Shove Your Rights Up Your Ass

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:

Ayn Rand types are unimpressed with FDR, because they fundamentally don’t care if anybody else survives or not. For them, everything is neatly summed up by the DJIA. Also, of course, few alive today realize in any visceral way just how dreadful the Great Depression was.[/quote]

We “Ayn Rand types”–why Ayn Rand?–believe no such thing. We happen to believe that the effects of the Great Depression could have been mitigated to a greater extent had the government taken a different approach. Feel free to argue that I am wrong, but don’t tell me that I, “fundamentally don’t care if anybody else survives or not.” That is complete bullshit…

42

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:

Ayn Rand types are unimpressed with FDR, because they fundamentally don’t care if anybody else survives or not. For them, everything is neatly summed up by the DJIA. Also, of course, few alive today realize in any visceral way just how dreadful the Great Depression was.

We “Ayn Rand types”–why Ayn Rand?–believe no such thing. We happen to believe that the effects of the Great Depression could have been mitigated to a greater extent had the government taken a different approach. Feel free to argue that I am wrong, but don’t tell me that I, “fundamentally don’t care if anybody else survives or not.” That is complete bullshit…
[/quote]

Hey buddy, if the shoe fits, wear it. Read my wording carefully. You yourself weren’t even addressed in the response.

43

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
We happen to believe that the effects of the Great Depression could have been mitigated to a greater extent had the government taken a different approach. [/quote]

That’s for certain true, but the part of the government you most need to take issue with was the Fed, not FDR and his policies. The damn Fed had the brakes on, kept them on for over three years. It was as if you’d gone into the Perfect Recession with the anti-Greenspan at the helm.

44

[quote]pat36 wrote:
After 10 years laws should be reviewed and revoted on to make sure they are still valid. That way perhaps we could have unloaded some of FDR’s social reforms in the '50’s. And in the end maybe we would not have such government intrusion into our lives.
[/quote]
Not sure what you’re referring to, most of the New Deal got dismantled or superseded later, didn’t it? We’re left the TVA and its precedent, FDIC, some banking regulations, cutting lose of the gold standard, and Social Security insurance. Did I miss something?

You’ve got me curious now: what is all this vile stuff you’re pointing to, these social reforms? When everybody agrees to use the word ‘reform’ doesn’t that connote a positive thing?

45

I kinda just skimmed through this thread but I hope nobody here doesn’t know that our own government is slowly getting us to support socialism. I will check back later to make sure people know that our government is just as tyrannical as any.

46

[quote]Prince Vegeta wrote:
I will check back later to make sure people know that our government is just as tyrannical as any.[/quote]

No need. Curiously enough, that is just about the only thing all polarities agree on.

47

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:

You don’t think threatening a privately owned business with a federal takeover (with armed troops, no less), borders on nannying? Where exactly in the Constitution is the executive given that power? [/quote]

Read TR’s stuff - he didn’t think he had the authority to pull it off. He was bluffing. That’s the ‘bully pulpit’ at work.

That said, no TR was no libertarian, and he took an energetic view of the word ‘executive’.

48

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:

Ayn Rand types are unimpressed with FDR, because they fundamentally don’t care if anybody else survives or not. For them, everything is neatly summed up by the DJIA. Also, of course, few alive today realize in any visceral way just how dreadful the Great Depression was.

We “Ayn Rand types”–why Ayn Rand?–believe no such thing. We happen to believe that the effects of the Great Depression could have been mitigated to a greater extent had the government taken a different approach. Feel free to argue that I am wrong, but don’t tell me that I, “fundamentally don’t care if anybody else survives or not.” That is complete bullshit…

Hey buddy, if the shoe fits, wear it. Read my wording carefully. You yourself weren’t even addressed in the response.[/quote]

By “Ayn Rand type” I assume you meant classical liberals, libertarians, minarchists, etc. Considering this is really the only group that takes issue with FDR’s record, I don’t know who else you could possibly mean. My “why Ayn Rand?” was intended to point out that Ayn Rand isn’t the intellectual cornerstone of the movement, and I don’t know why you would label those of us who disapprove of FDR’s record “Ayn Rand types.”

Maybe, I was wrong; however, if I’m right, and by “Ayn Rand types” you have in mind libertarians and/or others of a similar stripe, then your explanation for our dislike of FDR’s record is bullshit.

49

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:

You don’t think threatening a privately owned business with a federal takeover (with armed troops, no less), borders on nannying? Where exactly in the Constitution is the executive given that power?

