1. New Wisconsin budget would severely limit public workers' ability to negotiate for better pensions or health care plans. 2. Democratic state senators block quorum on budget vote by refusing to show up. 3. Republican Senate Majority Leader threatens to use the State Patrol to round up the senators. 4. Missing senators flee the state.
For bonus hilarity, the communications director for the state's Democratic Party gives us this gem:
quote:"I know the whereabouts of not a single Democratic senator. I do not know what latitude they're on, or know what longitude they're on. I assume they're in this hemisphere, I'll say that.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
the amount of demonstrators out there has been pretty astounding.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: 3. Republican Senate Majority Leader threatens to use the State Patrol to round up the senators.
Is not showing up a criminal offense?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I guess if your dad is head of the State Patrol you can do that?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: the amount of demonstrators out there has been pretty astounding.
It's a good thing they're leftist demonstrators, and therefore not perpetuating any of that insidious violent rhetoric that we're supposed to be toning down.
Oh... wait...
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
maybe in wisconson deficits and budget short-falls dont exist. this is what happens when theres no more money to throw at union workers to make them shut up. granted, the demonstrators arent only one act in this circus show. ive never heard of senators being rounded up by the HP.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:maybe in wisconson deficits and budget short-falls dont exist
Ironically, they didn't until the governor signed $140 billion in tax cuts into law shortly after being sworn in.
No kidding.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I believe that's $140 million...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:maybe in wisconson deficits and budget short-falls dont exist
Ironically, they didn't until the governor signed $140 billion in tax cuts into law shortly after being sworn in.
No kidding.
Stuff like that has been happening all over.
Of course, I guess the wisconson dems wanted to crank it to 11 in return.
Hooray, more disappearing legislators. Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I thought Kansas was being silly lately, but then I started hearing about Wisconsin...
Kansas only has a $6+ billion liability on its public employee pension program and an upcoming budget shortfall of half a billion dollars this year. But that's Ok, because we've put our trust in one political party for all three branches of government. Nothing can go wrong, now that someone's in full control of the system.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Texas democrats fled to New Mexico in an attempt to prevent jerrymanderng. Texas sent Texas Rangers, so new Mexico deployed their troops to protect them. In the end one of the senators missed his family and broke ranks to go home.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Wow, and I thought politics in California got weird and wacky.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
I envision great campaign slogans coming about from this.
"Vote Bob! He doesn't run out of the state when a vote comes up!"
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'd favor, bumper stickers that said, "Hop in legislators, I'll save you from Walker and Fitzgerald."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Lots of states either have Constitutional provisions or laws on the books that empower either the legislature or the governor to use the state police force to escort, willingly or not, legislators to the capitol.
I haven't totally read myself into this topic yet, but what I have read is pretty troubling when it comes to the union's ability to engage in collective bargaining. Given that a lot of these public workers have had a freeze on salaries for years now, with inflation they're getting paid less with each passing year, and now the proposal would carve pretty huge chunks out of their paychecks. And that's not even touching the whole state of education in American debate.
It's refreshing to see that Americans actually can get annoyed enough to turn out in protest. I don't know why we haven't been doing it more.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It's a good thing they're leftist demonstrators, and therefore not perpetuating any of that insidious violent rhetoric that we're supposed to be toning down.
First of all Dan, the point of the sorts of complaints you're mocking was never (from any serious commentator or politician) that no leftist figures or demonstrators perpetuate any kind of violent rhetoric, just that lately the right does much more of it than the left. A challenge your link doesn't address at all, one way or another.
Second, having looked carefully at the video, I'd say about half of the images linked were actually violent and the rest said things like, "In 1933, Hitler abolished unions. Stop this attack on workers in the present day." (Paraphrased.) And then of course there's the one with the word, "Rape!" in big red letters. It's not saying to rape anyone. It says, "Rape! is never a good choice. 'Don't rape our public employees.'" (Again, paraphrased.) Clearly not a case of violent language directed towards the left from the right. Charged language, yes, but not focued.
And then of course there's the 'Don't retreat, reload' with the 'Repeal Walker' and the crosshairs. Do you imagine that's anything but an ironic quotation from another source, Dan? Distasteful, certainly, but hardly a case of something a leftist demonstrator created whole cloth. They show a sign that says, "Death to tyrants." And that's all. Not what tyrants. Then there's another one that says, get this, "One down, one to go," with pictures of Mubarak and Walker, calling both dicators. But it wasn't calling for their death. Mubarak isn't dead, he stepped down from power alive.
Dan, it just really sounds like you haven't looked carefully at the video in question here and examined its contents critically. Because about the most damning, violent thing the entire video includes? Is a quotation from Gov. Sarah Palin, likening Walker to Hitler (but not calling for violence against him-stupid rhetoric, yes, but not violent rhetoric), and likening Walker to Mubarak.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Wait, so the thing we're supposed to avoid is specifically explicit calls for violence against individuals? That's not been my impression at all. The call was for "civility," not "don't call for someone to be murdered." Most of the signs seem plenty uncivil. At least as offensive as the stuff we generally see at Tea Parties.
I dunno, man, what you call "charged language," when done by the right, seems to be resoundingly condemned.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Not most of the signs, a few signs, they had to do a few repeats because they didn't have even enough to make a whole youtube clip out of.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It's refreshing to see that Americans actually can get annoyed enough to turn out in protest. I don't know why we haven't been doing it more.
I take it you don't live in the DC area.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I like the idea, maybe Jan Brewer and her newly found wealth can flee Arizona leave the budget for sick kids alone.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It's refreshing to see that Americans actually can get annoyed enough to turn out in protest. I don't know why we haven't been doing it more.
Probably because Americans aren't ready for democracy. Did you know 15% of them believe in Christian laws? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Lots of states either have Constitutional provisions or laws on the books that empower either the legislature or the governor to use the state police force to escort, willingly or not, legislators to the capitol.
!!!
And that doesn't strike anyone as bizarre or problematic?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It's refreshing to see that Americans actually can get annoyed enough to turn out in protest. I don't know why we haven't been doing it more.
Probably because Americans aren't ready for democracy. Did you know 15% of them believe in Christian laws?
Barbaric! allowing archaic delusions and mythology to decide upon matters of the modern world? I didnt know such things had survived into the 21st century, are they amish?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I know, eh?
I've even heard that many of them call each other "brothers" forming some kind of brotherhood. And that these kinds of people are trying to lead political parties and become governors!
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Schools have been shut down now for over two days. While I feel bad for the teachers and the unions, it is too bad the kids have to suffer through the whole thing.
"They are trying to cut education spending! The poor kids are going to suffer because of it. We have to do something!"
"What can we do?"
"Let's strike so they have to shut down the schools."
I don't know how that makes sense.
I did hear that the State is in trouble partly due to Walker hooking his buddies up with money. I don't know if that is true or not though.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
The kids aren't suffering, though I'm sure it's inconvenient for some parents. They'll tack the missed days on the end of the school year.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
So what the government of Wisconsin is doing is arranging a Bail-Out of the state by their own employees.
See, the same conservatives that cried for rebellion when the government bailed out banks using tax dollars, now want the public servants to bail out the government with money legally promised to them.
The call seems to be, "Government employees have health care and retirement services beyond those in the private marketplace." This is true, because they have accepted payment below that they could acquire in the private market place.
This was done not because the sneaky public employees are trying to be laze, but because the lazy elected officials didn't want to lose their jobs by raising taxes to pay the employees, so they offered the unions "a great retirement and health package you are guaranteed later for a lack of a pay raise you get today. Do it as a favor to us and our budget."
So if this passes they get stuck with the same low pay rate, enforced by bad government budgets that won't allow any increases in pay, but with severely cut retirement and health care. A teacher making $25k this year, but has full health care will be stuck making $25k for the next few years, but having to pay a big chunk of their health care costs--dropping their take home pay.
The result--only the worst of the civil servants will stay behind to collect whatever pay they can.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So what the government of Wisconsin is doing is arranging a Bail-Out of the state by their own employees.
Well, no, I wouldn't put it that way. The actual budget implications here are relatively minor. What the government of Wisconsin is doing is transferring around $140 million in wages and benefits from public employees to tax shelters and business creation funds. At the same time, it is also stripping from almost all public employees the ability to engage in collective bargaining for reasons absolutely unrelated to budget targets.
quote:A teacher making $25k this year, but has full health care will be stuck making $25k for the next few years, but having to pay a big chunk of their health care costs--dropping their take home pay.
There aren't many teachers making that little in Wisconsin, but there are a few. But, hey, let's make her a bus driver; teachers are too sympathetic a figure anyway. That driver started two or three years ago. Once hired, she could not be fired without stated cause, was guaranteed a certain amount of vacation and sick leave (usually two weeks and four weeks), paid about $15 a month for health benefits out of pocket, and had around $1,200 a year paid into a pension fund. Over the last two years, despite her contract stating that her salary would be tied to inflation, she received no salary increase (despite inflation) due to an agreement her union reached with the governor. She was also required to take four weeks of unpaid leave, although she had the option to simply deduct some of those weeks from her vacation (but not sick) time.
Under the new proposal, her salary would remain frozen at $25,000, but again would be theoretically open to increase at the rate of inflation. She would lose any benefits guaranteed by contract, but might still keep them at the whim of her employer. She would be required to pay $1,200 a year -- after tax -- into her pension fund, an amount that would not be matched by the state, thus reducing her effective salary. She would also have to pay $80 a month for individual health benefits.
If she's a teacher, things actually get a little worse for her. While she's likely making more money than our bus driver, she's in real danger of losing her job and possibly all her benefits; Walker has proposed slashing the state's education budget by 25%, which when coupled with the loss of collective bargaining means that she's on the chopping block.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Wait, so the thing we're supposed to avoid is specifically explicit calls for violence against individuals? That's not been my impression at all. The call was for "civility," not "don't call for someone to be murdered." Most of the signs seem plenty uncivil. At least as offensive as the stuff we generally see at Tea Parties.
Dan, now you're changing the goalposts of the discussion. Before you were complaining about violent rhetoric, not 'uncivil' rhetoric. Now you're objecting because the language they're using is 'uncivil', not that it's 'insidious violent rhetoric', which I think we can agree that video doesn't show any of.
The only thing I saw that could actually be construed as violent that I remember was quoting Sarah Palin. And even that quotation, in and of itself, I wouldn't consider violent, only when taken in a context of a whole charged atmosphere of other campaign language of similar rhetoric involving violent imagery-which again, this wasn't. Uncivil, yes-violent, no.
quote:I dunno, man, what you call "charged language," when done by the right, seems to be resoundingly condemned.
Which discussion do you want to have, Dan?
quote:Schools have been shut down now for over two days. While I feel bad for the teachers and the unions, it is too bad the kids have to suffer through the whole thing.
What's too bad is the situation that caused this crisis in the first place, Geraine. Blaming those that strike seems pretty short-sighted to me.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Schools have been shut down now for over two days. While I feel bad for the teachers and the unions, it is too bad the kids have to suffer through the whole thing.
What's too bad is the situation that caused this crisis in the first place, Geraine. Blaming those that strike seems pretty short-sighted to me.
I'm not blaming them, just pointing out the irony.
From what I've been hearing concerning the cuts, salaries are not included. It doesn't get rid of all of the collective bargaining rights, only some of them. Teachers pay would be unaffected. A lot of the outrage is over the state government saying the employees will have to cover 12.1% of their healthcare instead of the 5% they pay now.
If that is the case I don't really feel sorry for them.
I don't know why the union is urging teachers to call in sick to protest. I wouldn't be surprised if the governor fired the teachers that called in sick to protest for insubordination and fraud.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
The bill would strip collective bargaining rights from public employees... Except for the police, firefighters, and the State Patrol. The three unions that backed Gov. Walker's election.
The employees have a right to be pissed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Teacher's pay would be unaffected.
They would be required to pay 5% of their current pay into their pension fund, which amounts to a cut in salary; this comes on top of increased insurance costs and the fact that, out of the kindness of their hearts, they agreed to a salary freeze for the last two years.
------------
quote:I wouldn't be surprised if the governor fired the teachers that called in sick to protest for insubordination and fraud.
As an example of what collective bargaining does for you: under rules negotiated by the unions, the governor can't do this. Without collective bargaining, he could.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Wait, so the thing we're supposed to avoid is specifically explicit calls for violence against individuals? That's not been my impression at all. The call was for "civility," not "don't call for someone to be murdered." Most of the signs seem plenty uncivil. At least as offensive as the stuff we generally see at Tea Parties.
Dan, now you're changing the goalposts of the discussion. Before you were complaining about violent rhetoric, not 'uncivil' rhetoric. Now you're objecting because the language they're using is 'uncivil', not that it's 'insidious violent rhetoric', which I think we can agree that video doesn't show any of.
The only thing I saw that could actually be construed as violent that I remember was quoting Sarah Palin. And even that quotation, in and of itself, I wouldn't consider violent, only when taken in a context of a whole charged atmosphere of other campaign language of similar rhetoric involving violent imagery-which again, this wasn't. Uncivil, yes-violent, no.
Eh, I'm not changing anything. The news media and certain politicians have been calling for civility, in general. They have used a lot of different terms to describe those on the right who are upset about the current administration. Insidious, violent, charged, angry, hateful, the list goes on. The only point I've had (and perhaps I wasn't specific enough initially) is that the people in this protest (just like every single leftist protest, anywhere, ever) is filled with just as much, if not more, vitriol and anger and hatred and violence as any Tea Party protest.
Is your contention that it isn't? I'd love to see footage of the tea party that puts this protest to shame, I really would.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The only point I've had (and perhaps I wasn't specific enough initially) is that the people in this protest (just like every single leftist protest, anywhere, ever) is filled with just as much, if not more, vitriol and anger and hatred and violence as any Tea Party protest.
I went to this rally two days ago, and I attended the Tea Party rally two years ago (which was about a tenth this size). And the Tea Party rally was far, far more hateful, and considerably more violent. Heck, if you really don't see the difference in those signs -- which, after all, knowing the Blaze, were the worst and most extreme signs they could find (and were certainly not representative of the signs at the rally in general, believe me) -- I don't know what to tell you. But, heck, there were two signs in that entire batch that implied violence -- one doing so by directly quoting Sarah Palin in an ironic fashion, tacitly implying and recognizing that she was wrong to have done so originally, and the other by writing "Death to Tyrants!" in big letters, with the qualifier "(Political)" written above it in smaller text. Which means that the person writing the sign was either confronted about the text by someone and added a qualifier at their request, or was self-aware enough on his or her own that he or she put the qualifier in as a humorous nod to the ridiculousness of it all.
Compare that, in all seriousness, to the kind of crap we saw in exactly the same place two years ago, and it's like night and day -- in favor of the current batch of protesters.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Wait, so the thing we're supposed to avoid is specifically explicit calls for violence against individuals? That's not been my impression at all. The call was for "civility," not "don't call for someone to be murdered." Most of the signs seem plenty uncivil. At least as offensive as the stuff we generally see at Tea Parties.
Dan, now you're changing the goalposts of the discussion. Before you were complaining about violent rhetoric, not 'uncivil' rhetoric. Now you're objecting because the language they're using is 'uncivil', not that it's 'insidious violent rhetoric', which I think we can agree that video doesn't show any of.
The only thing I saw that could actually be construed as violent that I remember was quoting Sarah Palin. And even that quotation, in and of itself, I wouldn't consider violent, only when taken in a context of a whole charged atmosphere of other campaign language of similar rhetoric involving violent imagery-which again, this wasn't. Uncivil, yes-violent, no.
Eh, I'm not changing anything. The news media and certain politicians have been calling for civility, in general. They have used a lot of different terms to describe those on the right who are upset about the current administration. Insidious, violent, charged, angry, hateful, the list goes on. The only point I've had (and perhaps I wasn't specific enough initially) is that the people in this protest (just like every single leftist protest, anywhere, ever) is filled with just as much, if not more, vitriol and anger and hatred and violence as any Tea Party protest.
Is your contention that it isn't? I'd love to see footage of the tea party that puts this protest to shame, I really would.
I'm going to do you a solid here, Dan, and agree that the protest imagery is uncivil at the least, and there could be an argument made that it encourages violence.
While I support the intent of these protestors, I don't support the means by which they're expressing their dissatisfaction. I think Rakeesh is misguided in his particular line of argumentation against you. The point shouldn't be and (for me at least) never has been about who uses this sort of imagery more. The point is that this incivility contributes to an atmosphere where legitimate discourse is difficult and may pave the way for greater irrational actions to be taken.
What frustrates me about this debate is, of course, that there exists this antagonizing rhetoric in the first place. But further, instead of fessing up to it being improper, we were told that it didn't exist ("They were surveyors marks!"), that it's somehow okay or justified ("Well, democrats/republicans use it too."), or that we're trying to "silence" folks.
None of those three things are true, yet it's what I keep hearing. The point is that this imagery is wrong from wherever it comes, and I'd appreciate folks calling it out rather than trying to score cheap political points.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The point is that this incivility contributes to an atmosphere where legitimate discourse is difficult...
Bear in mind that the legislature did not permit any debate on this bill and initially wanted to vote on it in closed session on private property. Legitimate discourse would have been impossible had "uncivil" discourse not been undertaken.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The point is that this incivility contributes to an atmosphere where legitimate discourse is difficult...
Bear in mind that the legislature did not permit any debate on this bill and initially wanted to vote on it in closed session on private property. Legitimate discourse would have been impossible had "uncivil" discourse not been undertaken.
Fair point. But I'm not arguing against protesting, I'm arguing against the imagery a select few are using in these protests.
I think you'd be hardpressed to show that the reason discourse is possible now is because of the signs equating the actions the governor has taken to the nazis. Though I will admit, if you can demonstrate that, those are some very impressive signs.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The couple of signs equating Walker to a Nazi were pretty restrained, compared to what I've seen elsewhere. There were far more Star Wars references -- which I suppose is potentially more uncivil, since even Hitler didn't blow up a planet.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think Rakeesh is misguided in his particular line of argumentation against you. The point shouldn't be and (for me at least) never has been about who uses this sort of imagery more.
That seems pretty unreasonable to me, Vadon, given that, "...and therefore not perpetuating any of that insidious violent rhetoric that we're supposed to be toning down," is what I was objecting to. Somehow the conversation shifted from 'insiduous violent rhetoric' to 'uncivil' rhetoric. When I pointed that out, the discussion changed again to talk about what the media and politicians generally have been calling for.
quote:...if not more, vitriol and anger and hatred and violence as any Tea Party protest.
Is your contention that it isn't? I'd love to see footage of the tea party that puts this protest to shame, I really would.
My only contention, Dan, is that the video linked contained little to no violence at all, and the best example of actual violent rhetoric you could find - the thing you started off complaining about - was a direct quote of Sarah Palin, darling of the Tea Party. I'm really not sure why you persist in attempting to change the subject away from this-it's like the third time now.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The couple of signs equating Walker to a Nazi were pretty restrained, compared to what I've seen elsewhere. There were far more Star Wars references -- which I suppose is potentially more uncivil, since even Hitler didn't blow up a planet.
I... I have nothing to say to that. You're right. The Star Wars references have to come to an end if we want real discourse in this country.
@Rakeesh -
I actually agree that the images weren't particularly violent, and considering Dan's original post claimed there was "insidious violent rhetoric," you were challenging him on what he said. Then he did change the goalpost. I'm not saying that your argument is wrong. I agree with you. I'm saying that you're using the wrong argument. You don't want to go down the road of saying liberals/democrats don't use violent imagery. Trust me, it's a losing argument. (Gwar disemboweling an effigy of Sarah Palin on stage comes to mind.) Even if you're right, that these folks weren't violent, what would you hope to gain? Dan might be wrong in this example, but you're just baiting him to find an example of liberals being violent that you can't refute.
I'd much rather admit that there were a select few individuals who were out of line(whether violent or not) and encourage people not to lose focus on the point of these protests.
[ February 19, 2011, 03:27 AM: Message edited by: Vadon ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Insidious, violent, charged, angry, hateful, the list goes on. The only point I've had (and perhaps I wasn't specific enough initially) is that the people in this protest (just like every single leftist protest, anywhere, ever) is filled with just as much, if not more, vitriol and anger and hatred and violence as any Tea Party protest.
More false equivalence? I pretty much thought we'd hammered this into the ground.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Lots of states either have Constitutional provisions or laws on the books that empower either the legislature or the governor to use the state police force to escort, willingly or not, legislators to the capitol.
!!!
And that doesn't strike anyone as bizarre or problematic?
The state Constitution gives the Senate the right to "compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalty as each house may provide." Once notified of the absence, the Senate rules say the Senate sergeant at arms "shall forthwith proceed to find and bring in such absentees."
In the case of Wisconsin specifically, the constitution doesn't actually spell out what sort of mechanism the sergeant at arms is empowered to use in order to compel their attendance, nor is there any specific penalty for not showing up. The provision wasn't written into the constitution with any sort of thought as to legislatures fleeing the state to specifically disrupt a quorum call.
I've done a quick search and found that several other states have almost the exact same language, but they've written it into all sorts of different places. Louisiana had a similar provision in their State Senate rules, which were adopted by and for the Senate their, but they were changed in 1999 to eliminate the ability of the majority to compel the attendance of missing members.
For many it's uncharted waters. None of these provisions spells out exactly how enforcement works, and what often happens is those who are there pass some sort of resolution calling for the missing legislators to be rounded up, which is then enforced by the governor, who figures he has the backing of the legislature and the law to call upon the state police to track these guys down. That's why they flee the state, to try and avoid state police forces.
The more I read, the more I find this is actually a fascinating topic. I'd love to read the rationale for why these provisions were passed in the first place, why they're all over the place, why they've been amended so much, and how they've actually been enforced over time. It would appear that most of them were written as a ward against simple laziness, of members blowing off their duties, and the specific rules for what constituted negligence or how it would be enforced were left up to the respective Rules Committees of each governing body, but it would also appear that most Rules Committees never got around to the nuts and bolts.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'm still trying to figure out how removing ANY collective bargaining rights isn't a gross violation of freedom of association.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: I'm still trying to figure out how removing ANY collective bargaining rights isn't a gross violation of freedom of association.
"And they like to call us fascists" springs to mind, song-lyric wise.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: I'm still trying to figure out how removing ANY collective bargaining rights isn't a gross violation of freedom of association.
The Koch Brothers are behind this attempt to destroy collective bargaining rights.
quote:I think Rakeesh is misguided in his particular line of argumentation against you. The point shouldn't be and (for me at least) never has been about who uses this sort of imagery more.
That seems pretty unreasonable to me, Vadon, given that, "...and therefore not perpetuating any of that insidious violent rhetoric that we're supposed to be toning down," is what I was objecting to. Somehow the conversation shifted from 'insiduous violent rhetoric' to 'uncivil' rhetoric. When I pointed that out, the discussion changed again to talk about what the media and politicians generally have been calling for.
quote:...if not more, vitriol and anger and hatred and violence as any Tea Party protest.
Is your contention that it isn't? I'd love to see footage of the tea party that puts this protest to shame, I really would.
My only contention, Dan, is that the video linked contained little to no violence at all, and the best example of actual violent rhetoric you could find - the thing you started off complaining about - was a direct quote of Sarah Palin, darling of the Tea Party. I'm really not sure why you persist in attempting to change the subject away from this-it's like the third time now.
*sigh*
Okay, so I don't care about "don't retreat, reload." I don't care about Sarah Palin. I apologize that my first post used the words "insidious" and "violent," I was trying to be cute quoting the media's characterization of tea parties. What you call "changing the goalpost" is just me trying to clarify those goalposts. I'm sorry if you feel it's me trying to change the subject, but I'm only trying to change the subject onto the actual conversation I've been trying to have.
Honestly, this fixation everyone has on crosshair imagery and combat metaphors just strikes me as bizarre. People have used combat metaphors for politics forever... anybody want to hazard a guess why we call them campaigns? I'm really not concerned by crosshairs.
I'm more concerned with the characterization of tea parties as hate-filled despicable cesspits, contrasted to the rainbows and unicorns at liberal protests. I went to a lot of leftist protests between 2000 and 2008, and every one of them was filled with hitler signs and hate-filled angry people.
And Samp, no, this isn't false equivalence. When it comes to protesters I will confidently say that leftists are far, far more angry and hate filled than the tea parties.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm more concerned with the characterization of tea parties as hate-filled despicable cesspits, contrasted to the rainbows and unicorns at liberal protests.
This has certainly been my anecdotal experience. I have never been to a liberal protest that has involved any significant number of obviously hate-filled people; I have, by contrast, never been to a Tea Party event that has not prominently featured people with chins flecked with spittle.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: And Samp, no, this isn't false equivalence. When it comes to protesters I will confidently say that leftists are far, far more angry and hate filled than the tea parties.
So you'll confidently move from, quote, "just as much, if not more" to "far far more" in response to being charged with false equivalence?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
If the actions of the new republican congress represent the attitudes of the tea-partiers, then "hate filled despicable cesspits" would actually be doing them a kindness.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: If the actions of the new republican congress represent the attitudes of the tea-partiers, then "hate filled despicable cesspits" would actually be doing them a kindness.
What they're doing is calculated, cynical, and has a name. "Starve the beast" is the name for the well-established ploy wherein the conservatives pass huge unfunded tax cuts, and then use the resulting huge deficits and budget crises as an excuse to cut programs, whether they were working fine before or not. This is inflicted purposefully on states that previously had managed and balanced budgets. It's business as usual sold to those who are eagerly and impressionably lured into voting against their interests. It hit Nassau County like a dump truck already.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Not just the tax cuts and budget crises, but the programs they are targeting and the other legislation that is being introduced is... vicious.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I've been looking into this, and it's just amazing. I'm now no longer surprised at the scope of the outrage.
Now, I DO dislike tenure for teachers, but the five states that have banned collective bargaining for teachers have done exactly dick-all to fix that by doing so and are ranked 50th (SC), 49th (NC), 48th (GA), 47th (TX), and 44th (VA) nationwide on SAT/ACT scores. Meanwhile, Wisconsin is ranked 2nd in the country.
Walker is poisoning what gains were made by his side.
Posted by RivalOfTheRose (Member # 11535) on :
Sam, those are terrible numbers. What was your source? How is New Jersey on the list, because our governor doesn't seem to be too far behind.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I did a little looking and discovered that quorum breaking is not a new thing at all. Lincoln, according to stories, escaped out a window in order to put off an unfriendly vote.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Now, I DO dislike tenure for teachers, but the five states that have banned collective bargaining for teachers have done exactly dick-all to fix that by doing so and are ranked 50th (SC), 49th (NC), 48th (GA), 47th (TX), and 44th (VA) nationwide on SAT/ACT scores.
How much of a drop is that from their previous rankings (prior to banning collective bargaining)?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I just looked up South Carolina; I haven't done the others yet. South Carolina dropped collective bargaining for teachers in 2006. It is interesting, then, to note this article from a conservative source -- http://www.fitsnews.com/2010/09/13/sc-sat-scores-down-again/ -- which complains in 2011 that SAT scores have dropped every year since 2007, and argues that the exorbitant funding SC teachers receive should be cut in favor of vouchers for parochial schools.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm having some difficulty finding "before" numbers for some of these, since places like Texas and Georgia have been "right to work" to death states for quite some time.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I just looked up South Carolina; I haven't done the others yet. South Carolina dropped collective bargaining for teachers in 2006. It is interesting, then, to note this article from a conservative source -- http://www.fitsnews.com/2010/09/13/sc-sat-scores-down-again/ -- which complains in 2011 that SAT scores have dropped every year since 2007, and argues that the exorbitant funding SC teachers receive should be cut in favor of vouchers for parochial schools.
Starve the beast, indeed. Classy.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I've been looking into this, and it's just amazing. I'm now no longer surprised at the scope of the outrage.
Now, I DO dislike tenure for teachers, but the five states that have banned collective bargaining for teachers have done exactly dick-all to fix that by doing so and are ranked 50th (SC), 49th (NC), 48th (GA), 47th (TX), and 44th (VA) nationwide on SAT/ACT scores. Meanwhile, Wisconsin is ranked 2nd in the country.
Walker is poisoning what gains were made by his side.
Please provide a link to this. I've searched numerous articles regarding sat scores and can't find any in which Virginia isn't in the top twenty, or more often, in the top 10.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not finding Virginia anywhere near the top 10, but it does appear to be above the national average.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I guess I'm not seeing any primary sources to it, just places where The Fact was restated over and over. So, don't be surprised when those absolutely true statements and figures are only mildly or completely erroneous.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
This looks to be the most comprehensive list I could find:
But like any statistics it's worth looking a little deeper. Yes, Virginia is right around the middle. Yes, scores in Wisconsin are quite high. But in Wisconsin 5% of graduating students take the SAT; in Virginia 68% of graduating students take the SAT.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, that makes the comparison pretty much meaningless.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Using this info for the ACT and this info for the SAT, and some quick and dirty comparisons, it looks like the repeated line isn't completely off, but it's not perfect.
Granted the SAT stats are from 2007 and for some reason are missing West Virginia, but I tossed them in a spread sheet and found the top 10 worst states in the SAT were (in order) Maine, (DC), SC, Hawaii, Georgia, Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, Deleware, then Texas.
For the ACT the ten worst are Mississippi, Kentucky, Florida, Tennessee, Michigan, DC, Arizona, SC, and Wyoming.
For kicks and giggles, I ranked the states in order of their performance on the SAT (1-50) and their performance on the ACT (1-50) added the ranks together and sorted the list of states by the largest ranks (those being the worst) to smallest. Is this accurate math? Not so much, but it gives us an idea.
The top ten worst states for ACT/SAT (excluding West Virginia) are: (DC) 1. Florida 2. South Carolina 3. Georgia 4 & 5. Texas/Hawaii (tie) 6. Arizona 7. & 8. Nevada/Mississippi (tie) 9. Pennsylvania 10. Kentucky/Alaska
There are crossovers between what I found and those "worst 5 states." South Carolina is one off, Georgia is in the right spot, and so is Texas.
But their stat doesn't say Florida which I found to be the worst.
Also, they claim that Virginia and North Carolina are among the five worst. By my count Virginia is 21st best and North Carolina is 36th best.
ETA: Wisconsin is in 3rd place for best performance between SAT/ACT.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I have some very serious concerns about drawing any meaningful conclusions from average SAT/ACT scores and their trends.
Not everyone takes the SAT/ACT, only college bound students which creates a serious selection bias. Many state Universities, like Wisconsin for example, use only ACT scores, so SAT participation in those states is much lower. The students who take the SAT in those states are mostly top students who are trying to get into elite private Universities.
A state might have a lower average SAT/ACT score because a higher percentage of the students are interested in going to college and so take the exams. A downward trend in SAT scores, might simply indicate a growing interest in going to college among weaker students.
Unless you control for these factors, you really can't draw any meaningful conclusions from state average college entrance exams.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I have some very serious concerns about drawing any meaningful conclusions from average SAT/ACT scores and their trends.
Not everyone takes the SAT/ACT, only college bound students which creates a serious selection bias. Many state Universities, like Wisconsin for example, use only ACT scores, so SAT participation in those states is much lower. The students who take the SAT in those states are mostly top students who are trying to get into elite private Universities.
A state might have a lower average SAT/ACT score because a higher percentage of the students are interested in going to college and so take the exams. A downward trend in SAT scores, might simply indicate a growing interest in going to college among weaker students.
Unless you control for these factors, you really can't draw any meaningful conclusions from state average college entrance exams.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Maine, for example, scored the worst among SAT-taking states. But that was likely because they have a 100% participation rate whereas with the ACT they are 5th in the nation, but they only have 10% taking the test.
I agree that you can't draw many conclusions from the averages, but as far as whether or not the rankings Samp posted were accurate (regardless of any conclusions drawn from them), they were off. But not considerably so.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I agree that you can't draw many conclusions from the averages, but as far as whether or not the rankings Samp posted were accurate (regardless of any conclusions drawn from them), they were off. But not considerably so.
QFT
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
I'm not quite sure why they are saying "The five states which have banned collective bargaining...."
Do some digging and you will probably find about fifteen states which do not allow collective bargaining for public school teachers.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm sure. Absent any real source for the assertions, and the lack of the (at the time) asserted connections, just treat it as non-factual.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm having some difficulty finding "before" numbers for some of these, since places like Texas and Georgia have been "right to work" to death states for quite some time.
