simple Minded]

then it gets more complicated....... are obese people victims of society whose lifestyle should be subsidized, or are they criminals stealing public funds? if their lifespans are shorter, but their healthcare costs are higher, should they pay higher than normal fees for healthcare, but lower than normal fees for social security?

since the greatest wealth is health, should the healthy person making $x per year pay a higher tax rate than the unhealthy guy making $x per year.

is the healthy dude an oppressor or a victim?

what about people who ride horses? financial penalty for engaging in a dangerous activity? should obese people be allowed to buy ice cream or beer?

should everyone be forced to stick their finger in the fat-o-meter before each food purchase?

compassion is an administrator's wet dream. never ending adjustments. endless discussion.

[noddy]

ok, thats a definate maybe dunno

if i read between the lines correctly - the 60% of merkins that live week to week could have spent that money on health insurance but didnt, thusly its a valid to choice to not get hospital treatments.

the only tricky bit i can see is identifying them for do-not-rescue purposes to avoid the ambulance people getting confused, maybe some extra funding for roadside cleanup.

over the years we have many many pages of abstract theory and anecdotes, i was curious about how all that turned into specific policies on day to day realities.

the moment private hospitals are doing compassionate work on the poor people using idle resources, then we have the basics of medicare.. and death panel triage.

next minute, you are subsidising drugs to avoid them ending up in the waiting queues at the hospitals and costing top dollar......

[Simple Minded]

ok, thats a definate maybe dunno

if i read between the lines correctly - the 60% of merkins that live week to week could have spent that money on health insurance but didnt, thusly its a valid to choice to not get hospital treatments.

the only tricky bit i can see is identifying them for do-not-rescue purposes to avoid the ambulance people getting confused, maybe some extra funding for roadside cleanup.

this point is good, its like the people who claim it is their right to ride motorcycles without helmets. I say fine, but if they crash the social contract says they know they will be left there. if they sign the contract.....

over the years we have many many pages of abstract theory and anecdotes, i was curious about how all that turned into specific policies on day to day realities.

the moment private hospitals are doing compassionate work on the poor people using idle resources, then we have the basics of medicare.. and death panel triage.

next minute, you are subsidising drugs to avoid them ending up in the waiting queues at the hospitals and costing top dollar......

read again bubba. you are trying to play high ground moralizer. without the real objective of identifying the vilians and the saints (us vs. them)

costs need to be determined first before solutions can be, implemented as, wait for it, sustainable!

[noddy]

im not moralizing, your reading way too much into this, im just bored with the current state of this decade long mega rant over many threads, lots of theories, not many outcomes.
just trying to wrangle out an opinion and rather than an abstract concept ! futile i know


i think your opinion is they should die on the street and you are worried to say it out loud - i pass no judgement, i have harsh opinions about many topics, i dont need to save the world from itself.

my opinion is that you cant really avoid accident emergency levels of medicare in my country as most folks are not going to allow dead bodies in the street due to things that can be patched up and sent back out the door.

the public/private split comes in later for long term complicated treatments for ongoing diseases, these people, including myself, will die in their houses as they have always done if they cant afford the expensive treatments.

[Simple Minded]

Busting your chops dude. But easy to imagine someone going in that direction if they were given the responsibility of solving this unsolvable problem.

I just love the infinite number of variables, leading to all sorts of ideas, but in the final analysis, people behave very similarly. Despite their claim of different ideology.

The big problem we have over here with the idea of freedom, is we don't want the responsibility or the consequences.

"I've got the right to eat as much ice cream, drink as much beer, ride my motorcycle as fast as I want! It's called freedom!" But in reality, society won't let you die in the streets, even if you signed the contract opting out of Social Security payments, income taxes, and all other forms of paying for societies benefits. So it really is a non-discussion.

Over here, the idealist will end a discussion with the statement "If it saves just one life it is worth any cost!" Which as we all know is complete BS, because if society believed that it would be impossible to get killed in a car crash, or a plane crash, or an industrial accident, and all goods and services would be much more expensive.

