Rand Paul and Silicon Valley's Shifting Political Climate

SonicSpike sends this story from NY Magazine: Rand Paul appears to be making a full-court press for the affections of Silicon Valley, and there are some signs that his efforts are paying off. At last week's Sun Valley conference, Paul had one-on-one meetings with Thiel and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. ... Next weekend, Paul will get to make his case yet again as the keynote speaker at Reboot, a San Francisco conference put on by a group called Lincoln Labs, which self-defines as "techies and politicos who believe in promoting liberty with technology." He'll likely say a version of what he's said before: that Silicon Valley's innovative potential can be best unlocked in an environment with minimal government intrusion in the forms of surveillance, corporate taxes, and regulation. “I see almost unlimited potential for us in Silicon Valley,” Paul has said, with "us" meaning libertarians.

Today's Silicon Valley is still exceedingly liberal on social issues. But it seems more skeptical about taxes and business regulation than at any point in its recent history. Part of this is due to the rise of companies like Uber and Tesla Motors, blazing-hot start-ups that have been opposed at every turn by protectionist regulators and trade unions, in confrontations that are being used by small-government conservatives as case studies in government control run amok.

Comments

More Like Subsidized

[Anonymous Coward]

> Uber and Tesla Motors, blazing-hot start-ups that have been opposed at every turn by protectionist regulators

Every Tesla vehicle comes with a minimum of $7,500 subsidy from the federal government plus a bunch of state government subsidies like $2,500 and single-driver privileges in HOV lanes in California. They are the last company that should be laying claim to libertarian ideals.

Re:More Like Subsidized

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think that article is believable when it said Rand Paul is libertarian and not Republican?

The author threw in some tech companies and lied about their persecution. Tesla's had a lot of help from the government. They're fighting the dealerships mainly, and Tesla's winning.

Uber's legal in almost all of the cities it operates in, and the only thing they are fighting is the fees to pick-up and drop-off at certain airports, something even the regular cabbies have to pay. Uber is basically fighting for special treatment, not for equal treatment.

Republican in libertarian clothing to draw the lunatic and paranoia votes. And then Rand Paul will continue voting Republican.

Re:More Like Subsidized

[serviscope_minor]

Every Tesla vehicle comes with a minimum of $7,500 subsidy from the federal government plus a bunch of state government subsidies like $2,500 and single-driver privileges in HOV lanes in California. They are the last company that should be laying claim to libertarian ideals.

What about the pollution caused by internal combustion engines? Just because the subsidy on their operation isn't on a ledger, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Ultimately externalities have to be paid for.

Re:More Like Subsidized

[Mashiki]

Oh /. don't ever change, continue to be that bastion of liberal insanity believing that libertarians are "lunatics and paranoid."

Re:More Like Subsidized

[Kjella]

In libertarian world negative externalities are paid by those who are stuck with them, even if they're an unwilling third party to someone else's actions because nobody has any responsibility for the common good. If a river flows through your land to someone else's land where they sell drinking water, you can dump your sewage in the river and sell your own clean upstream water. If you're a drug pusher and a junkie wants drugs it's a voluntary transaction, that the junkie robs and steals to feed his crack habit is none of your concern. If you come across a man dying of thirst, you don't have to give him a drink of water even if you have plenty. In short, libertarianism doesn't require you to do anything for anyone else's well-being.

The counter-arguments typically are that charity and compassion will kick in and libertarians will give him a drink of water, but not because they're compelled to by law. People will form voluntary agreements and shared resources like a town well out of mutual benefit. In short, their solution to the "tragedy of the commons" is basically to pretend it won't happen even though history shows it quickly devolves into a few rulers/gangs/companies with power and many regular people at their mercy. If you get to play with every dirty trick in the book then competition will quickly cease and one monopolist or an oligarchy will control the market and smother any start-up in its infancy.

Re:More Like Subsidized

[jythie]

Or the counterargument is that communities will form their own police for and system of rules that anyone living in the community has to abide by, with local groups of people picking representatives to get together and bring each communities' interests to a governing body, but it won't be a state damn it!

Re:More Like Subsidized

[drinkypoo]

If a river flows through your land to someone else's land where they sell drinking water, you can dump your sewage in the river and sell your own clean upstream water.

The Libertarians all believe that they are supermen (or -women) and that they will naturally win any competition as a result. Thus they believe that they will win the inevitable battles to the death when they shit in someone else's water, or someone shits in theirs. After all, if someone deprives you of a basic requirement for life, are you just going to roll over and die? Hell no, especially if you're one of these who believes that every man is a nation or a king. You're going to take up arms and go to war.

In short, their solution to the "tragedy of the commons" is basically to pretend it won't happen

Yep. And also to pretend that they will come out on the winning side, when history shows us that virtually everyone doesn't. Such a system always spawns a more structured system which supersedes it.

Re:More Like Subsidized

[gfxguy]

Fair enough... and we'll judge democrats on what Barack "spread the wealth around" Obama, Joe "Foot in mouth" Biden, Hillary "We're going to take those profits!" Clinton, Harry "We refuse to vote on a budget because it'll show how terrible our fiscal situation is like" Reid, and Nancy "You have to vote for it to see what's in in" Pelosi say and do; and we'll judge republicans based on . . . who? Republicans are such a minority now it's hard to pick... John Boehner? OK. Guess what... it's all bad, and libertarians look like saints and perfectly sane by comparison.

Re:More Like Subsidized

[Sockatume]

Great, so if you have enough money to sue the other guy, you're fine.

Re:More Like Subsidized

[JesseMcDonald]

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." But men are definitely, definitely not angels. Libertarians think that if everybody else would just "wake up, sheeple!" they would be enlightened like them and of course would adhere to rules of common decency and fair play.

You're thinking of pacifists, or possibly communists. Libertarians are the realists in this scenario; we realize that humans are imperfect, and that, as a direct consequence of this, giving a select group of imperfect humans the practically unlimited power of government is not a recipe for a better world. ("Select" because, for the most part, they are self-selected as the most likely to abuse the position... one doesn't generally set out to become a politician out of the belief that people have the the right to live their lives peaceably without third-party interference.)

Libertarians are opposed to all abuses of power, not just those which originate from government. We oppose the government specifically because it embodies the systematic abuse of power, and, unlike other criminal organizations, maintains the pretense that its abuses are somehow "legitimate". That does not mean that we are OK with non-government entities violating others' rights, or think that in the absence of government everyone would "just get along". There will continue to be bad actors out there; we will still need to defend ourselves against them. But without government they at least won't have a ready-made system available to amplify their offenses and shield them from the consequences.

Re:More Like Subsidized

[NeutronCowboy]

Libertarians are opposed to all abuses of power,

No. Patently, you're not. You are completely unable to deal with the very real problem of warlords stepping into any power vacuum, and all the abuses that come from that. You just happen to think that a) you'll be the one in power, and b) you'll be the benevolent ruler of your little plot land, happily living in communion with all those around you. Unfortunately for you, every single time a power vacuum happens due to the disintegration of a central state, your theory is put to the test, and it fails absolutely miserably.