I'm not sure that Texas EVER allowed collective bargaining unions for teachers. They certainly haven't for at least the last 30 years (the time my mom has spent teaching). I'm not sure any number you got before that would be comparable.
Also, while the lack of collective bargaining can be annoying for teachers, I don't believe for an instant that it has anything to do with the education score in Texas. Texas faces many other challenges and has a bunch of other stupid policies that impact that score, but I don't think it has anything to do with the way the unions are set up. In fact, most teachers (who are also parents) that I know are not in favor of overly strong teachers unions because they feel like they give way too much power to the worst of the teachers without adding enough protections for those who are trying to do their jobs as well as they can.
I'll be honest. When you're facing serious budget shortfalls, I don't think it's unreasonable to cut public employee pay the way he's doing. On the other hand, I can't really see any reason why he needs to strip out the collective bargaining rights of the public employees. That part seems totally wrong to me. I could see if he maybe wanted to limit their powers to some extent, but to try to strip them down as far as he's going is a little crazy.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I have been enjoying hearing people in Texas rant about our education. Apparently, all our education problems come from Obama. When I point out that the budget and most decisions are made at state and local level (major exception being nclb which was a bush initiative) they then rant about how the federal has taken control of everything else, why don't they just take control of education. Fun times.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: nclb which was a bush initiative
Technically it was a Ted Kennedy written bipartisan initiative approved by President Bush
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Unless you control for these factors, you really can't draw any meaningful conclusions from state average college entrance exams.
There's also the fact that Republican states tend to be the less educated states. Therefore, one would expect a correlation between conservative public policy and lower SAT scores, even if the public policy was not actually causing the scores to be lower.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: nclb which was a bush initiative
Technically it was a Ted Kennedy written bipartisan initiative approved by President Bush
True but passed under Bush and I really see no way you could blame Obama for that. But where I live, there is a strong tendency to blame Obama personally for all problems, even when he doesn't have any say in them.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:'ll be honest. When you're facing serious budget shortfalls, I don't think it's unreasonable to cut public employee pay the way he's doing.
If the serious budget shortfalls had not been the direct result of major tax cuts, I might agree with it. As it is, the real situation is that they are cutting public employee pay in order to fund a tax cut. That isn't fair. No way, no how.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: On the other hand, I can't really see any reason why he needs to strip out the collective bargaining rights of the public employees. That part seems totally wrong to me. I could see if he maybe wanted to limit their powers to some extent, but to try to strip them down as far as he's going is a little crazy.
It seems some of the debate here, and much of what I read in my local paper, is a very old debate--who is responsible for paying for their children's education.
One group says that the community as a whole benefits when the most children receive the best education.
One group says that, I want my children to get the best education. The rest of the children are not my responsibility, and I resent paying taxes to educate them. My tax money should go first to pay my kids education, then stay with me.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:'ll be honest. When you're facing serious budget shortfalls, I don't think it's unreasonable to cut public employee pay the way he's doing.
If the serious budget shortfalls had not been the direct result of major tax cuts, I might agree with it. As it is, the real situation is that they are cutting public employee pay in order to fund a tax cut. That isn't fair. No way, no how.
That's tricky though. Why were the tax cuts needed? If the tax cuts were needed to preserve other jobs, then it's unfair to say that everything would just be FINE if he hadn't tried to give the rich a bunch of tax cuts. Since I don't actually live in Wisconsin, it's impossible for me to really judge what's going on solely based on news articles about the budget.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:That's tricky though. Why were the tax cuts needed? If the tax cuts were needed to preserve other jobs,
Does this ever really happen? I'm skeptical.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The argument is that cutting taxes spurs growth that can be used to spend tax dollars elsewhere, but the increase in tax revenue as a percentage almost never makes up from the lost revenue from the cut. And if you hypothetical factor in the jobs lost from having to cut the budget to make up for the tax cut, then it'd either be neutral, or it'd always be a loss.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I don't know. San Antonio does seem to add jobs virtually every year through tax incentives, and Texas in general has fared pretty well through the whole crisis. I think there has to be something that can be said for tax breaks.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Texas in general has fared pretty well through the whole crisis.
One word: oil.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Texas is the #1 oil producing state in America. Other countries that have avoided the global recession? Norway. Saudi Arabia. IE, oil producing countries. The fact that Texas has avoided the brunt of the recession isn't because it is being governed very well or indicative of the virtue of the inhabitants, it's because money is spewing out of the ground. It's an accident of geography.
If anything, Texas's vast resources make its paltry expenditures and crappy social infrastructure all the more embarrassing, because it has the capability to do better. It just repeatedly chooses to do nothing.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: True but passed under Bush and I really see no way you could blame Obama for that. But where I live, there is a strong tendency to blame Obama personally for all problems, even when he doesn't have any say in them.
Obama is President now, and can promote any changes he wants to with NCLB.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: If the serious budget shortfalls had not been the direct result of major tax cuts,
There are lots of liberal articles about how Wisconsin does not have a budget shortfall at all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Obama is President now, and can promote any changes he wants to with NCLB.
DarkKnight, I'm trying hard, but it is quite difficult to read this in a way other than disingenuous. You're far from ignorant of many of the technical processes of politics, and you know that there is more involved than simply being President and promoting changes to a program as huge as NCLB.
How would he go about actually doing that, for example?
quote:There are lots of liberal articles about how Wisconsin does not have a budget shortfall at all.
If there are lots, surely you could find some, yes?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The Obama administration has proposed some significant revisions to NCLB. You can see the full details here.. If you are going to criticism him for it, you should at least bother to find out what he is actually doing first.
To be completely fair, the original NCLB act WAS proposed and written by the Bush administration not Teddy Kennedy. It was one of Bush's campaign promises. Teddy Kennedy merely shepherded it through the legislative process. It did enjoy bipartisan support when it passed, but this was unarguably the brain child of the Bush administration.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Texas is the #1 oil producing state in America. Other countries that have avoided the global recession? Norway. Saudi Arabia. IE, oil producing countries. The fact that Texas has avoided the brunt of the recession isn't because it is being governed very well or indicative of the virtue of the inhabitants, it's because money is spewing out of the ground. It's an accident of geography.
Add to your list the province of Alberta in Canada. Oil country, too, naturally.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: DarkKnight, I'm trying hard, but it is quite difficult to read this in a way other than disingenuous. You're far from ignorant of many of the technical processes of politics, and you know that there is more involved than simply being President and promoting changes to a program as huge as NCLB.
As The Rabbit pointed out, he is trying to change it. Of course it would have been easier to change when the Dems controlled the House and Senate, but there is still bipartisan support for changing NCLB. *EDIT* I'm not saying it will be easy for him to change, but I do think he can get a lot of changes to NCLB through.
quote: To be completely fair, the original NCLB act WAS proposed and written by the Bush administration not Teddy Kennedy. It was one of Bush's campaign promises. Teddy Kennedy merely shepherded it through the legislative process. It did enjoy bipartisan support when it passed, but this was unarguably the brain child of the Bush administration.
"The bill, shepherded through the Senate by Senator Ted Kennedy, one of the bill's co-authors, received overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress." I got that from wiki which is pretty similar to what you posted, minus the part where he is one of the bill's co-authors. Ted Kennedy was a huge pusher for NCLB, not merely a shepherd. Can you provide proof that it was the brain child of the Bush administration? If you do a google search on who wrote it you may be surprised by the answer.
[ February 23, 2011, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: DarkKnight ]
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Texas is the #1 oil producing state in America. Other countries that have avoided the global recession? Norway. Saudi Arabia. IE, oil producing countries. The fact that Texas has avoided the brunt of the recession isn't because it is being governed very well or indicative of the virtue of the inhabitants, it's because money is spewing out of the ground. It's an accident of geography.
If anything, Texas's vast resources make its paltry expenditures and crappy social infrastructure all the more embarrassing, because it has the capability to do better. It just repeatedly chooses to do nothing.
Two interesting stories out about silly Wis. and the Governor.
1) There is a clause in the Dept of Transportation that means if any transportation employee looses any of their Collective Bargaining powers, then the Fed. Govt drops Grants. The state will lose $46 Million in Fed Funds if this bill passes. That is not the way to balance the budget.
The Governor's people say they know about this but have a way around the issue. Either they are going to drop the project, or hope that the Obama administration will give them a waiver (probably by threatening the Transportation Department with having to fire all these public servants if they don't get the waiver), or by being shocked and surprised that it happened, then ignoring it.
2)Before the Governor was the Governor, he was a Mayor. He decided that it would be cost effective to fire all the unionized public security guards at the court house and replace them with a hired professional company.
The city council said no.
He said he had a fiscal emergency, so had the emergency powers to do it. He fired them all and hired a company.
You know, the one that caused the diplomatic mess when their employees in Afghanistan went on a bender and did stupid things on camera--Wakanhut or some such.
He promised a savings of $750,000. Instead the savings has been closer to $450,000. Only a difference of $300,000. But hey--its still a savings.
Of course the Union never hired ex-cons to run the security at the City Hall and Court House. This highly paid private company put an Ex-Con in charge of that security.
A Federal Arbitrator has since ruled against the way this was done. There was no credible Fiscal Emergency. As a result the city has to fire the private company and re-hire all the unionized employees--and pay them the back pay they missed. This could cost as much as $500,000.
Yeah, this looks good for Wisconsin.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Texas real estate also never went crazy. Our bubble never burst, because there was no bubble.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: "The bill, shepherded through the Senate by Senator Ted Kennedy, one of the bill's co-authors, received overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress." I got that from wiki which is pretty similar to what you posted, minus the part where he is one of the bill's co-authors. Ted Kennedy was a huge pusher for NCLB, not merely a shepherd. Can you provide proof that it was the brain child of the Bush administration? If you do a google search on who wrote it you may be surprised by the answer.
Dark Knight, Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that, under the constitution, only members of congress are allowed to introduce legislation. This is power reserved to the legislative branch. The President (whether Obama or Bush) can not author a bill. Hence Presidents, like both Bush and Obama, operate by convincing members of congress to "author" legislation they have proposed and drafted.
NCLB was a Bush administration project. Yes, it received bipartisan support, but it was Bush's baby.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
It's not hard to notice that the economic situation has been painted across the entire country with broad brushes by the media. A lot of locations experienced similar issues, such as the collapse in real estate values, but different geographic areas weren't impacted to the same extent. Kansas has felt an impact from loss of property tax revenue, but some of that has been mitigated by the (relatively) wet weather pattern over the last three years. I hesitate to imagine the impact of a widespread, severe drought on top of the other economic issues.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Can you provide proof that it was the brain child of the Bush administration? If you do a google search on who wrote it you may be surprised by the answer.
From the Executive Summary available at the deparment of educaiton website.
quote:Three days after taking office in January 2001 as the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush announced No Child Left Behind, his framework for bipartisan education reform that he described as "the cornerstone of my Administration." President Bush emphasized his deep belief in our public schools, but an even greater concern that "too many of our neediest children are being left behind," despite the nearly $200 billion in Federal spending since the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). The President called for bipartisan solutions based on accountability, choice, and flexibility in Federal education programs.
Less than a year later, despite the unprecedented challenges of engineering an economic recovery while leading the Nation in the war on terrorism following the events of September 11, President Bush secured passage of the landmark No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB Act). The new law reflects a remarkable consensus-first articulated in the President's No Child Left Behind framework-on how to improve the performance of America's elementary and secondary schools while at the same time ensuring that no child is trapped in a failing school.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
Our education woes aren't a result of lack of money but misappropriation of funds. Two main issues IMO. First, the bureaucratic layers between funds and teachers are prohibitive. Second, good teachers aren't paid enough and bad teachers are bulletproof. As long as we have layers of fat between funds and teachers, and teachers are compensated collectively, more money will never be a fix.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by ScottF: Our education woes aren't a result of lack of money but misappropriation of funds. Two main issues IMO. First, the bureaucratic layers between funds and teachers are prohibitive. Second, good teachers aren't paid enough and bad teachers are bulletproof. As long as we have layers of fat between funds and teachers, and teachers are compensated collectively, more money will never be a fix.
I can vouch for that. My school district just spent $800,000 on purchasing 80 web cams. I don't care how nice the web cam is, SKYPE is free, and our laptops already have them built in.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
The quality of those $10,000 web cams really can't be beat, Stephan, they're actually worth every penny.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Texas real estate also never went crazy. Our bubble never burst, because there was no bubble.
Yes, the is the big reason why Texas has faired so well in the Great Recession. I surfed around looking for explanation for why Texas didn't experience the big housing bubble but there is no consensus. Liberal leaning analysts, conclude its because Texas had better laws regulating mortgage lending. Free market fundamentalist conclude its because Texas had fewer laws regulating building. I'm not really buying either explanation. Housing prices in California have been out of control for 40 years. Southern California has been through several booms and busts, but the busts have never been big enough or long enough to actually correct for the booms. I really can't tell why California would be so different in this respect than Texas, but it isn't something that is recent.
The one thing that does come to mind is that California has a lot more natural barriers that restrain development (mountain ranges and bays) The same thing is true of New York City. Manhattan and San Francisco have natural boundaries that limit growth.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
That's pretty cool. I stopped listening part way through, but some things that struck me:
Walker obviously doesn't talk to Koch often enough to recognize his voice/caller ID/etc. He doesn't engage in any sort of friendly conversation. He just treats him like he's any random supporter calling to hear about what's going on.
Not too sure the video proves what the person who put it on youtube seems to think it proves, but then, that's probably not a surprise.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:He also shared a plan to trick the Senate Democrats by inviting them back to the capital to listen to their concerns and then use their appearance in the capital to declare a quorum and resume session, whether or not they attend. “If you heard I was going to talk to them that’s the only reason why,” he said.
That the caller got this guy to start reporting all this to him just by pretending to be Koch is at least as instructive as what he actually said.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
"Hello all you business owners in or considering moving to Wisconsin. It seems that the politicians in that state believe they do not need good quality public servants. They are attempting to do away with every benefit that an intelligent and hard working person may have for being a public servant.
These are the people who will be teaching your children, or teaching your future employees. These are the people who will be repairing your roads and in charge of highway safety on the highways you will be using. These are the people who maintain the parks you can enjoy, the legal documentation that defines your wealth, and the infrastructure your company needs to exist.
These are important services, but the government in the State of Wisconsin thinks they should be done by only those lazy or stupid enough to except minimum pay, minimum benefits, and minimum chance for promotion.
Last month some states advertised that companies move out of Illinois because we dared to ask our people to pay for these services. These same politicians want to bribe you with tax cuts and tax incentives to do business in their state. I'm sure some short sighted companies will do just that.
But if you want success on the long term, you want to go where we reward dedicated hard working employees, public and private, to insure we keep the best. You don't need strikes and labor issues. Come to Illinois. We won't bribe you with cash, but with great teachers, great service, and improving infrastructure that you business needs to run.
Oh, and to those top performing public servants in Wisconsin. Have you considered moving to a place where you will be asked to work hard, but be rewarded appropriately. Labor and Capital should be allies for prosperity. When they fight we get poverty."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I love this. I love all of this. The prank call might be enough to hang him on this issue re: the Kochs.
Anyone who's still siding with his narrative at this point is kind of an idiot. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I dislike very much what Gov. Walker is trying to do, and I completely disagree with his approach to balancing the budget. But I don't think this blogger has nearly the sort of juicy proof some might think he has. After listening to what was actually said in the transcripts and the tone of voice, Gov. Walker sounded more like somebody who was just trying to be polite to a powerful donor, than a collaborator. I have a lot of experience with people who say things that couldn't be more different than their meaning. That is pretty much the way things are done in China. Now perhaps I am giving Gov. Walker too much credit for nuance, but for example when he was offered by the blogger to be flown out to California and be shown, "A good time". His tone and choice of words, "That would be outstanding" struck me pretty solidly as something you would say if you wanted to reject the offer but not offend the offering party, who did, after all, donate $40,000+ dollars to your campaign fund. He didn't ask what kind of a good time "Koch" had in mind or even mention when he might be available for that sort of thing.
Earlier in the call the blooger suggests they hire trouble makers, and Gov. Walker demurs somewhat and says, "Well we thought about that" which gives who Gov. Walker believes is Koch the sense that his idea is a good one on the face of things, rather than flat out saying, "That's a bad idea." He then proceeds to say why objectively that idea wouldn't work. You wouldn't tell a political donor, "That's a terrible/awful/ineffective/unethical idea."
When the blogger stokes his pride, he of course laps that up because he believes a wealthy influential businessman likes him, and he of course reciprocates by saying how firm he is on his principles, how evil the opposition is, what they are doing to solve the problem, etc.
His plan to trick senate Democrats into coming back into the building so they can technically say they had a quorum, and pass the legislation anyway, is probably the only conceivably damning thing he said the entire call, and that's really more of a, "If they are going to pull a stunt like that, then I'm throwing the rule book out too." It's greasy, but what the Democrats did (and I agree this legislation is absolutely terrible) is no different than a filibuster to my mind. Further, he has to be able to tell Koch he's doing something to break this gridlock, otherwise he looks impotent and incompetent, only an idiot admits that sort of weakness to anybody. There wasn't even a mention of the supposed "power plant deal" on the phone, I imagine that blogger had no idea that angle existed. Walker certainly didn't act like he was expecting it to be brought up.
Anyway, this is just one guy's opinion, but the only impression I got from Gov. Walkers conversation is that his plan is terrible, he doesn't know how to get the protests to stop, and he's obviously trying to push his agenda now, and hope the heat dies off when the media loses interest. I don't feel he divulged anything especially important to this blogger who he believed to be Koch.
[ February 24, 2011, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I don't feel he divulged anything especially important to this blogger who he believed to be Koch.
impressing that his plan is terrible and obvious trust-busting poorly concealed as budget salvation methods: important
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I don't feel he divulged anything especially important to this blogger who he believed to be Koch.
impressing that his plan is terrible and obvious trust-busting poorly concealed as budget salvation methods: important
But already knew that, since he said unions wouldn't budge on higher contributions towards pensions and health care, and now that unions have indicated they are, he's still going full steam ahead with his union crushing initiative.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The other important thing he said, which I don't think should be overlooked, is that the only thing they need to do is wait.
The protesters who're out there now can't protest forever. Even taking it in shifts, the crowds will have to die down eventually because -- as much as Fox News would tell you otherwise -- people want to work and want to do their jobs. By the same token, the Dems can't stay away forever, because the Republicans don't need a quorum for a lot of really destructive non-budget legislation, and they could use this opportunity to simply pass a lot of punitive crap if they felt like it. All the Republicans need to do is stuff cotton in their ears and ignore their constituents, safe in the knowledge that they're damaging Democratic election infrastructure and thus securing their jobs in a different way.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Is there a time sensitive re-finance of debt (that is actually needed for the budget)?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But already knew that, since he said unions wouldn't budge on higher contributions towards pensions and health care, and now that unions have indicated they are, he's still going full steam ahead with his union crushing initiative.
There's plenty that one can easily infer. It is different when it comes from his own mouth.
quote:When Gov. Scott Walker discussed strategies to lay off state employees for political purposes, to coordinate supposedly “independent” political expenditures to aid legislators who support his budget repair bill, and to place agent provocateurs on the streets of Madison in order to disrupt peaceful demonstrations, he engaged in what a former attorney general of Wisconsin says could turn out to be serious ethics, election law and labor violations. Much of the attention to the “prank” call that the governor took from a blogger who identified himself as billionaire David Koch has focused on the bizarre, at times comic, character of the discussion between a blogger posing as a powerful political player on the right and a governor whose budget repair bill has sparked mass demonstrations in Wisconsin communities and a national outcry. But the state’s former chief law-enforcement officer described the governor’s statements as “deeply troubling” and suggested that they would require inquiry and investigation by watchdog agencies. “There clearly are potential ethics violations, and there are potential election law violations and there are a lot of what look to me like labor law violations,” said Peg Lautenschlager, a Democrat who served as Wisconsin’s attorney general after serving for many years as a U.S. attorney. “I think that the ethics violations are something the (state) Government Accountability Board should look into because they are considerable. He is on tape talking with someone who he thinks is the funder of an independent political action committee to purchase advertising to benefit Republican legislators who are nervous about taking votes on legislation he sees as critical to his political success.” Lautenschlager, a former legislator who has known Walker for many years and who has worked with many of the unions involved in the current dispute, says: “One of the things I find most problematic in all of this is the governor’s casual talk about using outside troublemakers to stir up trouble on the streets, and the fact that he only dismissed the idea because it might cause a political problem for him.” On the tape, Walker is asked about “planting some troublemakers” to incite the crowds at what have been peaceful protests. “(We) thought about that,” replied the governor, who added: “My only fear would be is if there was a ruckus caused is that that would scare the public into thinking maybe the governor has gotta settle to avoid all these problems.” “I think there’s a serious issue there,” Lautenschlager explained. “That’s a public safety issue. And I think that is really troublesome: a governor with an obligation to maintain public safety says he’s going to plant people to make trouble. That screams out to me. For a governor even to consider a strategy that could unnecessarily threaten the safety of peaceful demonstrators — which the governor acknowledged he did — is something that simply amazes me.” Lautenschlager reviewed the tape of the phone call and the transcript at the request of The Capital Times. She noted a pattern of instances where the governor seemed to put his personal political agenda ahead of his duties as the state’s chief executive. Lautenschlager noted, in particular, the governor’s reference to displaying a photo of former President Ronald Reagan at the dinner where he explained plans for his budget repair bill — which seeks to strip state, county and municipal employees of their collective bargaining rights, restructure state government in a manner that dramatically extends the power of the governor, undermine the BadgerCare and SeniorCare programs, and sell off publicly owned power plants to private firms like Koch Industries. “He essentially parallels what he’s going to do to organized labor with what Ronald Reagan did to the air traffic controllers,” said Lautenschlager, referencing the former president’s firing of striking controllers in 1981. “By doing that at this time, when the contracts for state employees are still in effect, it looks as if he’s signaling a willingness to commit an unfair labor practice violation by refusing to negotiate.” Lautenschlager noted a body of labor law that prevents employers from using threats of layoffs as a negotiating tactic with unionized workers. Regarding another part of the conversation, where the caller posing as David Koch promises to bring the governor to California as a reward when and if the budget repair bill passes, the former attorney general noted the tenor of the conversation. “Scott: Once you crush these bastards I’ll fly you out to Cali and really show you a good time,” says the caller identified as David Koch. Walker replies: “All right, that would be outstanding.” “When an elected official in Wisconsin is offered a trip somewhere to have a good time, and he responds by saying ‘that would be outstanding,' ” said Lautenchlager, “it certainly sounds like something ethics investigators should look into.”
Think about what what things he casually admitted to. What do they amount to? Firing state workers as political retaliation is not nothing. Potentially illegal campaign funding is not nothing. Plotting to place agent provocateurs on the streets of Madison to cause chaos is certainly not nothing.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think that's stretching a lot. BB's explanation of those interactions as a politician using kid gloves with someone he thinks is a huge donor seems more reasonable to me. Even were the governor serious in all of that, however, there are no grounds I can see for ethics complaints.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I didn't see it here, so I thought I'd post that an Indiana deputy attorney general has been fired for advocating that the police shoot the protesters in Wisconsin (link). The only way this makes sense to me is he was upset that people were making pretty specious comparisons to Egypt, Libia, etc. and he thought having the police mow down peaceful protesters would help close the gap between them.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
He's got a history for making inflammatory remarks.
quote:As one of 144 attorneys in that office, Jeff Cox has represented the people of his state for 10 years. And for much of that time, it turns out, he's vented similar feelings on Twitter and on his blog, Pro Cynic. In his nonpolitical tweets and blog posts, Cox displays a keen litigator's mind, writing sharply and often wittily on military history and professional basketball. But he evinces contempt for political opponents--from labeling President Obama an "incompetent and treasonous" enemy of the nation to comparing "enviro-Nazis" to Osama bin Laden, likening ex-Labor Secretary Robert Reich and Service Employees International Union members to Nazi "brownshirts" on multiple occasions, and referring to an Indianapolis teen as "a black teenage thug who was (deservedly) beaten up" by local police. A "sensible policy for handling Afghanistan," he offered, could be summed up as: "KILL! KILL! ANNIHILATE!"
Interesting take on his phone conversation. Is it illegal to threaten layoffs to employees while in labor negotiations. Can a case be brought against him for doing so now?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Probably not a successful one. And I think the attempt is itself rather petty.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Wow, it looks like it's over. Damn.
The bad guys win.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why do you say that, Destineer? We always knew it would pass the Assembly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The bad guys were always going to win. The best possible outcome was making sure people were aware of how bad the bad guys are so maybe they will regain their sanity in time for the next election.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The problem with that, Kate, is that part of the point of this thievery is to make it that much harder for Democrats in the next election.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Wow, it looks like it's over. Damn.
The bad guys win.
Libertarians buy out government in order to ensure a decidedly non-libertarian environment of capitalistic advantage for themselves; irony news at 11
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Ah, I should've read further down. Didn't realize the Wisconsin legislature is bicameral.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The problem with that, Kate, is that part of the point of this thievery is to make it that much harder for Democrats in the next election.
Well, yes. But that was always going to happen once the unions are wiped out. But the protests weren't going to be able to stop it. Just bring attention to it.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
The only state that has a unicameral legislature is Nebraska. (DC isn't a state, so I'm not counting it. )
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Huh. My dad always complains about what a waste it is for Michigan to have a Senate, which led me to believe that many other states don't.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
To be fair, Michigan's House is a waste as well. So's the Governor. And I say that having voted for the guy.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Yeah, his budget proposal wasn't exactly -- how should I say -- tolerable?
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I'd like to quip that Wisconsin's outcome will determine ours, but I know that's not true. One party can propose, write, and pass legislation in this state without any opposition. Even if all the Kansas Democrats suddenly went missing, they couldn't stop anything the other party wants to do.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Let me ask a question:
The most common argument made about getting rid of the Teachers Union is that it makes it impossible to fire poor performing teachers. Governor Walker said that school districts and government officials want to be able to fire those teacher they believe need to go.
So does this mean that if I am teaching the mayor's daughter, she either aces the class or I can be fired?
If I dare fail the wrong student, the one who will complain the loudest to the school board, or the one that bankrolls the major political party in town, I can be fired?
If the high school football team's QB is failing history because he doesn't want to do the work, I can't fail him because the school board places more value on a winning season than on my employment?
Does this mean that if two students are up for a full scholarship, I have to give a higher grade not to the student who is better qualified, but to the one that will insure my contract is picked up next year?
I predict that no child in the Koch family will ever fail.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:So does this mean that if I am teaching the mayor's daughter, she either aces the class or I can be fired?
There exists a great deal of space between "impossible to fire" and "can be fired for any reason whatsoever".
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Tres, yes there is a big difference.
However, removing bargaining rights on what is and is not allowed to go into the firing decision means that those with the power--the Principals, Administrators, and Politicians will decide where that school stands on that space.
Or are there legal safety measures that protect teachers from being fired for purely political reasons.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: I predict that no child in the Koch family will ever fail.
I'm no friend of the unions but i cannot help but side with them on this one, since what they're fighting against is worse than them.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Let me ask a question:
The most common argument made about getting rid of the Teachers Union is that it makes it impossible to fire poor performing teachers. Governor Walker said that school districts and government officials want to be able to fire those teacher they believe need to go.
So does this mean that if I am teaching the mayor's daughter, she either aces the class or I can be fired?
If I dare fail the wrong student, the one who will complain the loudest to the school board, or the one that bankrolls the major political party in town, I can be fired?
If the high school football team's QB is failing history because he doesn't want to do the work, I can't fail him because the school board places more value on a winning season than on my employment?
Does this mean that if two students are up for a full scholarship, I have to give a higher grade not to the student who is better qualified, but to the one that will insure my contract is picked up next year?
I predict that no child in the Koch family will ever fail.
Living in a district where everyone knows everyone in a state where teachers unions are severely hobbled, I can say that it's very unlikely that you would ever get fired for failing the mayor's daughter. It isn't that easy, and a single person rarely has that much control since hiring/firing decisions are ultimately in the hands of a group of people (the school board). It might be different in other states, but here a principal has no authority to hire or fire anyone. The most he/she can do is make recommendations to the school board.
As for being fired if you don't pass the star quarterback... Well, I'm not sure anything has really changed there. After all, there are a heck of alot of bad things that can be done to a teacher without firing him/her. I'm pretty sure if the school wanted to play that card it could easily be, "Pass that kid or you'll be assigned cafeteria duty at the alternative school next year."
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: I predict that no child in the Koch family will ever fail.
I'm no friend of the unions but i cannot help but side with them on this one, since what they're fighting against is worse than them.
By 'what they're fighting against' do you mean the elimination of collective bargaining rights?
###
As an aside, I'll say that I've got a strong independent streak. I also live in a 'right to work' state, Kansas, and I happen to work at an educational institution where there is a faculty 'union'. (I'll use that term loosely, because it's unclear what collective bargaining powers the group actually has. And also, to be clear, I'm not a member.)
I do know that my pay schedule, as a staff member, is tied to what the 'union' negotiates. If the faculty negotiate a raise, the trustees apply the same raise, on a percentage basis, to the staff, who do not engage in collective bargaining. On the other hand, sometimes the trustees perform end-runs around the bargaining process, since the faculty union can't really retaliate. Some of the rules and maneuvers are a mystery to me; I'm essentially feeding on the leanings of an established process, here.
My perspective and experiences are hardly unique, but I find that I'm interested in the outcome of this political battle.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Here's a question. The school board, or in the case of other city workers, the Mayor or City Counsel hands you a contract and says--"This is what we are paying."
Do you get the opportunity to discuss or negotiate it?
Several of the Libertarian, Tea Party, and Anti-Union Conservatives say that everyone who is hired is paid based on individual negotiations between the employer and the employee. They say there is not need for a third party (the Union) to come between those two individuals.
That is true in white collar jobs where job offers are often met with counter offers. I've received more pay than the offered fee by negotiating on occasion.
On far more occasions the offer is set, and there is no room for change. This is especially so in blue collar jobs. When my wife's contract comes up every year, she is given a form letter that says, "You are being paid X. These are the rules you agree to work by. Sign here or refuse and we will know to get you a replacement."
If an individual wants to negotiate does the district or an employer have to listen, or can they state their demands and require everyone to comply of be fired.
Tstorm, you mention that the system is very convoluted. Its difficult to imagine you have the time or knowledge to determine what the legalese of your contract really means. Unions have lawyers that check the legalese of the contract before agreeing to it. The Superintendent of the school had his contract run by his lawyer before he signed it. Yet most teachers can't afford to run their contracts by a lawyer. They just take it on faith that the district is being honest.
I wonder if there is a market for an Employment Contract Lawyer. They would be paid about 1/2 of average Union Dues, plus a percentage of any law-suit settlements they would gather from the employer and would represent you in individual contract bargaining. Basically, they would get several teachers or other employees signed on to their plan and represent them all--individually.
The result would be that a Lawyer who is most compensated by keeping his clients employed and suing the employer for unfair labor issues, etc. Would make the employers kind of wish for simple to work with Unions.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Here's a question. The school board, or in the case of other city workers, the Mayor or City Counsel hands you a contract and says--"This is what we are paying."
Do you get the opportunity to discuss or negotiate it?
Several of the Libertarian, Tea Party, and Anti-Union Conservatives say that everyone who is hired is paid based on individual negotiations between the employer and the employee. They say there is not need for a third party (the Union) to come between those two individuals.
*edit for clarity* In my state the answer is No. Not only that, but if a union can show you have a community of interest with their union then you must join the union. You can appeal it and then you have to go to arbitation, where the arbiter will decide what union you do belong in, not necessarily the one who is trying to absorb you.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote:Tstorm, you mention that the system is very convoluted. Its difficult to imagine you have the time or knowledge to determine what the legalese of your contract really means. Unions have lawyers that check the legalese of the contract before agreeing to it. The Superintendent of the school had his contract run by his lawyer before he signed it. Yet most teachers can't afford to run their contracts by a lawyer. They just take it on faith that the district is being honest.
My contract is quite simple -- less than a single typed page, actually. As far as the legalese behind it, you're right. I don't have the time or experience to go through the details. They hand me the contract and there's no room for negotiation.
I'm fairly certain that the administrators at this college have their contracts tended to by lawyers.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm:
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: I predict that no child in the Koch family will ever fail.
