tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post9100152395113358280..comments2024-03-27T18:24:19.683-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: Safety Net v. Safety NestUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger143125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-20586806452581812882012-09-01T08:16:47.664-07:002012-09-01T08:16:47.664-07:00Absolutely. That is the right way to do it.
I onc...<i>Absolutely. That is the right way to do it.</i><br /><br />I once made that point to a forum full of libtards. Almost to a man, their response was "you stingy bastard." There was no acknowledgement whatsoever of any of the actual issues I was raising. I especially liked the part where several suggested that people are scum and won't help one another without gov't intervention. I don't know where conservatives got the idea that libtards think warmly of human nature but it's bunk. Several were quite comfortable suggesting that man is barbarous without the state.Svigorhttp://svigor.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-67433801021961073322012-08-31T22:20:49.894-07:002012-08-31T22:20:49.894-07:00Voters have demanded that governments provide them...<i>Voters have demanded that governments provide them with a safety net to protect them from starvation and homelessness if they become unemployed.</i><br /><br />I don't think so. Centralizing "charity" is the central government's idea.<br /><br /><i>The solution is to let families and community groups perform the welfare function. </i><br /><br />Absolutely. That is the right way to do it.ben tillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-75228720387580067182012-08-31T16:56:36.269-07:002012-08-31T16:56:36.269-07:00I don't know Latin but I'm taking it you&#...<i>I don't know Latin but I'm taking it you're saying that one person cannot break established laws, in defiance of authority, but x-number can?</i><br /><br />Take whatever you want. While you're out there in left field, will you cut the grass?<br /><br /><i>What's the number, 10?, 100?, 1,000?, 10,000?, where's the cutoff point?</i><br /><br />Just go look up the Latin, you lazy ass.Svigorhttp://svigor.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-58815312850954908422012-08-31T16:23:16.970-07:002012-08-31T16:23:16.970-07:00"Be careful with the reductio ad absurdum the..."Be careful with the reductio ad absurdum there, son."<br /><br />I don't know Latin but I'm taking it you're saying that one person cannot break established laws, in defiance of authority, but x-number can?<br /><br />What's the number, 10?, 100?, 1,000?, 10,000?, where's the cutoff point?<br /><br />"Nations are composed of people, not lines on a map."<br /><br />No, nations are entities DEFINED by lines on a map that CONTAIN people. If you don't believe it, drive your car as fast as you can over the Mexican line, without showing someone your ID that establishes that you are from the American side.Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-19286164716991130522012-08-31T15:48:28.814-07:002012-08-31T15:48:28.814-07:00I just noticed it was your yard, not mine. Well, ...I just noticed it was your yard, not mine. Well, States intervene in lawless areas all the time, so no biggie.Svigorhttp://svigor.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-64445578807086048902012-08-31T15:47:00.996-07:002012-08-31T15:47:00.996-07:00I am a United States citizen. What would happen if...<i>I am a United States citizen. What would happen if I declared myself, by fiat, an "independent citizen without national affiliation" and then shot you on my front yard?</i><br /><br />Be careful with the reductio ad absurdum there, son. The position that states cannot secede is much closer to reductio ad absurdum in pursuit of tyranny than the position that they can is to reductio ad absurdum in pursuit of individual sovereignty.<br /><br />As for shooting people in their front yards, well, we don't let Mexicans or Canadians shoot us from theirs, so, I think you can answer that question on your own.<br /><br /><i>I would say it does, Mittens; people are born, living organic organisms, nations (and regions of nations which you are describing here) are arbitrary lines on a map, decided upon, by fiat, by people.</i><br /><br />Nations are composed of people, not lines on a map.<br /><br /><i>You want to secede from the union, you don't do it from within, you do it from without, by starting a war,</i><br /><br />You're hostile to the notion of secession; you don't get to define it.<br /><br /><i>which is basically what they did</i><br /><br />Nonsense. The Yankees invaded the south. That's what happened, basically and every other which way.Svigorhttp://svigor.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-16189607112673646912012-08-30T15:10:57.709-07:002012-08-30T15:10:57.709-07:00"People are too important to enslave with bon..."People are too important to enslave with bondage, even by voluntary contract, but nations aren't, apparently. People are too important to be bound to a marriage they want to leave, but nations aren't; people may divorce, but nations, entire populations and their posterity, may not. Hmm, makes perfect sense."<br /><br />I would say it does, Mittens; people are born, living organic organisms, nations (and regions of nations which you are describing here) are arbitrary lines on a map, decided upon, by fiat, by people. You want to secede from the union, you don't do it from within, you do it from without, by starting a war, which is basically what they did, and take your chances on the consequences.<br />Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-40393305724996581332012-08-30T15:04:35.092-07:002012-08-30T15:04:35.092-07:00"The supreme law of...the Union. When the sou..."The supreme law of...the Union. When the southern States seceded from the Union, they were no longer a part of it and thus, no longer subject to its laws."<br /><br />I am a United States citizen. What would happen if I declared myself, by fiat, an "independent citizen without national affiliation" and then shot you on my front yard?Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-60012139058120054492012-08-30T06:26:02.792-07:002012-08-30T06:26:02.792-07:00Even more specific than the foregoing “Supremacy C...<i>Even more specific than the foregoing “Supremacy Clause,” we have the Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution that says, “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation,” which is precisely what the eleven seceding states did when they formed the southern confederacy. Then there is paragraph Article I, Section 10, paragraph 3 that says, “No state shall…keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State…” The South raised both an army and a navy."</i><br /><br />When they seceded from the Union, they were no longer part of the US and thus no longer subject to its laws. They were no longer States for the purposes of Constitutional law. So they could make any treaties, alliances, or confederations they wished, and were free to keep troops and ships, and raise an army and a navy.<br /><br />The Union was the one trampling the South's Constitutional rights (they were the ones who thought the Confederacy still part of the Union and subject to its Constitution, remember), violating several clear, supreme laws: infringing on the right to bear arms, the free press, to be free in their persons and effects from unwarranted search and seizure, etc.<br /><br />The Union got its way by force of arms, and after waging America's bloodiest war against their own former countrymen and roughly a century of needless misery, the matter is for now a sleeping dog. Let that be enough for the Yankees; don't expect me to say they were in the right under color of law.<br /><br />Is there any documentary evidence that secession was forbidden?Svigorhttp://svigor.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-36431627836144179722012-08-30T06:25:39.019-07:002012-08-30T06:25:39.019-07:00“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United Sta...<i>“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…”</i><br /><br />The supreme law of...the Union. When the southern States seceded from the Union, they were no longer a part of it and thus, no longer subject to its laws. The Constitution may be as supreme as it wishes where enumerated, but it cannot assume unto itself vague powers simply because the powers it does enumerate include the word, "supreme." The supremacy of Constitutional law does not translate into the supremacy of any Yankee whim attributed to it.<br /><br />People are too important to enslave with bondage, even by voluntary contract, but nations aren't, apparently. People are too important to be bound to a marriage they want to leave, but nations aren't; people may divorce, but nations, entire populations and their posterity, may not. Hmm, makes perfect sense.<br /><br />There is no such thing as a contract or agreement that may not be ended (which is not to say that contracts are not binding, but rather to say that agreements to perpetual servitude are non-binding; and more, that contracts pretending to bind one's posterity in perpetuity are even further afield into tyranny). It defies the very meaning of the concepts.<br /><br /><i>In other words, no laws passed by any state can be considered as superseding the Constitution of the United States.</i><br /><br />Let's agree to this for the purposes of argument; even if true, a law of secession does not supersede any part of the Constitution, because the Constitution does not prohibit secession, or empower the federal gov't to prevent secession. "Laws made in pursuance thereof" bring tyrants no solace, either; there is nothing enumerated within the Constitution to prevent secession, and therefore, no power, law, or mandate to make any laws in pursuance of regarding secession. Many would argue that a Constitutional law that crosses the line into tyranny is void, in any event. Would you acknowledge as legitimate a law that made you, your son, or your whole race into slaves, simply because it was written in the Constitution and ratified by the States? I submit that Union in Perpetuity crosses the same line. It's of the same cloth as slave-marriage or child bondage.<br /><br />There is no such law in the Constitution because it never would have been ratified if there had been. The Anti-Federalists raised fears of the tyranny of perpetual, insoluble Union, and the Federalists assured them they were misplaced. (At least, that's what I've read second-hand; unfortunately, simple and manifest logic and respect for human rights aren't going to be enough to convince the chowder-heads, so I suppose I'll have to dig into this bit eventually)Svigorhttp://svigor.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-27028796175724598912012-08-29T19:54:36.988-07:002012-08-29T19:54:36.988-07:00"How was it unconstitutional? Which laws did ..."How was it unconstitutional? Which laws did it break?"<br /><br />"Southern secession was illegal for the simple reason that it was unconstitutional. States that seceded during 1860 and 1861 each passed an “Ordinance of Secession” essentially declaring that they no longer considered themselves subject to the authority of the Federal Constitution. Those ordinances were illegal because the Article VI, Clause 2 (which all Southern states agreed to when they ratified it) says:<br /><br />“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…”<br /><br />In other words, no laws passed by any state can be considered as superseding the Constitution of the United States. Even more specific than the foregoing “Supremacy Clause,” we have the Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution that says, “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation,” which is precisely what the eleven seceding states did when they formed the southern confederacy. Then there is paragraph Article I, Section 10, paragraph 3 that says, “No state shall…keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State…” The South raised both an army and a navy."<br /><br />http://www.helium.com/items/1769918-was-southern-secession-legal<br /><br />Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-5001078363752354022012-08-29T16:05:34.097-07:002012-08-29T16:05:34.097-07:00Svigor said...