But without government they at least won't have a ready-made system available to amplify their offenses and shield them from the consequences.

What you utterly fail to comprehend is that there is always a power center. It can either be one in which the population is invested in and which can be changed without bloodletting, aka a republic of some sort, or it can be one that doesn't. Both will always claim to have some sort of legitimacy - even if for some it is just the barrel of a gun.

We oppose the government specifically because it embodies the systematic abuse of power, and, unlike other criminal organizations, maintains the pretense that its abuses are somehow "legitimate".

You're so adorable. You're main beef with the government is that you don't like its claim to legitimacy, and therefore think it's as bad as actual criminal organizations. Let me guess - white, under 30, never lived in an actual failed state. Probably come from some rich suburb.

Re:More Like Subsidized

[NeutronCowboy]

There's the slight issue of enforcement of tort law. A weak central government that has no teeth will not be able to enforce the decisions by the courts, which means that we're back to citizens enforcing the courts decisions on their own. Or at least, whatever they think the court said...

Unless, of course, you want to argue that the government has an active local law enforcement arm, that is properly funded by taxes, and that the laws are actively debated by an appointed set of representatives to make sure that they reflect the local needs. You know, like a democracy or something.

Re:More Like Subsidized

[stdarg]

What makes you think libertarians don't want clean water? That's just ignorant.

Here's one example of a libertarian response: http://www.ruwart.com/environ2...

Basically it involves having private property rights to water, and suing people who damage your property.

Re:More Like Subsidized

[stdarg]

It sounds like you're talking more about anarchists than libertarians. What makes you think libertarians are against having a national standing army for defense, which would include the "warlords" you're speculating about?

Re:More Like Subsidized

[meta-monkey]

You seem to think that without government authority, power will not be exerted against you, and not against those least able to fend for themselves. This is not the case. Those who have wealth and power will always seek to gain more at the expense of anyone else, and through whatever means they have available. This extends to backroom deals, monopoly power, insider trading, unsafe working conditions and violence. Private police forces and strike breakers.

Government, restrained by a separation of powers with checks and balances over each other, should serve as the check against the power of the wealthy over those who have no wealth and therefore no individual power.

Unfortunately currently the power of government has been bought by the wealthy. What's needed is a restructuring to reduce the influence of money in politics. But the answer is not to remove the power of government. That power vacuum will simply be filled by the power of the wealthy, and the poor and middle class will have no defense against their rapaciousness.

This is the perpetual blind spot that libertarians just don't seem to understand. Without government restraining wealthy sociopaths, they will kill or enslave you, through "legitimate" means or otherwise. You have this fantasy that either you will be in charge or that everybody will just get along, but they won't, because there are evil people in this world who are only restrained by the collective action of government by the people.

Re:More Like Subsidized

[Archangel Michael]

I love people who don't know or understand Libertarianism try to describe it. Libertarianism oppose to abuses of power, and only want a government big enough to stop abuses of power. But we also know that abuses of power will exist. It is much easier to control "Boss Hog" in some rural county than it is to control "Hitler" in Europe.

Liberals love to describe Libertarianism as unworkable, simply because they don't like liberty. They like big centralized power that can control the masses. I would dare say that things like the IRS, NSA, DHS and all the other "abuses" of our federal government are exactly the result of Liberals wanting to control the outcomes of everyone's lives. They don't arise in a land of Liberty. Period.

I want unbridled liberty. It is messy, ugly and free. If a nice tidy society is what you want, you're a Fascist. But hey, at least the trains are on time.

Re:More Like Subsidized

[drinkypoo]

Basically it involves having private property rights to water, and suing people who damage your property.

Which either requires a tax-maintained court system, or that you have enough money to pay to have your case heard in court before you can have "justice".

Re:More Like Subsidized

[Mashiki]

Pot, kettle.

Considering I can easily point out the general craziness of liberals on a scale that dwarfs what would be considered "libertarians" pretty sure it's not pot, kettle, black. Or are you saying that the issues and policies that liberals are promoting today, are "good" for the US as a whole. Especially the current illegal immigration issue, or how about environmental policies that protect non-endangered animals.

Re:More Like Subsidized

[Kariles70]

Again, you are confusing libertarians with communists. You think only the state can protect you from evil forces. Any safety the govt. provides does not excuse what always happens even in a free state: drafts into military action, arrests by gestapo on little or no evidence, heavy taxes, fines, fees, and other things - less if they like you more if they don't. Oh yeah, with govt. of the 20th century alone murdering 130,000,000 people and killing 110,000,000 in wars, they can really be counted on to make us S-A-F-E!

Re:More Like Subsidized

[danbert8]

From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure Democracy, by which I mean a Society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A Republic, by which I mean a Government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.

From Federalist #10 by James Madison

Re:More Like Subsidized

[NeutronCowboy]

Well. One reasonable reply. I guess I should be reasonable as well then.

No that's wrong, libertarians are "like" the current government, just smaller.

But that's the crux of the problem: I haven't seen a workable definition of government that isn't like the current one, just smaller. It either devolves into anarchy, or creates a system that is indistinguishable from the current one, except with fewer laws. And that government has no system to prevent the creation of laws that would be identical to the current one.

Yes, that's the libertarian platform. The difference is in how large the government is and what its responsibilities are, not fundamental changes like eliminating lawmakers... honestly that's a ridiculous notion.

Then do explain: how does a libertarian government not become the current one? I mean, outside of being fully staffed by libertarians, who all adhere to the same notions of government, property, and morality? Which, by the way, is the definition of sectarianism, which is hugely destabilizing to a society. Unless, of course, you further assume that everyone is a libertarian, but then we're right back to my main beef with libertarians: completely unrealistic expectations of how people work.

Somalia and Sudan both have central governments with overreaching power in the areas they control based on Islamic law that any libertarian would find abhorrent. Furthermore, there are a number of competing governments disputing territory within each country, also seeking to impose Islamic law (but, you know, the "true" Islamic law).

I can create a central government in my house that has overreaching power in areas that... well, pick whatever you want. My government doesn't matter though, because the US government has far more power to impose its notions on mine, if it ever finds out that they clash and decides to do something about it. My powers are completely at the mercy of the US government's powers. In other words, it's no power at all. Now, what if I could repel the US government's force? Well, that's completely implausible, but it would mean I could create my own government. And I'd have to, because well, that's what a collection of rules and people enforcing those rules are.

The reason that Somalia and Sudan are important is because they show what happens when a central government is unable to enforce its laws. As you pointed out, another type of government replaces it - automatically. Maybe not in the same territory, but as you said, it always starts somewhere in the territory of the old government, because the old government doesn't care, doesn't have the resources to care, or can't enforce the fact that it cares. In the case of Somalia and Sudan, it's a combination of all three.