I'm no friend of the unions but i cannot help but side with them on this one, since what they're fighting against is worse than them.
By 'what they're fighting against' do you mean the elimination of collective bargaining rights?
The whole thing. A person who is breaking the unions because of what political and corporate forces they stand in the way of. A person who has privatized in unethical ways.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I am kind of tempted to link Maddow, basically confirming I am a terrible person
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
That's pretty clever. I'm surprised they didn't do it sooner. Gives Dems good fodder for a recall campaign against the Gov. in a year, though really, they didn't do anything illegal, or even tricky really, they just did something unpopular. You can argue whether or not it was a bad bill (and I think it was), but I don't think anyone can make an argument that they subverted democracy to do it (and that's an argument I've read in a couple places now). Sometimes you don't have the votes, and you need to let bad legislation pass in order to get the people on your side.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Violation of the state open meetings law, perhaps?
Doubt it will mean much, though. It's not like the Attorney General of Wisconsin (R) will prosecute anyone for that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
This bill was always going to pass. The Democrats couldn't stay away forever. The best possible outcome we could ever have had was to draw enough attention to this that Wisconsin voters will remember what happens when the vote for big-business Republicans when the next go to the polls.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
They should have a state wide general strike, every union. Let the state ground to a halt for a month or so.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sadly, it is illegal in Wisconsin for public sector unions to strike.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
And the bill that passed makes it legal to fire union workers who are absent from their jobs for three days without excuse. Striking doesn't count as an excuse.
The move wasn't illegal, unless, as stated, open meetings laws were violated. But it did expose the lie that the move was for budgetary reasons, since it could not have been voted on this way if it was. It was a union-buster bill, plain and simple.
What will be interesting is whether this will cause a resurgence in nationwide pro-union activity, as unions have been fragmenting of late.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Let me get this straight:
The President announces spending freezes that affect federal employees who have no collective bargaining rights whatsoever, and its ok.
A Republican Gov. attempts to cut costs to the budget by removing collective bargaining rights for health care only, and all of the sudden there is outrage.
I've got to be misunderstanding this entire issue. Someone please set me straight. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You are indeed misunderstanding. Why do you think that all Walker has done is "remov(e) collective bargaining rights for health care only?"
Please tell me you haven't been listening to Fox News. They have been lying about this from Day One.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Just saw this little gem today:
"Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan Link Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Just saw this little gem today:
"Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan Link
Revisionist history regarding Reagan is certainly in vogue right now in the Republican party. But who cares? Just about every notable president has been through that treatment.
Just the other day I saw a bumper sticker that said, "Americans don't run away, apologize, or bow to kings." I couldn't help but think, "Well that rules out Washington (the runner), Clinton (I'm only sorry I got caught), and J. Adams (who bowed to George the III to his face no less.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Revisionist history regarding Reagan is certainly in vogue right now in the Republican party. But who cares?
I'd hope we would.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Revisionist history regarding Reagan is certainly in vogue right now in the Republican party. But who cares?
I'd hope we would.
I wasn't very clear. I didn't literally mean, it was beneath caring about, more, "It happens, what'cha gonna do?"
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, care, for starters. And point these things out when we can.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote:Let me get this straight:
My pleasure.
quote:The President announces spending freezes that affect federal employees who have no collective bargaining rights whatsoever, and its ok.
That is right. He is trying to cut federal spending in ways that are legal and do not remove options from the people. The federal employees do not complain en-mass because most public servants want to help serve the public, and if sacrificing future income helps--they help.
quote:A Republican Gov. attempts to cut costs to the budget by removing collective bargaining rights
But removing collective bargaining rights do not cut costs. It allows the government to require sacrifices from the public servants, or to fire them en-mass. Those options may help balance the budget, but removing collective bargaining does not.
If fact, it will cost several million in federal highway grants. These are lost due to federal law that says any states that remove workers rights from workers during a grant, lose that grant funding. There are multi-millions in highway grants which will be lost because the Republican's would not even allow a small amendment that would have exempted highway department employees.
But I digress.
Every money savings thing that the state could use the lack of collective bargaining to take, was willingly offered by the unions. Pay some for healthcare? Sure. Pay for our own retirement, sure. The governor refused these offers. It was obvious he just wanted to crush the union.
quote: for health care only,
.
Wrong. The bargaining was cut for health care, retirement, safety issues, overtime and mandatory overtime, vacation time, forced time off without pay, etc, etc.
The ONLY thing that they are now allowed to bargain for is salary. And that is capped at the rate of inflation.
So if the union pleads real hard, they can get you the status quo. If they fail, you earn relatively less money every year. If they really fail, you earn physically less money every year. And that is before you are forced to pay more for healthcare, retirement, etc. Take home pay--used for rent, food, medicine, etc will most likely decline over the next few years.
Note, Public Service Unions have good benefits because its easier for elected officials to pay little today and offer big later. They can crow about keeping salaries down.
Now the politicians want to take away those benefits, and cut even more into the public servants pay.
quote:and all of the sudden there is outrage.
You are taking away options from people. There is outrage.
You are breaking contracts with people.
When the government threatened to take away or diminish the giant bonuses made by Wall Street bankers who's banks the government was spending billions to bail out, there was outrage.
"You can do that. You would be breaking a contract."
Some how breaking a contract for a banker who drove the economy to ruin is cause for outrage, while breaking the contract for public servants is cause for celebration.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Well, care, for starters. And point these things out when we can.
My experience has been that people who praise Reagan as the God of Conservatism, often have little interest in *actually* discussing his views and actions as president. They are much more attached to the idea of there being a great president who was perfectly conservative than actually discussing the man, or conservatism as a philosophy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Since when does someone's disinclination to hear the truth diminish our obligation to speak it?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Since when does someone's disinclination to hear the truth diminish our obligation to speak it?
There are many situations when this is the case. As a missionary all you needed to say was, "I don't wish to talk with you." And I was obligated to just let you leave without speaking the truths I was voluntarily there to tell people. Jesus himself said to his missionaries that he sent out, "If your peace return unto you, you shall leave that house." Meaning if your truth is not being received, you are not obligated to keep speaking.
If somebody does not wish to hear the truth, and they are perpetuating a lie, then there is an obligation to state the truth, and disassemble the lie. If somebody tells me something that isn't true, and I indicate that and they don't wish to actually discuss it, then protocol dictates I do not continue talking about it.
If somebody is in a frenzied state of mind and they say something that is patently false, I might be better served to try and calm them, rather than argue the point then and there.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, right now, it is a discussion on the internet.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Well, right now, it is a discussion on the internet.
OK, is there somebody around who is mistaken about Reagan?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The impression that I got from your post was that it was not worth the bother of even mentioning lies about history because people are going to do it anyway. And, yes, I do think that there are people who read this forum who would be surprised at President Reagan's opinion of unions. And that he was the president of a union once.
Of course, it is also worth wondering whether the quote about unions was made before President Reagan had his enormous change of politics but as he was talking about Poland, probably not.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
BB, I do think it's likely that there are conservatives who read this forum who would be unaware of that quote and that stance of Regan's. I also think there are liberals who read this forum who would be interested in hearing the quote purely for the entertainment value it provides regarding this situation and the tendencies of conservatives to invoke Regan all the time. I also think the quote might be of interest to those who later have conversations about this and can have the quote at their disposal to use.
But at root, there's no reason that a conservative can't hear that quote and proceed to think one of two things:
1) I was wrong about Regan, I should probably stop using him as an example of a great conservative.
2) Maybe I'm wrong about unions, if Regan loved them, maybe at the very least I shouldn't hate them so.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The impression that I got from your post was that it was not worth the bother of even mentioning lies about history because people are going to do it anyway...
Which is strange because in that same post I went on to discuss why somebody's bumper sticker was woefully ignorant of history. Can't a guy just throw his hands in the air once in awhile?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Of course. I have been throwing up my hands for most of the thread. I hope I didn't give the impression that we shouldn't do anything, though, futile as it may be.
I didn't realize that you minded the bumper sticker.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Oh, hey, that open meeting laws thing? The courts didn't agree with the GOP that the surprise "special session" invalidated the public notice requirements, and has issued an injunction, barring the newly passed anti-union bill. Well then!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Is anyone still paying attention to this?
It keeps going flat-out weirder and weirder.
here is a blog that talks about something interesting despite unironically using the word 'rethuglican:' the return of McCarthy style witch hunts related to the analysis of this event: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/hi_joe.php
quote:Wisconsin Republicans stunned the nation today when they published Governor Scott Walker’s anti-union bill in seeming violation of a restraining order. The legislation was enjoined from publishing by a judge who ruled that Republicans violated the Open Meeting law when passing it. By publishing their anti-union legislation and turning it into law, Scott Walker and the Republicans may have killed the bill.
quote:But what the Wisconsin Republicans have really done by publishing the anti-union bill is kill their own legislation. By publishing the bill, the Republicans have made it easier to fight in court, because it is now law and hence, can now be permanently overturned.
The Wisconsin State Journal reported:
quote:By doing so, Pines said, the bureau made moot the actions currently before the state Supreme Court and the state Court of Appeals. He said that would actually simplify the case that District Attorney Ismael Ozanne has to make on the alleged open meetings violation by a legislative conference committee, now that he doesn’t have to worry about whether a judge has the authority to stop legislation before it takes effect.
“I suspect that if Judge Sumi was willing to take up a (temporary restraining order) against publication I suspect she’d do the same thing on enforcement (of the new law),” Pines said.
Pines said it also opens up legal channels for other groups who have been waiting to challenge the law but had to wait until it was enacted, like Madison Teachers Inc., which plans to file its own lawsuit on Monday. He said it has not been decided whether MTI will seek a restraining order or injunction barring enforcement of the law.
“This is going to unleash a tsunami of litigation,” Pines said.
The irony here is that they didn’t kill their bill by passing it without the necessary quorum, violating state Open Meeting laws or publishing it in violation of a judge’s order; they killed it with their own hubris. Now that it’s published, it is much easier to have it stopped permanently. It can and will be fought on all of the above grounds as well as countless others — amounting to a “tsunami of litigation” against the anti-union law.
Yup. Or something.
hatrack, y u no talking about wisconsin
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Because more unemployment (and fewer educational opportunities) is just what Wisconsin needs.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
From The Fine Article that kmbboots linked:
quote:After the board meeting, two committees considered the idea of reducing the number of credits needed to graduate from high school. The panels gave a mixed response, which means it’s up to the full board to decide. The committees also considered reducing the number of classes that higher-achieving students can take. There was no action on that idea.
I'm not sure that these measures are a direct result of Walker's actions. It sounds like the budget decisions Wisconsin schools are facing are nearly identical to the issues Kansas schools are facing. The budget issue, for many states, is driving cuts to education.
What irritates me is the choice to take action that reduces the *quality* of education. I suppose kmbboots and I agree on this subject. It would be a cold day in you-know-where (or, a hot day in Wisconsin) when the sports programs were eliminated, rather than the advanced coursework opportunities. I know that I might as well rail against a brick wall on this subject, for all the good that it will do overall, but it still rankles me.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Walker and the Republican Assembly passed 3 bills (2, 3, and 7) all of which reduced the taxes collected and played a large part in creating the budget issue.
Posted by Don Domande (Member # 8287) on :
Is it a direct result? Yes, but not the whole story...there's more to it, of course, but I don't believe that it would have happened without Walker's actions. I am a teacher in the Kenosha district who was just let go - and in my case, no chance to be rehired because of the type of contract I was on.
Here's a quote from the news release by the district's Superintendent:
*********
quote: A $555 per pupil reduction in state aid resulting from the governor’s Budget Repair Bill, a $10.96 million structural deficit, the loss of federal programs totaling $6.8 million, and $3.8 million to provide for necessary budget increases will result in a $29 million budget deficit for the 2011/2012 school year. KUSD did anticipate some reductions in funding, but, like other school districts throughout Wisconsin, the reduced revenue is greater than anyone expected. “There’s no doubt significant cuts will have to be made”, said Dr. Michele Hancock, KUSD Superintendent of Schools.
The credit reduction is more than it might seem. It is not only an attempt to reduce the number of credits that is required for graduation, it reduces the number of credits ALLOWED to be taken by students. The specific application of the policy would be that all students in high school would be required to take a "study hall", but not required to be at school during that study hall. So students who already had their 7 credits for that semester would then not be allowed to add anything else (such as art or music). This then further reduces the number of staff needed as those class sizes go down with the added "benefit" of not needing a certified teacher to supervise a study hall.
A total of 375 layoff notices were issued in the district, and all teachers working on a letter of appointment (generally those who were hired while finishing state certification if they were originally certified outside of the state, or had been out of teaching for a while) were dismissed without possibility of recall (this number not included in the 375 layoff notices). There were 109 teachers in the district on these letters. 212 positions will be cut from those 375 layoff notices, but it's unclear whether those will include teachers who retire and are not replaced.
It's a tough time to be a teacher right now - I just moved up to Wisconsin from Illinois because of the problems Illinois was having with education, and Wisconsin seemed much more stable - and it was when I moved up here less than a year ago...
[ April 21, 2011, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: Don Domande ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The credit reduction is more than it might seem. It is not only an attempt to reduce the number of credits that is required for graduation, it reduces the number of credits ALLOWED to be taken by students. The specific application of the policy would be that all students in high school would be required to take a "study hall", but not required to be at school during that study hall. So students who already had their 7 credits for that semester would then not be allowed to add anything else (such as art or music). This then further reduces the number of staff needed as those class sizes go down with the added "benefit" of not needing a certified teacher to supervise a study hall.
Well, that's a novel way to cut costs: abdication from your own time coverage requirements.
Who wants to bet most of the 'study halls' are desired at first or last period?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My nieces are in that district and are losing some great teachers and classes. They love school and were in tears.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i hate to watch this accelerated collapse. Which state is next? Do we have to guess?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: i hate to watch this accelerated collapse. Which state is next? Do we have to guess?
Not Utah, we already gutted our educational sector.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Massachusetts appears to be holding steady. Which means "fringe" services are getting trimmed. A wealthy Boston suburb cut all it's school librarians from elementary and middle schools, replacing them with library assistants/volunteers.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention: Walker's going after libraries here, too. Our local library's had its budget cut by 40%.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, just to resurrect this:
Justice Bradley, one of two women on the court, is accusing Justice Prosser, the Republican justice who was narrowly re-elected after serious investigation into voter fraud, of wrapping his hands around her neck and choking her after she demanded he leave her office during a heated argument about the competence of the Chief Justice (the other woman on the court), whom Prosser detests and has sworn to destroy. Apparently this was witnessed by at least five other people, including other justices, but at least two of them are saying that Bradley attacked Prosser first in some way.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Those of you interested in recalling Scott Walker, be careful of what you sign.
You can sign more than one petition if they are for different organizations. If you think you have been scammed, you can also sign at the offices.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Those of you interested in recalling Scott Walker, be careful of what you sign.
You can sign more than one petition if they are for different organizations. If you think you have been scammed, you can also sign at the offices.
Maybe I missed it, but where do these few individuals claim to even be associated with the tea party? The title says the "Tea Party" plans premeditated felony, as if there is a large portion of the millions of tea party supporters who are planning on getting people to sign fake petition which they will then destroy.
The activity they are engaging in is classic trolling, not premeditated felonious behavior. They were "caught" making jokes, jokes of poor-form, true, but still jokes. One in particular seems like he has the potential to actually follow through with his "plan" but the biased manner in which this is being "reported" by politiscoop is ridiculous.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
BTW, since it appears that a coordinated FUD campaign has been launched against Politiscoop in an attempt to isolate the people calling for petition fraud from the Tea Party proper (per capax), they've actually written two articles about that.
(Let me note, by the way, that I don't usually recommend Politiscoop as a source, since they're waaay too comfortable jumping to semi-slanderous conclusions. They're considerably too nakedly partisan for me. I'm just using them here because there's a narrative thread.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Update: we managed to get significantly over a million recall signatures for Walker, more than twice what's needed to actually initiate a recall election. Even assuming that a good chunk of the signatures are duplicates or fakes, it's safe to assume that more than a quarter of the state signed a petition to recall him.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Now you just need a small hop over twice that many!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Update: we managed to get significantly over a million recall signatures for Walker, more than twice what's needed to actually initiate a recall election. Even assuming that a good chunk of the signatures are duplicates or fakes...
Does it bother you at all to be allied with people who care more about getting their guy into power than they do about... you know... respecting laws and actual representative democracy?
I'm trying to think of a way to ask this question that sounds less jerk-y, and failing. So, I know I sound like a jerk, but I'm genuinely wondering because this seems so odd. From what I've seen of you here you seem like a principled, decent guy, and yet election fraud (to me) is really despicable.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Don't you think he meant assuming for the sake of argument?
But even if not, it seems to me that a small amount of fraud is probably inevitable, and not to big a price to pay for getting something done that clearly has strong popular support anyway. The reason we have democracy is so that the government can act in accord with the wishes of the populace, and it's hard to argue that that's not what's happening.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Does it bother you at all to be allied with people who care more about getting their guy into power than they do about... you know... respecting laws and actual representative democracy?
As many conservatives have been proudly posting about signing petitions with fraudulent names and/or fraudulently obtaining petitions to remove names from lists (and thus indirectly encouraging multiple signatures), I don't believe most of the signatures that'll be challenged are the fault of the people on my side of the issue.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Destineer: He seemed oddly confident about it, in a way that, to me, sort of implied a lack of concern or even approval.
However...
Tom: That makes much more sense! My faith in you as a decent person is restored. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Does it bother you at all to be allied with people who care more about getting their guy into power than they do about... you know... respecting laws and actual representative democracy?
Dan, Every petition ends up with a certain number of duplicate and unverifiable (fraudulent) signatures. There are many reasons for this that have nothing to do with disrespect for the law or the honesty and integrity of those who are circulating the petition.
Some of the common reasons a person might sign a petition more than once include:
1. They forgot they had already signed. 2. They thought it was a new or different petition from the one they signed earlier. 3. The person doesn't recognize there is a problem with signing the petition more than once.
When a petition is widely circulated for several months, those honest mistakes, which might seem improbable to you, become highly probable. If you had signed a petition at a fair in October, would you necessarily remember that when you were asked to sign the same petition at a shopping mall in December? If you remembered, would you be certain it was actually the same petition drive? As I understand it, it's completely legal to sign a petition a second time if its being circulated by a different organization, but when all the signatures are tallied, one persons signature can only be counted once. That means some duplicate signatures didn't break any law. If over a couple months, several different organizations asked you to sign the petition, might you be confused over which ones you could sign legitimately?
Some of the common reasons that signatures are found to be invalid which do not equate to deliberate fraud on the part of those who circulated the petition include.
1. A signer has moved since they signed the petition so their contact information is no longer valid. 2. The signer's contact information is illegible or contains some unintentional mistake such as the transposition of digits. 3. The signer deliberately puts down incorrect contact information perhaps out of a concern about privacy or to avoid the social embarrassment of saying no. 4. A signer did not realize they had to be a registered voter in a particular area. 5. A signer was a resident in the area at the time they signed but they have since moved out of the area. 6. Some people smart asses who think its funny or clever or something to sign as "Fred Flintstone", "Karl Marx" or "John Hanncock".
There is no reason to assume that the existence of duplicate and invalid signatures on a petition indicates an attempt at fraud on the part of the organizers or supporters. But even if it did, why do you think Tom should be bothered by the fact that his political views were shared by some unscrupulous people?
In any sizable organization or movement, you are going to find at least a few unscrupulous people and a few idiots. Their presence alone is not an indication of the worthiness of a cause or legitimacy of a position.
If you had been opposed to the recall movement, how much would it have bothered you that a few opponents were on record promoting fraud to prevent the success of the petition?
[ January 18, 2012, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I suppose I'll have to register now. Anyone know when the cut-off is to register to be able to vote in the recall election? I've lived here for about 3 months now, I'm pretty sure I'm eligible.
Hobbes Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Does it bother you at all to be allied with people who care more about getting their guy into power than they do about... you know... respecting laws and actual representative democracy?
Dan, Every petition ends up with a certain number of duplicate and unverifiable (fraudulent) signatures. There are many reasons for this that have nothing to do with disrespect for the law or the honesty and integrity of those who are circulating the petition.
Some of the common reasons a person might sign a petition more than once include:
1. They forgot they had already signed. 2. They thought it was a new or different petition from the one they signed earlier. 3. The person doesn't recognize there is a problem with signing the petition more than once.
When a petition is widely circulated for several months, those honest mistakes, which might seem improbable to you, become highly probable. If you had signed a petition at a fair in October, would you necessarily remember that when you were asked to sign the same petition at a shopping mall in December? If you remembered, would you be certain it was actually the same petition drive? As I understand it, it's completely legal to sign a petition a second time if its being circulated by a different organization, but when all the signatures are tallied, one persons signature can only be counted once. That means some duplicate signatures didn't break any law. If over a couple months, several different organizations asked you to sign the petition, might you be confused over which ones you could sign legitimately?
Some of the common reasons that signatures are found to be invalid which do not equate to deliberate fraud on the part of those who circulated the petition include.
1. A signer has moved since they signed the petition so their contact information is no longer valid. 2. The signer's contact information is illegible or contains some unintentional mistake such as the transposition of digits. 3. The signer deliberately puts down incorrect contact information perhaps out of a concern about privacy or to avoid the social embarrassment of saying no. 4. A signer did not realize they had to be a registered voter in a particular area. 5. A signer was a resident in the area at the time they signed but they have since moved out of the area. 6. Some people smart asses who think its funny or clever or something to sign as "Fred Flintstone", "Karl Marx" or "John Hanncock".
There is no reason to assume that the existence of duplicate and invalid signatures on a petition indicates an attempt at fraud on the part of the organizers or supporters. But even if it did, why do you think Tom should be bothered by the fact that his political views were shared by some unscrupulous people?
In any sizable organization or movement, you are going to find at least a few unscrupulous people and a few idiots. Their presence alone is not an indication of the worthiness of a cause or legitimacy of a position.
If you had been opposed to the recall movement, how much would it have bothered you that a few opponents were on record promoting fraud to prevent the success of the petition?
Excellent points I hadn't considered, Rabbit. I don't sign many petitions, so those issues just didn't occur to me.
I am opposed to the recall movement, though not ardently so. Perhaps it would be better to say I have no problem with the recall movement itself, but I generally think Walker has accomplished some laudable successes and hope he is not recalled.
That being said, I have nothing but contempt for the conservatives who tried to sabotage the recall movement, and I'm frankly a bit ashamed to share any of their views. When terrible people share my views, I find it necessary to analyze why and figure out if I am mistaken.
In this case I suspect a lot of them are people who are scared that Walker's opponents are going to use underhanded tactics to get him recalled, and are trying to fight fire with fire. I think that's a terrible approach to take. It doesn't excuse their contemptible actions, either. But it does mitigate my opinion of them as human beings a little bit.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm not especially comfortable with recall movements outside of incredibly egregiously bad behavior. I see how many prime ministers Japan has chewed through, and think how could anyone get anything done when people are used to just recalling them at the relative drop of a hat?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Whether or not it is good to get things done is dependent on what the things are that they are doing. If you are keeping someone from getting bad things done, that is a good thing.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I admit sympathy for BB's point. Recall, impeachment, etc... seem to me methods for dealing with something much more serious than policy disagreements. Even if I actively wished for a leader to be ousted, I would not support a movement to do so before his or her term was up unless their conduct made their authority questionable. Uncosnitutional actions, evidence of significant dishonest in their campaign and the like I would consider reasonable cause to recall. All that said I haven't made up my mind about Walker, I need to learn a lot more, but I do hope to at least be able to vote when the time comes.
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Could be we are just more accustomed to ousting governors here in Illinois. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Perhaps it would be better to say I have no problem with the recall movement itself, but I generally think Walker has accomplished some laudable successes and hope he is not recalled.
*Wishes there was a puking smiley.* Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Perhaps it would be better to say I have no problem with the recall movement itself, but I generally think Walker has accomplished some laudable successes and hope he is not recalled.
*Wishes there was a puking smiley.*
It would get way too much use.
Wasn't somebody complaining about how rude the eye-rolling smiley is? A puking smiley would be so much worse.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's never going to be worse than the smiley flipping you off.
But anyway, which are the laudable successes of walkers that you speak of?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: It's never going to be worse than the smiley flipping you off.
But anyway, which are the laudable successes of walkers that you speak of?
Well, I'm at work, so don't really have time to go digging up lots of details, and I'll admit that I haven't been following it closely. But from what I've heard, he slashed the budget deficit, damaged the strength of the public sector unions, accomplished some degree of public sector pension reform, and... yeah, those are the big ones. Seems pretty laudable to me.
Edit: Wow, top page, really? I don't necessarily want to start a huge pile-on debate here...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
See, at least two of those would be bad things.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I disagree. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Dan, do you think there shouldn't be unions?
I can understand the point of view of "right to work" types, but Walker's stuff seems to go beyond that. It seems like public employees' right to join a mutually beneficial club, and act collectively under the auspice of such a club, has been curtailed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I've lived here for about 3 months now, I'm pretty sure I'm eligible.
Speaking of which, you need to look me up so I can buy you dinner. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But from what I've heard, he slashed the budget deficit, damaged the strength of the public sector unions, accomplished some degree of public sector pension reform...
He has done two of those things. Namely, he has damaged the strength of public sector unions and stolen $2200/year from my family by increasing the cost of my wife's pension. He has miserably failed to slash the "budget deficit" here in Wisconsin, however.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I've lived here for about 3 months now, I'm pretty sure I'm eligible.
Speaking of which, you need to look me up so I can buy you dinner.
I'd love to get together with you Tom, perhaps sometime soon? It's been a while since I e-mailed you, is the e-mail in your profile a good one to use?
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Absolutely. *grin*
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: But from what I've heard, he slashed the budget deficit, damaged the strength of the public sector unions, accomplished some degree of public sector pension reform...
He has done two of those things. Namely, he has damaged the strength of public sector unions and stolen $2200/year from my family by increasing the cost of my wife's pension. He has miserably failed to slash the "budget deficit" here in Wisconsin, however.
Is "stolen" the best word to use there, Tom?
I try to be a respectful poster, here, because I think it promotes better discussions. For example, I don't refer to taxation as theft. Although taxation is compulsory, and I'm philosophically opposed to it, it's patently not theft, and using hyperbole like that just makes me seem like an ass.
I'm sorry that your family budget has been negatively impacted by Walker's decisions. I hope you understand, and are not offended by the fact, that I don't think that your budget is actually a deciding factor in whether or not a policy was successful.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Dan, do you think there shouldn't be unions?
I can understand the point of view of "right to work" types, but Walker's stuff seems to go beyond that. It seems like public employees' right to join a mutually beneficial club, and act collectively under the auspice of such a club, has been curtailed.
If that was all a union was, I would not have any problems with unions.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
You're really opposed to taxation, period? Really?
quote:If that was all a union was, I would not have any problems with unions.
That really is all a union is, together with some "rules of the game" of negotiation between unions and employers, which were settled upon over the course of a tumultuous and violent period in history.
If you don't think there should be such rules, I suppose that's a position someone could take, but I think it's pretty hard to deny that in the absence of such rules, things tend to get extremely ugly between workers and their employers.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*Why* do you think he went about weakening unions? And, hey, which unions did he weaken? Was it all, or some?
Note that you didn't refer to slashing the budget deficit. What do you know about Walker for yourself, that you haven't 'heard'?
[ January 18, 2012, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: You're really opposed to taxation, period? Really?
You may not have seen me expound on this before, but... In principle, I am essentially an anarcho-capitalist. However, I believe that the best way to positively affect change is through tentative, incremental progress.
I don't want to smash the state, or any of that other crap that so many libertarians and anarchists rant about. I would, however, love to see slow, deliberate steps in this direction. If someone seriously proposed eliminating taxation tomorrow, I would oppose it. But if they wanted to reduce taxation, I would more than likely support it.
Does that make sense? I mean you disagree and all, but do you understand better where I'm coming from?
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:If that was all a union was, I would not have any problems with unions.
That really is all a union is, together with some "rules of the game" of negotiation between unions and employers, which were settled upon over the course of a tumultuous and violent period in history.
If you don't think there should be such rules, I suppose that's a position someone could take, but I think it's pretty hard to deny that in the absence of such rules, things tend to get extremely ugly between workers and their employers.
But then we had the government stepping in on the side of the companies, with the National Guard busting strikes and so on. That's no better! But it's also not accurate to say that it was a situation where the government's only involvement was to ensure no crimes were committed by either side, and otherwise remain uninvolved.
It's pretty clearly way more than just a special club. Outside right-to-work states, even if you decline to join the special club you still have to pay them.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: *Why* do you think he went about weakening unions? And, hey, which unions did he weaken? Was it all, or some?
Note that you didn't refer to slashing the budget deficit. What do you know about Walker for yourself, that you haven't 'heard'?
I'm not sure what you mean. I freely acknowledge that I'm not an expert on the man. I read that the state budget went from a significant deficit to a projected surplus. Of course, I'm well aware of how many "projected surpluses" are phantoms and have little basis in reality, so if Tom has some compelling evidence that this surplus is just as ghostly, I'm quite happy to see it. It wouldn't surprise me.
I responded to the other two issues because they were the issues people primarily argued with me about. Is there some reason you have "heard" in scare quotes?
You've edited your post, so, I'll add: Is this a quiz? I believe he weakened teacher's unions, which are (at least in most states, once again, I don't live in Wisconsin, so perhaps I'm wrong there) some of the most bloated, mismanaged and racketeering unions in the country. But maybe the articles I read just focused on teacher's unions, and he actually weakened them all. I really, truly, have not studied the man's activities in detail. I sort of get the impression that this fact offends you, which is baffling. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: Does that make sense? I mean you disagree and all, but do you understand better where I'm coming from?
Yes, my uncle is also an anarcho-capitalist. In my experience, it takes a lot of optimism, about human nature and other things.
I don't think it's a bad idea in principle. I can imagine alien species for whom anarchism would work very well. They'd have to be very hard to kill, and much less dependent on resources and shelter than we are, though. Maybe after the Singularity we'll be like that.
What I really don't understand is the idea that anarchism is some sort of basic moral principle that applies to all free intelligent beings, no matter how they're put together. I mean, what if people were so constituted that we'd die if we didn't get handshakes from ten different people every day? Would it then be your right to refuse to shake my hand, even though it would kill me, because you have perfect sovereignty over your own autonomous self?
When you think of what it would mean for libertarian principles of government to count as basic ethical principles, it becomes completely absurd.
quote:But then we had the government stepping in on the side of the companies, with the National Guard busting strikes and so on. That's no better! But it's also not accurate to say that it was a situation where the government's only involvement was to ensure no crimes were committed by either side, and otherwise remain uninvolved.
Some of the worst massacres were committed by private detective agencies directly employed by the companies, like in Ludlow. (I'd link to the wikipedia page if it wasn't blacked out.) Sometimes government troops were cheaper or more convenient, but even when they weren't there was plenty of violence.
quote: It's pretty clearly way more than just a special club. Outside right-to-work states, even if you decline to join the special club you still have to pay them.
Like I said, I basically agree with the right to work perspective under ideal conditions, although I wouldn't vote for a right to work law because the resultant fallout would have bad effects under present conditions.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
My standard one-liner against right-anarchism is: maybe that would work if it took 100 people working together to kill someone. Given that it's more like it takes 100 people working together to keep someone alive, I don't see the appeal.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote: Does that make sense? I mean you disagree and all, but do you understand better where I'm coming from?
Yes, my uncle is also an anarcho-capitalist. In my experience, it takes a lot of optimism, about human nature and other things.
I don't think it's a bad idea in principle. I can imagine alien species for whom anarchism would work very well. They'd have to be very hard to kill, and much less dependent on resources and shelter than we are, though. Maybe after the Singularity we'll be like that.
Heh. You're messing with me, but I do genuinely think that our amazing advancements make anarcho-capitalism all the more feasible. I think it's more feasible now than it would have been in 1900, or than it was when I was a kid, or even than it was ten years ago. And the more we advance, the more I see it as a possibility. But yeah, like your uncle, I am pretty optimistic.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: What I really don't understand is the idea that anarchism is some sort of basic moral principle that applies to all free intelligent beings, no matter how they're put together. I mean, what if people were so constituted that we'd die if we didn't get handshakes from ten different people every day? Would it then be your right to refuse to shake my hand, even though it would kill me, because you have perfect sovereignty over your own autonomous self?