The Republic was founded by secess...Svigor said... <br /><i>The Republic was founded by secessionists, for secessionists, via secession. The idea that southern secession was illegal or unconstitutional has a pretty high bar to clear, IMO.</i><br /><br />And it's hypocritical. to boot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-55654867682463061352012-08-29T15:34:10.019-07:002012-08-29T15:34:10.019-07:00The Republic was founded by secessionists, for sec...The Republic was founded by secessionists, for secessionists, via secession. The idea that southern secession was illegal or unconstitutional has a pretty high bar to clear, IMO.Svigorhttp://svigor.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-11282748193698665512012-08-29T15:32:33.971-07:002012-08-29T15:32:33.971-07:00It has nothing to do with that; seceding from the ...<i>It has nothing to do with that; seceding from the union was unconstitutional and illegal, and breaking the law carries consequences.</i><br /><br />How was it unconstitutional? Which laws did it break?Svigorhttp://svigor.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-14197301531387415692012-08-29T15:30:22.389-07:002012-08-29T15:30:22.389-07:00"Our lives will improve if we all jump off th...<i>"Our lives will improve if we all jump off this sheer cliff together!"<br /><br />"You first..."</i><br /><br />I mean, I could see:<br /><br />"My life would be better if you stopped robbing me to pay for that safety net that everyone else is using."<br /><br />"No." *pulls out gun* "You 'need' a safety net. And you're going to pay for the safety net whether you use it or not."<br /><br />Now, that's a relevant analogy. I don't give a <i>shit</i> whether you jump off a cliff or not. Unless I'm at the bottom.Svigorhttp://svigor.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-17208165627477189552012-08-29T15:24:45.267-07:002012-08-29T15:24:45.267-07:00An ideological position is not a suicide pact or o...<i>An ideological position is not a suicide pact or oath to go out of business. Some of you guys sound like children. The "you must cut your own throat to convince us you mean what you say" thing is pretty tired.<br /><br />"Our lives will improve if we all jump off this sheer cliff together!"<br /><br />"You first..."</i><br /><br />What do these three paragraphs have to do with one another? That is, why have you strung them together into a comment? The second and third seem to be a non-sequitur.Svigorhttp://svigor.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-29912557512437138902012-08-29T15:18:40.311-07:002012-08-29T15:18:40.311-07:00I mean, it's been long established that none o...<i>I mean, it's been long established that none of you guys wants to live anywhere near the NAMs you champion.</i><br /><br />*Facepalm* libtards are the grand masters of the kind of Alinskyite behavior I'm referring to; what am I doing dignifying T's selective concern?Svigorhttp://svigor.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-23469205433637606282012-08-29T12:40:03.149-07:002012-08-29T12:40:03.149-07:00An ideological position is not a suicide pact or o...<i> An ideological position is not a suicide pact or oath to go out of business. Some of you guys sound like children. The "you must cut your own throat to convince us you mean what you say" thing is pretty tired.</i><br /><br />"Our lives will improve if we all jump off this sheer cliff together!"<br /><br />"You first..."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-34199729679817995252012-08-29T10:26:44.373-07:002012-08-29T10:26:44.373-07:00Two of the great axioms on this subject:
"A ...Two of the great axioms on this subject:<br /><br />"A liberal is a conservative who got fired."<br /><br />"The rich insist on socialism for themselves, and capitalism for you."Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-57019997850407603292012-08-29T10:22:26.871-07:002012-08-29T10:22:26.871-07:00"That line of argument makes it impossible to..."That line of argument makes it impossible to ever argue for a fundamental change in your society without being called a hypocrite."<br /><br />No NOTA, it's actually pretty simple; If you do not believe in entitlements, don't take any. Precise, to the point.<br /><br />What do you think about Strom Thurmond speaking on the horrors of race mixing and having interracial children?<br /><br />Like, if you grow up in the USSR, work in a collective farm, are educated by the state all the way through your PhD, work as a researcher in a state-run institute, but then come to believe Communism on the Soviet model is a bad way to run a society, can't we tell you to shut up and call you a hypocrite in exactly the same way as is being done here wrt Ryan?"