There are two reasons that this process matters. One, it shows how a new type of government can come about very quickly. Two, it shows empirically that the new governments always take a very different approach to ruling. More islamist, less authoritarian - whatever you want, but it's going to generally be the antithesis. And that's to be expected, since being prepared to die for the new style of government requires very strong opinions about how much different things should be. There's also the possibility that someone just decided that they'd rather be the ruler, but I'm assuming that's not what libertarians are all about.

This means that there are two reasons why failed states like Sudan and Somalia - or heck, Mexico is skirting really fucking close to that - put the lie to libertarian claims of perfect government. If libertarians would be really so keen to cast off the shackles of the old government, those places are great to start from scratch. I mean, resource wise it stinks, but at least there's so much chaos that you can quickly create your own state according to your own rules, and you'll be much more likely to be able to enforce your own ideals than anywhere else. Yet no libertarian w

Re:More Like Subsidized

[ultranova]

Company Stores and scripts are an abuse of power. Here is what I said about abuses of power ...

" Libertarianism oppose to abuses of power, and only want a government big enough to stop abuses of power. "

No government is big enough to stop all abuses of power. The current one, for example, is failing to stop a new iteration of company script. Then there's domino effect, like the current financial crisis, where a few greedy and disproportionately powerful people or institutions manage to screw the entire economy and everyone who operates in it. So while this is a fine principle, it sadly doesn't really guide us.

The fact that these types of "company towns" operated, with impunity was simply because government was NOT doing its job properly.

Specifically, it merely guaranteed property rights and enforcement of contracts (you know, the libertarian ideal), thus allowing those with more property than average to use the associated power to gather even more, until they had enough to dictate any terms they wanted for the rest. A government that doesn't restrict concentration of economic power cannot stop the majority of people from becoming beholden to the will of those who control the resources.

For the record, my ideal solution for this would be unconditional citizen pay sufficient to live on. Let those who can stand to spend the rest of their life in their beds do so; it's not like they were likely contributing much anyway. And let those institutions who need the whip to get anyone to serve them die off; what were they ever, but soul-crushing slavemasters? We're moving to post-industrial economy and have little if any need for human robots to man the assembly line, so why stick to an economic model designed to make people just that? People enjoy building and accomplishing things, so why not simultaneously encourage that by removing the sting from failure and depotentate economic power as a tool of abuse?

However, I would suggest to you that the Government taxes and fees and whatnot amount to the same " no longer free, and it's just ugly and messy." you complain about in Libertarianism. We are serfs to the Government masters.

How do you propose a government to perform any function, proper or not, without resources? And I have a hard time imagining what way of getting them wouldn't cause far more problems than taxation.

But yes, our societies are still suffering from hierarchical power structures, of having masters and serfs. As far as I can tell, Libertarianism wold make them worse, not better. After all, a government is, at least in theory, beholden to me; a company is not.

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old

[Anonymous Coward]

versus "government, please steal that guy's money and give it to me"

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

It's people like you who enable that mayhem.

The idea that small government is a substitute for good governance is a koch dream. Small government means less oversight. So your dollars go to companies like Shell who destroy ecologies and societies.

Things like regulatory capture happen because people don't pay enough attention to their government, not because it is too big. Money chases power wherever it is. At least with government the money has to put in some work to get what it wants instead of getting it served up on a platter.

bullshit

[meglon]

Part of this is due to the rise of companies like Uber and Tesla Motors, blazing-hot start-ups that have been opposed at every turn by protectionist regulators and trade unions, in confrontations that are being used by small-government conservatives as case studies in government control run amok.

....except....

http://insideevs.com/uaw-looks...

CEO Elon Musk says Tesla is union neutral, so that’s the automaker’s stance.

Then there's the whole "government run amok" thing... where it should really say "state government run amok." The protectionist policies adopted haven't been federal, they've been state level. Texas, Arizona, Virginia, Maryland, and New Jersey have outright bans; Georgia and Colorado have severe restrictions on selling; and Ohio and New York have legislation pending. Musk has said, if the states keep fucking with him, he will use the federal courts to deal with the issue.... so again, the problem isn't the federal government, it's the states.

With Uber, again the problem isn't unions, and it's not the federal government.. it's city governments.

Perhaps this should be a case study on smaller governments causing more problems than they should, and those that promote "small government" lying and trying to blame "big government" and unions.

Re:bullshit

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

As with so many political labels, there are at least two distinct schools of thought that use the term 'small-government conservative'; plus a large swath of opportunists who adopt the label if they suspect that it will poll well with their target audience.

You've got the 'small-government' segment primarily worried about the feds doing things without constitutional basis. Then you have the ones who are 'small-government' in that they want as little as possible (and think that 'as little as possible' is very, very, little).

The former flavor would likely prefer to avoid really embarrassing exercises of 'state's rights', like protecting car dealers; because fuck those guys; but would theoretically be obliged to be hostile to any federal intrusion on the matter. The latter flavor doesn't care nearly as much about the origin of the laws, so they'll oscillate between using and attacking federal power as the situation dictates. If a bunch of state legislation is bothering them and looks like it will be difficult to cut through, bring on federal supremacy to supersede all state regulations with federal equivalents that are as toothless as possible. If the feds look like they might regulate something that at least some states have hitherto ignored, it's all aboard for state's rights and reigning in federal abuses of the interstate commerce clause and similar.

Once you get into the realm of the pure opportunists, of course, absolutely anything goes, without the slightest requirements for honesty, internal consistency, or even coherence.

Re:bullshit

[CrimsonAvenger]

Perhaps this should be a case study on smaller governments causing more problems than they should, and those that promote "small government" lying and trying to blame "big government" and unions.

For what it's worth, "small government" is not synonymous with "local/State government", nor is "big government synonymous with "Federal government".

A city government, within the bounds of the city, can quite easily be "big government" when it tries to micromanage everything in the city.

Likewise, the Federal government can quite easily be labelled "small government" when it avoids trying to micromanage everything (not that that's actually happened since the New Deal).

Re:bullshit

[FhnuZoag]

Locationally smaller government just hands an advantage to those who can manipulate geographic legal differences, ranging from rich people easily capable of moving themselves and their assets around, to companies that can exist whereever they want instantly and perhaps simultaneously.

In comparison, poor people and smaller businesses suffer because they are unable to physically move, and so there is no actual inter-state competition for legislation that affects them. Thus, a race to the bottom is created where policy shifts to be extremely favourable to mobile populations and corporate entities, and extremely unfavourable to ordinary people.

Re:bullshit

[ranton]

Musk may say he's neutral, but Tesla's actions make it clear that it is hardly neutral.

Nothing in that article you posted provides any examples of Tesla not being neutral. Identifying that unions could hurt profitability is not being negative towards unions, it is just being honest. If I list on a project plan that there is a risk one of my team leads could leave the company therefore causing delays, I am not being negative towards those employees. I am only identifying that it is possible they could hamper the project.

