Octopus Overlords

SpaceLord wrote:No country on earth has ever had a government as small as libertarians, like Grover and Ron Paul, want.

That's not exactly true. I think if you went back to the Middle Ages or before you'd find some pretty small govts. But I don't think those are the models we should be looking to either

Grifman wrote:

SpaceLord wrote:No country on earth has ever had a government as small as libertarians, like Grover and Ron Paul, want.

That's not exactly true. I think if you went back to the Middle Ages or before you'd find some pretty small govts. But I don't think those are the models we should be looking to either

In fairness I think he means small in terms of scope as well as physical size, although we could still probably find example of tiny governments that shouldn't be used as models for modern day.

GreenGoo wrote:

Grifman wrote:

SpaceLord wrote:No country on earth has ever had a government as small as libertarians, like Grover and Ron Paul, want.

That's not exactly true. I think if you went back to the Middle Ages or before you'd find some pretty small govts. But I don't think those are the models we should be looking to either

In fairness I think he means small in terms of scope as well as physical size, although we could still probably find example of tiny governments that shouldn't be used as models for modern day.

Medieval govts weren't small in scope? Other than supporting an army (when at war) and the king's lifestyle, what else did it do? It didn't provide welfare or health care, it didn't regulate apothecary formulas, it didn't regulate professions, etc. Seems pretty limited in scope to me.

The Time Traveler's Guide to Medieval England

Chapter 11: The Law

Grifman wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Grifman wrote:

SpaceLord wrote:No country on earth has ever had a government as small as libertarians, like Grover and Ron Paul, want.

That's not exactly true. I think if you went back to the Middle Ages or before you'd find some pretty small govts. But I don't think those are the models we should be looking to either

In fairness I think he means small in terms of scope as well as physical size, although we could still probably find example of tiny governments that shouldn't be used as models for modern day.

Medieval govts weren't small in scope? Other than supporting an army (when at war) and the king's lifestyle, what else did it do? It didn't provide welfare or health care, it didn't regulate apothecary formulas, it didn't regulate professions, etc. Seems pretty limited in scope to me.

Of course it "provided" wealthfare, and "regulated" professions , and anything else the king's whim decided to decree. It also taxed everyone which is more what I was driving at. But roads, trade, class separation (serfdom), military (as you said), justice system and lots of other stuff in all likelihood. But really, I was referring to the government having its tendrils into everything via tax collectors.

GreenGoo wrote: Of course it "provided" wealthfare, and "regulated" professions , and anything else the king's whim decided to decree. It also taxed everyone which is more what I was driving at. But roads, trade, class separation (serfdom), military (as you said), justice system and lots of other stuff in all likelihood. But really, I was referring to the government having its tendrils into everything via tax collectors.

I'm pretty sure only land owners were taxed, except in rare exceptions, and some experiments late in the period.

noxiousdog wrote:

GreenGoo wrote: Of course it "provided" wealthfare, and "regulated" professions , and anything else the king's whim decided to decree. It also taxed everyone which is more what I was driving at. But roads, trade, class separation (serfdom), military (as you said), justice system and lots of other stuff in all likelihood. But really, I was referring to the government having its tendrils into everything via tax collectors.

I'm pretty sure only land owners were taxed, except in rare exceptions, and some experiments late in the period.

Ok.

My knowledge comes from Monty Python sketches.

It's not like the serfs had anything to tax.

silverjon wrote:It's not like the serfs had anything to tax.

Right. I'm sure if they did, it would have been taxed. It just wasn't worth the manpower.

silverjon wrote:It's not like the serfs had anything to tax.

Bullshit. Their time and labor went to working in their Lord's fields. They did not own their property, it belonged to the Lord, held in fief from the King.

Epic 4g/Tapatalk

Pyperkub wrote:

silverjon wrote:It's not like the serfs had anything to tax.

Bullshit. Their time and labor went to working in their Lord's fields. They did not own their property, it belonged to the Lord, held in fief from the King.

Epic 4g/Tapatalk

In the grand scheme of things that's not so different from today, yet the King still gets his share too.

Medieval gubmints were anything but laissez-faire. The laws, boundaries, regulations, inquiries, suits, penalties, taxes, fees, etc etc etc that we associate with intrusive government were already present in full force (and even more if you count the Church as a partner in rule). They lacked efficiency, but they had the ambition.

GreenGoo wrote:[Of course it "provided" wealthfare, and "regulated" professions , and anything else the king's whim decided to decree.

And your evidence is - other than your assertion it was so? You may be right, I just don't see any evidence provided.

Holman wrote:Medieval gubmints were anything but laissez-faire. The laws, boundaries, regulations, inquiries, suits, penalties, taxes, fees, etc etc etc that we associate with intrusive government were already present in full force (and even more if you count the Church as a partner in rule). They lacked efficiency, but they had the ambition.

I wasn't really speaking about laws/regulations. Govt's have always passed laws/regulations. I was speaking more about social welfare programs which seem to be relatively new (other than the bread/circuses of Rome ).