When you think of what it would mean for libertarian principles of government to count as basic ethical principles, it becomes completely absurd.
But if I have a moral obligation to shake your hand, then I am morally bound by whoever crosses my path wanting to shake my hand. What if I get stuck somewhere shaking hands and lose my job and then starve? Or just starve because too many people are passing by and I can't get away from them because of all the handshaking?
More seriously, when you indicate that someone has the moral right to another person's labor, you're chaining him to that person against his will. Here's an example a friend of mine emailed to me earlier today, on a different but surprisingly related topic:
- A rich man owns an orchard with oranges - A poor man wants some to feed his kids - The rich man says no - People claim the rich man is bad, guilty, etc
And, here's the kicker:
- The more children the poor man chooses to have, that the rich man denies his oranges to, the more guilty the rich man is.
This seems far more untenable and absurd to me.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:But then we had the government stepping in on the side of the companies, with the National Guard busting strikes and so on. That's no better! But it's also not accurate to say that it was a situation where the government's only involvement was to ensure no crimes were committed by either side, and otherwise remain uninvolved.
Some of the worst massacres were committed by private detective agencies directly employed by the companies, like in Ludlow. (I'd link to the wikipedia page if it wasn't blacked out.) Sometimes government troops were cheaper or more convenient, but even when they weren't there was plenty of violence.
But even when the Government wasn't using their troops to support the companies, they had clearly thrown their lot in with them. The fact that the companies were able to employ private agencies to kill their employees and not fear massive Government reprisal sort of speaks to this, doesn't it?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: My standard one-liner against right-anarchism is: maybe that would work if it took 100 people working together to kill someone. Given that it's more like it takes 100 people working together to keep someone alive, I don't see the appeal.
I laughed. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Heh. You're messing with me, but I do genuinely think that our amazing advancements make anarcho-capitalism all the more feasible. I think it's more feasible now than it would have been in 1900, or than it was when I was a kid, or even than it was ten years ago. And the more we advance, the more I see it as a possibility.
That's certainly true, it's a matter of degree. It could be that we're closer now than we were then, due to technology and infrastructure, although that also depends on how badly we've damaged the environment, how close we are to exhausting fossil fuels, etc. It's a very tough empirical question.
ETA: And with all our technology, it's still just as hard as it ever was to be flat broke and quadriplegic.
quote:But if I have a moral obligation to shake your hand, then I am morally bound by whoever crosses my path wanting to shake my hand.
That doesn't follow at all. For example, if someone has already had his ten shakes in a given day and you know that, you have no obligation. And if you live in a city where the law says you shake ten hands a day and you're done, and there's someone else nearby who hasn't yet fulfilled their handshaking duties for the day, you'd also be off the hook. (And also, obviously, if you need to do something else to preserve your own life.)
There are all sorts of systems we could work out to solve the problem of who shakes whose hand. The point is that, if the world worked that way, it would be wrong of us not to at least work out a system. We'd be letting people die, and gaining nothing of comparable worth by allowing that.
quote:More seriously, when you indicate that someone has the moral right to another person's labor, you're chaining him to that person against his will. Here's an example a friend of mine emailed to me earlier today, on a different but surprisingly related topic:
- A rich man owns an orchard with oranges - A poor man wants some to feed his kids - The rich man says no - People claim the rich man is bad, guilty, etc
And, here's the kicker:
- The more children the poor man chooses to have, that the rich man denies his oranges to, the more guilty the rich man is.
This seems far more untenable and absurd to me.
Huh. To me it has the ring of simple common sense. You don't just walk by when you see someone drowning. Not even if they stupidly jumped in themselves.
Of course the rich man becomes "more guilty" if there are more hungry kids around he's not helping. The moral law becomes more demanding when we're surrounded by bad circumstances. That's obvious. If you're in a bad war (even as a civilian), you must be willing to make terrible sacrifices. If there's a bad epidemic, you may have to quarantine yourself. Similarly, if there are starving people around, you have moral obligations to them that wouldn't arise if they weren't starving.
[ January 18, 2012, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:But even when the Government wasn't using their troops to support the companies, they had clearly thrown their lot in with them. The fact that the companies were able to employ private agencies to kill their employees and not fear massive Government reprisal sort of speaks to this, doesn't it?
Right, but why is that relevant? Would they have any reprisal to worry about under your preferred system? A union militia perhaps, but who would have more money for better guns? (The "detectives" at Ludlow used an armored car with a machine gun.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Is "stolen" the best word to use there, Tom?
Yes. She signed a contract under certain terms. She has neither renegotiated nor accepted any changes to that contract, but they changed that contract anyway. The contract would be legally binding, except that -- because she was paid by the state -- the state simply changed state law so it didn't matter.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:A rich man owns an orchard with oranges - A poor man wants some to feed his kids - The rich man says no - People claim the rich man is bad, guilty, etc
The problem I have with this, by the way, is that it completely distorts -- by orders of magnitude -- the actual moral question. We are not dealing with individual poor men begging food from individual rich men who work their own orange trees. Heck, this exact hypothetical was demolished by Steinbeck in Grapes of Wrath, where he quite clearly pointed out that masses of the poor were being starved and displaced by bureaucracies that insulated the owners of capital from even seeing the effects of their maximization of profit.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Even leaving the example as it is, though, it's obvious to me--as obvious as it is that 1+1=2--that the dude is obligated to feed the other guy's kids.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't agree. I don't think individuals are necessarily obligated to each other in that way. Taking questions of starvation out of it: my neighbor owns a much better snowblower than I do, because he paid for it. Since he can clear my entire driveway in a couple minutes, a tenth of the time it takes me, is he morally obligated to do it every time there's a heavy snow?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
No, of course not. If you take the morally weighty variable out of the example, of course that can diminish or eliminate the obligation.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Ah, thanks, I couldn't relate to that problem till you made it about snowy driveways. Screw the hungry.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:But even when the Government wasn't using their troops to support the companies, they had clearly thrown their lot in with them. The fact that the companies were able to employ private agencies to kill their employees and not fear massive Government reprisal sort of speaks to this, doesn't it?
Right, but why is that relevant? Would they have any reprisal to worry about under your preferred system? A union militia perhaps, but who would have more money for better guns? (The "detectives" at Ludlow used an armored car with a machine gun.)
Sorry, I may have confused stuff by bringing up An-Cap? I was talking about how I feel about unions in our country, and how unions could change (in our country) for me to feel much more positively about them. So in this context we still have a government and police force and all that jazz. I would rather said government prevent murders and vandalism and assault and so on, but not enforce special privileges for either the union or the employers. Does that make more sense?
Remember: I'm not your uncle. I don't mean that in a mean way, I don't actually know anything about your uncle. I just mean that I don't want to demolish our country or anything. Maybe I actually am your uncle.
If we started making slow progress towards Anarcho-Capitalism, I'd be pleased, but I'd expect things like police and military to be the very last things we got rid of. And at every step of the way, if the changes failed, I'm okay with that too! I don't mind being proven wrong. My optimism could be too great. I'd rather acknowledge I am wrong along the way than end up in a chaotic state of violent anarchy. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Michael is probably to the left of you, actually. He sees the Democrats as the lesser evil these days (mostly because they start fewer, smaller wars).
He does love him some Ron Paul, though.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If you take the morally weighty variable out of the example, of course that can diminish or eliminate the obligation.
How many minutes of my life would someone have to be able to save me before it would become "morally weighty?"
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Michael is probably to the left of you, actually. He sees the Democrats as the lesser evil these days (mostly because they start fewer, smaller wars).
He does love him some Ron Paul, though.
Heh. Ron Paul is freaking insane. I mean, I sort of appreciate that his presence in the primaries has goaded the other Republican candidates into focusing less on terrible So-Con issues and more on limited Gov. issues. I think that's good. But I would never, ever vote for Ron Paul for President. That would be catastrophic.
And that's not just because I'm a warmongering racist bloodthirsty oil-grabbing Neocon when it comes to foreign policy. Ron Paul is too crazy for me on domestic policy, too.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:And at every step of the way, if the changes failed, I'm okay with that too! I don't mind being proven wrong. My optimism could be too great. I'd rather acknowledge I am wrong along the way than end up in a chaotic state of violent anarchy.
I'm happy you feel this way. But here's one thing to notice about your own view. It's not compatible with the notion that liberty (as the libertarian defines it) trumps other moral values. What you're effectively saying is that there are other values we don't want to sacrifice, even if sacrificing them is the only way to achieve a system that completely respects liberty.
Tom, I suppose the answer is that moral weight comes in degrees. Saving someone from spending a brief period engaged in tedious work is nowhere near as weighty as granting them some extra time on this Earth.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Saving someone from spending a brief period engaged in tedious work is nowhere near as weighty as granting them some extra time on this Earth.
But we do not redistribute wealth solely to prevent people from starving; we also do it to give them some freedom from tedious work.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:And at every step of the way, if the changes failed, I'm okay with that too! I don't mind being proven wrong. My optimism could be too great. I'd rather acknowledge I am wrong along the way than end up in a chaotic state of violent anarchy.
I'm happy you feel this way. But here's one thing to notice about your own view. It's not compatible with the notion that liberty (as the libertarian defines it) trumps other moral values. What you're effectively saying is that there are other values we don't want to sacrifice, even if sacrificing them is the only way to achieve a system that completely respects liberty.
Yep! This is actually why I am often a tad reluctant to immediately self-identify to people as a libertarian or an anarcho-capitalist! Because of the assumptions people make about what that means.
So, I'm a Popperian critical rationalist at heart. The Libertarianish tendencies follow from that, not the other way around. So if it turns out I'm wrong about my theories about the best, freest society possible, that's totally okay. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Very sensible. But since you grant the importance of other values besides liberty, I'm surprised you draw the conclusions you do from your example about the rich guy with the orange grove.
If some values are important enough to trump our property rights, why doesn't the health and well-being of a child fall into this category?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Saving someone from spending a brief period engaged in tedious work is nowhere near as weighty as granting them some extra time on this Earth.
But we do not redistribute wealth solely to prevent people from starving; we also do it to give them some freedom from tedious work.
In the United States? I feel like our safety net is pretty near the absolute minimum to provide a basic livelihood. Are you thinking of social security?
Anyway, this gets to a whole family of issues. I don't think what's "my property" is a natural category at all. A system of property rights is something to be constructed by a society so as to benefit its members. Whatever system has the best effects is the one we should settle on. I doubt that a system in which your neighbor is forced to plow your driveway would strike the best balance.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Very sensible. But since you grant the importance of other values besides liberty, I'm surprised you draw the conclusions you do from your example about the rich guy with the orange grove.
If some values are important enough to trump our property rights, why doesn't the health and well-being of a child fall into this category?
It's not about property rights, it's about autonomy.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:It's not about property rights, it's about autonomy.
It's really more about a particular philosophy of autonomy. I value autonomy as well, but I believe that the level of government that allows the most individual autonomy is significantly larger than the level of government that you would like to see because I see many functions of government as increasing my autonomy; or at least my ability to realize that autonomy. The compulsory taxes that fund these services are not, in any strong sense, a real infringement on my sense of autonomy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's one of the strange things about libertarian-leaning ideals on government and economics that a big selling point is that if we did things right, it'd be the best, most liberating system out there. In other words, if it were an ideal version of itself, realized in the actual world.
When this is done, though, almost invariably the comparison is made of the idealized libertarian-leaning system versus actual current systems. In other words, a selling point is supposed to be the idealized version of one versus the often flawed real world application of the other.
That's when the version of reality it's compared to isn't grossly distorted, of course, by your Tea Partiers or your RP fans. Anyway, this comparison which is usually the one I see made has always struck me as both insecure and self-deceptive. One of the reasons I'm so mistrustful of it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:It's not about property rights, it's about autonomy.
It's really more about a particular philosophy of autonomy. I value autonomy as well, but I believe that the level of government that allows the most individual autonomy is significantly larger than the level of government that you would like to see because I see many functions of government as increasing my autonomy; or at least my ability to realize that autonomy. The compulsory taxes that fund these services are not, in any strong sense, a real infringement on my sense of autonomy.
That's one of the strangest things about it. In a hypothetical scenario where government eases out and you have absolute anarcho-capitalism, let's say the structure of it results in the only civilized and safe areas being those where a single entity has purchased a wide swath of land, holds it for its own, and says that you are not permitted on this private property unless you abide by its laws and contribute a percentage of your earnings (lets say anywhere else has sort of degenerated into lawlessness because cities and counties where there were no public services, every inch of land had to have a private owner with corresponding private maintenance and/or permission to use, and absolutely no eminent domain decomposed and experienced collapse because it's really just not workable and crime would balloon quickly and unmanageably where things like security and fire protection was opt-in paid service only). It could basically be a series of microfederalized entities, short any representative democracy, or even be much more incredibly fascist and constraining than what we have now that the libertarians rebel against, but it's magically 'okay' because it holds ownership* of the land after the anarcho-capitalist reboot. It's all square with hardcore libertarian axioms even if the end result is less effective liberty. What.
*Real Ownership. Not, say, the ownership of the land that countries have right now. Because it's government ownership, and that is illegitimate somehow because it has to be to make this experiment work
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Rakeesh & Sam: I'm not really sure if you guys are trying to argue with me, or if you're just using this situation as a convenient time to rail against libertarians.
If the latter, that's cool, I have no problem with that. I've certainly done it myself. Have a blast!
If the former... I don't feel like either of you really understand what I'm saying, and it sort of seems like you don't have any real interest in doing so.
For what it's worth, Destineer, I want to thank you for the conversation so far. You've been really awesome.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I doubt that a system in which your neighbor is forced to plow your driveway would strike the best balance.
Now imagine I'm 80 years old, and on a fixed income. I haven't been able to buy a new snowblower in ten years, and haven't been able to clear my own drive in six. But I still need to get out of my driveway, right?
So, sure, it's not fair to expect my neighbor, who has personally invested in a new snowblower and in his own health, to clear my driveway for me. But if I can't afford to hire someone to clear my driveway, do I have the moral leverage to demand a) free labor to come clear my driveway; or b) funds collected from a large number of people to pay for the labor to clear my driveway? Bear in mind, the alternative might well be my death.
What if the response is that I have a moral obligation, in exchange for public subsidies, to move somewhere that includes snow removal service in its contract?
---------
Now, I know parts of this are ridiculous, but that's intentional. Try mapping this issue onto, for example, the question of whether we should pay recipients of public largesse some amount per child -- and what we can in turn require of those recipients. People keep trying to make issues like these personal -- a rich man refusing to give to a poor man -- but I think that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the real scenario, in which groups which rarely if ever intersect make small but numerous financial demands of each other.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If the former... I don't feel like either of you really understand what I'm saying, and it sort of seems like you don't have any real interest in doing so.
I'll get straight to it: I was interested in talking about this subject with you, though at first I was a bit frustrated that it seemed you were siding with Walker on the basis of second-hand knowledge.
When I asked you about it, it seemed that your take on the issue was second-hand. I'm not sure what you read, or who wrote what you read. The things you listed as reasons to favor the things Walker has done, one of the big ones you said you wouldn't be surprised if it turned out not to be true.
And yet if your certainty of its accuracy is so low you wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be wrong, why mention it as an accomplishment at all? I'm trying to think of a reason for that besides it simply being a thing you approve of, and so you're quicker to believe it. That's not what I think right now, but I can't come up with many alternatives-you can correct me, if you'd like.
His 'budget repair' bill has been met with many legal challenges, he targeted some unions but not others (and one just wonders if the fact that the unions he targeted were also opponents of his had anything to do with it), it's not actually clear he's fixed a budget deficit...anyway
Oh, and if someone had done to your employment agreement what was done to that of Tom's wife, I am frankly very skeptical that it wouldn't feel like stealing to you.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Very sensible. But since you grant the importance of other values besides liberty, I'm surprised you draw the conclusions you do from your example about the rich guy with the orange grove.
If some values are important enough to trump our property rights, why doesn't the health and well-being of a child fall into this category?
It's not about property rights, it's about autonomy.
OK, but then aren't you granting that there are other values that can trump autonomy?
If that's the case, then again, why shouldn't the well being of poor children be one such value?
[ January 19, 2012, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Tom, I'm completely open to the possibility that there might be situations in which I would be morally bad (and a dick) if I didn't help my elderly neighbor plow his driveway.
I agree that the example isn't that analogous to the social welfare situation, but my point was that even looking at the example in isolation, I don't agree with Dan's take on it. In fact, I don't think anyone would agree with his take, if they weren't already committed to a libertarian philosophy and trying to make their judgement about the case fit their overall theory.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Also, I think the example is quite directly analogous to our actual situation, concerning whether we're obligated to donate to charities for the poor.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: If the former... I don't feel like either of you really understand what I'm saying, and it sort of seems like you don't have any real interest in doing so.
I understand that you really believe in anarcho-capitalism, the caveat being that you agree that the world would be forced to introduce it gradually. That you are welcome to being proven wrong, etc etc etc. If the subject is anarcho-capitalism, discussion about the axiomatic oddities and complete unworkability of multiple private land ownership living under the absolute rules of the Non-Aggression Principle setting an absolute cap on permissible social systems and government is par for the course. Because if, ultimately, you don't agree with the absolute unshakeability and feasibility of a world that obeys that principle 100%, so ends the obsession with anarcho-capitalism.
And extrapolating on social systems we have now and applying them as hypotheticals that test the idea of anarcho-capitalism is the only way you would be able to test your socioeconomic ideology, since it's not going to happen in real life outside of idealist communities potentially popping up to test the idea of absolute libertarian ideals.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:If the former... I don't feel like either of you really understand what I'm saying, and it sort of seems like you don't have any real interest in doing so.
I'll get straight to it: I was interested in talking about this subject with you, though at first I was a bit frustrated that it seemed you were siding with Walker on the basis of second-hand knowledge.[
When I asked you about it, it seemed that your take on the issue was second-hand. I'm not sure what you read, or who wrote what you read. The things you listed as reasons to favor the things Walker has done, one of the big ones you said you wouldn't be surprised if it turned out not to be true.
And yet if your certainty of its accuracy is so low you wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be wrong, why mention it as an accomplishment at all? I'm trying to think of a reason for that besides it simply being a thing you approve of, and so you're quicker to believe it. That's not what I think right now, but I can't come up with many alternatives-you can correct me, if you'd like.
I don't get why that's frustrating. I'm not supporting Walker. I haven't donated to his campaign. I can't vote for him. I have not lent him any material support whatsoever. I was asked what my opinion of him was, so I gave it. It wasn't a strong opinion, I said that from the outset. I'm not making ironclad declarations of love for the guy.
I'm only aware of him because of the controversy, and because several people whom I consider to be intelligent and trustworthy have discussed him in their writings. Three of the things mentioned, that seemed positive to me, were the three things I brought up.
Now, as much as I think the people I got this from are smart and all, they aren't economists, so I'm totally open to the possibility that the wool was pulled over their eyes re: the budget. I'm also open to the possibility that the people here were similarly misled about what he did on the budget. Barring actually reading the data myself, I'm not going to draw any final conclusions.
And I don't really plan on reading the data, either, unless someone shoves it in my face. I just don't care about the issue enough. I have a finite amount of time and determining if Walker really cut his state's deficit seems like a poor use of that time.
I was happy to concede the point, though, since obviously nobody here agrees, and I don't know enough on the topic to try and argue it. Should I have simply not brought it up? Sure, I guess. I didn't realize it was so heavily disputed. My previous impression was that he was hated for the way he cut the deficit. If I'd realized it was a controversial assertion, I probably wouldn't have made it.
Believe it or not, I was sort of hoping not to have an argument about it. I mentioned that I vaguely supported Walker and thought he'd achieved some success, Sam wanted to know what I considered laudable successes, and I didn't want to be rude and ignore him.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: His 'budget repair' bill has been met with many legal challenges, he targeted some unions but not others (and one just wonders if the fact that the unions he targeted were also opponents of his had anything to do with it), it's not actually clear he's fixed a budget deficit...anyway
Something being met with legal challenges doesn't exactly automagically mean that it's illegal. I mean, Obama's health reform bill has been challenged in 27 states, but I don't think it therefore follows that it must be unconstitutional.
As far as him targeting unions that opposed him, that's interesting! Of all the stuff here, that's the one that I am actually curious about, and will probably go read up on when I'm not working. Budgetary sleight of hand isn't very interesting, but power-mad government officials punishing their detractors is much juicier.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, and if someone had done to your employment agreement what was done to that of Tom's wife, I am frankly very skeptical that it wouldn't feel like stealing to you.
I feel like I'm having my hands tied behind my back while you and Tom punch me in the face.
If I respond or defend myself, then it will seem like I am belittling his or his wife's situation, and I have zero interest in doing that. I'm really, genuinely sorry to hear about their situation. So... yeah.
PS: Sam, you're still completely talking past me. You really don't understand what I'm saying, and your attitude on this topic doesn't make me too enthusiastic about continuing the discussion. Maybe another time.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How about if it were asked a different way. If you had a contract with a private company and you fulfilled your part of the contract but they decided to pay you considerably less than what you had both agreed to, would you consider that you had been at least cheated?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You don't need to feel sorry for us. But state employees suffered through hiring freezes, salary freezes, and mandatory furloughs for three years prior -- only to be cast, under Walker, as selfish, greedy thugs who'd been coasting on the public dole and costing everyone money. At which point they lost the right to negotiate their contracts even as Republicans in the legislature unilaterally rewrote their contracts for them in ways that were universally less favorable.
The claim that public servants are overpaid is a myth. The claim that the rich are overtaxed is a myth. The claim that the rich are "job creators" to whom most people owe their livelihoods is a myth. The claim that corporations are burdened by excessive tax is a myth. The claim that Wisconsin was a state on the edge of economic collapse is a myth. The claim that Wisconsin's budget improved as a consequence of Walker's cuts is a myth. The claim that Walker's cuts somehow increased corporate investment in Wisconsin (and thus led to job creation) is also a myth.
And by "myth," I mean straight-up "lie." The people promulgating these myths know the truth, but it serves their purposes to spread other narratives. It is possible to do a bit of research on any one of these claims to realize how untrue they are, but the amount of money flowing into the state -- and around the nation -- to ensure that people feel like they already know the truth (when in reality they've just been misinformed by the machine) is making it very difficult to awaken people to the need for that kind of mental investment in accuracy.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How about if it were asked a different way. If you had a contract with a private company and you fulfilled your part of the contract but they decided to pay you considerably less than what you had both agreed to, would you consider that you had been at least cheated?
Sure! Of course. And it sucks that that happened to Tom's wife. I wouldn't be offering so much sympathy if I didn't think that some aspects of the situation were totally lousy.
I think that the actual situation has many more variables than your example, though, Boots, and is not quite so simple. But again... Yeargh. I don't want to do this. Personalizing discussions like this just leads to people getting offended and righteously angry.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Tom, the first couple of myths you mention (about public employees, about corporations being overtaxed, etc.) are vague enough that I am interpreting you to intend them as general statements across the US, not just Wisconsin. Is that the right way to read you?
If so, does the second part of your statement (about these myths being lies spread by people who know the truth but profit from the lies) pertain only to the myths about Wisconsin, or does it pertain to all the myths you mentioned as well?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, you did belittle his wife's situation. I mean, at least towards him-it's a substantial issue to their family, and your response was effectively, "I'm sorry, but it needed to be done." Now I'm not saying this because I'm outraged over that-I don't know the woman after all, so I don't have a personal dog in this hunt. I'm just sayin'...it's not as though you can really claim neutrality. Nor is there anything necessarily wrong with saying, "I'm sorry, it had to be done." But those two stateemnts go together-the apology and the expression of necessity.
quote:I don't get why that's frustrating. I'm not supporting Walker. I haven't donated to his campaign. I can't vote for him. I have not lent him any material support whatsoever. I was asked what my opinion of him was, so I gave it. It wasn't a strong opinion, I said that from the outset. I'm not making ironclad declarations of love for the guy.
There's quite a wide area between 'apathetic' and 'ironclad enthusiastic moral and material support', and one can be in that area and support the guy's policies without in fact being apathetic. I wasn't trying to suggest you were a partisan of his-just that you supported the policies under discussion.
quote:Now, as much as I think the people I got this from are smart and all, they aren't economists, so I'm totally open to the possibility that the wool was pulled over their eyes re: the budget. I'm also open to the possibility that the people here were similarly misled about what he did on the budget. Barring actually reading the data myself, I'm not going to draw any final conclusions.
If this is your opinion (I'm not saying it isn't, or I don't believe you, just clarifying) then I have less of a bone to pick. It just didn't sound like your stance was one of still on or close to the fence while cautiously expressing support/agreement on the basis of budget deficits. Again, if you wouldn't be surprised at all to learn what you've heard was wrong, and what you heard was a part of your support/agreement...why use that as a part of things with such low certainty?
quote:Something being met with legal challenges doesn't exactly automagically mean that it's illegal. I mean, Obama's health reform bill has been challenged in 27 states, but I don't think it therefore follows that it must be unconstitutional.
Of course. Nor did I say it was-it can, however, serve as an indicator that his accomplishments aren't so straightforward.
quote:As far as him targeting unions that opposed him, that's interesting! Of all the stuff here, that's the one that I am actually curious about, and will probably go read up on when I'm not working. Budgetary sleight of hand isn't very interesting, but power-mad government officials punishing their detractors is much juicier.
Budgetary sleight of hand may not be a very sexy scandal, but the reason it's really important when it happens is because budget deficits are such an enormous campaigning point, especially on the right and among Republicans, that what would ordinarily be a little sneaky accounting is in fact more serious.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Budgetary sleight of hand may not be a very sexy scandal, but the reason it's really important when it happens is because budget deficits are such an enormous campaigning point, especially on the right and among Republicans, that what would ordinarily be a little sneaky accounting is in fact more serious.
Rakeesh: I really need to get back to work for a bit, but I just wanted to say... the reason budgetary sleight of hand bothers me less is because the way that our entire government calculates and explains budgets is completely batshit insane and it's almost all sleight of hand of one form or another. Every surplus is "projected" and usually vanishes. A "cut" is really just "we increased spending less than we thought," and the measures we have in place that are supposed to help with this (like the CBO) are laughable.
Also, yes, it's less sexy. But it's really just that the whole way our governments do budgets is rotten damn near to the core. I can, however, see what you mean about this issue being a bigger campaigning point on the right, and thus a bigger deal.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, the first couple of myths you mention (about public employees, about corporations being overtaxed, etc.) are vague enough that I am interpreting you to intend them as general statements across the US, not just Wisconsin. Is that the right way to read you?
I think it's true broadly and in microcosm. Certainly public employees at the federal level are better-compensated, so it's not as universally true, but the cost is hugely overstated in either case.
quote:If so, does the second part of your statement (about these myths being lies spread by people who know the truth but profit from the lies) pertain only to the myths about Wisconsin, or does it pertain to all the myths you mentioned as well?
I think it pertains universally. There are a number of well-known groups who have made it their business -- and their rhetorical strategy -- to insert these lies into the national discourse.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: You really don't understand what I'm saying, and your attitude on this topic doesn't make me too enthusiastic about continuing the discussion.
If talking directly about testing the claims of anarcho-capitalism to you is talking past you because I don't understand what you are saying, clarify your position.
I think I understand your position perfectly. I understand that you are welcome to being proven wrong (at least, apparently, through testing these ideals, if not through hypothetical socioeconomic modeling — this is important because it's usually a big clue-in as to how someone ended up all the way on the absolute extreme end of the free market vs. government debate), that you concede that this is something that would absolutely have to be phased in gradually. That leaves the part where you support a structure which abolishes government entirely. Where the entire legal system — law enforcement, courts, and all other security services, are all necessarily managed by privately run competitors. The questions to ask are about how you think that would work. If, in earnest, you think that sort of situation would truly increase rather than decrease a person's total effective liberties.
Also.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The claim that public servants are overpaid is a myth. The claim that the rich are overtaxed is a myth. The claim that the rich are "job creators" to whom most people owe their livelihoods is a myth. The claim that corporations are burdened by excessive tax is a myth. The claim that Wisconsin was a state on the edge of economic collapse is a myth. The claim that Wisconsin's budget improved as a consequence of Walker's cuts is a myth. The claim that Walker's cuts somehow increased corporate investment in Wisconsin (and thus led to job creation) is also a myth.
And by "myth," I mean straight-up "lie." The people promulgating these myths know the truth, but it serves their purposes to spread other narratives. It is possible to do a bit of research on any one of these claims to realize how untrue they are, but the amount of money flowing into the state -- and around the nation -- to ensure that people feel like they already know the truth (when in reality they've just been misinformed by the machine) is making it very difficult to awaken people to the need for that kind of mental investment in accuracy.
This pretty much needs to be on this page too, +1 or ^ or "this" or whatever.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How about if it were asked a different way. If you had a contract with a private company and you fulfilled your part of the contract but they decided to pay you considerably less than what you had both agreed to, would you consider that you had been at least cheated?
Sure! Of course. And it sucks that that happened to Tom's wife. I wouldn't be offering so much sympathy if I didn't think that some aspects of the situation were totally lousy.
I think that the actual situation has many more variables than your example, though, Boots, and is not quite so simple. But again... Yeargh. I don't want to do this. Personalizing discussions like this just leads to people getting offended and righteously angry.
Don't worry about it being personal. If an employee of a private company would be cheated if the company unilaterally changed the contract, why wouldn't it be cheating a public employee?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: (at least, apparently, through testing these ideals, if not through hypothetical socioeconomic modeling — this is important because it's usually a big clue-in as to how someone ended up all the way on the absolute extreme end of the free market vs. government debate),
So the reason I am at the "absolute extreme end" of this debate is really simple.
I lean slightly towards free markets over government. And I am an optimist.
That's it. That's really all it takes. Something that looks roughly like anarcho-capitalism is an inevitable conclusion from those two points.
I guess I'll add this for clarification: By optimist, I don't mean I have a sunny outlook on life, see the glass as half full, and think everything is just fine and dandy like sour candy. I mean that I think that all problems, every single problem that will ever be discovered in the entire universe, can be solved. I don't know how to solve them all. Hell, I don't personally know how to solve even a tiny fraction of a percent of every conceivable problem. But I think they can be solved.
If this is confusing I can probably go into more detail later.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I lean slightly towards free markets over government. And I am an optimist.
That's it. That's really all it takes. Something that looks roughly like anarcho-capitalism is an inevitable conclusion from those two points.
Hm. I would say that I lean slightly -- strongly, even -- toward free markets over government-controlled markets. And I'm certainly an optimist. And yet I don't think anarcho-capitalism will ever exist as a functional state of affairs, much less a quasi-utopian one.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I lean slightly towards free markets over government. And I am an optimist.
That's it. That's really all it takes. Something that looks roughly like anarcho-capitalism is an inevitable conclusion from those two points.
Okay, I guess there are issues of confusion. You're an anarcho-capitalist, which is pretty literally as far and as extreme as you can go on the sliding scale towards unhindered free market with literally no state apparatus. The axiom at the core of anarcho-capitalism is inviolate over any considerations over whether the system largely improves or degrades people's quality of life, you just absolutely cannot have any government because it is morally wrong. Period. This really does not sound like "lean slightly towards free markets over government (plus optimism)."
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
If it helps you sleep, Sam, you can stop referring to me as an anarcho-capitalist, because it seems like that you're getting hung up on your understanding of that movement. A movement of which I am not a part.
It's sort of the way that I think that objective truth exists, but you should probably not think of me as an "Objectivist," because that will conjure specific, incorrect connotations in your head.
(This also reminds me of how at numerous times on this forum I have said things like "I'm sort of a minarchist/anarcho capitalist at heart, but pragmatically right now I think we should do...")
If you want an axiom I might be willing to stand behind, it'd be something like: "I think that people should have the autonomy to make their own decisions for their lives. In areas where this is difficult or impractical today, I think that a solution nevertheless exists and should be found."
It's not: "Government is evil and we should get rid of it come hell or high water."
Once again... not Ron Paul.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:It's not: "Government is evil and we should get rid of it come hell or high water."
Then you are not an anarcho-capitalist nor do you believe in anarcho-capitalism as a theory or principle. And, to respond to you acting on frustration, I am only 'hung up' on it insofar as that is what you described your beliefs as, and I'm dutifully responding to what that actually means.