There is a single statement the article makes which claims the operating management has been opposed to unions, but no examples are provided.

Re:Corporate America

[Chrisq]

Is it a democracy?

No. Yo can vote for which party the corporations will tell what to do.

Re:Corporate America

[pezpunk]

well according to the supreme court corporations = people and money = free speech so at least the "people" have their "free speech"

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old

[meglon]

Every single day of life you and everyone else in this country has gained benefits and used services provided by the government. The social compact that this country has survived on, at least up till 1981, was that each generation invests in the future so that this country will provide a better life for future generations.

In 1981 that changed. You had elected someone who loudly proclaimed that people no longer had to invest in the future, and everything would smell like flowers and look like rainbows.

Since that time, there has been a large segment of the population who, while still gaining the benefits, and using the services of this country, have actively refused to live up to the basic responsibility of living in this country. They have acted like leeches, sucking the life out of this country, using up it's resources, and driving the future generations into massive debt. They can't be bothered to pay for the government they use, because they're greedy, self centered, egotistical, myopic assholes, who don't give a damn about this country... just about themselves. They are nothing more than thieves, stealing from the future to ad their pockets in the present day.

In the 1940's, during the war, millions of men were called up to fight, with hundreds of thousands paying the ultimate cost for this country. The top marginal tax rate was over 90%. Now, we are paying close to the lowest rates in 60 years, and there's no requirement to submit to a draft for military service... yet we still have a segment of the population who bitch and whine like little toddlers with shit in the diapers that taxes are too high. These people are THE problem in this country. They undermine everything that this country has ever done, and spit on the graves of those who gave their lives making this country a better place... all because they're greedy little bitches.

No one likes to pay taxes, but taxes are the cost of living in society. As for the ones stealing.... those are the worthless little bitches who don't support this country, even after using everything this country offers every day.

The Valley trade: Less taxes, more H1Bs...

[swb]

...longer, better patents and copyrights, more EULAs.

This is really what we need, aspiring politicians appealing to plutocrats.

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old

[thaylin]

To be honest we still submit for a draft, it is selective service and it is compulsory for males. There is just not a draft to take use of it atm

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[thaylin]

You mean give away to people currently down on their luck, or unable to find a job right now? Something that can happen to any one of us, and is a nail in the side of the economy, which needs a maximum amount of workers?

Re:Too bad he has no Foreign policy

[taxman_10m]

We took a leading role in Iraq. Would have been better if we didn't.

This is the problem with having a two party system

[brunes69]

The idea that economic policy and social policy are tied at the hip in the two mainstream parties is ridiculous. Someone who supports conservative economic policy but liberal social policies, in any other country, has a mainstream party to get behind. In the US, they're essentially an outcast who has to decide which is more important to them, their personal values or what they think is the best direction for the economy, because voting for third parties is viewed as a lost vote.

Politics in the US needs drastic reform away from the two party system.

Re:This is the problem with having a two party sys

[Anonymous Coward]

How does Rand Paul have a liberal social policy? He's perfectly happy with letting states bar gays from marrying, eliminating abortion and birth control, making it difficult for minorities to vote, and allowing businesses to discriminate.

What part of that is liberal social policy?

Where the hell are people getting their news on Rand Paul?

What Kim Stanley Robinson said of libertarianism.

[Anonymous Coward]

"That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves."

And given the overwhelming historical association between "liber"tarian ideology and slavery, it's probably more accurate to just call it according to its real preoccupation: Moneytarianism.

No doubt such a viewpoint would find a receptive audience in some of the shallower minds and uglier spirits of Silicon Valley.

But the philosophical core of the region and the tech industry remains fundamentally progressive. That's why it remains the king despite decades of conservative "small government" states desperately trying and failing to replicate it on any remotely competitive scale.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[thaylin]

You cannot get welfare if you are in that situation... But keep on thinking that.

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old

[thaylin]

It is not stolen, without that money it would be very much harder for you to do your labor. What with no roads,reliable electric grid, phone service.

Draper Labs and Lincoln Labs

[Anonymous Coward]

T-shirts that got their wearers in trouble at conference.

      Draper Labs: When you really want it there on time

Draper labs specializes in missile guidance systems, and the shirt had a picture of a launching missile. Some of their work as been space program supportive, but it would have been a lot cheaper without the military angle, and we'd have actually gotten to see the results in industry, not hidden away as Top Secret.

      Lincoln Labs: When you care enough to send the very best

Lincoln Labs helped design the H Bomb: the shirt had a picture of a mushroom cloud. Lincoln remains up to its armpits in Reagan era "Star Wars defense" projects, It's amazing the billions that can go into research for "defense" that is far more effective as treaty violating offensive weapons. If you don't believe me, read up on Peter Hagelstein, one of the core developers of the nuclear bomb triggered X-Ray laser technology, one of the only technologies out of that amazing technology pork barrel that actually looked like it might work.

If you went to delude a bunch of technically sharp, politically naive people into burning billions of dollars on bad national politics, it sounds like just the sort of place to start.

Re:This is the problem with having a two party sys

[swb]

I think its due to the nature of the voting system (winner take all, even if you don't poll a majority). But it also seems to be endemic to many democracies, they tend to gravitate to two party systems. The UK has Labor and the Conservatives, the Germans have Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats.

But even in countries with larger third parties, they're seldom major parts of government. I think the current coalition government in the UK is one of the few times the Liberal Democrats have been in government. In Germany the FDP has mostly been a kingmaker rather than a majority party capable of forming its own government.

We just started using ranked choice voting for elections in Minneapolis, which in theory eliminates the "lost vote" problem by allowing you to make third parties your first choice but still vote "defensively" by making some other candidate a secondary choice.

So far it doesn't seem to have led to a lot of radical change in outcomes other than making the election results take a couple of extra days due to the calculations involved when there's a dozen candidates.

Re:This is the problem with having a two party sys

[Trepidity]

Someone who supports conservative economic policy but liberal social policies, in any other country, has a mainstream party to get behind.

In some kind of relative sense, yes, but there is no mainstream party in most of the west that supports policies like Rand Paul's. In most of Europe, the "economically conservative but socially liberal" parties have economic policies to he left of the Democrats, including support for national healthcare.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[iserlohn]

Pretty much the most insightful post on this topic as of yet.

Objectivitism (i.e. Aynd Rand) is basically a pipe dream similar to Communism. Human nature dictates that those with power will always try to exploit the weak. The basic tenants of good government is to balance this equation in favor of the common good.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[thaylin]

Do you really think any of the sides actually want that? Even the small government party does not mind intruding if it fits their beliefs.

Re:Too bad he has no Foreign policy

[thaylin]

You and I have fairly different ideas of sane. Supporting people who think rape is OK, as God intended it is not sane in social issues, at least in my opinion.