Read TR’s stuff - he didn’t think he had the authority to pull it off. He was bluffing. That’s the ‘bully pulpit’ at work.[/quote]

I have–his autobiography, if it is to that you are referring–and I disagree with your conclusion. He didn’t want to do it, but he said, unequivocally, that he would if it came down to it; it would be a last resort, of course–such moves are always “last resorts.” But make no mistake, Maj-Gen Schofield was made aware of the plan, as were, I think, a key senator, the Gov. of Penn, and a few members of T.R.'s cabinet. And while I completely agree with his motivation, the attitude that such a position illustrates is exactly the same attitude that Wilson, FDR, etc. took, and it helped lay the foundation for the ever increasing power of the executive branch, and the federal government as a whole.

Yep, yep. Then again, there haven’t been many, if any, presidents in the history of this country that could claim otherwise…

50

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
We happen to believe that the effects of the Great Depression could have been mitigated to a greater extent had the government taken a different approach.

That’s for certain true, but the part of the government you most need to take issue with was the Fed, not FDR and his policies. The damn Fed had the brakes on, kept them on for over three years. It was as if you’d gone into the Perfect Recession with the anti-Greenspan at the helm.[/quote]

Well yes, obviously–considering the depression started before FDR took office–and if you take Milton Friedman’s position, money supply is one of the leading factors; however, as many have argued, Friedman included, many of FDR’s policies contributed to the longevity and severity of the depression–beyond that, his policies, and the philosophy that made them possible, have hade other, potentially more serious consequences.

51

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Maybe, I was wrong; however, if I’m right, and by “Ayn Rand types” you have in mind libertarians and/or others of a similar stripe, then your explanation for our dislike of FDR’s record is bullshit.[/quote]

I meant what I said, oddly enough. I was referring to folks who ascribe to her model of what is moral.

But if you like I’ll broaden the charge to say anybody who feels FDR’s stewardship was an unmitigated disaster for the nation necessarily places ideology over other folks’ survival.

Was some of what he did misguided? Sure, but how much of that endures? Before you say “Social Security”, I may as well confess there’s no way you’re going to get me down that road. Other examples would be welcome.

“classical liberals” and Ayn Rand? Oh dear. That sounds awful. Let’s not go there.

52

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
his policies, and the philosophy that made them possible, have hade other, potentially more serious consequences.[/quote]

Potentially covers a lot of ground. Much of that ground is sheer ideology.

53

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
his policies, and the philosophy that made them possible, have hade other, potentially more serious consequences.

Potentially covers a lot of ground. Much of that ground is sheer ideology.[/quote]

Which is not necessarily a bad thing. A lot of things are based on an unspoken or even unconscious philosophy most people that instinctively support a single measure that sounds good would not agree with.

54

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Maybe, I was wrong; however, if I’m right, and by “Ayn Rand types” you have in mind libertarians and/or others of a similar stripe, then your explanation for our dislike of FDR’s record is bullshit.

I meant what I said, oddly enough. I was referring to folks who ascribe to her model of what is moral.[/quote]

Fair enough.

Bullshit. First, it depends on what you mean by stewardship. If you mean his handling of the Great Depression, I would argue that 1) his policies (and the Fed’s, as well) prolonged what would have otherwise been a less catastrophic depression, and 2) the precedent he set–not the specific policies themselves–fundamentally changed the nature of the federal government…for the worse, IMO. So, does that mean I’m right? No, it doesn’t; however, FDR made policy decisions, based on an ideology, that he believed would do the most for the greatest number of people. I think he failed and was fundamentally mistaken, and a better strategy could and should have been adopted. I’m not placing ideology above the welfare of people any more than did FDR–I just think my ideology is right and his was, and is, wrong.

Where did I write anything about his specific policies–especially in the exact form in which they were originally implemented–enduring to this day? I said two things: his policies did more harm than good at the time of their implementation, and the precedent, and fundamental changes he made, vis-a-vis the federal government, have done more harm than good.

While I’m not sure why it sounds awful to you, I agree, which is why I wondered about the “Ayn Rand types” comment. I’m a liberal, in the true sense of the word, and I don’t consider myself an “Ayn Rand type”–nor do any of the figures I admire. I may agree with her on certain points, but certainly not on all, and I’m not particularly fond of her.

55

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Where did I write anything about his specific policies
[/quote]

That’s the whole problem. Just what policies are you talking about?