To note:
quote: "I'm sort of a minarchist/anarcho capitalist at heart, but ...
minarchism is firmly and and irreconcilably incompatible with anarcho-capitalism. If you look at why, you will probably go "yeah I'm really not an anarcho-capitalist."
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I lean slightly towards free markets over government. And I am an optimist.
That's it. That's really all it takes. Something that looks roughly like anarcho-capitalism is an inevitable conclusion from those two points.
Hm. I would say that I lean slightly -- strongly, even -- toward free markets over government-controlled markets. And I'm certainly an optimist. And yet I don't think anarcho-capitalism will ever exist as a functional state of affairs, much less a quasi-utopian one.
This is interesting, because I definitely think you have a valid point.
I'm reading this a few ways. It sort of seems like you could be saying that you think there will be problems that cannot be solved, and thus we will always have to use force to ensure X minimum standard. Which would lead me to believe you're simply not as much of an optimist as me, maybe? That'd be fair.
Another could be that you think that using force on people to ensure X minimum standard is a viable solution to certain problems. In which case you're just as much of an optimist, but then I disagree as to what is the best possible solution to the problem, because I think a better solution than force would be voluntary persuasion via argument.
It's also very possible (or likely!) that I have totally misread you and the place of divergence is somewhere else. That's cool too. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:It's not: "Government is evil and we should get rid of it come hell or high water."
Then you are not an anarcho-capitalist nor do you believe in anarcho-capitalism as a theory or principle. And, to respond to you acting on frustration, I am only 'hung up' on it insofar as that is what you described your beliefs as, and I'm dutifully responding to what that actually means.
To note:
quote: "I'm sort of a minarchist/anarcho capitalist at heart, but ...
minarchism is firmly and and irreconcilably incompatible with anarcho-capitalism. If you look at why, you will probably go "yeah I'm really not an anarcho-capitalist."
Okay, so, again, I'm not actually a Minarchist or an Anarcho-Capitalist in the sense of these terms as cohesive political movements like Democrats or Libertarians. Are you familiar with people who say they are "a small l libertarian" to distinguish themselves from the Libertarian party's stance on issues, and at the same time convey a lot of short-hand information about how they look at government?
I think the endgame of my philosophy looks pretty indistinguishable from anarcho-capitalism (and the not-quite-as-end-game would look a lot like minarchy!). I've used it in the past as a convenient short-hand, but I will happily concede that it's not totally accurate if you're intimately familiar with what "Anarcho-Capitalists" most commonly are.
This is why I spent so much time trying to stress that the place I differed from Anarcho-Capitalists was in the process of getting there. I clearly need to work on explaining this, though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Okay, so, again, I'm not actually a Minarchist or an Anarcho-Capitalist in the sense of these terms as cohesive political movements like Democrats or Libertarians.
Yes. And, going forward, know that Anarcho-Capitalist doesn't have a sense as a cohesive political movement. It and minarchism are both political philosophies, both strains of libertarianism, and they have a very specific philosophical belief structure. They also have had their respective proponents at each other's throats as philosophical camps.
The only question that really remains is what, short of somehow reaching a minarchist government and then pushing it into statelessness to 'see what happens' and testing the "there is a solution and we can and should find it" theory directly to a real-life application of pure NAP, would convince you that the anarcho-capitalist model is unfeasible? Is there any non-demonstrated model, deriving from what we know now about sociopolitical systems and models, that could do this? Or is it something you are guaranteed to hold in lieu of it being tried and failing?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
So, fair warning, I think that a lot of "what we know" from socio-political systems and models is bullshit. I'm generally really, really wary of the soft sciences (sociology, psychology, etc.) because I think they are really extensively corrupted by terrible philosophy and psuedoscience. And while it might be awesome to get into a discussion of that with you, I don't think I've got it in me right now.
That being said, I also have zero interest in "pushing" into statelessness or anything like that. I think that some sort of quasi-anarcho-capitalist state would be a natural evolution of people getting better and better understanding of epistemology. I think this transition would be aided by better and better technology. I'm more interested in the "people getting better epistemology" stuff than in the "we end up anarcho-capitalists" stuff, because I think that one is really just a consequence of the other.
Soooo I guess to answer your question about what would convince me... here are a few ideas:
You'd need to convince me that wanting people to be able to live autonomously is a bad idea. (I think this is unlikely) -OR-
You'd need to convince me that most people are too stupid to ever get better epistemology (again, unlikely, though if you caught me on a bad day I might agree ) -OR-
You'd need to convince me that no matter how much progress is made and how many problems are solved, there will always be new problems that are critical enough that allowing autonomous individuals to approach them as they see fit will be unsatisfactory and force will be required to ensure the survival of the human race. That last one is the most likely, and, in fact, is something I grapple with frequently.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:"I think that people should have the autonomy to make their own decisions for their lives. In areas where this is difficult or impractical today, I think that a solution nevertheless exists and should be found."
What's the solution for people who are completely paralyzed from the neck down, Dan?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You'd need to convince me that most people are too stupid to ever get better epistemology...
I don't think we'll be able to get sufficiently better epistemology without circumventing our own biology, and perhaps even the laws of causality -- in the sense that we are hard-wired to prefer outcomes that are beneficial to our immediate social sphere, that we are physically incapable of accurately perceiving reality, and are unable to predict the future with anything like the accuracy that'd be required of a truly voluntary, autonomous, and non-predatory lifestyle.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:"I think that people should have the autonomy to make their own decisions for their lives. In areas where this is difficult or impractical today, I think that a solution nevertheless exists and should be found."
What's the solution for people who are completely paralyzed from the neck down, Dan?
So, I just want to say first that if we're going to play a game of "Pose a question about a social problem to Dan and see if he can answer it" then I concede immediately. I've said numerous times I don't think I have all the answers. (Edit: I may have been too defensive here, Destineer, since you have thus far been arguing with me in what I'd consider incredibly good faith, and not trying to create a "Gotcha" moment. So, I apologize if I overreacted.)
That said, I'm also not sure what you mean by this question. Do you mean, how do we help such people be able to exert more autonomy in their lives?
I guess we continue to create better and better mechanisms by which they can interact with the world and achieve independence. Wheelchairs powered by something they can control, like breath or brainwaves, is a good place to start, but we have plenty more totally feasible not-quite-within-our reach technologies too, ones that could radically improve such peoples' lives. My mom is a paraplegic, and it makes me sad to think that it's unlikely she'll live long enough to see advancements like those.
It also helps that as our society advances technologically, mental work becomes more and more valuable, so even without full ambulation via a robot body or whatever a quadriplegic can make a living using his mind and then pay someone to help him with his physical needs.
I'm actually more concerned with people with severe mental handicaps than with severe physical handicaps. It seems like a much more severe debilitation. And it's an area where no really good answers spring to mind.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Sorry, I was alluding to an issue I posed earlier. Namely that, even if we get fancy technological work-arounds for some of these problems, children who are born with them--and without wealth--will just die unless they get assistance.
But you're right, mental disabilities are an even worse problem.
I'm glad you're honest about not being able to answer these questions, but then I don't see why you don't conclude, as I do, that they simply rule out the view you're espousing (unless we permanently upgrade the whole genome, or something similar, to prevent people from ever being born disabled). If there's an existing social problem that can't conceivably be solved under your preferred political philosophy, it's time to go back to the drawing board.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: So, fair warning, I think that a lot of "what we know" from socio-political systems and models is bullshit.
That makes sense. You would absolutely have to, to hold your position.
quote:That being said, I also have zero interest in "pushing" into statelessness or anything like that.
I'm .. pretty sure this doesn't jive with things you have said on the subject of politics and government. Multiple things.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: So, fair warning, I think that a lot of "what we know" from socio-political systems and models is bullshit.
That makes sense. You would absolutely have to, to hold your position.
quote:That being said, I also have zero interest in "pushing" into statelessness or anything like that.
I'm .. pretty sure this doesn't jive with things you have said on the subject of politics and government. Multiple things.
Then either I was unclear then, I was unclear just now, you misunderstood me then, or you're misunderstanding me now.
If people can't be persuaded via argument that less government is a good thing, then I don't think it makes sense to reduce the size of government. You could argue how many people need to be persuaded, and that's a good question. I think a convenient default answer for now would be "however many is necessary to affect a change in our current political system."
So, today, I think in practical terms the size and scope of our government could do with a bit of paring down. In broad strokes, if enough people disagree with me, then we'll probably end up with a candidate who will do that. If not many people are persuaded that this is a good idea, then we won't!
I'm not going to become enraged either way, I think we'll still make progress and debates will still carry forward and perhaps next time more people will be persuaded.
If we're talking about some theoretical future date where we're trying to convince everybody that dissolving the last remnants of authoritarian government is a good idea, we'd probably need to convince an even larger group of people before it could be enacted.
So, I was mostly objecting to your use of the word "Push" which seems to me to indicate making a change regardless of these sort of factors. Like I said, either I misunderstood you, or you misunderstood what sort of change I'm interested in. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I'm glad you're honest about not being able to answer these questions, but then I don't see why you don't conclude, as I do, that they simply rule out the view you're espousing (unless we permanently upgrade the whole genome, or something similar, to prevent people from ever being born disabled). If there's an existing social problem that can't conceivably be solved under your preferred political philosophy, it's time to go back to the drawing board.
It's not clear to me why you think that this existing social problem can't be solved without authoritarian force. I mean, you've already offered one potential solution that would not require the continued existence of a central government(upgrading the genome so that nobody is born with disabilities).
If we don't have a better solution to a problem than the solution we are currently using, I don't advocate abandoning the current solution.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dan, I don't think you're really an anarcho-capitalist. You're primarily, as you put it, an optimist above all, to the extent of being a techno-utopian. Some Christians believe that sound governance is unnecessary because Christ will eventually return and make all our social problems moot; your own position seems to be that eventually the Singularity will happen and we won't need government anymore. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Heh.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
You could be right, Tom.
But I do also think that there are plenty of areas in our current society where we already have better solutions for problems. Solutions that frequently involve scaling back government control and freeing up the market.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would be interested to know what those are.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: It's not clear to me why you think that this existing social problem can't be solved without authoritarian force. I mean, you've already offered one potential solution that would not require the continued existence of a central government(upgrading the genome so that nobody is born with disabilities).
Well, even that wouldn't solve the problem on a true anarchist system, I don't think. Because you know there will always be the occasional sicko who cripples his kids on purpose (psychologically or physically), and there will always be the occasional religious nut who doesn't want "unnatural" genetically engineered babies. And then, if the system is truly anarchist and these people are allowed to make their own reproductive and child-rearing decisions, you will always have some disabled children who are going to die without help.
But I think Tom's read on your position is basically correct. I mean, I too am open to the possibility that anarchy would work very well in some future posthuman epoch. That doesn't make my political philosophy anarchist. My political philosophy is liberal (in the sense that the word gets used in political philosophy), because I believe that no matter what technology, resources and circumstances we're surrounded by, a liberal system would work at least as well as any alternative.
(Although when I put it that way, I'm a little less certain of my views. If every human had the power to telepathically kill anyone with a thought, or something like that, a more authoritarian system than liberalism might well be needed.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But I think Tom's read on your position is basically correct.
I am going to balk and pout needlessly at this. It was me that figured out that dan wasn't actually an anarcho-capitalist. Me. I won't be robbed of my place in the history books.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You'd need to convince me that most people are too stupid to ever get better epistemology...
I don't think we'll be able to get sufficiently better epistemology without circumventing our own biology, and perhaps even the laws of causality -- in the sense that we are hard-wired to prefer outcomes that are beneficial to our immediate social sphere, that we are physically incapable of accurately perceiving reality, and are unable to predict the future with anything like the accuracy that'd be required of a truly voluntary, autonomous, and non-predatory lifestyle.
quote:. The existence of most of the particular cognitive biases listed below has been verified empirically in psychology experiments. Cognitive biases are influenced by evolution and natural selection pressure. Some are presumably adaptive and beneficial, for example, because they lead to more effective actions in given contexts or enable faster decisions, when faster decisions are of greater value for reproductive success and survival. Others presumably result from a lack of appropriate mental mechanisms, i.e. a general fault in human brain structure, from the misapplication of a mechanism that is adaptive (beneficial) under different circumstances, or simply from noisy mental processes.
people who really believe in the just world theory — and by god there's a lot of them — often describe feeling very uncomfortable reading this page. Solutions leading to utopia involve, fundamentally, 'solving' our own innate nature.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Wisconsin will use a chunk of its $140 million share of a national settlement over foreclosure and mortgage-servicing abuses to help the state budget rather than assist troubled homeowners, Gov. Scott Walker and state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said Thursday.
Walker and Van Hollen said the majority of the settlement amount earmarked to Wisconsin under a $25 billion proposed nationwide agreement announced Thursday still would go to aid consumers in Milwaukee and other communities struggling with the specter of home foreclosure.
But of a $31.6 million payment coming directly to the state government, most of that money - $25.6 million - will go to help close a budget shortfall revealed in newly released state projections. Van Hollen, whose office said he has the legal authority over the money, made the decision in consultation with Walker.
"Just like communities and individuals have been affected, the foreclosure crisis has had an effect on the state of Wisconsin, in terms of unemployment. . . . This will offset that damage done to the state of Wisconsin," Walker said.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yes. Yes, it is.
Bear in mind, though, Walker considers it essential to his campaign that he be able to say that Wisconsin did not run a deficit under his leadership. If he has to repurpose money given to help homeowners to make that happen, he will.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm actually curious to see where those cities end up ten, twenty years in the future. Apparently, these gangbuster deconstructions of local government don't have the best reputation, but .. oh well, the state's republicans have given themselves the ability to do this all they want.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
So, the article has me a little confused. What was the $31.6 million going to the state government supposed to be used for?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: My political philosophy is liberal (in the sense that the word gets used in political philosophy), because I believe that no matter what technology, resources and circumstances we're surrounded by, a liberal system would work at least as well as any alternative.
Also responding to this because I just noticed it, Destineer I hope you check this thread.
I 100% agree with you in the above quoted text. If you're looking at liberalism in its proper philosophical context, I'm a liberal. That's why, when discussing contemporary politics, I try (and sometimes fail, to forestall Sam finding quotes of my failures) to avoid using the term "liberal" at all.
I usually try to say leftist, not because I'm trying to be insulting or whatever (I know some leftists don't like the term leftist) but to have something to call them other than liberal (I sometimes say Democrat, too, but not all leftists are Democrats and vice versa, so...)
Fiscal "conservatism," for example, is totally compatible with liberalism, but not with leftism (which gets called liberalism by most conservatives today).
Seems like some people try to resolve this disconnect by using the term "progressive" which has come back in vogue on both sides of the aisle in recent years. I hate this trend too, because I think progress is amazing and I don't think that very much of leftism is actually going to help with the progress of the human species.
Whew, that was a lot of labels in a relatively short space! I hope it wasn't confusing.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Oh hey, and lookit what's going on next door
I'm actually curious to see where those cities end up ten, twenty years in the future. Apparently, these gangbuster deconstructions of local government don't have the best reputation, but .. oh well, the state's republicans have given themselves the ability to do this all they want.
But hey it's okay Sam, Michigan still has the most liberal city in America (that's liberal in the Democrat/Republican dichotomy sense), so they can lead by example! Once the governor sees how well that city's doing, he's sure to change his policies.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That is truly an astonishingly stupid study.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Heh, well, it's certainly terribly crude. It's just the voting demographics of the people in the city, as far as I can tell, rather than an analysis of the policies in said city. The BACVR is based out of Berkeley, so I guess we shouldn't be too surprised.
So, of course, this begs the question... do you think Detroit doesn't have a solid history of leftist policies?
If so, could you elaborate? I mean, it certainly seems that the city does to me, with it's living wage ordinance, high per pupil spending rates, a teacher's union that defends them against things like performance pay, high tax rates, etc.
And if you agree that Detroit is largely an example of a city that instituted a lot of leftist policies, then... well, I guess we agree!
In which case I guess you were just criticizing the study, which I agree was only worth it for the headline. That is to say, it provided a convenient shorthand for me to convey everything in this post, but in just two sarcastic sentences. That's cheap at twice the price, even if it's actual value as a study is pretty negligible.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think Detroit has instituted a lot of "leftist" policies, but I think it's a mistake to look at the state of the city and conclude that the policies in place there are primarily responsible for its dire situation. Consider the "high per pupil spending rates," for example, which are necessary to a) maintain armed police in public schools; and b) attract teachers who have to work somewhere armed police are stationed; it's not clear how many of Detroit's policies are holdovers from a late-'60s era of what seemed like boundless, car-driven prosperity, and how many are last-gasp, desperate attempts to keep their citizens alive after the crash.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tom, that's fair. I think that blaming all of Detroits ills on bad policy (as many on the right do) is definitely a very simplistic view. I don't think they helped, either, of course. But I agree with you that it's a mistake to assume they are the sole driving factor that put it in such a terrible state.
PS: The scare quotes around leftist suggest to me you're one of the people I mentioned above, that see the term as a slur. I don't want to insult you, or anyone else here! Is there a term you personally prefer?
Kate: Wow, that's pretty funny. People find all sorts of wacky conclusions when they jump to them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's not that I think "leftist" is a slur; it's that I think paying a lot of money to put armed guards into schools isn't necessarily leftist.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Oh, yeah, that's fair! It sounds less political and more desperate and terrified.
I get the quotes now, my mistake. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yep. Wisconsin Sailors, Miner, Farmers, and Historical Re-enactors Local 1848
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: WASHINGTON -- A Wisconsin judge declared a state law requiring people to show photo ID in order to be allowed to vote unconstitutional on Monday, issuing a permanent injunction blocking the state from implementing the measure.
"Without question, where it exists, voter fraud corrupts elections and undermines our form of government," wrote Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess in his decision. "The legislature and governor may certainly take aggressive action to prevent its occurrence. But voter fraud is no more poisonous to our democracy than voter suppression. Indeed, they are two heads on the monster."
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
I forgot, is there any ID (not necessarily photo ID) required in order to vote?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As I recall, you did need an ID or someone to vouch for you and proof of residence. Can't check that as their web site still has the photo ID requirement on it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You need to be registered with your state. Other rules vary from state to state. In mine, I just have to tell them who I am (name and address) so they can find me on the list, and then I have to sign on my designated line.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Wisconsin has registration at the the polls.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Ok, thanks.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Oh hey the talk of voter ID's being a form of vote suppression reminds me about an old argument about this issue (maybe it was in this thread? I haven't checked back to confirm).
So, if I remember correctly, the reason voter ID is a form of vote suppression is because even something as ubiquitous as a Driver License costs money and there are scads of driver license-less poor people who will turn out to vote Democrat but can't without an ID, right?
Is that the argument? If I misrepresented it, let me know!
Assuming I did not: It's come to my attention that in virtually all states that have voter ID (certainly in WI, according to the WI DMV website) ID cards for the purposes of voting are free. So... I'm confused how the above argument is in any way compelling, or truly indicates an intent to suppress voters.
I'm also surprised that people were vociferously arguing this issue under the belief that requiring a voter ID would cost money, since it doesn't. Seems like that was an integral part of the opposing argument, so for it to have been wrong surprises me.
Oh! I remember someone mentioning the homeless, I think. So even though it's free, you have to give them an address maybe? Therefore it's still suppressing people!
I don't see details one way or the other on the DMV, so that's plausible.
So are voter ID laws suppression because they keep homeless people with no mailing address from being able to vote?
Do most homeless people (who have no friends or family whose address they could use for the purposes of receiving mail) tend to vote? Is that a big bloc that's being suppressed? And either way, since that's the only bloc that seems to be negatively impacted by voter ID laws, wouldn't an alternate solution be to not require people to provide an address for their voter ID cards?
I mean, we already have the special rule that if it's for voting you don't have to pay the normal fee, why not also say you don't have to give an address, and can instead just come back in 2 weeks and pick it up in person or something?
If we get this covered, then I think the only suppressed voters will be people who can't go into the DMV and get an ID under any circumstance, like because they have no Social Security Number, or because they're dead.
I'm pretty sure it's okay to disenfranchise those guys, though.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:So the reason I am at the "absolute extreme end" of this debate is really simple.
I lean slightly towards free markets over government. And I am an optimist.
That's it. That's really all it takes. Something that looks roughly like anarcho-capitalism is an inevitable conclusion from those two points.
This does not logically follow.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So, if I remember correctly, the reason voter ID is a form of vote suppression is because even something as ubiquitous as a Driver License costs money and there are scads of driver license-less poor people who will turn out to vote Democrat but can't without an ID, right?
For me, it's not the money; it's the time. There are several counties in Wisconsin without a DMV at all, and many DMVs are only open during standard business hours. By putting up even a weak barrier to entry, it suppresses the likelihood of voting among certain populations.
For no good reason, mind, because no one has ever demonstrated any statistically significant voter fraud. Almost all the fraud that occurs is performed by voting officials. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan,
quote:So, if I remember correctly, the reason voter ID is a form of vote suppression is because even something as ubiquitous as a Driver License costs money and there are scads of driver license-less poor people who will turn out to vote Democrat but can't without an ID, right?
I'm not sure if you're being tongue-in-cheek here, but the argument actually is 'Driver's Licenses aren't free, and they are time-consuming to get, and a not-inconsiderable number of eligible voters don't have them, therefore it is not permissible to make them a requirement to vote in order to deal with fraud that actually isn't especially problematic.'
The fact that such voters might be more likely to vote Democrat is just tough S for Republicans, really. I mean, we're not supposed to charge people to vote.
quote:Assuming I did not: It's come to my attention that in virtually all states that have voter ID (certainly in WI, according to the WI DMV website) ID cards for the purposes of voting are free. So... I'm confused how the above argument is in any way compelling, or truly indicates an intent to suppress voters.
Perhaps. I can't speak for other unmentioned forms of Voter ID that are free. Driver's Licenses, on the other hand, aren't. And as others have said, for those who don't already have them and can't limit their interaction with the DMV to 'mail me a renewed license every few years', they can be substantially problematic to get. Hell, DMVs nationwide are practically an avatar for government inefficiency and incompetence.
quote:For me, it's not the money; it's the time. There are several counties in Wisconsin without a DMV at all, and many DMVs are only open during standard business hours. By putting up even a weak barrier to entry, it suppresses the likelihood of voting among certain populations.
Basically this. You're being deceived if you believe voter fraud is, y'know, a serious or even moderate problem in this country as a whole or even states as a whole. Instead of looking into whether it's an outrage that people need a state-issued ID to vote (with an early eye towards 'of course not!'), have you considered the question of how bad voter fraud is to merit changing the system we've got?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:For no good reason, mind, because no one has ever demonstrated any statistically significant voter fraud.
Which is why, as far as I know, none of the voter ID laws of late have passed any real test of having a nonpartisan aim; they've all been strategically implemented in order to try to influence elections through selective pressures of franchisement.
Posted by Sphinx (Member # 10219) on :
quote:It's come to my attention that in virtually all states that have voter ID (certainly in WI, according to the WI DMV website) ID cards for the purposes of voting are free.
As Tom said, time is money.
I'm from Oklahoma, which in 2010 passed a stricter form of Voter I.D. law. Previously, the state issued a registration card to everyone as soon as they registered to vote, and showing that card was all that was needed for voting. Now, Oklahoma requires one of four types of photo identification: driver's license, passport, military identification, or Oklahoma identification card (also called the 'non-driver i.d.').
Military i.d. is obviously restricted. Driver's licenses are less restrictive, but for someone of voting age still require both a monetary investment (cost of the tests, cost of the driving lessons you'll be required to take) and a temporal investment (time spent going to the DMV, time spent on lessons, time spent practicing driving). Passports are less restrictive, but they still require a monetary investment (cost of photos, cost of the application) and temporal investment (time spent at one of the few passport offices, perhaps time spent waiting while official documents are issued by state agencies).
The non-driver i.d. is the least restrictive, in that it doesn't cost any money. However, it still requires the same background documentation as a passport (official birth cert. issued by state agency; official SS card issued by agency). It also requires waiting at an 'official' DMV that can issue one of these cards, which, as was pointed out, is not always easy. I grew up in Glenpool, OK, which is approximately 14 miles from the nearest DMV. And this is Oklahoma--public transport barely exists within the major metro areas, it certainly doesn't exist here. My best bet would be either to ask someone else drive me (taking up their time and gas), to hire a taxi twice (costing money), or to hitch as close as I could (probably about 1.5 miles away) and/or walk (taking lots of my time).
Voter i.d., in Oklahoma at least, is not free. It might not cost money, but it definitely costs something.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Driver Licenses are not ubiquitous. I don't have one. Nor do I have a state ID. Haven't had either for decades. I never had a driver's license. (Not all that uncommon in a city.*) I could get a state ID, but I would have to take a day off work - and, at least here, it isn't free.
Taking a day off work is, for me, possible without losing a day's pay. For many people it isn't and a day's pay is a big deal.
*Another breeding place for Democrats.
ETA: An IL state ID costs $20. Driver's Licenses are $30.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Let me think. State controls where DMV license and non-drivers license ID offices are placed. One party controls the state. Where do you think the DMV offices will go?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
For me the real question is not whether or not requiring an ID to vote is restrictive, it's whether or not its needed.
Requiring voters to show a legal ID is an added restriction on voting. It is more restrictive than many other alternatives. Its not a serious restriction for most people. A legal ID is needed so commonly in our society that almost everyone will have some sort of ID. I get asked for an ID frequently when I use a credit card or right a check. You have to have a legal ID to board an airplane. I've been asked for an ID when I've started a new job, picked up tickets I reserved on the phone or internet, picked up a package at the airport and dozens of other routine things.
But that same list of why most everyone has some sort of legal ID, also reveals the inherent bias in the voter ID laws. Everything for which I need an ID is something I'd be much less likely to do if I were poor or disabled. If you are poor you are far less likely to have a checking account or credit card, get registered mail, order things on the phone or internet, fly, or even hold an above board job. The people who will be affected by this restriction will be overwhelming poor, inner city residents.
If there were a compelling reason to require an ID to vote, I'd think it wasn't an overly burdensome restriction. If there were evidence of a widespread problem with people voting under a false name, then this would be a different discussion. There is no evidence that this is a significant problem. There are at least a dozen documented problems affecting the integrity of our elections that out rank this one such as security of electronic voting machines, unjust removal of names from voting rolls, misleading or confusing ballots, mis-information, spoiled or unreadable ballots, voter intimidation, poll access, and gerrymandering. In my opinion, the number one thing that threatens the integrity of our elections (at every level), is low voter turnout. Low voter turn means that a small but active minority can dominate the political process. With all these real problems in American elections, why have republicans decided to focus on voter ID laws? Why do republicans think this is a serious problem they need to address?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
We can use provincial health cards to vote since they usually have photos.
Do a trade, get universal healthcare in exchange for voter ID laws Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Do a trade, get universal healthcare in exchange for voter ID laws
Works for me.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted Dan_Frank:
So the reason I am at the "absolute extreme end" of this debate is really simple.
I lean slightly towards free markets over government. And I am an optimist.
That's it. That's really all it takes. Something that looks roughly like anarcho-capitalism is an inevitable conclusion from those two points.
Your conclusion simply does not logically follow. Extremism is not the inevitable result of finding one thing slightly preferable and being optimistic.
What you've said is comparable to saying "I like dessert a bit more than other foods, so naturally in my ideal world there will be nothing to eat but dessert."
The reason we have a political spectrum is not because some people prefer oppression while others like freedom. Nearly everyone agrees on what things are good and what things are bad. Nearly everyone would prefer freedom to oppression, wealth to poverty, fun to drudgery, friends to enemies, health to sickness, cleanliness to filth, pleasure to pain, and safety to danger. But only the very naive believe we can have it all. Compromises must be made. Sometimes having freedom means accepting danger, and obtaining wealth means making enemies. Sometimes good health means enduring some pain and cleaning up the filth is a drudgerous task. Those trade-offs get even more complicated in a community where one persons liberty (or wealth or pleasure) can come at the expense of others, so we must not only prioritize "what" we value but also "who" we value.
Our political differences arise not because because we differ in what we think is good and bad, but because we differ in how we prioritize good things. Our political differences arise because we disagree about who matters most. Our political differences arise because even when we agree about the desired end, we can disagree about how to achieve those ends. Our political differences exist because some people have put a lot more effort and reason into figuring out when the "obvious" path is wrong. Our political differences exist because the system is so complex that no one truly understands it. Even experts can have legitimate disagreements about the result of any given course of action.
Given that, there are only a few valid explanations for why any one falls at the extremes of the political spectrum. Either their priorities and values are at the extreme end of the social spectrum, their expertise and insight are extremely unusual, or they are extremely naive.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: We can use provincial health cards to vote since they usually have photos.
Do a trade, get universal healthcare in exchange for voter ID laws
Can you get a universal provincial health card if you aren't a citizen?
One of the drivers for the voter ID acts is that some republicans are really worried that illegal immigrants might be voting in our elections.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Yes and no.
You can get a provincial health card without being a citizen, but you have to be at least a landed immigrant or a permanent resident (i.e. going through the legal immigration channels). So no illegal immigrants anyway.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ETA: An IL state ID costs $20. Driver's Licenses are $30.
Right, because IL doesn't require voter ID. When they require voter ID, they add a box to the State ID form that says "this is for voter ID" and then the state ID is free.
If you don't check the box, you still have to pay for it. At least that's how it works in every voter-id-required state I've looked up so far.
Tom and Time-is-money folks: That makes sense! Time is valuable, after all. If I had to choose between a day's pay and getting a Voter ID card, I probably wouldn't vote! Especially after the news I just got about my car.
On the other hand, Tom, do most poor city folk work 9-5, Monday-through-Friday jobs? The vast majority of low-skilled entry level jobs (retail, food service, etc.) these days have much greater variance in their hours than that. So I wonder how realistic that problem is.
Even so, I think your objection has legs. I'll have to noodle that for a little while longer.
Fortunately, I'm not particularly married to the voter ID idea in the first place. Actually, it's kinda crazy how this issue gets so partisan!
I especially love that Republicans say "Voter fraud is so a problem and your studies are meaningless because if we could see how bad it was we could probably catch them and stop it!" So the absence of evidence is evidence!
While Democrats say "Voter ID laws are just an attempt to disenfranchise poor Democrat voters, and although we have no way of knowing how many voters are actually discouraged we know it's a lot!" So, again, that absence of evidence...
Now, one thing that sticks in my craw here, and keeps me sympathetic to the Republicans (surprise surprise!) is that for them to be right, there'd just have to be at least a handful of people mailing in lots of fraudulent absentee ballots or somesuch thing (though I have no idea how voter ID laws interplay with absentee ballots offhand).
Whereas, as is often the case, for the Democrats to be right (not that voter ID is unneeded! Just the other stuff you guys keep saying.) I'd need to accept that everyone advancing Voter ID legislation is an evil conspirator who knows voter fraud is irrelevant but wants to disenfranchise poor people.
I don't buy that. And guys, it really doesn't make you seem more grounded and sensible when you push that idea. You can (and many of you do!) present a very coherent argument against voter fraud without accusing your opposition of being nefarious. I promise.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Whereas, as is often the case, for the Democrats to be right (not that voter ID is unneeded! Just the other stuff you guys keep saying.) I'd need to accept that everyone advancing Voter ID legislation is an evil conspirator who knows voter fraud is irrelevant but wants to disenfranchise poor people.
I don't think that part is true at all. If people don't know that voter fraud is not an issue, it is pretty easy to scare them into thinking it is. Just look at the tizzy over ACORN. (Who cares if Micky Mouse filled in a registration form, he isn't going to be voting.)
The real worry about vote fraud should be how easily and untracabley hackable the voting machines are. As those are mostly in the hands of staunchly Republican Diebold, (or their offshoots) only the Democrats are sufficiently worried about that.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Dan, there is a two step process in this and other "conspiracies" out there.
Step one, a group of nefarious individuals promote a fear.
Step two, those motivated by that fear, but with real belief in what they are doing, become the force to make the nefarious plot happen.
Some politicians who only want to gain a couple percentage points in the voting, and who do see the welfare system as an assault on their voting rights--the buying of votes with tax money--develop the fear that voter fraud is undermining our democracy.
Good people listen to that fear and believe it. The act based on it and do what they believe is the good and right thing.