<br /><br />We do not live in the USSR, so that question is moot. The point is, he was not coerced in any fashion to accept his daddy's welfare payment. He did not work one day for that money so, if a man of principle, why accept it?<br /><br />I'm not so severe that I do not realize that men are different at 42 than they were at 18, but per my research, he has yet to say one word about taking that money, as if he feels it was fine. <br /><br />It is not just Ryan, a "government is too big" lifetime government employee with a large staff, it is Mittens as well. During the Vietnam war, he campaigned vociferously PRO Vietnam...the accepted religious deferments.<br /><br /><br />Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-30936618593949995362012-08-29T10:15:15.145-07:002012-08-29T10:15:15.145-07:00"I mean, it's been long established that ..."I mean, it's been long established that none of you guys wants to live anywhere near the NAMs you champion."<br /><br />It's all good, you do.Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-17613288597302922822012-08-29T10:13:18.049-07:002012-08-29T10:13:18.049-07:00"Just like it isn't a businessman advocat..."Just like it isn't a businessman advocating a strict immigration policy and deporting alien infiltrators and scabs but acknowledging the fact that to stay competitive in his business under the current regime means hiring those same infiltrators and scabs."<br /><br />Oh, now I get it! It took a while, but through the magic of analogy I finally understand; like hating blacks and living in a 50% black city, for instance. <br /><br />Why didn't you just say so?Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-79431999368591561932012-08-29T10:11:29.153-07:002012-08-29T10:11:29.153-07:00" It was the right thing to do. "
It ha..." It was the right thing to do. "<br /><br />It has nothing to do with that; seceding from the union was unconstitutional and illegal, and breaking the law carries consequences.Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-21075139642236759662012-08-29T10:09:17.481-07:002012-08-29T10:09:17.481-07:00"Paul Ryan's dad worked for it,"
Pa..."Paul Ryan's dad worked for it,"<br /><br />Paul Ryan is not his daddy, and he did not put in one day at the mill, the warehouse, the PX 90 gym or wherever for that money. If his daddy died in prison, would PX Ryan have finished his sentence?Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-67521005315567274162012-08-29T07:20:59.321-07:002012-08-29T07:20:59.321-07:00Is there any reason to think that France is in a m...Is there any reason to think that France is in a more fundamentally unsustainable place wrt their social programs and government budgets than we are? <br /><br />Greece is a better example, though it seems to me there are bigger reasons for its failure (like inability to collect taxes, massive corruption all through the government, and active intentional lying in their public budget numbers for years and years). I don't know that their welfare state is as big a problem as those other things, and I don't think it's enormously more generous than that of many other European states that seem to be working out fine. Belgium, Germany, and Denmark are all European countries with modern welfare states, who seem to be doing okay, and have been for some time. <br /><br />There are failure modes of generous welfare states, and it is important to know that they can happen--that you can get a permanent dependent population with multiple generations on the dole, for example. But lots of countries have had generous welfare states for several generations, including the US, and most such countries don't seem to be collapsing under their weight. Instead, from time to time there are adjustments to the terms of the welfare scheme to try to make it easier to get off or harder to stay on. <br /><br />I gather that in the US, one thing that keeps a lot of people on public assistance is the way having any savings or income tends to cut those programs off abruptly. I've read some analysis that says that at the bottom, it's possible to have a really stunningly high marginal tax rate, where (for example) you get a raise, which bumps you above medicaid eligibility and childcare eligibility, and thus you end up much poorer than you were before the raise. This isn't so much a safety nest as a safety trap. I'm not sure what should be done to fix that--something like Murray's idea of a fixed per-citizen payout and no other welfare, or Friedman's negative income tax (but that also has problems with its marginal tax rate) might work, especially if paired with some kind of universal medical insurance for all citizens. NOTAnoreply@blogger.com