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old

[drinkypoo]

The problem is that government spends the money on things that make our lives harder. Interstate Highway System plus Streetcar Scandal, anyone? We could have had rail instead of roads, but roads sold cars so we got roads and now we're still paying for that in both lives and ecological impact. We don't have a reliable electrical grid; It is not a grid — in most locations, it is star-wired and not grid-wired at all. And today's phone service is internet service, and we have the worst broadband penetration in the developed world.

This government has demonstrated time and again its inability to spend our money responsibly. The primary examples you cite are all places where it is falling on its ass.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[Rich0]

It is impossible to have socialism at the state government level because states are not permitted to levy tariffs or control immigration.

You can't have socialism without both of those. If a state were to offer free healthcare paid for by taxes, then the unemployed who need healthcare would just travel to that state, while employers would move to other states where taxes are lower. That doesn't mean that single-payer healthcare can't work - just that it can't work in the context of a US state. In a country like Canada you can't just move there for six months to have your cancer fixed, and anybody from outside of Canada selling goods there is subject to tariffs which are intended to help ensure that the cost basis for producing those goods is somewhat comparable.

I've heard the whole laboratory for experimentation argument about the role of the federal/state governments, but it really only allows for experimentation on fairly minor things and for the most part is just a race for the bottom. Look at what companies do when they negotiate their taxes while threatening to move operations.

Re: Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that libertarians would instantly reduce the government to nothing if they took power is laughable.

Why is it laughable? Republicans literally shut down the government twice now. Have you already forgotten Oct 1 through 17, 2013 when house republican majority refused to vote on a bipartisan bill because they didn't want to fund Obamacare?

It's not paranoia when that is indeed what happened.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[thaylin]

If your theory was correct wouldnt Mass be experiencing a mass exodus of bushiness, and not the growth of GDP it is seeing??

Re: Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[thaylin]

because they would still want what they still want. They would replace the losses in social services with more military, because no one wants to be seen as anti military.. Playing politics with a government shut down is not the same as actually wanting to have real reductions in government.

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old

[thaylin]

Most of what you lay claim on being bad big government is actually bad small government.. Why do we have the worst broadband penetration, because the government is not making the companies do anything, any thing at all, not even compete. As for everything else that is state level issues, which we paid for with federal monies. they way to fix them is not with less regulation, as the lack of regulation is what allowed them to happen in the first place.

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old

[Anonymous Coward]

keep your "benefits". I'll keep the wages I earned from my labor.

No, you wont keep those wages. Where will you keep them? In the bank, so they are insured from loss? Sorry, you don't want that benefit. In your house? Are you prepared to defend yourself from 20 men with guns who want your money? Because that's what will happen. You've relinquished your benefit to have the police defend you, or to have them prosecute your attackers after the fact as a deterrent to the next person. Assuming you survive, you've relinquished your rights to use the legal system to attempt to recover your damages.

And are you prepared to put out any house fires yourself since you dont want the fire department funded? Are you planning to clearcut your own roadways so you can go somewhere beside your house to earn your money? How will you convince your neighbors to allow you to have a road that goes through their property. Remember, they are happy to pay their taxes for public roads, so they have no interest in cooperating with you so that you can have your own non-public road.

What you desire is a world more wild than the tv depictions of the wild wild west. You will quickly find that, without paying taxes, you better be prepared to essentially live on an island by yourself, and just pray you dont get outnumbered and outgunned by a group of people wanting to take that island from you. If you thought people wanting to take your money in the form of taxes was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[jythie]

In a "free market", people can still come and bulldoze your house. Who is going to stop them?

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[Desler]

Amazing to see that people are still falling for Reagan's "welfare queen" fantasy.

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old

[jythie]

Which is why the libertarian dream is to derive all the benefits of living in a country where public money is invested in the future while avoiding any of the responsibility or cost themselves. Silicon valley would be NOTHING if not for public investment to build off of.

Re: Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that libertarians would instantly reduce the government to nothing if they took power is laughable.

Why is it laughable? Republicans literally shut down the government twice now. Have you already forgotten Oct 1 through 17, 2013 when house republican majority refused to vote on a bipartisan bill because they didn't want to fund Obamacare?

It's not paranoia when that is indeed what happened.

Yes, most people have. If you didn't work for the government or were on welfare then the shutdown was hardly noticeable to the public.

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old

[MachineShedFred]

caused by Hoover and FDR with their 'Great Society'

Great Society was an LBJ thing. You're off by 30 years.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[FhnuZoag]

You can vote for a different government. The fact that people aren't coming to bulldoze your house right now, is because people have voted for a government that does not allow it. It's not because of your personal fighting prowess.

Power is always gonna exist. All you are actually asking for is a change from one person, one vote, to one dollar, one vote.

Re:Rand Paul's a plagiarizing misogynistic racist

[MachineShedFred]

I just find it fascinating that left leaning people always proclaim how they are such fans of diversity and inclusion, yet revile any thoughts that might stand in opposition to their own.

God forbid people be open minded towards new ideas, or even old ones.

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old

[drinkypoo]

We have hundreds of millions of people in this country with a wide range of ideas about what the best way to spend money is.

Yes, but that's really not the problem, is it? The problem is the people in positions of power deliberately spending money in ways which they know are not the best for us, specifically for their own personal gain and at the expense of (in some cases) literally everyone else. I'm not against the concept of government. I'm not even necessarily against it being very large, although I question the wisdom of it becoming the largest employer in the nation — especially when "other job duties as required" for so very many of those jobs may include killing people. Is that really the future we wanted to create?

I am opposed to strong centralized anything. Too much power is concentrated at the top of this structure that might better be distributed down to lower levels. It disincentivizes citizen involvement in government by making it unapproachable, and our lack of involvement is what has permitted us to come to this pass to begin with.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[whistlingtony]

Ahem.

1. What is up with all y'all and "socialism"? No one's asking for socialism. No one's handing out socialism. There's no F'in socialism! !@#$

2. We're a mixed economy. Seriously. Everyone needs to look these terms up in a dictionary. Everyone. Go look up Socialism and Mixed Economy.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[bill_mcgonigle]

Human nature dictates that those with power will always try to exploit the weak. The basic tenants of good government is to balance this equation in favor of the common good.

By giving people in the government power. You do realize how this seems to an alien observer?

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old

[jythie]

Not really. They concentrate and consume a disproportionately large percentage of the resources while producing similar amounts of work as everyone else. At my company I see people who make 10 times more then I do, and 10 times less. We do similar amounts of work with similar amounts of training and experience, but I derive a lot more income then some and a lot less then others, and that income comes from a pool of profits that everyone contributes to. But the idea that the person making 10,100, or 1000 times more is providing that much more benefit is laughable.

If we took the top 1% or 0.1% of this countries' earners and made them vanish, the impact on the economy would be minimal to positive.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[whistlingtony]

The free market is imaginary. Show me one. Anywhere on earth. Anywhere. Find me a free market, a market unfiddled by a large organization (government or private, doesn't matter).

The free market is like a frictionless wheel. It's useful to explain some concepts, but it's NOT REAL.