It would be fascinating to hear/see/read a discussion of costs, but I think no one has the stomach for it. Too many variables to consider. Easier to bury costs, not think about it, and get on with life.

As I said the concept of fair allows an infinite amount of draconian kindness to be applied. In the old days, the attempt was a graduated income tax. Now we have the tech to means test everyone before every purchase based on all sorts of variables.

"Rich people and unhealthy people should both pay more for ice cream due to Big Brother's kindness!!! It's only fair!"

"Fair" should be easier than ever! Except now everyone can transmit.......

But the concept of "we" always get screwed up by the self indentity of "me." Don't see that ending anytime soon.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Healthcare is also a means of social control.

The decreases in employer paid healthcare are not unconnected to the loss of a middle class (working, but with some savings and generational wealth) and the social stratification into rich living effortlessly off rents and the poor struggling to make ends meet.

[Simple Minded]

Healthcare is also a means of social control.

The decreases in employer paid healthcare are not unconnected to the loss of a middle class (working, but with some savings and generational wealth) and the social stratification into rich living effortlessly off rents and the poor struggling to make ends meet.

Exactly. Taxes and benefits have always been employed as a method of social engineering. Hence my amusement at refusal of the caring, concerned, kind-hearted policy makers to discuss costs.

As you said, implement free market competition, publicize prices, break up the cartel, and minimize the number of people between patient and care providers.

Since end of life costs are YUGE, implement Healthful End of Life Plans (HELP). Fred can negotiate with Uncle Sam, or benefactor for how much they pay him to take the needle rather than live a degenerating life.

Fred: "I've done my homework. Statistically, I will live another 60 months, deteriorate significantly in that time, eventually die, and it will cost you $120k per year to keep me alive in the name of the "common good" just so you can appear to be a nice guy. Let me help you out of a tough predicament. Give me $10k to throw a big party, and another $100k to be given to the heir or charity of my choice, all tax-free of course, and I will take the needle a month from today."
Benefactor: "Let's see we spend $600k on you over 5 years or give you $110k right now. Hmmmm. No dice. Our best offer is $30k total."
Fred: "Nope. I know you have a quota to meet. $50k and we're good!"
Benefactor: "$50k? Hmmmm. OK! Done deal! Shake on it!"

Hell, some might do it free in the the fame/glory of going out in a "selfless" manner or being "green."

Same could be done with voluntary sterilization. Joe or Suzy negotiate getting a free neuter or spay with Uncle Sam based on their statistical future earning/breeding potential.

Voluntary free market solutions abound. Impolite to discuss.

[Mr. Perfect]

Free market economics is not possible in all areas of healthcare. If one falls off a roof or gets hit by a bus there is no shopping around the free market.

Sure there is. You shop around before you fall off the roof. Most people have a preferred emergency room. They just don't factor in price right now.

If a sensible conservative/libertarian healthcare system is to be adopted three good first steps would be 1) open and transparent pricing

Conservative libertarian healthcare is the ONLY system that will provide that.

and 2) equal application of those prices to everyone

Why.

and) antitrust action and the elimination of HMO style monopolies which eliminate consumer choice when possible.

Single payer IS THE MONOPOLY SYSTEM AND ELIMINATES ALL CONSUMER CHOICE, can't be for it and against it at the same time.

[Mr. Perfect]

Healthcare is also a means of social control.

The decreases in employer paid healthcare are not unconnected to the loss of a middle class (working, but with some savings and generational wealth) and the social stratification into rich living effortlessly off rents and the poor struggling to make ends meet.

Health care shouldn't be paid by the employer unless it is completely the choice of the two parties, and not from tax incentives.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Preferred emergency room? No indeed. Major cites have a hundred ER's but only one or two trauma centers. Injured persons are helicoptered at great expense from ER to trauma center in the same city every day. And if you happen to be traveling?

The fact is the free market cannot operate in all areas of healthcare. Just like the free market failed spectacularly in fire protection. Why is tuberculosis no longer a major health threat? Because of free, FORCED government funded treatment.

