Eric Cantor Loses To TEA Party Libertarian

[MSimon]

So what got me on the side of dopers?

See the WW2 movie clip here: http://classicalvalues.com/2014/06/when ... rowing-up/ Ronald Reagan and Errol Flynn.

No knock raids at 3AM with battering rams was something Nazis did. That was not the American way. At least not what I learned growing up. I object to American police acting like Nazis. It violates the ideals we supposedly stood for when we fought WW2. There were a LOT of WW2 propaganda films on TV when I was growing up. I liked the America that fought against that sort of thing.

And it turns out a whole lot of NRA members and fans are of the same opinion. http://classicalvalues.com/2014/06/it-is-a-war-zone/ They don't like it either.

Now I understand that the Nazification of the police doesn't bother you. But you are running against the grain. Eventually it will cost your party an election or three. Because most Americans don't like it. And the longer the Republicans keep at it the more firmly this branding will be entrenched.

This former police detective http://www.citizensopposingprohibition.org/, a friend of mine, doesn't like it either.

[ladajo]

But most of the drug use you decry is caused by PTSD.

Says deluded you. I say it is folks seeking the easy way out they have been promised.

As for delusions of granduer, you are prone. You don't need any help to get there. In fact, I have come to think that you tend to interpret off hand comments or minor praise by others as worth more than it is. Way more.

You are a smart guy, you have added your little push to the grand scheme. I think you hold inner anger that you did not, and will not make any real difference to the grand scheme. You are no one special. In fact, in terms of the advancement of society, you may well be a net minus given you inability to come to terms with the system.

The best way to come to terms with the system is to understand it (you don't, you feel a victim), and embrace it, revel in it, achieve greatness in its terms, keep you own internal terms, and when finally in position to really control things, make real changes.

Right now you are the proverbial caveman pissing in the wind. Or the below decks sailor grumbilng his lot, bitching that those up on deck hear him and listen. I say, piss with the wind, and have the wind help you land it where you want, get up on deck, take the watch and make a difference.

You have never really taken the watch nor understood the winds.

[MSimon]

Ah yes. The easy way out. Evidently you have no compassion for those who suffer. Fortunately our government sees it as a big high cost problem and is finally beginning to take action.

A researcher at the University of Arizona is a step closer to studying how medical marijuana affects veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Although there is a "mountain of anecdotal evidence" that marijuana helps with PTSD, there has been no controlled trial to test how marijuana suppresses the symptoms, including flashbacks, insomnia and anxiety, said Suzanne Sisley, the study's lead researcher.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... y/6532021/

And of course you have a considerable political cohort. And people notice. This is encouraging because Americans are some of the most compassionate people on the earth. Your attitude will hurt the right for a generation or two. In fact it might very well help get Hillary elected as the tide turns against you.

You are probably familiar with the Bible. And you know its position on hard hearted people. Dickens made a fortune writing against them.

In addition the nation is slowly learning about the endocannabinoid system. You would deny people a cancer cure so that some others didn't take the "easy way out"? How do you think that will play politically?

In just the last 6 months nine states have legalized cannabis for the treatment of childhood epilepsy. That is the fastest rate of change on the subject ever. And as you well know any break in the prohibition wall eventually leads to a flood. And then with experience people will begin to wonder. "What was all the fuss about?" "Why were Republicans so opposed?"

Well keep it up. I am glad to have been the catalyst that brought your views to public knowledge. Keep up the good work. Try to avoid getting drowned in the coming flood.

=================

BTW given your attitude on taking the easy way out don't you think alcohol should be banned? Lots of people use it for that purpose.

I look forward to your contortions on the alcohol subject.

[GIThruster]

Fascinating to read about this election. I looked over more than a dozen sources and until I specifically went looking for one, I could not even find the name of the guy who unseated Cantor. That's amazing and no coincidence. Unless you're a Tea Partier, you don't want to breathe this guy's name! Far worse, you'd want to know what his platform is. Much better like Simon to pretend he's libertarian or Republican or whatever you are. The Dems did the opposite spin, without naming him they just dismissed him as another ineffectual right wing extremist (just as they do all Tea Party members).

After reading all that I searched his platform and surprisingly, Rush Limbaugh had published the guy's platform. He also published a couple other little known facts:

"Cantor raised $5.4 million. This guy had $200,000 and spent about half of it. He had a staff of two people, and of course Cantor had. . .a staff of 23."

"This is the first time a majority leader of a party has lost a primary election, the first time."

"David Brat is not a wacko. He's not a kook. He's an economics professor. He's an economist. "

Still think people don't care about the economy and are not willing to vote out the trash. . I mean incumbents who have violated their constitutional responsibilities by spending money they haven't got? Think again. The Tea Party isn't back. It never went away. Here's the platform published by Limbaugh:

"That the free enterprise system is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice,

"That all individuals are entitled to equal rights, justice, and opportunities and should assume their responsibilities as citizens in a free society,

"That fiscal responsibility and budgetary restraints must be exercised at all levels of government,

"That the Federal Government must preserve individual liberty by observing Constitutional limitations,

"That peace is best preserved through a strong national defense,

"That faith in God, as recognized by our Founding Fathers is essential to the
moral fiber of the Nation."

Guess we'll see where this heads, but it's not a libertarian move, nor a Republican move, nor a Democratic move. It's a Tea Party move that should never be characterized as something else. This is the people, calling for fiscal responsibility because they are fed up with DC and you should expect more of the same kind. Boehner got a 2 year extension but his days are numbered and he knows it. Either he steps in line or he's going to be out too.

[MSimon]

Guess we'll see where this heads, but it's not a libertarian move...