No, the government cannot come bulldoze your house on a whim. Calm down. It COULD use emminent domain, possibly... But then, the bank could decide to mess up some paperwork and forclose on your house despite your ability to pay. Frankly, both of these have happened. They're also RARE AS SHIT and cause a shit storm in the news when they DO happen.

Power is always going to exist. I can run a campaign against my government. I can do lots of things to stop my governemnt. I can't do shit against a bank except ask politely.....

And Seriously? The US Armed forces? Stop hyperbolizing... Both the bank and the governemnt will just call the cops. You're not cool enough to call in the military.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[iserlohn]

There will always be people in power. That's why good government attempts to balance this power so that the result is beneficial to society as a whole.

Power concentrated in the hands of organisations such as multi-national corporations (or even less omniscient entities such as car dealership networks) is no better than being in the hands of an autocratic and abusive regime.

For us in the developed world, at least we have some sort of say over policies implemented by a government which is in theory accountable to the people. Why not improve this system so that is is *more* accountable? Rather than advocating for it's dissolution and letting someone (e.g. private actors, which will always be less accountable) fill in the power vacuum?

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[thaylin]

And do you enjoy living off a max of something like 30% of your income from when you are employed in some states? UI, which is an insurance program has a limited time length. The way you can extend it is in a time of high unemployment or by going to school.

Re: Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[thaylin]

That is funny, as it was mostly my republican friends that were upset about the shutdown as services they wanted to use were offline.

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old

[Ol Olsoc]

Which is why the libertarian dream is to derive all the benefits of living in a country where public money is invested in the future while avoiding any of the responsibility or cost themselves. Silicon valley would be NOTHING if not for public investment to build off of.

Because today's Libertarians really aren't very good Libertarians.

Bill Maher of all people, put it best : https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Selfish pricks are what now define Libertarianism.

The new libertarian is quite happy to do whatever they see fit to benefit themselves. Enlightened self interest my ass. More like pathological greed, but with their truisms trotted out whenever cornered about their lack of the "enlightened" part of that equation.

In other words, today's Libertarians are mostly just Republicans with a tiny bit of liberal around inconsequential edges.

Because today's Libertarians are perfectly happy to gut the system in pursuit of their personal wealth. That their greed ends up putting more people on the public dole, as people working for minimum wage are not capable of surviving without it, is of no consequence to them.

This country is now in the wealth extraction phase of it's existence. Where the wealth came from is of no concern to those who are gleefully gutting us.

Double standards

[sjbe]

I just find it fascinating that left leaning people always proclaim how they are such fans of diversity and inclusion, yet revile any thoughts that might stand in opposition to their own.

This is circular logic with a touch of hypocrisy. So people that value diversity and inclusion are supposed to welcome those that oppose diversity and inclusion even when doing so will result in less diversity and inclusion? The republican party is for the most part dominated by older white men - of which Rand Paul is one. There is a reason well over 90% of blacks, 70% of hispanic and a majority of women lean to the democrats. In case you were wondering why it has a little something to do with the republican party having earned a reputation for not valuing diversity and inclusion. There is a difference between accepting the idea that others might disagree with you and acting to support those you disagree with to the detriment of your own principles and interests.

God forbid people be open minded towards new ideas, or even old ones.

So it's ok for conservatives to not be open to liberal ideas but it's not ok for liberals to be cool with conservative ideas? Nice double standard you have there.

Re:Double standards

[MachineShedFred]

Here's something that will deflate your entire argument: most conservatives don't claim to be open and inclusive - you set up that straw man and knocked the hell out of it. Liberals do, and then bash anyone with different ideas or beliefs as neo-conservative warmongering science-denying ultra-fascist teahadists.

It's perfectly possible to be open to ideas from both sides of the spectrum. In fact, it's where the majority of the electorate is because no particular philosophy has a monopoly on good ideas. It's called being a moderate. You might have heard of it.

Re:Double standards

[NeutronCowboy]

Oh, right, the old argument that "if you're truly open and interested in diversity, you'll let me shit all over openness and diversity, including your own, and you will be happy about it."

Here's the dirty little secret that you're trying hide with that platitude: some ideas are objectively terrible, lead to social disaster, and go against everything the Enlightenment and the revolutions of the 18th century fought for. As a result, the people who espouse those terrible ideas should be called out and ostracized. And while you're right that no party has a monopoly on good ideas, there's only one party that is actively promoting anti-science ideas, segregation, and a general Galt's Gulch approach to society. As soon as the republicans stop being loony, I'll vote for them again.

In the meantime, stop shitting in my cereal and telling me that it is chocolate.

Re:Double standards

[Archangel Michael]

"some ideas are objectively terrible" You mean like a junior senator with a background in "community organizing" would be an effective government leader, and leader of the free world?

But at least he isn't GWB, he is GWB and then some!

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old

[captbob2002]

That's an interesting alternate history you've concocted there. So robber-barons, child labor, rampant pollution, and killing workers the attempted to stand up for themselves is you idea of the best the United States ever was?

Re:Rand Paul's a plagiarizing misogynistic racist

[Qzukk]

with fewer regulations for everyone

Ahahaha whoa there now, slow down sonny. Those regulations are there for a reason, mostly to keep people from competing against me and to make sure that nobody smokes anything I wouldn't openly admit to smoking. Let's back up to that low taxes thing.

Re:Iraq

[quantaman]

George Bush left Obama a stable Iraq. It didn't have to go down the tubes.

He also left Obama a healthy economy and a basket of puppies!

State governments causing Tesla headaches

[sjbe]

Didn't Tesla get a massive loan from the government to fund their development? One they paid back early?

The federal government hasn't caused any big problems for Tesla. It's State governments that are the problem. Legislators for State governments are protecting auto dealers (also known as unnecessary middlemen) to the detriment of both auto manufacturers and car buyers.

Re: Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[nine-times]

The idea that the largest most powerful entity to ever exist on this planet is only ever just trying to be benevolent and good, but is in danger because some people think it is too large is laughable.

I don't know if I've ever heard anyone suggest that idea. I think people have suggested that the most powerful entity to ever exist on this planet has the capacity to do good things. I think people have suggested that it should do good things, and that, since that powerful entity is to some degree democratic, we should be able to get it to do good things.

I think people have suggested that, because it's somewhat democratic and follows "the will of the people", ideologues convincing people to push that powerful entity to do dangerous and reckless things is... well... dangerous and reckless.

You might argue that, because it's such a big, powerful leviathan, it should be dismantled. I am not entirely opposed to the idea. The big question there that libertarians don't always seem to address is, where do you think that power will go? I see no reason why we should assume that it will all be distributed equitably and we'll all live happily ever after. There will be a power-grab.

We can present an argument, but I'm not sure I see the point.

The idea that libertarians would instantly reduce the government to nothing if they took power is laughable.