My point is 'healthcare' is not a monolithic entity. Some parts would do better with free markets, like pharmacies. Others would do better with a controlled cooperative structure and others as public utilities.

Single payer is working great for tuberculosis and other contagious diseases. Cost is very low and benefits are tremendous.

Publish and post all fees and services and then apply the Sherman Act. That is a good place to start putting the free market back into health care.

[Simple Minded]

My point is 'healthcare' is not a monolithic entity. Some parts would do better with free markets, like pharmacies. Others would do better with a controlled cooperative structure and others as public utilities.

Single payer is working great for tuberculosis and other contagious diseases. Cost is very low and benefits are tremendous.

Publish and post all fees and services and then apply the Sherman Act. That is a good place to start putting the free market back into health care.

yep. Just like the US Post Office and FedEx, UPS, DHL, Old Dominion, etc. or social services and private charities. No reason at all why parallel private and public systems can not co-exist.

Get rid of all monopolies, Federal, State, and private.

and as part of price list publicizing, note what individuals can do to affect their health care costs. Operation or procedure X costs $Y. If you are overweight, smoke or drink excessively, consume too much sugar, don't get enough exercise the price goes up in accordance with the amount of self-abuse you have inflicted upon yourself, or also in accordance with particular personal risk factors.

I doubt the above would need to be mandated. Like private insurance, it would be an automatic result of competition.

I have had the same primary care physician since 1988. One time during a visit I asked him and another doctor if doctors ever fired patients. My doctor said "In a word, yes." The other doctor added "We only have so much time. If people are unwilling to help themselves, why should we spend our time with them? They are other patients out there who are willing to help us help them. No one can help those who are focused on self-destruction."

In addition to the above, doctors could assign co-opertive "ratings" to their patients. Similar to how auto insurance companies rate drivers in terms of risk.

[Mr. Perfect]

Preferred emergency room? No indeed. Major cites have a hundred ER's but only one or two trauma centers. Injured persons are helicoptered at great expense from ER to trauma center in the same city every day. And if you happen to be traveling?

I'm just going to guess but I would say helicopter trips to the hospital are less than 1% of all healthcare spending.

The fact is the free market cannot operate in all areas of healthcare.

I definitely would not say that is a fact.

Just like the free market failed spectacularly in fire protection.

Some say the government fails spectacularly in fire protection. And other kinds of protections.

Why is tuberculosis no longer a major health threat? Because of free, FORCED government funded treatment.

I would be careful with that, autism families feel strongly they have autism because of forced government treatments.

BTW, none of this is free, you pay for it in taxes. The lie that always slips into these discussions.

My point is 'healthcare' is not a monolithic entity. Some parts would do better with free markets, like pharmacies. Others would do better with a controlled cooperative structure and others as public utilities.

I will never cooperate with anyone who is trying to force me into state slavery.

Single payer is working great for tuberculosis and other contagious diseases.

I don't think this is an example of single payer.

Cost is very low and benefits are tremendous.

Publish and post all fees and services and then apply the Sherman Act. That is a good place to start putting the free market back into health care.

You don't create free markets with laws, you create free markets with a lack of laws. I think you are way off on all this.

[Parodite]

Cost is very low and benefits are tremendous.

Publish and post all fees and services and then apply the Sherman Act. That is a good place to start putting the free market back into health care.

You don't create free markets with laws, you create free markets with a lack of laws. I think you are way off on all this.

The idea that the market is free only in as far as laws are absent is simply false. There is a correlation between the amount of laws and regulations and how free, how productive and effective the market is, but the stronger correlation is what laws and regulations are in place and how they impact the market.