The same happens with Gay Marriage. It becomes an attack on marriage, but how damage is done to marriage is never explained. Good people who want to defend marriage and its sanctity do what they know is the right and good thing.
Opponents can not attack those good people as bad. They are not bad. They are just fighting the wrong fight.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I'd need to accept that everyone advancing Voter ID legislation is an evil conspirator who knows voter fraud is irrelevant but wants to disenfranchise poor people.
Why would you need to accept that? Wouldn't it be sufficient for there to be a very tiny number of evil masterminds who are lying intentionally and a much larger number of naive people who believe the lies?
I think there is in fact a deliberate effort by some republicans to discourage certain demographics (poor, young, racial minorities etc) from voting. Voter ID laws are part of a bigger picture and a long history of trying to limit voting rights to the elite.
Despite that, I don't think disenfranchising poor voters is the conscious aim of most of the people who are supporting voter ID laws. If you read the stuff written by proponents of this laws, there is an awful lot of talk preventing immigrants from voting. I think the main driver behind the movement is xenophobia. Its driven by an irrational fear that "foreigners" are conspiring to take over the country. I also think that the movement is driven by selection bias. People tend to surround themselves with people who agree with them so when their side looses the election, its hard for them to believe the election was fair. They don't know any one who would have voted for the winner so there must have been some sort of fraud. Those sentiments make it pretty easy for politicians to get their supporters to agree to anything they say will make elections "fairer".
Conservatives are all too ready to believe that they lost because immigrants and criminals were voting illegally. Liberals are all too ready to believe they lost because powerful corporations have rigged the voting machines or were working to take liberals of the voting rolls.
Some of that probably happens but it's really easy for the loosing side to believe the problem is lots bigger than it really is.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Whereas, as is often the case, for the Democrats to be right (not that voter ID is unneeded! Just the other stuff you guys keep saying.) I'd need to accept that everyone advancing Voter ID legislation is an evil conspirator who knows voter fraud is irrelevant but wants to disenfranchise poor people.
Who on earth here has said or suggested that?
And no, for Republicans to be right it would need more than a handful of fraud voters in a country of hundreds of millions.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:On the other hand, Tom, do most poor city folk work 9-5, Monday-through-Friday jobs? The vast majority of low-skilled entry level jobs (retail, food service, etc.) these days have much greater variance in their hours than that. So I wonder how realistic that problem is.
An awful lot of poor inner city people work multiple jobs. Many of the poor people I've known work incredibly long hours and they tend to have more family responsibilities outside working hours than middle class workers. Poor people typically have to move a lot more often so they are less likely to have their vital papers nicely filed away. And time is not the only issue, there are real costs involved. Bus fare and the fees to get a copy of your birth certificate are pretty small potatoes to the middle class but can big a huge amount of money for someone who doesn't know if they're going to have enough money to by food this week.
It's also worth noting that most middle class professionals have the flexibility to take off for a few hours once in a while and make them up another day so they don't loose any pay or vacation time. Hourly labors don't have that option.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
The time and money issue is real, but I think that all presupposes that the person in question would even know what's required. Until this all came up, I didn't know what was required to vote in Wisconsin, and I still don't know how to get a voting-ID. I could find out easily of course, but it's irrational to assume that because I can anyone can. Particularly the type of person that doesn't already have an ID of some kind. I have the time to research it, and money to get it if I were to need too, but I also have an idea of how the government works (enough to know how to try to figure out what to do any way), and Internet connection and so forth. If you're the working poor, or just the poor, do you have these things? Do you know who to ask, or where to go? Maybe, but the informational barrier is as big in my mind as a finicial or temporal one.
Hobbes Posted by Sphinx (Member # 10219) on :
quote:Now, one thing that sticks in my craw here, and keeps me sympathetic to the Republicans (surprise surprise!) is that for them to be right, there'd just have to be at least a handful of people mailing in lots of fraudulent absentee ballots or somesuch thing (though I have no idea how voter ID laws interplay with absentee ballots offhand).
Not to pile on with what others have said about the necessity of proof for the other half of this equation, but I think you'd need more than a 'few' instances of voter fraud in order to constitute a 'problem,' or more specifically, a problem we should do something about.
In my mind, I distinguish between small, irritating problems--those things I kind of want to fix to make the system more perfect but that are not causing lasting harm--and problems that require an immediate solution in order to avoid some lasting harm. To me, voting fraud is one of the former, specifically because no study that I've ever seen has shown that modern voting fraud (by voters, rather than by commissioners) has ever amounted to more than a fraction of a percent of the total votes cast. I'm talking 10 votes out of 100,000. Theoretically, that could swing a race, but it is extraordinarily unlikely in all but the smallest races.
Under that rubric of what would actually constitute a 'problem,' I don't think Republicans can actually show there's a voting fraud 'problem' that could be solved by voter i.d.'s. There's a small, irritating problem in that some people are voting multiple times, but in order to tip even a modest race (e.g. a state senate race) there would have to be a fairly enormous conspiracy--on the level of tens to hundreds of people--working together to commit voter fraud in a single race that could potentially be changed by their voter fraud. Personally, I find that possibility so extraordinarily unlikely that I wouldn't even consider preventing it a plausible positive effect of the voter i.d. laws. If the 'problem' that Republicans claim to be solving has zero positive effect (because it is so unlikely as to be negligible) but has a measurable (though small) negative effect, why in the world should it stand?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: While Democrats say "Voter ID laws are just an attempt to disenfranchise poor Democrat voters, and although we have no way of knowing how many voters are actually discouraged we know it's a lot!" So, again, that absence of evidence...
Uh wow, you never researched the issue at all have you?
Posted by I Used to Be a Drummer (Member # 12787) on :
I believe there's quiet pressure from the (upper-middle-class and wealthy) elderly to keep Tuesday as the main voting day, and to have only 1 voting day. This lets the elderly, specifically the at-least-fairly-well-off elderly, outvote those who still have to work for a living.
Think about it, why on Earth is Tuesday the day to vote? And why aren't there multiple days to vote on? At least give us 1 more day.
[/randomconspiracytheory]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Voter suppression is a proud American (and other countries) tradition, there were times where just trying to vote was a risk to life and limb as people attempted to prevent you from voting.
Voter ID laws count because there are millions of Americans without voter ID and no infrastructure in place to insure their universal proliferation in a way convenient to all citizens.
And before this you had Jim Crow that attempted to tie voting to literacy and other measures that disproportionally affect Blacks.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dude. Jim Crow laws don't belong in the same discussion as this sort of debate among serious-minded people, Blayne. It's over-the-top absurd.
But if the young white male from Canada would like to tell us more about the legacy of African Americans, I'm sure we're all ears. Being so far removed from the matter undoubtedly makes you more objective.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I do not believe it to be over the top or absurd, modern voter suppression has significant roots in Jim Crow, the voting rights act pretty much took the right of the southern states to police themselves in this matter because of how badly they couldn't be trusted.
It is a very direct and analogous comparison, I am not saying they are equal in practical severity but to consider the comparison hyperbolic and not worth study is being blind to a systemic effort, in a majority of cases by republicans to suppress the vote from minorities and the lower classes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, goodness, where to start. First where you assume what you need to prove: that this is, in fact, 'voter suppression' in intent and execution. I actually agree, for the record, that it's unnecessary, an overreaction, and in some cases fueled by people who really would just like to stick it to Democratic turnout.
And then there's the fact that Jim Crow refers to a whole suite of discriminatory policies, not just limited to voting. Also that Jim Crow voting policies were put in place specifically, openly to deal with a minority group voting too much. It wasn't really a secret-it was generally considered desireable of itself. Then it needs to be considered that there was an open double-standard in place-with literacy, for example, sometimes illiterate whites were grandfathered in.
The list goes on. It went much further too, of course, those same voting policies effectively killed black participation in civic life. Couldn't run, couldn't vote, wouldn't be on a jury, etc. So no, it's not a direct comparison and it's not analogous. Jim Crow is practically the avatar of discrimination and racism in government applied to most aspects of society. Placing a pain-in-the ass (sometimes serious) in the way of voters just don't compare. It's not even in the same ballpark. I might as well say that throwing away a burger wrapper on the ground is directly analagous to dumping a barrels of radioactive toxic waste straight into the lake where a village gets its water.
Now, look, I know it'll probably be a cold day in hell where you'd grant all of that even the slightest traction, coming from me. I'm one of those people who just hates you, and thus can be dismissed whenever it's something you don't want to hear. So ask someone else on this board, whose political opinions you respect, if they think a comparison to Jim Crow laws here is very relevant, if at all.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx: In my mind, I distinguish between small, irritating problems--those things I kind of want to fix to make the system more perfect but that are not causing lasting harm--and problems that require an immediate solution in order to avoid some lasting harm. To me, voting fraud is one of the former,
Yeah that seems plausible. I have no particular reason to believe that voter fraud is really egregiously prevalent.
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx: I'm talking 10 votes out of 100,000. Theoretically, that could swing a race, but it is extraordinarily unlikely in all but the smallest races.
Well, lots of county and city elections do swing on small margins, but overall, yeah, the problem probably isn't big.
A problem being small doesn't necessarily mean it isn't worth solving, any more than our inability to solve all related problems does (for example: fraud in vote machines).
But, it does mean that if there really are significant problems with the proposed solution, it's not worth implementing!
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx: Under that rubric of what would actually constitute a 'problem,' I don't think Republicans can actually show there's a voting fraud 'problem' that could be solved by voter i.d.'s. There's a small, irritating problem in that some people are voting multiple times, but in order to tip even a modest race (e.g. a state senate race)
Your definition of a modest race is odd, to me. I'd call a modest race, like, mayor, or some city council position or something.
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx: there would have to be a fairly enormous conspiracy--on the level of tens to hundreds of people--working together to commit voter fraud in a single race that could potentially be changed by their voter fraud. Personally, I find that possibility so extraordinarily unlikely that I wouldn't even consider preventing it a plausible positive effect of the voter i.d. laws.
Yep, I agree that possibility is unlikely!
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx: If the 'problem' that Republicans claim to be solving has zero positive effect (because it is so unlikely as to be negligible) but has a measurable (though small) negative effect, why in the world should it stand?
I disagree that the only possible way it could have a potential positive effect is if your above conspiracy is true. But I agree that your conclusion draws logically from your premises.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Conservatives are all too ready to believe that they lost because immigrants and criminals were voting illegally. Liberals are all too ready to believe they lost because powerful corporations have rigged the voting machines or were working to take liberals off the voting rolls.
Some of that probably happens but it's really easy for the loosing side to believe the problem is lots bigger than it really is.
Yeah, I think this was well said.
Posted by Sphinx (Member # 10219) on :
quote:Well, lots of county and city elections do swing on small margins, but overall, yeah, the problem probably isn't big.
My thought was that a small election--you bring up a city mayor race, for example--would be even less susceptible to voter fraud that could be stopped by an i.d. law. To my understanding (and I could absolutely be wrong here), voter i.d. fraud is intended to stop the same person from voting in multiple districts under different names. A small race will, by necessity, have only a few districts at which someone could vote fraudulently. As such, while the number of fraudulent votes needed to swing an election might be smaller in a small race, the number of people needed to vote fraudulently wouldn't because there would be proportionally fewer districts they could vote fraudulently in. Moreover, the smaller the district, the more likely that someone could spot someone who 'doesn't belong' (e.g. because they recognize the listed address as someone else's house).
Let me give an example. As I said, I'm from Glenpool, a suburb of Tulsa, one of the major metropolitan areas of Oklahoma. It has a population of roughly 10,000, divided into four voting districts. (Wards 705-708 on this map) The last mayoral election I remember was decided by about 40 votes, so it was fairly close. If we assume that a single voter could vote in all four districts (once legitimately, thrice fraudulently) but not more than once in a district (not unlikely, since the volunteers would likely recognize a repeat voter), then swinging the vote of that election would have required at least 11 people. If the same person could vote twice in each district (e.g. if there was a volunteer shift change), then swinging the race in my small suburb would still require at least 6 people.
If a group that large really wants to swing a race, they're more likely to use a method that is both easier to pull off and less likely to get them caught and convicted of multiple felonies.
quote:I disagree that the only possible way it could have a potential positive effect is if your above conspiracy is true.
What are you seeing as a positive effect of the voter i.d. laws? (I'm really asking--I don't mean that as a trap question)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:To my understanding (and I could absolutely be wrong here), voter i.d. fraud is intended to stop the same person from voting in multiple districts under different names.
I think a bigger concern among the current crop of Republicans is that illegal aliens might be registering to vote.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Because generally, illegal aliens prefer nothing better than going to a government office and registering their names and addresses for the public and government to have on hand, of course.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:To my understanding (and I could absolutely be wrong here), voter i.d. fraud is intended to stop the same person from voting in multiple districts under different names.
I think a bigger concern among the current crop of Republicans is that illegal aliens might be registering to vote.
I agree. If you look at the debates and discussions, illegal immigration is the underlying subtext. Some republicans are concerned that people who aren't American citizens (legal and illegal aliens) are (or will be) trying to swing our elections by voting illegally. It's motivated by the same xenophobia that underpins the whole anti-immigration movement and its being pushed by the same group of who are promoting stricter immigration laws.
Those people see immigrants as "invaders" who are trying to take over our communities. If you think immigrants are "invaders" who want to take over, then its not much of a leap to suspect that they are conspiring to swing our elections in their favor. If you are afraid that invaders are likely use a weakness in our voting laws to take over the country, then it natural that you would think fixing that weakness should be high priority, even if there is no evidence that its happening yet.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I agree. If you look at the debates and discussions, illegal immigration is the underlying subtext. Some republicans are concerned that people who aren't American citizens (legal and illegal aliens) are (or will be) trying to swing our elections by voting illegally. It's motivated by the same xenophobia that underpins the whole anti-immigration movement and its being pushed by the same group of who are promoting stricter immigration laws.
It's an interesting piece of self-sabotage. Latin-Americans/Hispanics (actually, I don't think the two are interchangeable and I'm not sure if Hispanic is accurate) are the fastest growing minority in the country, and as much as Republicans shouldn't like 'show your papers' sorts of laws, for some strange reason those groups tend to sit up and take notice. And so in the (purported) effort to protect elections from immigrant fraud and tighten our immigration policy, they will actually drive up legal voter turnout leading quite likely to less harsh laws on election controls re: immigrants, and a looser immigration policy.
All of which is an easy prediction, but damn if they ain't still doin' it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: Now, look, I know it'll probably be a cold day in hell where you'd grant all of that even the slightest traction, coming from me. I'm one of those people who just hates you, and thus can be dismissed whenever it's something you don't want to hear. So ask someone else on this board, whose political opinions you respect, if they think a comparison to Jim Crow laws here is very relevant, if at all.
Please, cease this crap, it is the second possibly third time you acted in an unprovoked passive-aggressive fashion and keep bringing crap like this up.
Posted by Sphinx (Member # 10219) on :
quote:I think a bigger concern among the current crop of Republicans is that illegal aliens might be registering to vote.
While that's almost certainly true, as both you and Rabbit point out, I was trying to imagine a situation in which voter i.d. laws would or wouldn't work as applied. Stopping illegal aliens from voting would be a reason to pass a law requiring i.d. at registration, not at the voting booth. The former would stop an illegal entrant into the system, while the latter stops illegal use of the system. Since these laws are aimed at stopping fraud at the voting booth, I'm assuming that they're intended to stop the latter.
Because otherwise, I just have to assume that the people making these laws aren't, you know, being very honest. /snark To me, it comes down to the idea of "One citizen, one vote." Right now, voter i.d. laws are written to stop one citizen from having many votes. The type of voter i.d. law you're talking about should be written to stop a non-citizen from having one vote.
Now that I think about it, I wonder if there wouldn't be a better claim to applying a voter i.d. requirement at the registration process, because there are legitimate limitations on who can vote (e.g. age, prior felony convictions, residence, etc.). At that point, it would be appropriate to require someone to identify themselves legally to a state examiner, because the state would have a right to ensure that each person who is registered to vote is legally allowed to do so. Since the registration process is done once per state, it would also be less of a burden (not no burden, just less of a burden) on those who don't normally carry a photo i.d.; they'll still have to go to the DMV once to get a non-driver i.d., but they won't have to go again after that i.d. expires because they'll already be registered. The state could then use the registration cards as the voting booth identification, since they would only be issued after a person's identity was validated. Such a law would prevent an illegal voter by never allowing them to register in the first place while placing the least burden possible on the legal voter who would have difficulty regularly presenting an expirable photo i.d.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're quite right. Such an objective observer would doubtless have responded in a serious, reasonable way, not at all dismissing everything with vague unfinished constructions about how it's all the same because of course it's all the same.
Wait a second...this isn't yesterday. Whoops! You already did that. But even if you hadn't, I don't know why I would think you would cede not an inch of ground, regardless of topic, in a political discussion. Guess I've been drinking or something.
(But hey, just for fun, are you going to respond to the issues I raised or-to quote you, Blayne-continue to be a terrible poster? And now, get angry at having your own words handed back to you, please.)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Again, you are still acting fairly passive aggressive. Secondly I am downtown for classes and my keyboard is finnicky.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Passive? Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, is there a reason you are trying to turn this into another all about Blayne thread?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not. But if he makes a completely absurd comparison, insists it be taken seriously for poor reasons whose rebuttals he doesn't (or hasn't yet, to be fair) replicas to...yeah. He's a grown-up, I'm going to point it out like I would most other adults.
I suppose I could go to the other end of the spectrum, and ignore it when he says something silly, because he's Blayne. As utterly frustrating as I find his posts many times, I don't think that's more respectful-and I do think that's what happens, many times.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I don't think that's more respectful
To whom? IMO, it's certainly more respectful to all the other participants in a thread.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx:
quote:I think a bigger concern among the current crop of Republicans is that illegal aliens might be registering to vote.
While that's almost certainly true, as both you and Rabbit point out, I was trying to imagine a situation in which voter i.d. laws would or wouldn't work as applied. Stopping illegal aliens from voting would be a reason to pass a law requiring i.d. at registration, not at the voting booth. The former would stop an illegal entrant into the system, while the latter stops illegal use of the system. Since these laws are aimed at stopping fraud at the voting booth, I'm assuming that they're intended to stop the latter.
Voter ID would still successfully stop illegal entrants in addition to illegal use. If you are an illegal alien with no documentation and register fraudulently, you would still be stymied by a voter ID restriction.
In fact, you've probably just hit upon why voter ID is the more popular approach. It effectively stymies both approaches, whereas IDs for registration would not stop one class of offenders.
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx: Because otherwise, I just have to assume that the people making these laws aren't, you know, being very honest. /snark To me, it comes down to the idea of "One citizen, one vote." Right now, voter i.d. laws are written to stop one citizen from having many votes. The type of voter i.d. law you're talking about should be written to stop a non-citizen from having one vote.
Any fraudulent vote disenfranchises a legitimate vote, so stopping non-citizens from voting would still contribute to the goal of "one citizen one (meaningful) vote"
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx: Now that I think about it, I wonder if there wouldn't be a better claim to applying a voter i.d. requirement at the registration process, because there are legitimate limitations on who can vote (e.g. age, prior felony convictions, residence, etc.). At that point, it would be appropriate to require someone to identify themselves legally to a state examiner, because the state would have a right to ensure that each person who is registered to vote is legally allowed to do so. Since the registration process is done once per state, it would also be less of a burden (not no burden, just less of a burden) on those who don't normally carry a photo i.d.; they'll still have to go to the DMV once to get a non-driver i.d., but they won't have to go again after that i.d. expires because they'll already be registered. The state could then use the registration cards as the voting booth identification, since they would only be issued after a person's identity was validated. Such a law would prevent an illegal voter by never allowing them to register in the first place while placing the least burden possible on the legal voter who would have difficulty regularly presenting an expirable photo i.d.
I actually agree that if voter fraud is worth fighting this is probably a logical step, since it could also help to prevent absentee abuse (which could potentially be much easier for, say, a dedicated individual, who picked up dozens of registration forms and mailed them all in as absentee voters). And I don't see how voter ID at the booth helps with the absentee angle.
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx:
quote:I disagree that the only possible way it could have a potential positive effect is if your above conspiracy is true.
What are you seeing as a positive effect of the voter i.d. laws? (I'm really asking--I don't mean that as a trap question)
Sorry, I thought it was implicit. Any discouragement of potential fraud is a potential positive effect. That's not really in dispute, I hope. It's just a matter of whether or not the steps proposed to discourage that fraud do more harm than good.
To illustrate via extreme example, requiring people to undergo a comprehensive medical exam to ensure they really are who their ID says and are not simply impersonating them via extensive plastic surgery could reduce potential fraud. But the potential for that type of fraud is miniscule, and the burden of discouraging it is enormous, so it would be a despicable law.
I'm inclined to think that voter ID laws are probably too invasive for too little benefit, but I don't really know, hence the discussion. And I'm really, really unconvinced that they are an evil conspiracy to suppress unknowable (but super high!) numbers of poor voters.
PS: Don't worry about disclaiming your questions to me. Even if your question is a rhetorical "trap," I won't be especially afraid of walking into it. Either it will fail, because it will rely on gimmick instead of good argument, or it will succeed, because it was persuasive, so either way I don't particularly mind.
[ March 14, 2012, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Rivka & Kate: I see where you guys are coming from. On the other hand, can't we just as easily ignore Rakeesh & Blayne's sidebar conversation as we could ignore Blayne's comments that drew Rakeesh's attention?
I guess his responding to Blayne might create a bit more to wade through before you find a post on the topic you care about, so that could be annoying.
But isn't that true of any multi-topic big thread like this? I'm sure some folks who care about Wisconsin's political state in general are skimming past all the stuff about voter ID, too. The same way some people skim past all posts by certain people. It all just sort of comes with the territory.
I guess I'm saying I'm just not sure it's really disrespectful to other posters for Rakeesh to engage Blayne. It's meta conversation, which is a little distracting, but Hatrack in general doesn't usually seem to mind meta-conversation. And it's certainly happened a lot, so you could call it boring... hmmm, so maybe it's disrespectful to other posters to post boring things? That actually makes a little bit of sense to me.
On the other hand, we don't have to read what they're saying to each other. So I'm back to not really feeling that I have a good reason to mind their conversation.
I'm rambling now because I'm not 100% sure what I think about this issue, so I'll stop now.
Posted by Sphinx (Member # 10219) on :
quote:Voter ID would still successfully stop illegal entrants in addition to illegal use. If you are an illegal alien with no documentation and register fraudulently, you would still be stymied by a voter ID restriction.
In fact, you've probably just hit upon why voter ID is the more popular approach. It effectively stymies both approaches, whereas IDs for registration would not stop one class of offenders
Perhaps I wasn't clear, but the voter i.d. for registration would also prevent illegal aliens from voting, it would simply do it earlier in the process. After all, if they can't demonstrate their qualifications, then they can't register, and if they can't register, they can't vote.
Requiring i.d. at either point, registration or voting booth, would have the (intended) effect of stopping illegal aliens from voting and preventing voting fraud. The only difference will be in what the negative effects of each law would be. Requiring an i.d. at any point makes it harder for some people to vote legitimately. The idea lurking behind the registration idea is that requiring an i.d. once, at registration, is less bad than requiring an i.d. every time someone wants to vote. Thus my point about why requiring i.d. would be better done with registration--it has the same positive effect (which, to be clear, I still feel is extremely doubtful) but has less of a negative effect.
quote:Any fraudulent vote disenfranchises a legitimate vote, so stopping non-citizens from voting would still contribute to the goal of "one citizen one (meaningful) vote"
I disagree, at least about the word 'disenfranchise.' Disenfranchisement is a word I associate strongly with a person's vote not being counted at all, usually because they were not allowed to vote in the first place. Non-citizens, felons, and minors are all disenfranchised. I am not disenfranchised, even if the person after me is voting fraudulently, because my vote is still counted. My voice is still heard.
Now, my vote may be offset by the fraudulent vote, such that both could be taken away without affecting the final result of the election, but that's true of lots of votes. In fact, all of the votes for the losing candidate are offset in just that way, by votes for the winning candidate. However, that doesn't make those votes disappear or disenfranchise those voters.
Voter i.d. laws are incredibly likely (to a near certainty) to disenfranchise someone this fall. Either that voter won't be able to get their i.d. in time, or that voter simply won't know about the requirement until they show up at the polls.
quote:I'm inclined to think that voter ID laws are probably too invasive for too little benefit, but I don't really know, hence the discussion. And I'm really, really unconvinced that they are an evil conspiracy to suppress unknowable (but super high!) numbers of poor voters.
I don't think they're some kind of evil conspiracy, but they're not puppy dogs and rainbows either. To me, they're a fear-reaction. Sometimes, reacting to fear is good--the fight-or-flight response is hardwired into us because it can keep us alive. But it is a terrible reason to pass a law.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx:
quote:Voter ID would still successfully stop illegal entrants in addition to illegal use. If you are an illegal alien with no documentation and register fraudulently, you would still be stymied by a voter ID restriction.
In fact, you've probably just hit upon why voter ID is the more popular approach. It effectively stymies both approaches, whereas IDs for registration would not stop one class of offenders
Perhaps I wasn't clear, but the voter i.d. for registration would also prevent illegal aliens from voting, it would simply do it earlier in the process. After all, if they can't demonstrate their qualifications, then they can't register, and if they can't register, they can't vote.
You were clear. I must not have been.
You said: "The former [at registration] would stop an illegal entrant into the system, while the latter [at the booth] stops illegal use of the system. Since these laws are aimed at stopping fraud at the voting booth, I'm assuming that they're intended to stop the latter."
I was indicating that, actually, requiring ID at the booth would effectively stop both illegal use as well as illegal entrance, unlike requiring the ID at registration. Hence, I suggested, why at-the-booth voter ID is a more popular concept than at-registration voter ID (though I have seen conservatives who wanted that).
Putting aside whether this is a worthwhile goal, does what I said make more sense now?
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx:
quote:Any fraudulent vote disenfranchises a legitimate vote, so stopping non-citizens from voting would still contribute to the goal of "one citizen one (meaningful) vote"
I disagree, at least about the word 'disenfranchise.' Disenfranchisement is a word I associate strongly with a person's vote not being counted at all, usually because they were not allowed to vote in the first place. Non-citizens, felons, and minors are all disenfranchised. I am not disenfranchised, even if the person after me is voting fraudulently, because my vote is still counted. My voice is still heard.
Now, my vote may be offset by the fraudulent vote, such that both could be taken away without affecting the final result of the election, but that's true of lots of votes. In fact, all of the votes for the losing candidate are offset in just that way, by votes for the winning candidate. However, that doesn't make those votes disappear or disenfranchise those voters.
Perhaps disenfranchise was the wrong word, but I think there is a very essential and fundamental difference between the canceling out effect of the minority voters v the majority and that of legitimate votes being canceled by fraudulent votes.
Do you disagree?
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx: Voter i.d. laws are incredibly likely (to a near certainty) to disenfranchise someone this fall. Either that voter won't be able to get their i.d. in time, or that voter simply won't know about the requirement until they show up at the polls.
Why are you so confident of this fact, precisely? Do you just take it as a given that any implementation of voter ID is guaranteed to disenfranchise people?
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx:
quote:I'm inclined to think that voter ID laws are probably too invasive for too little benefit, but I don't really know, hence the discussion. And I'm really, really unconvinced that they are an evil conspiracy to suppress unknowable (but super high!) numbers of poor voters.
I don't think they're some kind of evil conspiracy, but they're not puppy dogs and rainbows either. To me, they're a fear-reaction. Sometimes, reacting to fear is good--the fight-or-flight response is hardwired into us because it can keep us alive. But it is a terrible reason to pass a law.
I'm not sure it's entirely a fear reaction. If it is a problem, even a small problem, it's worth solving. Although I'll concede that some of the most vocal voter ID supporters may be operating in part on fear.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Dan,
quote:So, if I remember correctly, the reason voter ID is a form of vote suppression is because even something as ubiquitous as a Driver License costs money and there are scads of driver license-less poor people who will turn out to vote Democrat but can't without an ID, right?
I'm not sure if you're being tongue-in-cheek here, but the argument actually is 'Driver's Licenses aren't free, and they are time-consuming to get, and a not-inconsiderable number of eligible voters don't have them, therefore it is not permissible to make them a requirement to vote in order to deal with fraud that actually isn't especially problematic.'
The fact that such voters might be more likely to vote Democrat is just tough S for Republicans, really. I mean, we're not supposed to charge people to vote.
Rakeesh, if you've been following the conversation, I just wanted to check in: You now know that this actually isn't the argument at all, right? Except insofar as some people opposed to voter ID are really vocally ignorant and wrong on the issue.
Tom and Sphinx and others have offered lots of interesting and persuasive arguments against voter ID. But this stuff you said above is blatantly false. Voter ID laws don't require Driver Licenses, they require State (DMV) issued ID cards, and every state that has Voter ID laws explicitly has an allowance on their state ID card request form wherein if you indicate the card is for Voter ID you get the card for free.
A lot of people make the mistake you made here (including me!), because in states without voter ID laws all forms of DMV issued ID usually do cost money. And because when the issue is reported in the media journalists don't do their homework and they typically present it the wrong way.
But yeah. It's not actually charging people to vote (except by Tom's definition, which was, as I said, an interesting point). That characterization is just wrong.
Posted by Sphinx (Member # 10219) on :
quote:I was indicating that, actually, requiring ID at the booth would effectively stop both illegal use as well as illegal entrance, unlike requiring the ID at registration. Hence, I suggested, why at-the-booth voter ID is a more popular concept than at-registration voter ID (though I have seen conservatives who wanted that).
Ah, I was misunderstanding.
quote:Perhaps disenfranchise was the wrong word, but I think there is a very essential and fundamental difference between the canceling out effect of the minority voters v the majority and that of legitimate votes being canceled by fraudulent votes.
Do you disagree?
To me, it would depend on something I don't know much about: recount procedures.
I see a fraudulent vote as having one of three possible effects: it either 1) is cast for the winning side and has no effect; or 2) is cast for the losing side but has no effect; or 3) is the tipping vote that breaks a tie and creates a winner. Although we're concerned with all of them because cheating the system is bad, I think we can agree that, if we had to pick one, we'd look to stop #3.
In most jurisdictions I know, in a situation where the margin of victory is extraordinarily small there is a fairly automatic (or, if not automatic, a readily-available) recount of all the votes. My reaction to a fraudulent vote turns on whether or not the fraud would be detected by the recount procedures, which I don't know anything about. If they would be detected, then I'm not much worried about a fraudulent vote. If they can't be detected, which I think is more likely, then I'm definitely worried about fraudulent votes being cast.
However, at that point it becomes a balancing test to me: Will the number of fraudulent votes cast in this election outweigh the number of legitimate votes that would not have happened if the laws needed to stop the fraudulent votes were in place? Because if the law stops 3 fraudulent votes from being cast but disenfranchises 5 citizens, it's had a net negative effect. In that type of situation, I'd rather let the 3 fraudulent votes be cast in order to let the five legitimate votes be cast. For that matter, I'd rather let 5 or 10 fraudulent votes through for every 1 person who retains their vote.
Now, obviously there's a point where the ratio of fraudulent to enfranchised votes is too large, but I think if we've reached that point then other signs would point to problems with the election. I'm specifically remembering the movie Black Sheep, where voter fraud was uncovered because more people had voted in a particular county than actually lived there. I would think if it was that bad, they'd just have another election.
quote:Why are you so confident of this fact, precisely? Do you just take it as a given that any implementation of voter ID is guaranteed to disenfranchise people?
I view it as an exercise in probabilities. Even if a probability is very small, in a large enough set it almost assuredly will happen.
With as many states as there are now requiring i.d.'s before voting, I view it as a near certainty that there will be at least one person who lives in a voter i.d. state, wants to vote for President, doesn't carry a photo i.d. normally, forgets they'll need a photo i.d. to vote, goes to the polls right before they close, and doesn't have enough time to go home and return to the polls with their i.d. before the polls close.
quote:I'm not sure it's entirely a fear reaction. If it is a problem, even a small problem, it's worth solving.
I disagree. As noted above, if solving a problem will have a net negative effect on the system, then the problem should be left alone and accepted as necessary to preventing a larger problem.