Grifman wrote:

Holman wrote:Medieval gubmints were anything but laissez-faire. The laws, boundaries, regulations, inquiries, suits, penalties, taxes, fees, etc etc etc that we associate with intrusive government were already present in full force (and even more if you count the Church as a partner in rule). They lacked efficiency, but they had the ambition.

I wasn't really speaking about laws/regulations. Govt's have always passed laws/regulations. I was speaking more about social welfare programs which seem to be relatively new (other than the bread/circuses of Rome ).

And how well did that work out for the Rome in the long run?

In actual 2012 election news...

A new Iowa poll puts Gingrich first and RON PAUL second.

Man, Republicans really don't like the Mittster much, do they?

Exodor wrote:In actual 2012 election news...

A new Iowa poll puts Gingrich first and RON PAUL second.

Man, Republicans really don't like the Mittster much, do they?

Not in Iowa, anyway. Didn't Romney effectively cede the state early on?

Romney is like the guy who keeps asking the same girl out week after week (and year after year), hoping she'll eventually wear down and say yes.

Mittens, they're just not that into you.

Grifman wrote:I wasn't really speaking about laws/regulations. Govt's have always passed laws/regulations. I was speaking more about social welfare programs which seem to be relatively new (other than the bread/circuses of Rome ).

That's fine, but that's moving the target, as the original comment was about libertarian government, which is certainly not restricted to social welfare.

As usual, I'm not willing to do anyone's homework for them. If you want to know more about feudal systems (and others) do your own reading. I don't mean to be short and I certainly had no intention of "getting into it" with anyone, it was definitely a lightly intended disagreement, which was originally just based on the king having his fingers in everyone's pie. You had to go and bring up specific examples.

And now I realize I have to play Borderlands with you later. I'll be watching you.

Freezer-TPF- wrote:Romney is like the guy who keeps asking the same girl out week after week (and year after year), hoping she'll eventually wear down and say yes.

Mittens, they're just not that into you.

He's banking on the fact that every other boy in town has Herpes.

Freezer-TPF- wrote:Romney is like the guy who keeps asking the same girl out week after week (and year after year), hoping she'll eventually wear down and say yes.

Mittens, they're just not that into you.

Nope, but he has money and knows the parents are backing him and may be facing bankruptcy without him.

Epic 4g/Tapatalk

Aside from feudalism, what about mercantilism? Adam Smith wasn't a fan of monopolies.

Back to the topic, Newt now claims to have been responsible for Romney's success as well as developing the policies of Reagan and Jack Kemp. He might as well claim to have invented the internet...

Time will tell whether Newt reminds the nation that he was an original advocate of the value added "national sales" tax and replacing Social Security with private accounts.

Double-tap.

Regarding Newt's ideas:

Look, I'm not a fan of Michael Bolton's music either. And his hair is ridiculous. But would it hurt to give him a chance at Secretary of State?

He looks so lonely.

Rick Santorum apparently in favor of the health care mandate

“If you don’t have to have insurance until you’re sick,” Santorum explained, “why buy insurance?… How much would insurance be if only people who needed insurance bought it? The whole point of insurance is: healthy people buy it, sick people buy it, and those who are healthy support those who are sick…. But if insurance is only sick people buy it, well guess what’s going to be the cost of insurance. That’s why there’s a preexisting-condition clause.”

I'm sure Obama appreciates the support, Rick!

Current polling shows Obama beating Gingrich in South Carolina and Florida

There's a reason why the Republican establishment is shitting themselves at the thought of a Gingrich candidacy - they don't see a rerun of 2004, they see 1984.

Exodor wrote:Current polling shows Obama beating Gingrich in South Carolina and Florida

There's a reason why the Republican establishment is shitting themselves at the thought of a Gingrich candidacy - they don't see a rerun of 2004, they see 1984.

I wouldn't get too excited yet, it is early. The economy could continue to tank and probably will. Then Newt might even be able to win with Palin for a running mate.

Rip wrote:

Exodor wrote:Current polling shows Obama beating Gingrich in South Carolina and Florida

There's a reason why the Republican establishment is shitting themselves at the thought of a Gingrich candidacy - they don't see a rerun of 2004, they see 1984.

I wouldn't get too excited yet, it is early. The economy could continue to tank and probably will. Then Newt might even be able to win with Palin for a running mate.

Obama vs. Romney is about the economy.

Obama vs. Newt is about sane boring guy vs. absurd megalomaniacal blowhard.

Holman wrote:

Rip wrote:

Exodor wrote:Current polling shows Obama beating Gingrich in South Carolina and Florida

There's a reason why the Republican establishment is shitting themselves at the thought of a Gingrich candidacy - they don't see a rerun of 2004, they see 1984.

I wouldn't get too excited yet, it is early. The economy could continue to tank and probably will. Then Newt might even be able to win with Palin for a running mate.

Obama vs. Romney is about the economy.