For instance it is possible to conceive of a relatively small set of required laws and regulations that maximize freedom, competition and wealth output but still quantitatively amounts to say 50 laws (including property rights, and by necessity of that what constitutes a crime in that context and how the law is supposed to be enforced). But if quantifying were the only thing that mattered, much fewer laws (and hence equally less law enforcement) are even thinkable that would however result in something quite different from a free market. If there are very few laws that say what is not allowed (which is the true meaning of deregulation) then you quickly get corporate monopolies protected and subsidized by political centers of power. If you want maximum deregulation then eat the cake and allow those massive corporations and banks to do oligarch business with their democratic friends.!:P

I consider it one of the typical stupidities of libertarian fundamentalists who think that only the quantity matters, not the actual content of a law or set of laws. The dumbest of all is the idea that free markets don't need any regulation. Or that "less is always better".

Sure, government is always the greatest threat of monopoly and big butt corporations therefore want to be bribing buddies of political hacks willing to serve the interests of growing corporate monopolies in exchange for $$. The neo-liberal "left", spear headed by the Crooked Corporate Clintonistas has sold its liberal soul and managed to totally deregulate the whole thing, allowing oligarchy to further poison your precious free market. With the housing bubble collapse of 2008 as a consequence.

So for starters, to save the free market from the poison-well of government interference, you may need some very tough laws and regulations to keep politics out of the free market. Unless you want to go full deregulation of course; then politicians and corporations can freely associate and do their deals without even needing you to have a vote on it. Or just sell their deals to the public as something "good for everybody".

Corporations like Google and Facebook start to have more and more sex with governments world wide. Google is now into serious censorious anal sex with China. Maybe we should just let them.

[Parodite]

Blind moral indignation

I'm a frequent visitor of The Ben Shapiro Show on The Daily Wire youtube channel. Informative, often funny.. a high speed nonsense shredder. Shapiro does the "Good Trump / Bad Trump" gig, but sometimes a "Good Ben / Bad Ben" gig would be nice too. It inspired me to start this thread, where he explains he didn't like Trump acting so nicely-respectfully to Kim Yong-un. That if Kim Y-u ever would set foot on US soil he should be taken into custody and set on trial for all the crimes he and his regime have committed. This was a good Bad Ben example.

When conservatives, with an otherwise excellent libertarian outlook on economy and politics, become moralistic rather than pragmatic. When moral indignation creates a blind spot that blurs reality and kills their sense of pragmatism almost on the spot. Throwing Kim Y-u in a US jail right? Why not kill him instead? He would get a death sentence in the US for what he/his regime did. Who cares the North Korean army could start a artillery onslaught on South Korea to avenge their leader. Who cares, that maybe Kim Y-u has a genuine desire to change his country into something more like Singapore. He would then also be up to a lot of enemies in his own regime. An incredible tight rope to walk. No, push that all aside and just be conservatively and morally upset by the very thought of being nice to this assumed monster, asking for actions that could have terrible results.

Trump the Orange Pill however does not suffer from this blind spot. All lights are on and must illuminate his Glorious Trumpian Self. When that eventually leads to peace on the Korean Peninsula would be a big irony or a surreal comedy, but who would care about that.

[Parodite]

A Good Ben episode of the Ben Shapiro show:

The Acual Big Issue | The Ben Shapiro Show Ep. 610

So they are now after the Trump Organisation and have a Manhattan court hungry and waiting for more trials. Potentially Trump family members, and Trump himself. Cohen is not the end. Only the scalp of Trump is the end, if there were any doubt.

Shapiro then puts on his moral filter. Acknowledges that indeed it becomes an odd and unfair show where Trump et-al are extremely harshly investigated, whereas every potential law violation committed by democrats are left off the hook, or treated with silk forgiving gloves. But according to him it is still better when republicans demand the law to be upheld and enforced when it concerns people of their own ranks, and not ask for the same silky gloves screaming how unfair it is that democrats get away with things. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Me thought that is all Good Ben, but he does not address the bigger question that started to be begged by all this:

How is it possible to begin with that the law is being applied so arbitrarily?

I need to better understand the USofA.

The way I understand law in general, is that anyone can file a law suit against somebody else. With enough facts to create probable cause and the accusation being of serious enough nature, an independent court will accept the case for trial. In the Netherlands when you win a case, the found guilty must pay also for your attorney and all trial costs. If you loose, you have to pay for it yourself.