Put another way: Changing the type of problem that the system has is not 'solving' the problem.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
If the proposed solution is worse than the problem, then it's not a solution. To that extent, you're absolutely right.
That doesn't mean the problem has no solution. Simply accepting that a problem is insoluble is a bad attitude.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I wasn't aware that the state ID for voting purposes being free (...of financial charge) was universal, no.
It still doesn't change things, in my opinion. Were problems of voting fraud really worthwhile, outside of hysterical (Republican, generally) minds, then this lack of charge would indeed bring things down to a much more even level.
But it's still saying to citizens, "In order to vote, you have to go to this extra trouble." You need a good reason to say that. Especially when so many of the inefficiencies and screwups we've got are because we just aren't very interested in giving the system the resources to keep track of voters and mitigate fraud. So, not false though wrong in one respect.
On a broader note, this is just another example of the striking contrast between 'small government' conservatives, and what they actually want the government to do. Extra, often onerous ID and bureaucracy to vote; legislate consensual adult sexual morality; show papers if you look like you might be an illegal immigrant; teach sex education that doesn't work. I've got to admit, I've kind of reached a mental exhaustion point where I take this stuff seriously without some compelling evidence beyond 'it's obviously a problem'. It used to be around here, I would often stick up for the conservative position, even though I rarely agreed with it, because I felt it was getting a bum rap from its detractors. Been awhile since I felt that way. I suppose that's probably why I'm so exasperated sometimes with your semi-Libertarianism and the way it smacks of (though isn't, exactly) American Republican conservatism. Sorry about that. Just wanted to explain./vent
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Heh, no apology needed.
Again, since I guess it wasn't clear, I'm not personally trying to advocate for voter ID laws. In general, I think "there ought to be a law" is one of the most insidious and destructive phrases in the American lexicon.
I just think it's interesting how starkly partisan the issue is. It's not an issue I would have thought, given a superficial analysis, would be so partisan (especially not shaking out on the sides that it does!) It's also interesting to me how distorted many of the arguments seem to get, possibly because it's so partisan.
Posted by Sphinx (Member # 10219) on :
quote:If the proposed solution is worse than the problem, then it's not a solution. To that extent, you're absolutely right.
That doesn't mean the problem has no solution. Simply accepting that a problem is insoluble is a bad attitude.
Saying that one particular 'solution' is bad isn't the same thing as saying that a problem isn't solvable. Personally, I think this problem is solvable (using a fingerprint scan compared against a secure registration bank), it's just that solving it is more expensive than practicable.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Again, for a problem that doesn't actually exist.
Honestly, it isn't the people that show up to fake vote that are going to steal elections. It is the machines that count the votes and the people in charge of them that have that power.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
There is a simple low tech solution to solving the problem of people voting more than once. Its been used all over the world for decades. When a person votes, they get ink mark, usually on their left index finger. There are many inks available that will last 3 - 5 days and can't be removed faster with by any readily available process. Election officials just have to check to make sure voters don't have the mark when they request a ballot and that they get the mark when they are given the ballot.
Its simple, its cheap, its easy, its effective. I suppose you'd need an alternative for people who are missing a left index finger, but it's pretty unlikely that anyone would cut off a finger (or any other body part) so they could vote twice.
If you are willing to go a little higher tech, you could use an ink that is only visible under a UV light.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx: Personally, I think this problem is solvable (using a fingerprint scan compared against a secure registration bank), it's just that solving it is more expensive than practicable.
I have a lot more objections to that plan than expense.
I'm already in a few fingerprint databases (I used to teach, and I was a volunteer for the BHPD years back). Nonetheless, I object strenuously to the notion of having all registered voters required to be fingerprinted and have their fingerprints in a database. Leaving aside the fact that registering fingerprints takes time and requires people to go to specific locations just as much as getting picture ID does.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Saying that one particular 'solution' is bad isn't the same thing as saying that a problem isn't solvable. Personally, I think this problem is solvable (using a fingerprint scan compared against a secure registration bank), it's just that solving it is more expensive than practicable.
The irony here is that the hard core anti-government crowd has opposed any kind of national ID system for ages. There are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who think the government shouldn't be trusted with a database of biometric data on all its citizens.
I have no idea which fear is more realistic, but I'd be willing to bet that there are more people afraid of having their fingerprints or DNA in a government database then there are people afraid of any kind of election fraud that could be prevented by voter ID laws.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Driver Licenses are not ubiquitous. I don't have one. Nor do I have a state ID.
Kate, I'm curious about how you manage to get along without a government issued ID. I get asked to show mine quite frequently doing normal business stuff like using a credit card. You must either have a passport or not travel since you can't board a plane or a train or even check into most hotels these days without showing an official ID.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I do have a passport but I rarely need it except when traveling.
Posted by Sphinx (Member # 10219) on :
quote:Nonetheless, I object strenuously to the notion of having all registered voters required to be fingerprinted and have their fingerprints in a database. Leaving aside the fact that registering fingerprints takes time and requires people to go to specific locations just as much as getting picture ID does.
Having them all in a database I admit is problematic, because at that point you need incredible security for that database. At that point, we'd again be where kmbboots points out we are now--susceptible to fraud from the administrators of the mechanical system. If your concern is over the electronics, I can definitely understand it.
I can also understand not wanting to force people to identify themselves in order to exercise their right to vote. However, I think there's a point where the state's right to ensure that the person actually has the right to vote (because they are of age, a citizen, etc.) overrides an individual's desire to vote but not to be part of the system while voting. I suggested fingerprinting because it's fast (electronic scanners can do it 20 seconds), cheap, easy, relatively ubiquitous (all police departments and tag agencies, some government agencies), unique for each individual person, and something that will (almost) always be present when the person shows up at the polls.
Perhaps I'm just not seeing your point, but I just don't think you can argue that you should be able to vote, a privilege reserved for citizens, yet simultaneously deny the state the right to determine (just once) that you actually are what you claim to be.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx: Personally, I think this problem is solvable (using a fingerprint scan compared against a secure registration bank), it's just that solving it is more expensive than practicable.
I have a lot more objections to that plan than expense.
I'm already in a few fingerprint databases (I used to teach, and I was a volunteer for the BHPD years back). Nonetheless, I object strenuously to the notion of having all registered voters required to be fingerprinted and have their fingerprints in a database. Leaving aside the fact that registering fingerprints takes time and requires people to go to specific locations just as much as getting picture ID does.
Yeah I was about to raise this objection but Rivka beat me to it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx: Perhaps I'm just not seeing your point, but I just don't think you can argue that you should be able to vote, a privilege reserved for citizens, yet simultaneously deny the state the right to determine (just once) that you actually are what you claim to be.
How does fingerprinting do that? It's not like citizens have a different whorl pattern.
Posted by Sphinx (Member # 10219) on :
quote:How does fingerprinting do that? It's not like citizens have a different whorl pattern.
Registration would do that, and fingerprinting would be a part of registering to vote. The fingerprint would be added anonymously to a database of all fingerprints, and that database would serve one function: to tell voting machines that all individuals with fingerprints in the database are allowed to vote. It wouldn't identify who owns the fingerprint used for any individual vote, because that information wouldn't be part of the database in the first place. At most, a system like this could tell you who voted and who didn't, but no more.
Edit -- I think I'm being unclear, so let me try to elaborate. Fingerprinting would, in my imaginary system, be the last step in the process of registering to vote. Rather than just sending in a form, like we do now, I'd require something closer to getting a passport, where you actually go to a specific place. Yes, that means people will have to go to a specific place prior to voting in order to vote, but yes, I think this requirement is not as onerous as what's required to get an expirable photo i.d. because it would only be done when a person registers, rather than every year.
At the registration office, a person would verify that you are not prohibited from voting. Once that person has verified your ability to vote, your finger would be scanned and the print added to the database. Then, at the voting booth, your print would be scanned before you were given a ballot (much like how, now, the volunteers ask for your name and where you live).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Such a database would be ridiculously easy to mess with, since there's no way to later verify that a particular print matches a particular record.
And as I said before, having to go and get fingerprinted is just as onerous as having to go and get photo ID. It's not the time that it takes to actually do the fingerprinting that matters. It's the paperwork, lines, getting to the police station (or wherever), etc.
This solution seems considerably WORSE to me than the requirement for photo ID.
Posted by Sphinx (Member # 10219) on :
quote:Such a database would be ridiculously easy to mess with, since there's no way to later verify that a particular print matches a particular record.
That's a problem with the security of the database, which I've already conceded is possible. However, I believe that it would be possible to store the information securely.
quote:And as I said before, having to go and get fingerprinted is just as onerous as having to go and get photo ID. It's not the time that it takes to actually do the fingerprinting that matters. It's the paperwork, lines, getting to the police station (or wherever), etc.
It would only be slightly more onerous than what we do now. There would be no additional paperwork other than the single registration form that you have to fill out anyway. Since this only happens once, the lines would be shorter. Because there are many more places to do it, the lines would be shorter. Because it takes less time, the lines would be shorter. Getting to a place that could do it would be less difficult because there would be more of them (so there's likely to be one nearby). Moreover, because at least some of those places (e.g. police stations) are open at all hours, there would be less difficulty for those who work odd shifts or multiple shifts.
If your objection is that it would take more effort than what we have now, then that's true, because right now it takes virtually no time. But, I think that if someone wants to vote, they should be willing to invest a minimal amount of time (one hour, one time) in order to be able to do so.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sphinx, I think you are going in the direction opposite the solution to the non-problem.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I can't speak for other states, but in mine, you can register to vote by mail or online. No need to go anywhere, stand in any lines, etc.
Posted by Sphinx (Member # 10219) on :
quote:Sphinx, I think you are going in the direction opposite the solution to the non-problem.
I agree, with a caveat. I'd be happy to go to a pre-voter i.d. system, and take the nonexistent voting fraud as part of the system.
However, if we're going to attempt to stop this non-existent voter fraud (because there aren't more important problems for our politicians to work on right now), then this is my solution to it. If we're going to fix a problem that doesn't exist, we should make it the best solution possible.
[ March 15, 2012, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Sphinx ]
Posted by Sphinx (Member # 10219) on :
-Post deleted, because it seemed impolite.
[ March 15, 2012, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Sphinx ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Perhaps I'm just not seeing your point, but I just don't think you can argue that you should be able to vote, a privilege reserved for citizens, yet simultaneously deny the state the right to determine (just once) that you actually are what you claim to be.
How do you think fingerprints would solve that problem?
I'm a USA citizen because I was born in the US. The evidence that I was born in the US is my birth certificate. My fingerprints aren't on that birth certificate so they there is no way my fingerprints could prove that I'm really the person on my birth certificate.
To make this proposal work, the government would have to start collecting and storing biometric data on everyone born in the US. Once that database exists, it will become permanent and there won't be any real way to keep it being used for other things.
I think the current US government is unlikely to do anything really sinister with that data, but what about 20 years from now or 100 years from now. Ask yourself what Nazi Germany have been able to do with that database and then tell me there is nothing to worry about.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Sphinx, What advantage would this system have over putting an ink mark on peoples finger when they vote that would justify the complexity?
As I noted before, a fingerprint is not proof of identity or citizenship. Your proposal would not prevent non-citizens from registering to vote. It would not prevent people from registering to vote under a false name and address. It wouldn't prevent people from registering to vote under multiple names and addresses. Registering to vote isn't a once in a life time thing. People have to register to vote every time they move. It wouldn't be enough to check to see if their fingerprint was already in an anonymous database. Unless the fingerprint was linked to a legal ID name or number, there would be no way to determine whether someone's fingerprint was already in the database because they were trying to register more than once or because they'd moved.
The most your system could possibly do is prevent someone from voting more than once or voting in a given election.
Ink on the finger does that much more simply without requiring any permanent records, high tech scanners, databases or complicated data matching algorithms.
And that isn't even the biggest problem with your proposal. While every fingerprint is unique, computers can't identify every fingerprint unambiguously. We can't even do that with DNA. There is a margin of error. If you had a database of 300 million fingerprints, almost everyone on the planet would have a close match in the database. With current fingerprint scan technology, the false rejection rate is 0.5%. So in a system that had every voters fingerprints matched with a voter ID#, 1 out of every 200 voters would be falsely flagged as trying to cast a fraudulent vote. The false positive rates are much lower (0.001%), so if someone other than you tried to vote using your ID#, they'd only succeed 1 in 100,000 times. But that would only be true if the system were trying to determine if their fingerprint matched one exact fingerprint in the data base. If it was trying determine whether the fingerprint was a close match to any of 100,000 fingerprints in the database, the probably of finding a false match would be greater than 99.99%.
[ March 15, 2012, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Sphinx (Member # 10219) on :
quote:I'm a USA citizen because I was born in the US. The evidence that I was born in the US is my birth certificate. My fingerprints aren't on that birth certificate so they there is no way my fingerprints could prove that I'm really the person on my birth certificate.
To make this proposal work, the government would have to start collecting and storing biometric data on everyone born in the US. Once that database exists, it will become permanent and there won't be any real way to keep it being used for other things.
My post above went into more detail on this, but here's the gist: you wouldn't be allowed to put your fingerprint into the system until someone verified that you were the person on your birth certificate. The database would consist only of fingerprints without any other data, and only the fingerprints of those allowed to vote would be allowed into the system. To be clear: there would be no connection between the print in the system and any individual; all the voting machine would do is check if a voter's print is in the system at all and, if so, note that they've voted in the election. If there comes a point where a system of unidentifiable fingerprints could ever be used against individuals, then I'd think we'd have transitioned to a different system.
As to your point about using ink, I'm all for it. What the fingerprint system would do that the ink system doesn't is verify that you are allowed to vote at all; both would prevent you from voting more than once. As such, it would prevent non-citizens from voting, because they would not be allowed to register and registration is the prerequisite for having your finger scanned. I think it would prevent render moot registering under a false name/address, because the individual's fingerprint would already be in the system--the duplicate would be kicked.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:My post above went into more detail on this, but here's the gist: you wouldn't be allowed to put your fingerprint into the system until someone verified that you were the person on your birth certificate.
Who would be qualified to verify that I was the person named on the birth certificate? My parents are the only ones who could actually tell you whether I'm the person named on my birth certificate. No one else actually know. The doctor who delivered me hasn't seen me in decades and certainly couldn't tell whether or not I was the baby he delivered. What if my parents are dead? What if my parents live a thousand miles away? Even if they are alive and available to accompany me to register to vote every time I move, how would they prove they are the persons named as my parents on the birth certificate?
I'm pretty confident that anyone trying to fraudulently register to vote could find some one willing to vouch for them.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Just like your Kenyan President Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I think it would prevent render moot registering under a false name/address, because the individual's fingerprint would already be in the system--the duplicate would be kicked.
As I mentioned before, this won't work. You have to register to vote every time you move, its not a once in a lifetime process. Even if fingerprint scanners were 100% accurate, it wouldn't work unless there was an ID tag on the fingerprint. Your system could not distinguish between someone registering to vote because they'd moved to a new address and someone registering to vote under a second name.
But as I said before, the real problem with your proposal is that the differences between fingerprints just aren't big enough and the systems for detecting the difference aren't that good. Fingerprint scanners can be used reasonably reliably to tell whether the your fingerprint matches the fingerprint on record for you. They aren't likely to ever be good enough to accurately determine whether or not your fingerprint accurately matches any fingerprint in a huge data base.
[ March 15, 2012, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Just like your Kenyan President
I think its a safe bet to assume that there is a large overlap between birthers and proponents of voter ID.
If they think is was so easy for Obama to fake being born in the US, why do think it would be hard for terrorists who would be subject to much less scrutiny to fake a birth certificate.
Posted by Sphinx (Member # 10219) on :
quote:Who would be qualified to verify that I was the person named on the birth certificate?
Who is qualified to do it when you apply for a passport or a driver's license? Make no mistake, this is a system of identification; it differs from current voter i.d. laws only in the degree of negative effect, not in kind.
quote:I'm pretty confident that anyone trying to fraudulently register to vote could find some one willing to vouch for them.
Anyone truly committed to do so can defraud any system on the planet. There will never be a completely foolproof system as long as human beings are involved.
quote:You are have to register to vote every time you move, its not a once in a lifetime process. Even if fingerprint scanners were 100% accurate, it wouldn't work unless there was an ID tag on the fingerprint. Your system could not distinguish between someone registering to vote because they'd move to a new address and someone registering to vote under a second name
The system wouldn't care how many times a particular print is put into the system, only that it was there at least once.
Let me give an example: I turn 18 and register to vote; then I move to a new state at age 25 and re-register to vote; then I move again at 31 and re-register to vote. I would have to go through the registration process three times, once per state, and my fingerprint would go into the system three times. At age 32, I go vote. When the system checks the database, it finds all three prints. It then allows me to vote, because I have at least one print in the database. It would then disqualify all three prints from voting again in that election.
A good point that I hadn't thought of, though, would be how to incorporate state elections. The problem I could see this system having is that, because there's no identifying markers on the print in the database, there's no way to know when someone is still able to vote in a specific federal election but not in a specific state election. There would have to be some sort of internal cross-checking amongst all of state-specific databases, or possibly a marker for state of citizenship attached to an individual fingerprint. I'll have to think about that more, though.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:There would have to be some sort of internal cross-checking amongst all of state-specific databases, or possibly a marker for state of citizenship attached to an individual fingerprint. I'll have to think about that more, though.
The system can't work unless there is a unique ID# on fingerprint in the system and every voter has to provide the ID# and have their fingerprint scanned. The differences between fingerprints aren't big enough to accurately be able to say that someones fingerprint was different from every other fingerprint in a huge data base. It can't be done the way you think it can.
Posted by Sphinx (Member # 10219) on :
quote:The system can't work unless there is a unique ID# on fingerprint in the system and every voter has to provide the ID# and have their fingerprint scanned. The differences between fingerprints aren't big enough to accurately be able to say that someones fingerprint was different from every other fingerprint in a huge data base. It can't be done the way you think it can.
That may absolutely be true--while I can see it working in theory, I don't know enough about how detailed fingerprint scanners are/could be to know if a mechanical barrier exists. My understanding of the technology is limited to commercial applications (like the biometric locks you can put on your computer) and television shows. If you say they won't work mechanically, then I guess they won't. And there I was, getting all excited to use technology. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Who is qualified to do it when you apply for a passport or a driver's license? Make no mistake, this is a system of identification; it differs from current voter i.d. laws only in the degree of negative effect, not in kind.
No one, at least as far as I can remember.
According to the State Department website, a person seeking a first time passport must present a birth certificate and a government issued photo ID.
To get my first drivers license, my birth certificate was the only ID required. Now you have to show a second form of ID. A social Security card or a school transcipt counts as a second form of ID. Neither on of those contains any biometric data, except age and gender, that would indicate to the clerk at the DMV whether or not I was the person named.
If I could get a birth certificate and a social security card for some one my gender and close enough to my age to be believable, I could go to the DMV and get a state ID card with that name and my photo. I could then take that birth certificate and photo ID and get a passport.
I would never be asked to prove I was the person I claimed to be. Having the birth certificate and one other identifying document (containing no additional biometric data) is considered legal proof that I am the person named in the birth certificate.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:My understanding of the technology is limited to commercial applications (like the biometric locks you can put on your computer) and television shows. If you say they won't work mechanically, then I guess they won't. And there I was, getting all excited to use technology.
The barrier isn't mechanical, its more fundamental.
There will always be some error in any measurement. That means that if I scan your fingerprint today and I scanned yesterday, I won't get exactly the same image. Improving scanning technology could reduce that error but there will always be some error. So when I compare the image I took today to the one I took yesterday, they won't ever be exactly the same. I have to decide if they are close enough to conclude that you are the same person or not. If I require the images to be too similar, I will often wrongly conclude that you are a different person. If I allow to much difference, I'm more likely to conclude you are the same person when you are not. Things like computer locks have to decide where to draw the line so that they don't lock out the owner too often but still keep out other people often enough. That's not that hard to do if all you have to do is decide whether a fingerprint matches one other fingerprint.
But peoples fingerprints aren't all that different so if you look at a million people, there will be quite a few whose fingerprints are pretty close to yours. If we decide that we have to have a nearly perfect match to conclude your fingerprint is one of a million in the data base, we will have a big problem with false negatives. We will decide people aren't in the data base quite often when they really are. If we allow for a less accurate match, almost everyone will be close enough to some fingerprint in the data base to pass. And the statistics are against us. The chances of finding someone who really isn't in the database are always going to be much lower than the chances of disqualifying a legitimate voter.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Anyone truly committed to do so can defraud any system on the planet. There will never be a completely foolproof system as long as human beings are involved.
Yes, but that misses the point. This really high tech system you propose wouldn't be any harder to defraud than a lot of things that would be much much simpler and less burdensome.
It certainly wouldn't be any harder to defraud than simply requiring people to show an ID at the poll because anyone with an ID could get into the data base. It would however require a lot more expensive technology and make it a lot harder for people to register to vote at all. Even if there weren't the fundamental accuracy problems I've tried to explain, it would still be a huge investment of time and money that would provide no real advantage. Its would certainly end up disenfranchise alot more voters who for reasons of time, or money or just paranoia didn't choose to get their fingerprints scanned or who were mistakenly identified as not in the data base.
Posted by Sphinx (Member # 10219) on :
quote:To get my first drivers license, my birth certificate was the only ID required. Now you have to show a second form of ID. A social Security card or a school transcipt counts as a second form of ID. Neither on of those contains any biometric data, except age and gender, that would indicate to the clerk at the DMV whether or not I was the person named.
Which was my point--the government has already established the level of scrutiny required to prove that you are who you say you are. The system I was proposing would merely incorporate those existing measurements.
quote:But peoples fingerprints aren't all that different so if you look at a million people, there will be quite a few whose fingerprints are pretty close to yours. If we decide that we have to have a nearly perfect match to conclude your fingerprint is one of a million in the data base, we will have a big problem with false negatives. We will decide people aren't in the data base quite often when they really are. If we allow for a less accurate match, almost everyone will be close enough to some fingerprint in the data base to pass. And the statistics are against us. The chances of finding someone who really isn't in the database are always going to be much lower than the chances of disqualifying a legitimate voter.
Honestly, I agree with you, though I think the problem would actually be that the system would think you were voting in the wrong place, not that you couldn't vote at all. Shows what I really know about fingerprints.
quote:Yes, but that misses the point. This really high tech system you propose wouldn't be any harder to defraud than a lot of things that would be much much simpler and less burdensome.
It certainly wouldn't be any harder to defraud than simply requiring people to show an ID at the poll but it would require a lot more expensive technology and make it a lot harder for people to register to vote at all. Even if there weren't the fundamental accuracy problems I've tried to explain, it would still be a huge investment of time and money that would provide no real advantage.
Saying that a new system has the same problem as the old system isn't a disqualifier if the new system brings benefits that the old one didn't. The fingerprint system would have the benefit of preventing non-citizens from voting, which systems like the ink test you were talking about do not and which voter i.d. laws do less well, but suffers, like all i.d. tests, from the potential for fraud.
Finally, yes, it would make it some harder (I think 'a lot' is an overstatement) to register to vote, considering it takes more effort for me to buy milk than to register to vote. However, as I was talking about earlier, I think that the added effort is worth it. While it would be more work to register, it would be vastly less work to actually vote as compared to a voter i.d. system. The way I was describing the system was intended to convey that you'd go through the exact same steps to register to vote with the fingerprint system as you'd go through to get the photo i.d. you need to vote. There would be no differences between the two on that level. However, a fingerprint is not expirable--you'd only register once, but you must renew your photo i.d. every 5/10 years. The longer a person lives, the more often they have to renew, and the more effort they would have saved under a registration system.
As compared to a voter i.d. system, a fingerprint system would have the following pros/cons: Pros: less effort for voter (scaling with age), better able to prevent non-citizens from voting Cons: more expensive, potential for misidentification No change: susceptible to fraud
Final verdict: You guys are right, the idea probably wouldn't work. Not bad, though, for a random idea found in my cereal this morning.
quote:Its would certainly end up disenfranchise alot more voters who for reasons of time, or money or just paranoia didn't choose to get their fingerprints scanned or who were mistakenly identified as not in the data base.
The time/money concerns would be equal to or less than those of a regular voter i.d. system, at least to the voter.
Paranoia is definitely something I didn't think of; to be honest, the stereotypical 'Ah cain't trust the gummint!' mentality is just foreign to me. I can understand a healthy skepticism, but anything more I just can't wrap my head around. I definitely wasn't thinking about that when I proposed the idea.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Lets try another flavor of paranoia.
Lets say we have a form of ID that is used to allow one to vote. It can be fingerprints, retinal patterns, DNA, etc.
We say that you can not use that in any other way. Would that stick? Social Security was enacted, and cards were produced, with a law that specifically prohibits using that card as a form of Identification for anything other than Social Security. When ever anyone asks to see your SS card, they are breaking the law, even if its to verify a check or get a credit card. So legally saying you can't do something does not prevent it from happening.
Worse, if my id is questionable you can either disallow me to vote until my ID is verified, which would take longer than the voting period, so that rafts of people can be removed from voting if other people mass question their id, or you can allow me to vote, but hold my vote aside until my ID is verified. However, since you have to hold my vote and my id together until verified, someone could easily determine who and what I voted for. Secret ballots are no longer secret.
Posted by Tracy Allen (Member # 12813) on :
(Post Removed by Janitor Blade. Slightly coherent spam?)
[ April 07, 2012, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah. Wisconsin is more of a bratwurst state. I think they like spam in Hawaii, though.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Oh man Kate now I want a bratwurst.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
After claiming Wisconsin is broke, Walker miraculously finds $100 million for Milwaukee's poorest areas just 4 weeks before the recall election against Tom Barrett, mayor of Milwaukee.
I'm amused by the continuing Prosser drama, BTW. Having realized that the only way he can be legally censured for choking a fellow Supreme Court justice would be for the other justices to vote to do it, he's making the argument that a majority of the justices were witnesses to the event and thus must recuse themselves, thus denying quorum. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm amused by the continuing Prosser drama, BTW. Having realized that the only way he can be legally censured for choking a fellow Supreme Court justice would be for the other justices to vote to do it, he's making the argument that a majority of the justices were witnesses to the event and thus must recuse themselves, thus denying quorum.
safghaskjgas;kgjas;jkasgbui4tbrgflwfgvbasf fgasfhlg43pufas asgf
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Yah, I heard that on WPR the other day and couldn't believe it.
I wasn't even here when it happened and I still think my biggest beef with Walker is his turning down the high speed rail project.
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Is anyone else here getting hit with the same constant add about how Walker's added more money to healthcare than any Wisconsin governor?
Hobbes Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Hobbes, I've been meaning to ask you this forever: Do you type up "Hobbes " after every post manually, or do you have some sort of automation/macro set up?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
What kind of commitment would that be?
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
So... voting day today. I just got back from casting my ballot. This is the first time I've been able to do it in person since I voted at 18. I forgot how good it feels; I hope everyone else here gets a chance before the day is through!
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yep. Voted! Also, Hobbes: many stores in the area are giving discounts for people flaunting "I Voted" stickers. Take advantage of 'em and feel the solidarity. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
My polling place didn't give away any "I Voted" stickers. That's OK. I'm going to go catch a few minutes of the Venus transit and just enjoy the evening. I'll probably wait to look for election results until the morning.
I was pleased that just about everyone at work either had already voted or were going right after work. Of course almost everyone was voting for Walker but still...
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, you're living in the pit of Hell, electorate-wise.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Even more than you might think (based on the last few debacles that happened before I got here). Their website didn't list polling places in Waukesha and when I called the clerk's office they hung up on me. Three times. (I basically had to guess where to go).
[Edit: I just realized that's not what you were referring to but oh well. In all fairness the project everyone with me is working on is basically Walker's pet project so I'm sure some of them feel they either owe him for their jobs or worry they'll scale down if he goes.]
Hobbes Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It's voting day here too.
I have a child who votes now. In fact, she already has, but I'm going after work.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
Looks like Walker won.. again. That's a win for democracy too, in my book.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
AP has also called it for the Republican Lieutenant Governor (Kleefisch). I haven't found results for the downballot candidates yet.
<edit>I've seen two of the four downballot Senate races called for the Republicans, including Senate majority leader Scott Fitzgerald. The other is Jerry Petrowski's defeat of Donna Seidel for a seat vacated by a Republican who had been recalled. How many did the Dems need to get control of the Senate?</edit>
<edit>This site says the Dems only needed a single win. But it also says that AP has called three of the four races for the Republicans, meaning the majority hinges on the Wanggaard seat.</edit>
[ June 05, 2012, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Koch money is hard to beat. At least I made a quick six bucks on Intrade.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Koch money is hard to beat. At least I made a quick six bucks on Intrade.
Do you actually think money is why Walker won?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't think it's even possible to argue that money is not why Walker won.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Do you actually think money is why Walker won?
Now, seriously, capax, do you actually think superiority in a campaign warchest isn't a serious or even a decisive factor in most political campaigns, ever? C'mon. There's a reason you don't find a successful politician anywhere who doesn't devote major time and resources to that end.
Your guy won, fine, that's cool, but don't go start whitewashing things either. Had the recall succeeded and had it had significantly more money to spend, you know perfectly well you wouldn't be wondering if money wasn't a major factor.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Right. I mean, I completely grant that money is most of the explanation for why Obama won in '08 (although the explanation for his well-funded campaign had a lot to do with his widespread popularity).
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
I don't consider money the largest factor - let alone the decisive factor - behind why Walker won the recall election. You need to remember, this is the second time Governor Walker has won the election. He was first elected by a majority that supported his platform and campaign goals. Once in office he accomplish those goals. This is clearly the direction Wisconsin wants to go and a lot of time and money was wasted so this point could be proven once again.
It's not like you can stuff dollar bills in the ballot box. In what way do you believe money won the election for Walker? What could Barrett have done with more money that would have won him the election?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: (although the explanation for his well-funded campaign had a lot to do with his widespread popularity)
And you won't grant the same to Walker?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Maybe if you count his popularity with out-of-state Republican party kingmakers.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:The final flurry of television advertising — with Mr. Walker outspending Mr. Barrett, seven to one — seemed to have little impact on the outcome. Nearly 9 in 10 people said they had made up their minds before May, according to exit poll interviews, with only a sliver of the electorate deciding in the final days of the campaign.
Walker's campaign entrenched his supporters and.. what else? Can it be argued that the "Koch" money made union supporters jump ship in droves? Did seeing a few more anti-Barrett TV ads sway the fence-sitter - even though this was one of the most talked-about, partisan, and arguable the most important election in the history of Wisconsin? Voter turn-out was up.. on both sides.. whose money gets credit for that?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Maybe if you count his popularity with out-of-state Republican party kingmakers.
Don't evade the fact that you're attempting to equate popularity to finances raised. With that line of reasoning Barret was only popular equal to the amount of instate cash he raised. That is to say, not very popular.
And I'll be damned if those "kingmakers" DIDN'T get to vote in the recall.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Nope. But they did get to donate as much as they want for ads, which DO work. If they don't, why do politicians buy them?
Wisconsin is a very divided state. I'f I was a work where they illegally violated their work agreement with me, I'd move.
I am not saying that money is the only reason why Walker won, but to say it wasn't a major factor is moronic.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Nope. But they did get to donate as much as they want for ads, which DO work. If they don't, why do politicians buy them?
They work up to a certain point. The return on TV spots doesn't scale with the amount of money spent on them.
So they're effective to a certain point, and even that degree of effectiveness is likely to be more diminished in a such a highly partisan recall election.
Are TV ads more effective than knocking on doors, shaking hands, lining up interviews with local papers, and speaking in town halls? Such tactics require more volunteer support and campaign savvy than they do cash. How does one establish the degree to which TV and radio ads carried a winning election bid?
I realize my argument about popularity vs. fiances cuts both ways, which is why I don't find it to be a sound metric with which to judge the success or failure of a campaign.
It's also a cop-out to say, "The candidate's platform was bomb-proof and highly popular but they were outspent by the opposition." One must at least allow for the possibility that they were outspent and unpopular. That possibility is even more likely when the margin between the winner and loser is pronounced (like 53% to 46%).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't consider money the largest factor - let alone the decisive factor - behind why Walker won the recall election. You need to remember, this is the second time Governor Walker has won the election. He was first elected by a majority that supported his platform and campaign goals. Once in office he accomplish those goals. This is clearly the direction Wisconsin wants to go and a lot of time and money was wasted so this point could be proven once again.