56

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Where did I write anything about his specific policies

That’s the whole problem. Just what policies are you talking about?[/quote]

I’m not sure what the problem is. The above quote is taken out of context: you made the point that FDR’s specific policies are no longer in effect today, and I was simply pointing out that I never said they were. I made very general statements about FDR’s policies failing to mitigate the effects of the Depression and their lasting influence in terms of precedent: he expanded the role and scope of the federal gov’t in general, and the executive branch specifically, beyond their Constitutional purview.

I understand that many think the above is completely wrong, and I’m fine with that; I was really only taking issue with your explanation for the position held by “Ayn Rand types”–as if we are all misanthropes, or something to that effect. I don’t really want to get into a debate over the specifics of FDR’s record, it’s complicated, as I’m sure you know, and I don’t have the energy for the debate that would ensue. But if you’re interested, check out Powell’s “FDR’s Folly.” That will give you a basic run down of my position; though, admittedly, he doesn’t do a very good job a laying out a positive case for what should have been done instead–a rather difficult, and all together different, animal, IMO.

57

Regarding govt. interference:

I expect and want labels on my food and if something dangerous or useless is in it, at the very least, I want to know about it, but I’d prefer my govt. “just say no” to any food product that isn’t, at the very least, uncontaminated with dangerous chemicals or preservatives which are there to benefit the seller, not the consumer.

The little guy (i.e., the consumer, or citizen, as we used to call them) needs to act collectively to protect his own health and well-being. That’s what government at it’s best is supposed to do.

As far as FDR and his “disastrous” New Deal? I see no one here has mentioned the fact that the Depression spawned a very vibrant American Communist Party. IMO, all you “Free Market” types should be worshipping him for saving your butts from Uncle Karl.

Had no one stepped in to offer all Americans something resembling a Fair(er) Deal than they had ever had before, it’s a strong possibility the history of American Free Enterprise would have ended then and there.

Point Two: WW2 may have gotten the economy going again, but it was the GI Bill which created that big, fat middle class we point to so proudly. Under that horrible, budget-busting welfare program for returning vets, college attendance, home ownership and a prosperous, stable middle class increased exponentially.

And we didn’t do it because we’re nice, we did it because our leaders realized good and fast that we had better figure out how to make the system we have work better and more equitably than the system the Soviets had.

“Communism has collapsed” you say? Well, it has yet to really be put into practice, but don’t think for a minute if things go into the toilet for enough people that folks won’t be dusting off Uncle Karl’s essays for a fresh look and maybe thinking up some ways to implement Socialism 3.0

I think it’s good to keep in mind that today’s pig almost always ends up tommorrow’s bacon…

58

How about my right to eat out and not be poisoned with trans fats?

Why do you prefer to be poisoned by a company that you have no control over?
Why don’t you prefer to be protected by a government that you do have control over? You DO vote, don’t you?

59

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
How about my right to eat out and not be poisoned with trans fats?[/quote]

Aren’t you able to choose you own restaurant?

What company is shoving food down your throat without your consent?

I’d rather have choices and be able to make them myself, rather than have a bunch of bureaucrat do my thinking for me.

Wouldn’t you?

Are you being serious? Would you really like a government to legislate away all the poison and danger and risk in your life?

Let’s mandate 90km/h speed limiter on all vehicles to reduce speeding.

Let’s ban motorcycles, snowmobiles and seadoos; the risks are too great.

Cigarettes and alcohol, those are out too. Zero benefits.

You’ll need to fill out a report on what you’re eating during the week. Government dietetist will be reviewing and adjusting your daily meals. Non compliance will result in fines.

Your cellular time will also be monitored. Studies aren’t yet conclusive, but the government is taking no chances that evil companies are frying your brain.

Handles are now mandatory in all showers and bathtubs. Cameras will be installed to insure you use them when you take a bath or shower.

You need to carry a helmet with you at all times. If you’ll be using stairs, you must put it on. Non compliance will result in a fine.

Swimming pools must not exceed 24 inches in depth. No one under 8 years old is allowed near them.

Lawnmower, power tools and other dangerous mechanical devices are now forbidden. If you have need for these tools, a specially trained government representative will be sent to your home to do the required work. You can watch if you wear safety goggles and a kevlar vest.

Do you really want the government to look after you constantly as if you were a retarded child?

60

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
How about my right to eat out and not be poisoned with trans fats?

Why do you prefer to be poisoned by a company that you have no control over?
Why don’t you prefer to be protected by a government that you do have control over? You DO vote, don’t you?[/quote]

Did they ban transfat in Belgium and you are pleased? What would you prefer to be poisoned by? What else should be banned? By your logic all things that are bad you health should be banned. So what would be left to eat? It seems obvious the Belgian diet is not conducive to intelligence.