It depends on what you mean by "libertarians". Some libertarians are actually anarcho-capitalists who would literally like to reduce the government to nothing. Some other "libertarians" (e.g. much of the "tea party") aren't libertarians at all, but are neoconservative republicans who have found a way to make the trend of "libertarianism" server their political goals. They favor "small government" and "keeping the government out of our lives" when it comes to paying taxes, keeping guns, or being racist. But if you're an atheist, if you're gay, if you want to use drugs, or if you want to have an abortion, then suddenly the government needs to do something about that.

So we can't just talk about "libertarians". We have to be specific. Who are we talking about here?

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[flink]

It's almost like there's this sort of happy medium built into the system where the Federal government represents the small government that doesn't intrude while more local governments (States and Municipalities) which offer more representation to their constituents can serve the role of the larger government.

The problem is that large corporations wield even more undemocratic power at the state level. A big company (or even just a small one that employs a lot of people locally) doesn't even have to spend much to gain influence. They just have to make noises about moving operations to another state and they can get all sorts of concessions out of state and local governments. So a lot of reforms, particular things that relate to labor or benefits, are harder to enact at a state-by-state level.

Re: Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[Curunir_wolf]

And the Republicans were perfectly happy choosing to shut down the government. It wasn't a threat. It was completely real. They shut down the government because they didn't want people to have healthcare.

That's funny, because during that time period, I got a ticket for speeding, a bill from the IRS, taxes were taken out of my pay check every week, and my neighbor's EBT card continued to work to buy groceries. The VA didn't kick my dad out of the hospital.

The country was stripped of its AAA credit rating, was one day away from a credit default,

There's a lot of misinformation here. Especially the "default" myth, when the treasury was taking in many times more money than required for debt service. But the ONE credit agency that lowered the US rating actually stated as the reason that there is too much debt and not enough political will do do anything to address it. Interesting, that was the very issue the shutdown was about. So the credit rating was lowered because the Republicans eventually capitulated, not because they "shut down" the government.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[blue9steel]

Power concentrated in the hands of organisations such as multi-national corporations (or even less omniscient entities such as car dealership networks) is no better than being in the hands of an autocratic and abusive regime.

You've hit the nail on the head. Its not the entity that is the problem, concentration of power itself is the problem. Many people, including Libertarians don't seem to grasp this concept. It's not that giving power to the government is always bad or always good, its conditional on whether that concentrates power or distributes it more widely. So if you're in a situation where the Federal government is the most powerful entity in society then giving them more power is bad, but if you're in a situation where some other entity is the most powerful then giving them more power is good. Pluralism is the best guarantee of liberty.

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old

[FhnuZoag]

Neat trick, to focus on 'federal income tax'.

Rich people don't earn the majority of their money as income, or salary. Poor people pay taxes in ways other than federal income tax.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[iserlohn]

So being in a facist (or libertarian) oligarchy with no accountability is better than being in a social democracy with many services provided by a government which is accountable?

Regulations are there for a purpose - for example, the FDA was created to save lives. Over regulation is stifling and encourages rent-seeking behavior, but under-regulation cause us to revert back to the previous, non-desirable state. So we need to find a balance.

As you said, the current system is breaking down, but not because of the system itself. It's because it hasn't been maintained. As citizens we should be more involved in ensuring that the system is kept in check, and that powerful interests, both private and public, is kept in the balance.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[internerdj]

I know a lot of folks who are genuinely irritated with the day to day affairs of the federal government. They aren't out to limit anyone's rights and are quite convinced that your rights will be expanded, but the potential for abuse is pretty high given history. Even worse, a more local focused rule doesn't seem to historically offer as strong a protection against powerful corporate abuse. We will live with corporate abuse but we won't stand for abuse by the state.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[Sir_Eptishous]

We will live with corporate abuse but we won't stand for abuse by the state.

Good Lord Sir, you have spoken the truth.

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old

[Rich0]

That's an interesting alternate history you've concocted there. So robber-barons, child labor, rampant pollution, and killing workers the attempted to stand up for themselves is you idea of the best the United States ever was?

What! You left out the best part: slavery!

Err, rather, the contracted sale of persons into a mutually beneficial arrangement where their owner obtains the benefit of their labor, and the worker obtains the benefit of not having to worry about feeding or clothing themselves, or having to repair the bars on their windows when they wear out.

Re:Rand Paul's a plagiarizing misogynistic racist

[Charcharodon]

why don't you (Libertarians) stop opposing efforts to ban private money from political campaigns.

err because we believe that you actually "own" your own property and can do what ever you want with it. I'm sorry but the progressive view which is that as long as you only have a little bit of property it's pretty much yours, unless of course the gov't says it's not doesn't really work for us.

In other words we are not National Socialists..... like you.

Use of Force

[bigpat]

At its heart libertarianism is just about minimizing the threat and use of force by the government to just those things which are truly essential government functions. However, Laws which protect people from the use of force by others are one of those essential government functions.

Real libertarians don't believe you can pollute your neighbors land or your neighbors air without legal consequences. A person depriving another of the use of their property (such as by polluting it) or violating their rights would be at the heart of what types of things a libertarian would want laws prohibiting or punishing. As to whether the particular circumstances of one person depriving others of their rights are best regulated by laws, regulations, criminal law or civil tort those are practical matters not about the ideals of liberty.

As for the common good, libertarians just believe that charity is better than having the government put a gun to your head telling you what to give and who to give it to.

Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a society that just cold turkey dropped public welfare and benefits, but I think moving towards a system of voluntary charity and looking for ways to keep the government out of our homes and bedrooms is much much better than a system of forced taxation to deal with individual needs.

If the charities and social groups aren't up to the task, then as a practical matter I would rather see people taken care of then not, but I would also rather elect someone who sees that as a slippery slope of government coercion and dependency than someone who doesn't see the inherent (but sometimes necessary) evil in using force to take from one person to give to another.

In terms of practical policies, I think that libertarian values are simply put that government, taxation and the use of force by the government are sometimes necessary evils to be minimized as much as practical. Versus the alternative view that just sees government, taxation and the use of force by government as necessary without acknowledging the "sometimes" or evil parts of that statement.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[Rich0]

Mass doesn't have a single-payer heathcare system, basic income, etc.

What is called socialism in the US is not what most people in the world would call socialism. I'll agree that it is a matter of degree, but there really is only so much you can offer when people can freely shift income/wealth outside of your taxing jurisdiction and those who have needs can freely move into it.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[CanHasDIY]

Amazing to see that people are still falling for Reagan's "welfare queen" fantasy.

I can think of 2 reasons:

1) Because it's not a total fantasy

2) Because it affirms their pre-existing beliefs about people on welfare.

Regarding #1 - I know of at least 3 families on welfare. 2 of them are hard working people who, in some way or another, got shafted by circumstances beyond their control, and wouldn't be able to survive without the assistance, regardless of how hard they work. The third contains your stereotypical "welfare queen;" the one who hasn't had a job in 5 years, gets $10,000/yr in tax refunds (even though they maybe pay $3,000 in) and immediately blow it on big screen TVs and rims for the car they can't afford, and refuses to buy groceries when she's out of food stamps but continues to frequent expensive restaurants.