Shapiro talked about all the stuff under Obama that would deserve equal investigation and trials in court. So why didn't Republicans, or any American who cares and with some $$ to waste, file a lawsuit against the Obama admin on those issues to be judged by an independent court? The only explanation I can think of that this didn't happen is that the rule of law does not operate independently; especially high up in the hierarchy. When the highest legaleze places like DOJ are being politicized, the highest executive branch FBI putting its dick in places where it was never meant to be.. then it is no surprise that arbitrary law enforcement is the result.

I would start with moving the DOJ to some remote region, Alaska sounds great. Why should politicians vote in-and-out DOJ judges? Politicians are by definition biased. A first error, it seems to me, to have politicians vote in and out judges. Judges don't need to be creative artists, they just need to apply the law as it is. Technicians who can read and write advanced manuals. They should actually be rather dumb and preferably have not too many opinions.

Probably missing loads, just some thoughts.

[Nonc Hilaire]

It's really not about the politicans, Parodite. It's that our intelligence agencies are really running the government and hiding behind national security and non-disclosure agreements.

[noddy]

the biggest conservative and libertarian stupidity is having too many AND's.

if the nationalist vs globalist thing is the biggest priority then the healthcare and minimum wage fights against the urban workers is a distraction.

if the healthcare and minimum wage fights are the biggest priority then give up on the national/globalist stuff.

having too many AND's and not enough OR's is the death of pragmatic politics, in my country all the big changes in politics come from single minded focus on an issue and being prepared to horse trade on secondary concerns.

[Mr. Perfect]

A Good Ben episode of the Ben Shapiro show:

The Acual Big Issue | The Ben Shapiro Show Ep. 610

So they are now after the Trump Organisation and have a Manhattan court hungry and waiting for more trials. Potentially Trump family members, and Trump himself. Cohen is not the end. Only the scalp of Trump is the end, if there were any doubt.

Shapiro then puts on his moral filter. Acknowledges that indeed it becomes an odd and unfair show where Trump et-al are extremely harshly investigated, whereas every potential law violation committed by democrats are left off the hook, or treated with silk forgiving gloves. But according to him it is still better when republicans demand the law to be upheld and enforced when it concerns people of their own ranks, and not ask for the same silky gloves screaming how unfair it is that democrats get away with things. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Me thought that is all Good Ben, but he does not address the bigger question that started to be begged by all this:

How is it possible to begin with that the law is being applied so arbitrarily?

I need to better understand the USofA.

The way I understand law in general, is that anyone can file a law suit against somebody else. With enough facts to create probable cause and the accusation being of serious enough nature, an independent court will accept the case for trial. In the Netherlands when you win a case, the found guilty must pay also for your attorney and all trial costs. If you loose, you have to pay for it yourself.

Shapiro talked about all the stuff under Obama that would deserve equal investigation and trials in court. So why didn't Republicans, or any American who cares and with some $$ to waste, file a lawsuit against the Obama admin on those issues to be judged by an independent court? The only explanation I can think of that this didn't happen is that the rule of law does not operate independently; especially high up in the hierarchy. When the highest legaleze places like DOJ are being politicized, the highest executive branch FBI putting its dick in places where it was never meant to be.. then it is no surprise that arbitrary law enforcement is the result.

I would start with moving the DOJ to some remote region, Alaska sounds great. Why should politicians vote in-and-out DOJ judges? Politicians are by definition biased. A first error, it seems to me, to have politicians vote in and out judges. Judges don't need to be creative artists, they just need to apply the law as it is. Technicians who can read and write advanced manuals. They should actually be rather dumb and preferably have not too many opinions.

Probably missing loads, just some thoughts.

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS LEFT WING DEMOCRAT AND HAS BEEN FOR 100 YEARS

Shapiro isn't in the same building as the answer to the problem.

[Mr. Perfect]

But according to him it is still better when republicans demand the law to be upheld and enforced when it concerns people of their own ranks, and not ask for the same silky gloves screaming how unfair it is that democrats get away with things. Two wrongs don't make a right.