Brat is an Ayn Rand fan. Wrote a paper on her. All I have found so far is the title. I would have liked to have read it.

[KitemanSA]

If you want real change, you need to implement "Full Option Voting". FOV allows the voter to vote either for, or against, a candidate. This power will bring many voters back into the discussion.

With typical Single member plurality voting (what the US has lmost exclusively) you would go into a booth where every candidate would have TWO boxes in front of his name, "FOR" and "AGAINST". The voter could select one box from among ALL of the available choices. If he can't find someone to vote FOR, he will most certainly find one to vote AGAINST. And massive government spending will not buy only "FOR" votes anymore, but will buy "AGAINST" votes too. This will make the incumbant a bit less locked into his office. A good alternative to unconstitutional term limits.

[ladajo]

Probably needs a "Don't care" box as well.

[hanelyp]

Something better than plurality voting certainly won't hurt. But we need better voters, not more voters. Democracy only works well when voters are well informed and ethically grounded. It also hurts when major media has a massive partisan bias, and major departments of government are weaponized against political enemies who might press for smaller gooberment.

[choff]

Mike, regarding cannabis, I'm slogging through this talk on the law and controlled substances you might find interesting if you haven't seen this material before.

http://www.gnosticmedia.com/interview-f ... nabis-191/

Regarding the newly elected professor, I'm wary of Ayn Rand, she had too many straw man arguments, not enough real world expertise. Economics is a science corrupted by Wall St., that's not to say he's not up to the task, just that even the Tea's need to think outside the box a whole lot more to fix things.

[Scupperer]

Probably needs a "Don't care" box as well.

In Nevada, None of These Candidates won the Democratic governor primary.

Economics is a science corrupted by Wall St., that's not to say he's not up to the task, just that even the Tea's need to think outside the box a whole lot more to fix things.

It's my understanding he follows the Austrian school of economics; perhaps just the flip side of the Wall St. coin, but I'd like to think it's a good start, since I enjoy reading the Mises Institute's take on current events.

[mvanwink5]

Ayn Rand believed "value" is "objective." Austrian economics is based on "subjective" value. Objective value is fundamental to socialism; it is what enables bureaucrats to make decisions for you as they know what you need. Cardinality of value relies on objective value (20 apples is worth 20 times as much as 1 apple). Austrians, however, say that all you can say is that 20 apples is worth **more** than 1 apple. Economics based on ordinal valuation is beyond the linear thinking of socialists and bureaucrats, they just don't have the ability to understand it. Let me help a little. "apple" says nothing of quality, type, personal preference, refrigerator space, how many apples can be eaten, allergies, how far to drive to get the apple, how safe the parking lot is, X a million factors. Hence, it is absolutely absurd to think GDP has any meaning, and without GDP having any meaning "management" of an economy is absurd, ridiculous, impossible without cardinality of value. In real life "objective" value is a mirage; it has no meaning.

Any wonder then why Keynesian economics is a complete failure? (that is rhetorical for the linear thinkers)

So, Rand is in deep water with her "objective" philosophy, and for sure it is fundamentally inconsistent with Austrian economic theory.

[Scupperer]

So, Rand is in deep water with her "objective" philosophy, and for sure it is fundamentally inconsistent with Austrian economic theory.

I'm confused; are you suggesting Ayn Rand's philosophy of "objectivism" is somehow related to the basis of Keynesian economics and socialism? I haven't read much by her, since I hate her writing style, but from what I remember, her essays in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" go strongly against everything Keynesian, not to mention that her whole raison d'etre was decrying socialism/communism.

I think you're taking the term "objective" and "subjective" too literally. Someone even wrote a paper on it.

[mvanwink5]

You misunderstand. I am saying that Austrian economics and Ayn Rand's philosophy fundamentally disagree on the foundation of economic principles. What she calls capitalism is property rights and a free market, but she had no clue on economic theory. Just as her staunch position on atheism is consistent with communism does not make her a communist, nor does her view on objective values make her a socialist. The point was if value truly was objective then the socialists and Keynesians would be able to make reasonable decisions, but the socialist and Keynesians fail for the same reason she is wrong. She had no clue on economics.

Again, the point was Austrian Economics fundamentally disagrees with Ayn Rand, but you can't argue with that bunch, if Ayn Rand spoke it, so it must be. When she was alive she had an inner circle, and like a cult, periodically she would have purges. I think you will find that she did not like the Austrian Economists.

[MSimon]

Mike, regarding cannabis, I'm slogging through this talk on the law and controlled substances you might find interesting if you haven't seen this material before.

http://www.gnosticmedia.com/interview-f ... nabis-191/

Regarding the newly elected professor, I'm wary of Ayn Rand, she had too many straw man arguments, not enough real world expertise. Economics is a science corrupted by Wall St., that's not to say he's not up to the task, just that even the Tea's need to think outside the box a whole lot more to fix things.

Give me the edited version when you are done. An hour and a half is --> TLDNL

[MSimon]

The Right is supposed to be the guardian of history. I'm not seeing it.

Left and right (of today), both have no confidence in freedom and believe people are incapable of living without a caretaker. Somebody, then, has to take on the duty of being the farmer - caretaker... for a cut off the top. Pure hubris, some out of the desire to do good (whatever the cost), some view it as just the way it is and might as well get in on the "money" side of it. "Baptist and the Bootlegger" (see Rothbard). Politician and the Crony. They come in pairs it seems.

As far I can see, the left have taken the position that socialism is ideal, people must be farmed, managed, and to be distinct from the left and to provide an alternative, the right has taken the position that socialism is ideal but just needs to be done in a more efficient way. Some alternative.

Pick your caretaker.

Evidently there are some folks not entirely happy with this state of affairs.