Well, if you're framing Walker's first victory as a clear mandate from Wisconsin as a whole...what did he win by, again, two points? Maybe three?
This certainly doesn't mean he didn't win and shouldn't govern. That's how the system works, after all. But the way you're framing things, capax...money wasn't the largest factor (love to see major campaign bigshots from any race take a polygraph on such a statement), Walker's couple point win followed by an enormous political controversy is a sign of what Wisconsin 'clearly' wants, it's a 'waste' for Wisconsin to avail itself of its own democratic process-which earlier you called a victory for democracy...again. It's cool that your guy won and you're pleased with that. No beef there. But it reads like your enthusiasm is carrying you to some pretty outlandish claims, as described above.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't know if it was intentional, but 53-47 was if I'm not mistaken the result of 2008's presidential election. By the rhetoric you're using here, capax, this should have been considered a decisive victory for and endorsement of Obama by the American people, and people standing in the way of his enacting his goals should've stepped aside so as not to 'waste time and money'.
Now, since I'm certain you wouldn't agree to that, perhaps you'll see something of the questions people are raising about what you're saying.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't consider money the largest factor - let alone the decisive factor - behind why Walker won the recall election. You need to remember, this is the second time Governor Walker has won the election.
Yes. And both times he outspent Barrett by an order of magnitude. You're not a Wisconsin resident; you simply don't understand how impossible it was in the last month to go somewhere without running into a pro-Walker ad. Even the Internet is saturated with them.
quote:Walker's campaign entrenched his supporters and.. what else?
In this campaign, that was exactly what was needed. Did you see the turnout numbers? The key was to entrench your supporters and disenhearten/disillusion the supporters of the other guy, so they'd stay home.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
BTW: it's looking like we did take back the Senate. So at least we might be able to put some brakes on until November, when that ridiculous gerrymandering kicks in.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:[...]how impossible it was in the last month to go somewhere without running into a pro-Walker ad. Even the Internet is saturated with them.
These things are true.
Hobbes Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:[...]how impossible it was in the last month to go somewhere without running into a pro-Walker ad. Even the Internet is saturated with them.
These things are true.
Hobbes
I moved to Madison in March and I've heard/seen exactly ONE pro-Walker ad and none for Barrett. You obviously don't my amazing advertising avoidance skills my friends.
ETA - of course, that's not counting all the lawn signs, which are probably 10:1 supporting the recall and Barrett.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I moved to Madison in March and I've heard/seen exactly ONE pro-Walker ad and none for Barrett. You obviously don't my amazing advertising avoidance skills my friends.
*blink* That...is really, really impressive. I can only assume that you do not watch television, connect to the Internet via a local ISP, or listen to the radio.
I was going to mention the robocalls, too, but then I realized that you only moved here in March and probably aren't on enough lists yet. I've got a VOIP line that serves as my public "landline," and it got 340 calls -- 280 from Walker's people -- in the last week.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
Some of my co-workers have mentioned robo-calls, but my only phone is a cell with a Maui number, so I've been safe.
I don't watch TV at all, and only listen to the radio when I'm alone in the car. I have a six minute commute currently, so 12 minutes a day is all I hear. And I listen to 10 minutes of WPR (from 6-6:10 am) while I'm waking up.
As for the internet, we do connect via a local ISP at home, but I am amazingly oblivious to internet advertising. I believe you when you say it's there, but I never notice it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
There's actually a few studies kicking up on wisconsin as a test case for 'drown the electorate' methodology in ad saturation, or what could be called the Wisconsin kingmaker strategy.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
It's also worth noting that due to the rules of this particular type of special election, Walker wasn't subject to the same individual donor contribution limits as Barrett.
The Democrats didn't really help themselves, but the playing field was never level in the recall.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: While Barrett has received about 26 percent of his $4 million in campaign donations from outside the Badger State, Walker has drawn nearly two-thirds of his $30.5 million contributions from out of state, according to campaign filings released May 29. Walker has outraised Barrett 7 ½ to 1 since late 2011, though Barrett didn’t enter the race until late March.
quote: Through April, Walker’s top three donors combined gave more than challenger Barrett’s campaign had raised overall. Four of Walker’s top seven donors are out-of-state billionaires, including former AmWay CEO and former Michigan gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos, and casino magnate Adelson, who each gave $250,000.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
My favorite were the eight billion trillion robocalls sent out to pretty much everyone they could. A lot of them were things like attempts to trick democrats from going out to the polls, stuff like robo messages saying "if you registered for X, this is just a reminder you don't have to go out to vote today totally fine stay right indoors don't go anywhere have a wonderful day "
I am always saddened to see how much this stuff legitimately works, haha
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote: While Barrett has received about 26 percent of his $4 million in campaign donations from outside the Badger State, Walker has drawn nearly two-thirds of his $30.5 million contributions from out of state, according to campaign filings released May 29. Walker has outraised Barrett 7 ½ to 1 since late 2011, though Barrett didn’t enter the race until late March.
quote: Through April, Walker’s top three donors combined gave more than challenger Barrett’s campaign had raised overall. Four of Walker’s top seven donors are out-of-state billionaires, including former AmWay CEO and former Michigan gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos, and casino magnate Adelson, who each gave $250,000.
A couple of points:
1) the money spent by the campaigns was about 1/2 of the total spent. The other half was by outside groups, where there was rough parity. Meaning the spend ratio was closer to 3.5:1 (rather than 7.5:1).
2) According to your stats, Barrett raised $3 million in state and Walker raised $10 million. Do you really think election outcome would have changed if the candidates had only been allowed to raise money in state?
quote: While Barrett has received about 26 percent of his $4 million in campaign donations from outside the Badger State, Walker has drawn nearly two-thirds of his $30.5 million contributions from out of state, according to campaign filings released May 29. Walker has outraised Barrett 7 ½ to 1 since late 2011, though Barrett didn’t enter the race until late March.
What I find most interesting about this stat is this: take 26% off of $4 million and you get $3 million. Take 2/3 off of $30 million and you get $10 million.
So this means that if you set aside out-of-state contributions entirely, Walker still received, what, more than 3 times the contributions that Barrett did?
So he still would have outspent him. So even if you believe the money-buys-votes theory of campaigning, Walker still would've been able to buy his way to victory. Right?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Oh, I let my post sit so long SenojRetep made the same point I did, only more succinctly and with extra points too. Doh.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ...Walker's couple point win followed by an enormous political controversy is a sign of what Wisconsin 'clearly' wants, it's a 'waste' for Wisconsin to avail itself of its own democratic process-which earlier you called a victory for democracy...again.
quote:By the rhetoric you're using here, capax, this should have been considered a decisive victory for and endorsement of Obama by the American people, and people standing in the way of his enacting his goals should've stepped aside so as not to 'waste time and money'.
It's not "a 'waste' for Wisconsin to avail itself of its own democratic process" but that democratic process occurred in 2011 when Walker beat Barrett the first time. Is the union-led left going to call for a recall every year until the candidate they support wins? If that happened every election for every elected official the system would fail. It would be non-stop campaigning and seats flip-flopping mere months apart. We have terms of office and other checks to avoid that very destructive scenario.
The time and money wasted was for a recall based solely on political grounds. This was a blatant abuse of the recall option. Had the political climate been similar in 2003 with the recall of Governor Davis I'm sure it would be a progressive on here crying foul. We can't go back in time 10 years but based on this recent recall fiasco, I think both sides agree that this shouldn't be a common practice. Examples of not stepping aside would be a re-count after the first election, direct initiatives, or a referendum on specific legislation. Those would have been the most appropriate courses of action to be taken by the opponents of Governor Walker.
As for your comparison to the election of Obama, no one called for Obama to be recalled because that would have been stupid. He won and was elected into office. But America elected a president, not a dictator. Obama can't pass legislation without it going through congressional and judicial review. The landslide conservative victories of the 2010 elections are examples of not stepping aside. One can "not step aside" without forcing a recall 18 months after the first election and putting up the exact same candidate to run against the now-incumbent Governor.
The tactics of the far left in Wisconsin have been shown to be yet more questionable after this nonsense. The recall was manipulative and degradative but less shameful than the state senators abdicating their duties and fleeing the state instead of doing the job they were elected to do.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:It's not "a 'waste' for Wisconsin to avail itself of its own democratic process" but that democratic process occurred in 2011 when Walker beat Barrett the first time. Is the union-led left going to call for a recall every year until the candidate they support wins? If that happened every election for every elected official the system would fail. It would be non-stop campaigning and seats flip-flopping mere months apart. We have terms of office and other checks to avoid that very destructive scenario.
This is a good point, but I don't think you can take a principled stand on this issue. Let's say a really bad candidate got elected, the equivalent of a Hitler. Then of course the right thing to do would be to have a recall. You can't say it's absolutely wrong, period, to try to recall an official because the official's policies are abhorrent to you.
So then the issue just becomes, is Walker bad enough to justify recalling him? My sense is that he is, but I can understand a reasonable person with what I'd consider correct principles holding the other view.
You think Walker is the bee's knees. OK. Can you understand why people on what you call the "radical left"--which includes a large enough fraction of Wisconsin that it's pretty weird to call it radical--would say Walker is so far beyond the pale that any and every legal measure for wresting power away from him has to at least be attempted?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
There is no major far left progressive political force in the United States, it does not exist.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
False. Katrina Vanden Heuvel was on NPR's Talk of the Nation today. She's progressive and a scary one at that.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
How is this a misuse of the recall system? It seems to me, regardless of the result, that it is WHY a recall option exists.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: False. Katrina Vanden Heuvel was on NPR's Talk of the Nation today. She's progressive and a scary one at that.
Care to elaborate? I've never heard of her, although I did just google her to see what scared you so much.....
It's an honest question, not an ambush. I can't promise to agree with you, but I am really curious. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I'm not sure a lady we all have to google counts as a "major far left progressive political force."
That's not to say that I don't think Blayne is completely and totally wrong, of course.
I just don't think your example proves it very well, capax.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I have to admit that I can't think of any far left political force in America that I'd consider "major."
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I have to admit that I can't think of any far left political force in America that I'd consider "major."
Me neither.
Also, chalk me up as a Katrina Vanden Heuvel googler. Sometimes conservatives kvetch about the ACLU but I wouldn't say they are a progressive organization.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The tactics of the far left in Wisconsin have been shown to be yet more questionable after this nonsense. The recall was manipulative and degradative but less shameful than the state senators abdicating their duties and fleeing the state instead of doing the job they were elected to do.
Funny, I'll bet quite a lot of their actual constituents-not out of state conservative contributors, mind you-probably didn't think the situation was so clear as you're describing. If we're going to be extolling the virtues of democracy on this topic, how's about we start with not letting a given political opponent define what the actions of their rivals are and aren't?
*sigh* Who am I kidding? That can't happen. No, instead it will be a waste of time and money to attempt a recall, but a victory when Walker wins 'for democracy'. The left is 'union led', but I'll just bet you'd bridle at calling Walker's supporters 'outside major businessmen contributors-led'. The executive has to work with the legislature, but isn't somehow violating his duty when he so upsets them that they flee the state.
Almost everything, every word you've said on this subject, strangely coincides with a given person or topic's political alignment left-right.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I have to admit that I can't think of any far left political force in America that I'd consider "major."
Me neither.
Also, chalk me up as a Katrina Vanden Heuvel googler. Sometimes conservatives kvetch about the ACLU but I wouldn't say they are a progressive organization.
Nor can I unless you count the occasional guy handing out socialist flyers on street corners. And I an familiar with Katrina Vanden Heuval.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The Democratic Party at its most radical is Center-Left but largely Center-Right; remove Republican obstructionism and they are also strangely enough Center-Right to Right-Center. Both sides of the aisle are perfectly willing to expand the police state.
The Conservative Party of Canada is arguably more left-wing than the American Democratic Party.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:The Democratic Party at its most radical is Center-Left but largely Center-Right
As compared to what? Canada? Why is Canada a good metric for the US? I don't know enough about Canadian politics to speak to that comparison but I don't see that it's relevant. The parties tend to balance out so that half the people in the country side with one and hald the other. Any imbalance and the party either has to change to accomadate or become irrelevant in modern politics. What can cause skews is when the median and the mean aren't the same, i.e. one half is more radical in their views than the half on the other side of the dividing line. The tea party may be evidence of that but I'm not really convinced. It seems to me more like the result of the Republican party hitting the point where they need to change: kind of sign of turbulence more than radicalism.
Hobbes Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Wisconsin has been political comedy for a while now. of course, now that walker no longer has a reason to magically appropriate cash from out of thin air to keep his hide and whole governmental structures will be hammered into obsolescence and infrastructural rot over the next few years over this radical pay-to-play pogrom
haha god I am so glad I live in a state that doesn't have to deal with anything like what you are going through. enjoy trying to match MI as 'merika's pilot second world nation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If you like, Samp, you can always send us money. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If you want a lot of money, you should have started a group with a generic right-wingy political action group name (Tom Davidson's Americans For A New Prosperity Freedoms Tomorrow), spent a few days spitting out some pablum establishing yourself as a sluice for the tens of millions of out-of-state special interest dollars that conservatives were hurling towards you guys, and then just waited for your big out of state coordinated private donor bucks to roll in.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Or I could just ask you for it. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Considering my last name, sending you money in Wisconsin would be direly ironic. Enough to make it worth it. I'll get my brother in on it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
What's so ironic about Rimary?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Is estuanian name, yes. We Rimaries feud, long time, like your, how you say, hatfields and mccoys. Is always war between Rimaries and Avidsons
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:The Democratic Party at its most radical is Center-Left but largely Center-Right
As compared to what? Canada? Why is Canada a good metric for the US? I don't know enough about Canadian politics to speak to that comparison but I don't see that it's relevant. The parties tend to balance out so that half the people in the country side with one and hald the other. Any imbalance and the party either has to change to accomadate or become irrelevant in modern politics. What can cause skews is when the median and the mean aren't the same, i.e. one half is more radical in their views than the half on the other side of the dividing line. The tea party may be evidence of that but I'm not really convinced. It seems to me more like the result of the Republican party hitting the point where they need to change: kind of sign of turbulence more than radicalism.
Hobbes
The Political spectrum is an objective criteria, you look at the voting history, platform and issues of both parties and the Democrats are barely left of center on the average issue.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The Political spectrum is an objective criteria, you look at the voting history, platform and issues of both parties and the Democrats are barely left of center on the average issue.
Nonsense. What constitutes the "center" of the political spectrum is anything but objective.
I do however agree with you that the Democrats are center right when compared to the political spectrum in any other developed country or even to the political spectrum in the US a couple of decades back.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The Political spectrum is an objective criteria,
Nope. Not at all. Not even a little bit.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The Democrats are only "left" in so far they believe that it would be nice if society was more egalitarian, or at least feel for their districts that this is more likely to get them elected. But hit a brick wall and become rightists in their insistences that the capitalist system be allowed to be the ones to figure out how to implement that mandate.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I do however agree with you that the Democrats are center right when compared to the political spectrum in any other developed country or even to the political spectrum in the US a couple of decades back.
I disagree. I think that both parties have moved 'left' on social issues (e.g. gay rights, marijuana legalization) and both parties have moved 'right' on fiscal issues (e.g. decreased tax levels, school vouchers).
I also think that comparisons to other developed countries often discount things like immigration or abortion where the US is significantly more 'left' in comparison to other OECD countries. Another good example is tax progressivity* where the US is far and away more progressive than other developed nations.
*On tax redistributivity (which may be more what people actually mean when they talk about progressive tax systems) the US is quite retrograde (as the link shows).
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
SenojRetep gets to the heart of the problem you run into when you make broad claims about how right or left a country is: the terms are so broad and encompass so much that people only think about the issues that matter most to them, and gloss over the importance of other stuff.
I think that in many broad strokes, the US political field is unique in (sort of) the way Blayne means. To the extent that he's right, it's to do with many of the unique factors that went into America's formative decades, and the resulting culture.
That culture still has an effect on our politics today, but it's hardly the only influence.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: *On tax redistributivity (which may be more what people actually mean when they talk about progressive tax systems) the US is quite retrograde (as the link shows).
Should we really care about the progressiveness of our tax system, separate from the way it redistributes wealth? I mean, one way of doing it vs. another might be more or less efficient, but the moral question that the left and right disagree about is whether to redistribute wealth, not how to structure tax brackets.
quote:To the extent that he's right, it's to do with many of the unique factors that went into America's formative decades, and the resulting culture.
That culture still has an effect on our politics today, but it's hardly the only influence.
A more cynical take on this: an idealized and fairly inaccurate conception of the formative period of American history has developed over the years. While largely mistaken, it contains enough grains of truth that it's hard to put down. It's the influence of this distorted take on history that explains the difference between the US and Europe, not the actual circumstances of the country's founding.
(Of course this doesn't go for the differences between the US and Europe that are explained by the actual content of our Constitution, like our more robust free speech rights.)
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
A couple more things on the actual election:
1) I mistook the actual numbers. After factoring in outside spending the differential was $45.5 million to $20.8 million, or a 2.25:1 ratio (rather than my 3.5:1 or the 7.5:1 Kate mentioned).
quote:I'd say that the real lesson here is how little the electoral results changed after a vast change in financing. That is, the biggest story here is that money didn't matter all that much.
Andrew Gelman (another fairly good, quantitative political scientist) takes a bit of issue, although he's more concerned with what he feels is Masket's overgeneralization rather than his specific conclusions about this particular election:
quote:There’s been a lot of research showing that money matters in campaigns, but more so in nonpartisan contests such as referenda and less so in highly partisan contexts. I think that’s the way to address such questions. Not by taking a single before-after comparison and treating it as a causal effect. That’s just sloppy.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:“Reports coming into our call center have confirmed that Walker’s allies just launched a massive wave of voter suppression calls to recall petition signers.” According to Urbina-McCarthy, the message of the calls was: “If you signed the recall petition, your job is done and you don’t need to vote on Tuesday.”
quote:To the extent that he's right, it's to do with many of the unique factors that went into America's formative decades, and the resulting culture.
That culture still has an effect on our politics today, but it's hardly the only influence.
A more cynical take on this: an idealized and fairly inaccurate conception of the formative period of American history has developed over the years. While largely mistaken, it contains enough grains of truth that it's hard to put down. It's the influence of this distorted take on history that explains the difference between the US and Europe, not the actual circumstances of the country's founding.
(Of course this doesn't go for the differences between the US and Europe that are explained by the actual content of our Constitution, like our more robust free speech rights.)
Hey man, since you in this very post thought of a legitimate example of what I was talking about, why would you go on to assume that A) You know exactly what I was referring to, and B) I was referring to all of the stuff that is based in myth and not fact.
I mean I guess you did say you were being cynical, but it seems specifically like cynicism targeted at me. Boo.
Anyway, yeah, there's lots of other examples of things in our Constitution that set us apart from most of the rest of the developed world. Many of those things were trampled almost immediately, often by the founding fathers. Including some of the things that were then restored and largely kept intact to this day (you mentioned free speech, but it's not like Alien & Sedition never happened, right?)
But restored or not, these things were still in the constitution. Which meant that later generations could look to them, and try to hold the government to whatever standard in the Constitution they thought was not being met. Even if it had never been reliably met! I think that's awesome.
Also, when I talked about the formative decades of the US, I wasn't solely referring to the Constitution. There are plenty of other things that make us pretty unique, like the history of our immigration.
I don't really care what you attribute it to. I've seen lots of theories. The point is just that it's true that our political landscape is very different from Europe, or any other developed nation on earth.
And to many of us, that's in many ways a wonderful thing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Capitalists and libertarians who hate unions are IMO flatly hypocritical. Even if we were to accept that unions are a form of anti-free-market collusion between workers, why is that unacceptable when businesses are allowed to collude freely? Why can't I include, as the terms of my employment, that I want to be in a union that must be respected by law? Why can't a group of workers negotiate as a single body if they want, which is something that business owners do all the time? Even from the capitalist perspective, we can understand these as benefits, which can be understood as another form of compensation - job security, transparent wage negotiation, legal support, etc.
"If you don't like it, stop working there" is the sort of free market refrain you hear when someone complains about their job. But when workers actually, you know, do exactly that and stop working and demand better jobs, it's considered unethical and manipulative.
I do not want to stretch "unions as a form of compensation" too far because I don't think unions should be considered in such strictly utilitarian terms. Ideally unions are anti-capitalist and provide some basic measure of support against unfair work practices encouraged by free-market capitalists. But I think even in the world of capitalism, there is no compelling argument against unions. If a group of workers decide that they want a basic level of security and representation in their workplace, then that's just something business owners have to deal with.
quote:IMO people also conflate the security of a union with "inefficiencies" based on the erroneous belief that business owners always make the best decisions for their business - or, at least, that business owners should be 100% within their right to make whatever capricious decisions they want, no matter how detrimental those decisions might be to someone else's life.
In other words, if a union protects a worker from being unfairly fired, people naturally assume that the business owner is correct (or within their right) and that the union is merely delaying the proper business decision.
It would be like arguing that our justice system is "inefficient" because we insist on giving people a fair trial. That's not the point - our objective isn't to churn through employees as profitably as possible, just as our objective in court isn't to throw people in jail as quickly as possible. (At least in theory blah blah blah ****ed up prison-industrial complex.) We recognize these outcomes as extremely harmful to people's lives and want to make sure people are not treated unfairly.
I think this comparison, while somewhat dramatic (losing your job =/= getting thrown in jail), is apt: we even use similar terms like "representation."
These are quotes about unions! I guess I just felt like talking about unions all the sudden.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Sam: Both of those quotes completely ignore the actual gripes against unions that I see from free-market advocates.
I mean, they're representative of most of the responses free-market advocates get when they voice their concerns about certain union practices and certain types of unions. But they're awful, awful straw men.
It's telling that you think these are worth posting, though!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Is it? Especially given I haven't voiced agreement or disagreement with it?
Besides, if you think they are awful strawmen, you should say why and offer The Actual Gripes.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I think the actual gripes are more around stuff like compulsory membership where, once a union is established, all employees must be union members, pay dues, etc. in order to be employed by that employer.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah, I definitely assumed you thought they were reasonable arguments. I'd be happy to be mistaken, though!
And you're right, I should. Family visiting from out of town, so I'll try to keep it brief:
The two most common criticisms of unions that I see are:
1: Mandatory union involvement. In many states, even if you choose not to join a union, the union can still force you to pay them if you work in their industry. They're backed up by the State government. This seems to go from government forcibly breaking up organized employees full circle to government forcing people who don't want to join a union to effectively join it anyway.
2: Public sector unions. Generally because of things like a lack of competition (so they can more effectively hold services hostage than a private sector union could) and a conflict of interests, as negotiations between employee/employer have a different dynamic than negotiations between a public sector union and the public official they elected.
I have agreements and disagreements with the above, to be clear. I'm not saying I endorse all of those positions 100%.
But neither of your quotes seem to really address any of those points, and I think they are the biggest points that "anti-union" people bring up. Including the situation in Wichigan/Misconsin/wherever Walker is, since to my (admittedly limited) knowledge he's only going after public sector unions.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think the actual gripes are more around stuff like compulsory membership where, once a union is established, all employees must be union members, pay dues, etc. in order to be employed by that employer.
If it's that big a deal, we probably shouldn't require that lawyers all belong to their state's bar association.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
I didn't know Heuvel was so unknown. Though she's a self-professed progressive, where one puts her on the political spectrum depends on one's own political position. She alone doesn't constitute a major progressive force but she's in a position of significant influence and is very outspoken. I think there are many people in such positions involved in machinations to force the country in a far-left direction but they lack any significant following among the general population to be taken seriously. I don't have any interest in discussing her or progressivism as there is much still to be discussed about unions and Wisconsin.
MattP iterated the the charges against public sector unions that I feel were the basis for Wisconsin citizens wanting the influence of unions reduced.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: These are quotes about unions! I guess I just felt like talking about unions all the sudden.
Who is Tortuga Manana?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Someone who likes unions obviously!
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:It's not "a 'waste' for Wisconsin to avail itself of its own democratic process" but that democratic process occurred in 2011 when Walker beat Barrett the first time. Is the union-led left going to call for a recall every year until the candidate they support wins? If that happened every election for every elected official the system would fail. It would be non-stop campaigning and seats flip-flopping mere months apart. We have terms of office and other checks to avoid that very destructive scenario.
This is a good point, but I don't think you can take a principled stand on this issue. Let's say a really bad candidate got elected, the equivalent of a Hitler. Then of course the right thing to do would be to have a recall. You can't say it's absolutely wrong, period, to try to recall an official because the official's policies are abhorrent to you.
So then the issue just becomes, is Walker bad enough to justify recalling him? My sense is that he is, but I can understand a reasonable person with what I'd consider correct principles holding the other view.
You think Walker is the bee's knees. OK. Can you understand why people on what you call the "radical left"--which includes a large enough fraction of Wisconsin that it's pretty weird to call it radical--would say Walker is so far beyond the pale that any and every legal measure for wresting power away from him has to at least be attempted?
You're right in saying one can't take a principled stand against recall, and I agree with you (e.g. Hitler), but the recall option should be used with extreme prudence. Once it becomes a commonly accepted legal measure to use against political opponents then any political persuasion can easily and quickly find justification for it. (Think Tea Party recalling a politician for raising taxes. Not a far-fetched proposition if recall comes to be perceived as acceptable, commonplace, and effective.)
I can understand reasonable people holding opinions of unions and Walker that are opposite of mine but we probably won't agree on whether Walker merited a recall vote. I don't view Walker's actions as immoral or a sign of incompetence. To the contrary, in fact. I believe he had the moral imperative to do the will of the people of Wisconsin, who voted him into office, and had he jeopardized the already shakey fiscal situation of the state by acquiescing to the demands of the unions, that would have been an indication of his inability to govern with good judgement.
With the benefit of nearly 70 years of perspective, yes, we would both recall Hitler. But I don't think Walker and Hitler are in the same ball park when it comes to political and moral ideology.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No. But both knew they needed to cripple the unions to hold on to their power.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: No. But both knew they needed to cripple the unions to hold on to their power.
Do you consider holding on to power the same motive behind the actions of Thatcher or Reagan?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Which actions?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
"Crippling" unions.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:...had he jeopardized the already shakey fiscal situation of the state by acquiescing to the demands of the unions...
Not to quibble, but, um.... You realize that the public sector unions in question had made no demands of the state, right? That in fact the state had gone to the unions and asked them to accept pay freezes, mandatory furloughs, and reduced benefits, and the unions had actually agreed to all of these requests?
The unions were not making any new demands of the state, and were in fact bending to demands from the state.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Same thing happened in MA, wiht the state college workers. Romney screwed them hard, AFTER they had volunteered to defer already agreed upon raises for years.
Romney let the agreement end, then cried foul, stating the workers, who had deferred their raises for 5 year at that point, were greedy, then he defaulted on their labor agreement. Once again, only AFTER the concessions were done.
It was one of the most backhanded, dirty political moves I have seen in my life, and it's no wonder he is no longer Governor in MA. His record there alone should disqualify him to be POTUS.
quote:If it's that big a deal, we probably shouldn't require that lawyers all belong to their state's bar association.
Right. Also of note: in non-right-to-work states union membership isn't compelled by any law, it's compelled by a contract settled on between the union and the employer. The employer freely agrees not to hire anyone who's not employed by the union. Right-to-work laws prevent unions and employers from agreeing to such contracts. I used to not understand this (until very recently) and thought right-to-work made sense.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:It's not "a 'waste' for Wisconsin to avail itself of its own democratic process" but that democratic process occurred in 2011 when Walker beat Barrett the first time. Is the union-led left going to call for a recall every year until the candidate they support wins? If that happened every election for every elected official the system would fail. It would be non-stop campaigning and seats flip-flopping mere months apart. We have terms of office and other checks to avoid that very destructive scenario.
This is a good point, but I don't think you can take a principled stand on this issue. Let's say a really bad candidate got elected, the equivalent of a Hitler. Then of course the right thing to do would be to have a recall. You can't say it's absolutely wrong, period, to try to recall an official because the official's policies are abhorrent to you.
So then the issue just becomes, is Walker bad enough to justify recalling him? My sense is that he is, but I can understand a reasonable person with what I'd consider correct principles holding the other view.
You think Walker is the bee's knees. OK. Can you understand why people on what you call the "radical left"--which includes a large enough fraction of Wisconsin that it's pretty weird to call it radical--would say Walker is so far beyond the pale that any and every legal measure for wresting power away from him has to at least be attempted?
You're right in saying one can't take a principled stand against recall, and I agree with you (e.g. Hitler), but the recall option should be used with extreme prudence. Once it becomes a commonly accepted legal measure to use against political opponents then any political persuasion can easily and quickly find justification for it. (Think Tea Party recalling a politician for raising taxes. Not a far-fetched proposition if recall comes to be perceived as acceptable, commonplace, and effective.)
I can understand reasonable people holding opinions of unions and Walker that are opposite of mine but we probably won't agree on whether Walker merited a recall vote. I don't view Walker's actions as immoral or a sign of incompetence. To the contrary, in fact. I believe he had the moral imperative to do the will of the people of Wisconsin, who voted him into office, and had he jeopardized the already shakey fiscal situation of the state by acquiescing to the demands of the unions, that would have been an indication of his inability to govern with good judgement.
With the benefit of nearly 70 years of perspective, yes, we would both recall Hitler. But I don't think Walker and Hitler are in the same ball park when it comes to political and moral ideology.
You're literally saying the same argument I've seen Conservatives say as to why the Bush Administration shouldn't have been tried for war crimes.
Secondly cutting public sector jobs and wages actually slows down economic growth making the debt situation worse, so..... By your logic Walker has not shown himself to govern with good judgement ergo the recall is justified.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I'd say the first one was justified. If they try to recall him again not only would it be stupid, it would be a waste of resources.
However, if his campaign did do anything illegal, suppressing voter turnout, that is a whole different ball of wax. That type of crap isn't acceptable regardless of which side of the aisle you sit on.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Voter suppression has been a proud American tradition for a *very* long time now.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
The elderly are just about the if not the biggest group that will be impacted by this law-many many many many don't have photo ID, and live more than ten miles from offices they need to visit to get one. That's if they have a birth certificate.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So I guess walker's running an 80k job deficit, and as such has quietly removed his promise to add 250k jobs from his websites.
Oh what a mess up there huh
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
spain's pretty messy in general. is the unemployment rate for young people still as bad?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: spain's pretty messy in general. is the unemployment rate for young people still as bad?
I haven't been following too closely but I believe so. I came across the ghost town that is part of Madrid thanks to a new episode of the show Top Gear I saw last night. They were driving through a completely deserted yet brand new city development. Brand new, fully functional international airport, empty. Thousands of brand new, never used apartments, hotel rooms and condos, all empty. Brand new and completely empty highways to nowhere. It was really eery, like the zombie apocalypse had hit and they were the last three people alive. That article only shows a piece of it.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
The airport. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
man, and facilities like that cost tons of money per month just to upkeep and heat; the second you don't invest that, it quickly becomes unusable through degradation, concrete spalling, etc
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: man, and facilities like that cost tons of money per month just to upkeep and heat; the second you don't invest that, it quickly becomes unusable through degradation, concrete spalling, etc
Why would the concrete spall?
Hobbes Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Concrete used in buildings like these is rarely entrained like concrete on a bridge or sidewalk would be, so once the heat gets shut off, it sets in deceptively fast. Interiors, plaster, flooring, carpeting, and drywall will rot, pipes will burst, and then, like clockwork, foundations and concrete will start to flake.
There's a lot of manufacturing plants and office buildings and stuff which are lying completely unoccupied and unused but whose owners are keeping them in a state of upkeep in the hopes someone moves back in or production resumes, and the tab can run amazingly high.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
That's certainly a thing, but if the concrete was mixed and placed at all competently, spalling in this location shouldn't be a concern for a while. That said, I agree with the main point that places like this aren't designed to last a long time, they're designed to be maintained for a long time and thus will quickly loose all value when left unused.
Hobbes Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Usually what happens is that the roof fails first. We all know they don't last forever. Once the roof starts leaking, water can get to exposed rebar or embedded anchor bolts, etc. at the top of the walls and start rusting. The rust continues on into the interior of the concrete, expands and the whole thing starts to fall apart. If the building was in use, roof leaks would be repaired quickly.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)