This is why Shapiro is so despised. He has severe intellectual deficits.

I have watched my whole life as Republican after Republican has been destroyed for gaffes and parking ticket, as Democrats have spent 2 generations building a criminal superstate in front of our eyes.

What does Shapiro expect? Trump to resign, so that Republicans can maintain a moral high ground that will result in what? If Trump resigns the GOP will be in the wilderness for a generation, as Democrats permanently alter the country that used to sing God Bless America.

This will never happen. The issue is not GOP higher ground, the issue is the Democrat super criminal state.

Shapiro has no idea what to do about that. Trump does. That's why we voted for Trump and rejected Shapiro.

[Typhoon]

Reason | Federal Deficit Jumps 32 Percent, Hits $895 Billion for Fiscal 2018!

[Typhoon]

Reason | Congress Just Passed a $150 Billion Spending Package Without Any Consideration for Looming Trillion-Dollar Deficit

In a sane world, the news that America will run a trillion-dollar deficit in the next fiscal year would cause at least enough of a stir in Congress to make lawmakers at least a little nervous about their budget votes.

After all, it was support for runaway spending and the specter of a trillion-dollar deficit that cost lawmakers on both sides of the aisle their congressional seats during the conservative Tea Party uprising less than a decade ago. Now that the Congressional Budget Office says we are on course for a return to trillion-dollar deficits—and not during an economic downturn, but at the peak of the business cycle—it would seem appropriate for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to be wary about their role in pushing the country across that symbolic threshold.

Instead, it's quite the opposite. Congress just passed a $150 billion spending bill—the first of three to be considered in the coming days—with bipartisan support and without significant opposition from the leadership of either party. The bill passed 377-20 in the House on Thursday afternoon, after clearing the Senate with a 92-5 vote on Wednesday.

That's a mere 25 "nays" (20 of them Republicans, five Democrats) on a major spending bill that promises to add to billions to the deficit. A spending bill that passes less than 48 hours after the CBO revealed that America's budget deficit had grown by $220 billion during the current year.

A Republican majority in the US House and Senate with a nominally Republican POTUS.

The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn.
The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.

~ P. J. O'Rourke

[Simple Minded]

Reason | Congress Just Passed a $150 Billion Spending Package Without Any Consideration for Looming Trillion-Dollar Deficit

In a sane world, the news that America will run a trillion-dollar deficit in the next fiscal year would cause at least enough of a stir in Congress to make lawmakers at least a little nervous about their budget votes.

After all, it was support for runaway spending and the specter of a trillion-dollar deficit that cost lawmakers on both sides of the aisle their congressional seats during the conservative Tea Party uprising less than a decade ago. Now that the Congressional Budget Office says we are on course for a return to trillion-dollar deficits—and not during an economic downturn, but at the peak of the business cycle—it would seem appropriate for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to be wary about their role in pushing the country across that symbolic threshold.

Instead, it's quite the opposite. Congress just passed a $150 billion spending bill—the first of three to be considered in the coming days—with bipartisan support and without significant opposition from the leadership of either party. The bill passed 377-20 in the House on Thursday afternoon, after clearing the Senate with a 92-5 vote on Wednesday.

That's a mere 25 "nays" (20 of them Republicans, five Democrats) on a major spending bill that promises to add to billions to the deficit. A spending bill that passes less than 48 hours after the CBO revealed that America's budget deficit had grown by $220 billion during the current year.

A Republican majority in the US House and Senate with a nominally Republican POTUS.

The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn.
The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.

~ P. J. O'Rourke

Quoting Mr Perfect: "Wrong people for the job."

As they used to say in the comic books, "nuff said!"

[Parodite]

UcfDAyLmHGk

Some good brains at work here, but I put it in this thread nevertheless because it was a missed opportunity. Ayn Rand enthusiasts always have the same deficiency: they are unable to make their case. True libertarians not being able to make their case and only repetitively throw their messianic "deregulation" into the air waves are the greatest threat to individual freedom.