Obama vs. Newt is about sane boring guy vs. absurd megalomaniacal blowhard.

Being a little hard on the president there, and Newt isn't that boring.

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich pledged on Monday to remain faithful to his third wife.

With fine print: As long as she remain young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President and doesn't have cancer.

Victoria Raverna wrote:Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich pledged on Monday to remain faithful to his third wife.

With fine print: As long as she remain young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President and doesn't have cancer.

"Or until absolutely anyone other than my wife is willing to have sex with me"

Holman wrote:Obama vs. Newt is about sane boring guy vs. absurd megalomaniacal blowhard.

Which is which?

Grundbegriff wrote:

Holman wrote:Obama vs. Newt is about sane boring guy vs. absurd megalomaniacal blowhard.

Which is which?

Hey, neither is Bachmann.

Rip wrote:

Exodor wrote:Current polling shows Obama beating Gingrich in South Carolina and Florida

There's a reason why the Republican establishment is shitting themselves at the thought of a Gingrich candidacy - they don't see a rerun of 2004, they see 1984.

I wouldn't get too excited yet, it is early. The economy could continue to tank and probably will. Then Newt might even be able to win with Palin for a running mate.

Continue to tank? Please explain. Most indicators have been trending up for a few quarters now. Consumer spending is recovering, GDP is up, several other important factors at least stable if not slowly getting better. Slow recovery, yes, but certainly not tanking.

Carpet_pissr wrote:Continue to tank? Please explain. Most indicators have been trending up for a few quarters now. Consumer spending is recovering, GDP is up, several other important factors at least stable if not slowly getting better. Slow recovery, yes, but certainly not tanking.

We are giving free money to banks who are turning around buying TBills with it. This is keeping wallstreet investments neutral at best while making our impending economic landing more painful. We're going to start feeling the costs of Obamacoverage this coming year which is going to hurt consumer confidence pretty badly.

Is what he's (and the Fed) doing the right move irrespective of the pain we're going to feel? I don't have an answer. I don't think it is but I could be far off base. I'd rather feel the pain up front and this crash over with but own short sightedness could not be seeing how the crash could be total. No matter what happens, I think/believe/feel the figurehead at front of the ship has done too way too much wrong economically and way too much of it at my expense while doling free money out to the irresponsible. (be that irresponsibility of: banks, the oil cos, homeowners, gas guzzling car purchasers, students, Big Auto, the insurance cos, or Big Pharm or whomever else you seem to be able to find) In my book his economic policy (among other things) is done.

LordMortis wrote:

Carpet_pissr wrote:Continue to tank? Please explain. Most indicators have been trending up for a few quarters now. Consumer spending is recovering, GDP is up, several other important factors at least stable if not slowly getting better. Slow recovery, yes, but certainly not tanking.

We are giving free money to banks who are turning around buying TBills with it. This is keeping wallstreet investments neutral at best while making our impending economic landing more painful. We're going to start feeling the costs of Obamacoverage this coming year which is going to hurt consumer confidence pretty badly.

Is what he's (and the Fed) doing the right move irrespective of the pain we're going to feel? I don't have an answer. I don't think it is but I could be far off base. I'd rather feel the pain up front and this crash over with but own short sightedness could not be seeing how the crash could be total. No matter what happens, I think/believe/feel the figurehead at front of the ship has done too way too much wrong economically and way too much of it at my expense while doling free money out to the irresponsible. (be that irresponsibility of: banks, the oil cos, homeowners, gas guzzling car purchasers, students, Big Auto, the insurance cos, or Big Pharm or whomever else you seem to be able to find) In my book his economic policy (among other things) is done.

I personally believe any standing president is relatively insignificant when it comes to the larger economy picture. My comment was not political in nature at all, just challenging the " the economy is tanking" comment.

Carpet_pissr wrote:I personally believe any standing president is relatively insignificant when it comes to the larger economy picture. My comment was not political in nature at all, just challenging the " the economy is tanking" comment.

Gotcha. I got sidetracked with my own venom but the first part of the post still stands in my mind the sitting president (and the Fed whom he put in place) are putting off the continuation of the tanking economy the way a college student takes out cash advances on their credit card is making the tanking of the economy more stealthy and I think that is from decisions made 1st by the President, 2nd by the Fed, and 3rd by Congress.

I like how the President came out on Sunday and was straight up with the problems being rooted in Wallstreet but that what Wallstreet was doing was legal. He's right on the money. He then went on to blame republicans when he's the guy putting the people in place that are making the decisions to allow Wallstreet to do what they do. He's not challenging Congress openly to change laws. He's merely acknowledging the problem. His inactivity is significant. Like how continuing W's Homeland security policies has been significant even he didn't expand them (well, until what is being proposed now).

Grundbegriff wrote:

Holman wrote:Obama vs. Newt is about sane boring guy vs. absurd megalomaniacal blowhard.

Which is which?

Rip beat you to it.

Rip wrote:Being a little hard on the president there, and Newt isn't that boring.