Granted, it's an incredibly small sample size, but the fact is that 33.3% of the families I know who are on some form of welfare abuse it. That's a significant number*.

* And yet, the amount of taxpayer money spend on welfare cheats is but a grain of sand on an endless beach compared to the amount our government "leaders" give to their buddies companies in the form of corporate welfare. Which is why I tend to ignore people who bitch about "welfare queens" without ever mentioning Shell or Pfizer.

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old

[CanHasDIY]

I want to add something else. The 1% is a myth.

No, it's a misnomer.

http://www.theatlantic.com/bus...

When people complain about "the 1 percent," they're actually complaining about the 0.1 percent.

Because the reality is yea, while you might be well-off enough to qualify as "part of the 1 percent," you're still a dirt-poor worthless piece of shit in the eyes of the 0.1% who really do own/run everything.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[iserlohn]

You just described why the existing system of lobbying (and corporate influence) is bad. The government should be a "referee" on the other powerful interests, with power that is derived from the "people".

The best way to do this is to limit the amount of money that individuals and corporations can use to influence the result of elections.

A corporate free-for-all will not lead to a better society. We had that back in the Victorian era and it sucked.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[bigpat]

So to me when I hear "more regulation" or "less regulation", or "big government" versus "small government" I hear two sides missing the point.

I think what we need is better government, not necessarily more or less, not necessarily bigger or smaller not necessarily more regulations or less.

Sure, In many cases I think we probably do need fewer actual pages of regulations, but ones which are more effective at accomplishing the public purpose. Tax law is a good example of law that needs simplification if just for the sheer insanity of the tax code. But you could look at environmental laws the same way. And then there are the actual numbers of regulators going around and enforcing the law, which is all part of actual executive part of "regulation".

If I had to make a generalization, it would be that we need more regulators with fewer actual lines of regulations to enforce.

I am a libertarian and an environmentalist. Here in Massachusetts, one of the more liberal environmentalist states by reputation and I've found that many many of our laws and regulations regarding the environment and wetlands specifically, boil down to the discretion of various boards and bureaucrats and the many many lines of language regarding criteria and standards are just window dressing to be cast aside by the discretion of multiple layers of obscure public officials as long as you have the money and connections to jump through all the right hoops. This has the insidious effect of favoring larger and denser developments near wetlands which is the exact opposite effect that you would want in order to protect the quality of your water and wetland habitats. Or then maybe in your community you have different officials with different standards which are actually upheld.

So yes, I do think as both a libertarian and an environmentalist we would be better served by fewer environmental regulations, but with criteria and standards that are meaningful and actually enforced in a more uniform way rather than with regulations that seem there solely to give jobs to environmental engineers and are there to reward the developers with the most connections, the most money and those that propose the biggest most potentially disruptive projects and can afford all the lawyers and "donations" to get the job done.

Saying or implying that corporations want less regulations is an oversimplification which is often not the case. It is often the case that more regulations give more power to those that had a hand in crafting them or to those companies that can afford the lawyers to use and get around those regulations. Burdensome regulations can become just another tool in the corporate tool chest which can be used as a barrier to entry to competition without accomplishing any public purpose. But it is that public purpose that we must focus our laws and regulations on.

Once you have determined a worthy public purpose, then the size or magnitude of laws, regulation and government should be a practical consideration more so than an ideological one, except to say that big enough to do the job should be the goal and anything bigger is depriving people of their property, wealth and livelihoods unnecessarily.

Re:Rand Paul's a plagiarizing misogynistic racist

[stdarg]

I think this here sums up libertarianism nicely, as well as how anyone who isn't a true believer can expect to be treated should they ever win. Most might not be so blunt about it, but it's the idea behind all the sweet words about liberty.
[...]
And it's interesting to note that this is pretty much exactly what Nazis themselves, or hard-line communists, or really any totalitarians spouted.

You're doing the exact same thing.

Re: Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes

[iceborer]

That's funny, because during that time period, I got a ticket for speeding, a bill from the IRS, taxes were taken out of my pay check every week, and my neighbor's EBT card continued to work to buy groceries. The VA didn't kick my dad out of the hospital.

Well, let's see... Speeding ticket -- a service provided by the state, county, or city you were busted in IRS bill -- well, we've privatized the Post Office and generating a bill doesn't require people (or it was mailed before the shutdown). Payroll taxes -- taken out by a private payroll provider, usually, and sent to the gubmint EBT -- administered by the state, usually through the counties As for the VA -- they are funded in advance a bit and the shutdown didn't last long enough for them to run out of money.

Re:Rand Paul's a plagiarizing misogynistic racist

[Archangel Michael]

How is something that is pure unsupported drivel considered "insightful" ... oh right, because it fits with a certain mentality of (R) bad, (D) good and any (R) is evil rich white man wanting to oppress the brown and black people.

The biggest fallacy is that people want it harder for "minorities and poor to vote, to hold jobs", which is pure bullshit race baiting crap. Take a look at the places that have (D) leadership, and then look at the poor souls who live there and tell me the (D) people have done ANYTHING for the poor colored people, besides keep them poor and segregated.

The world was once rich with opportunity, not it is stuck in quagmire of equity of outcome, in which the poor colored people are trapped in poor segregated neighborhoods. Now, you can blame this on rich white men, but Oprah and Obama clearly show that most Americans really don't give a shit about your "color". They give a shit about your actions and appearance. If you want to dress like a prison whore with your pants down around your knees, by all means do so. But don't blame white people for not accepting idiocy in the name of "Ghetto Culture".

As a Libertarian, I oppose all welfare, except those that CANNOT (not will not) support themselves. If you're healthy, you should be working, and if you can't find a job, make one (deregulation required). But like everything else, taxes, fees and regulation do help but actually hurt the poor and middle classes. That $100 business license your city requires, only keeps the poor people from starting a business, legally. Rich don't care.

And as for the outright LIE of 'no access to birth control", that is pure LIBERALISM in a nutshell. Nobody is saying women can't have birth control. Not even the Supreme Court. And nobody is saying you can't take four of the twenty HHS Required Birth Control pills either. What they are saying is pay for them yourself. And if you're a strong, liberated woman, shouldn't you be able to afford the cost of your liberation?

No, sir, a vote for people like you is a vote for stupidity. Because you take liberal talking points that have already been proven false, and continue to spew them forth. And typical of liberal idiots, are commenting as AC. Chickenshit

Useless Generalizations

[FutureRobertOverlord]

I'm surprised to see all of the anti-libertarian sentiment in the comments above. I haven't seen this much anger at straw-man libertarian views outside of Salon. At least based on people's comments about libertarians, you'd think that libertarianism were some unified Kochtopus front ready to take away everything they hold dear, rather than a fairly divided set of political views and philosophies that share a few bits of common ground. I guess the angry folks don't read the same people I do.