Hello,

That's it. I want to know how YOU describe liberty. Who should be free? Who shouldn't be? That kind of stuff. Maybe we don't disagree. That would be cool. But, I think, perchance, we do.

I'll start. Sex offenders should be FREE from registration. Non violent drug offenders should FREED from prison. Once off supervision, ALL felons should be allowed to vote. Women's reproductive organs should be FREE from attack. The undocumented should be FREE to live here.

I have more.

excon

I'd put the 'women should be free from attack' in another discussion. That's more of a 'pursuit of happiness.' Won't women be less free from attack if sex offenders aren't registered, and so on. Overlapping freedoms! I would keep this thread to freedom from specific rules.

I agree - let the non-violent drug offenders go.
I partially agree about the sex offenders, even though states are getting better at having more categories, there are still too many men in prison for statutory rape, and countless free but labeled for life.
The undocumented should be free to stay, under certain complicated conditions!
Liberty is a dynamic, ever changing, as we get more population and more socialized. And more socialized we get, because people want EVERYTHING handed to them, even the people who think that it's only the ones on welfare and food stamps. They want their street plowed and sanded every 2 minutes or they will sue the city for running their Mercedes into a pole on an icy street. They want FEMA to pay them to rebuild on the ocean. They want their children to be raised and taught everything from the 3 Rs to ethics, financial responsibility, health care, and sex ed in school rather than all but the first at home.
Etc
Etc
Etc

I don't agree that the undocumented should be sent back. They are here and may have been here for years, established businesses, paid taxes, raised families, have been Americans except for that piece of paper. The INS needs serious overhauling.

I'm all for levels for sex offenders, with some offenses not considered to be in that class.

Maybe we need to train and license couples (married couples?) before they can become parents.

American education has to change, from pre-K up.

Hello joy:


I'd put the 'women should be free from attack'I should have explained better.. I meant their reproductive organs should be free from attack.. >OP edited -WG<

In terms of the sex offender registry, in the first place it doesn't work. Every state grades sex offenders differently, and NOBODY administers them properly.. Therefore, a citizen who WANTS to protect themselves from predators, really has no where to reliably check. Besides, it's additional punishment for the offender.. IF an offender is so bad that the public needs to be WARNED about him, he should NEVER be on the streets in the first place.. I'm for letting a guy go FREE after you FREE him.

Excon

Hello again,

While we wait for our resident right wingers, here's what liberty is NOT:

In Kentucky, a homeland security law (http://www.alternet.org/belief/year-jail-not-believing-god-how-kentucky-persecuting-atheists?ffs_people) requires the state’s citizens to acknowledge the security provided by the Almighty God--or risk 12 months in prison.

excon

I'll tell you what liberty is not .If you expect that the government will prevent you from making mistakes, rescue you if you make mistakes and provide for you if you fail, then you do not have liberty or freedom. You are no more free than a slave in chains. A free and liberated person would not expect others to pay for a safety net.

But if they have bailed me out in the past or helped me in some way, I'm willing to provide the safety net when they fall. They helped me pay for college by giving me a loan that I paid back so someone else could be helped through college.

Hello again, tom:


if you make mistakes and provide for you if you fail, then you do not have liberty or freedom.I don't disagree. I'm not in favor of bankruptcy. I DO make exceptions, though, for those who's situation ISN'T their fault. I'm GLAD to provide a safety net for them.

For your information, I don't think getting sick is "making a mistake".

Excon

Whether you think government should or should not provide such services ,you should at least admit that the people who live under such a system do not have complete liberty . It could easily be part of what is called the social contract . But it is NOT liberty .
The founders provided a system where the government was granted limited powers . Granting the government more power to provide for things like safety nets ,and security and 'fairness ' comes at the price of liberty as Franklin famously opined .

Of course it's liberty. I offer my money and goods freely to help others, and they do the same for me. That's biblical (note Jesus' Second Greatest Commandment), and it's part of the social contract because we live amongst each other and want to succeed together, to build each other up for the good of all.

Umm no you are not offering freely if you are compelled to do so by the gvt.

umm no you are not offering freely if you are compelled to do so by the gvt.
Sorry, no. I offer freely. That's why I am not part of the 1%.

And what of the rest who are compelled ? Do they have liberty ?

Their liberty is to stay in this country and be part of the tribe or to leave and go to a country that thinks like they do.

I don't mind that this question will be asked forever, and I hope it will, because if it stops, I would have to assume that we are all either zombie stepford men and women or are under some totalitarian regime so powerful that we don't argue back.

Whether you think government should or should not provide such services ,you should at least admit that the people who live under such a system do not have complete liberty . It could easily be part of what is called the social contract . But it is NOT liberty .



Actually, social contract is very much bound up with the idea of liberty.

One can only exercise individual liberty in a society that has laws to grant rights.


Tut

Their liberty is to stay in this country and be part of the tribe or to leave and go to a country that thinks like they do.

Actually, social contract is very much bound up with the idea of liberty.

One can only exercise individual liberty in a society that has laws to grant rights.


Agreed... the social contract is a surrender of liberty . That is a given. To me where we have strayed is not in the social contract ,but in our abandonment of the Constititutional restraints.

Actually, social contract is very much bound up with the idea of liberty.

One can only exercise individual liberty in a society that has laws to grant rights.


agreed ....the social contract is a surrender of liberty . that is a given. To me where we have strayed is not in the social contract ,but in our abandonment of the Constititutional restraints.



Tom, this is inaccurate. The Founders were very much aware of the important relationship that existed between social contract and liberty.


Tut

Actually, social contract is very much bound up with the idea of liberty.

One can only exercise individual liberty in a society that has laws to grant rights.


Tut

I can't agree with this. The reason is that liberty stands alone. Once you get into the creation of classes with and without rights then you have division. Liberty is not about division. A society can create laws on the consequece of actions without stepping on the rights of anyone. Liberty is at the heart of freedom. It allows a person to choose what they will and do as they please. It doesn't come without responsibility. But to enjoy liberty it has always had a price to pay. Right now in America too many have decided that the price is too high. It is the root of what is screwing up this country. That is why we stand so divided.

Their liberty is to stay in this country and be part of the tribe or to leave and go to a country that thinks like they do.

So your against liberty because it represents change to you? You would rather evict legal citizens then chase illegals from your boarders as all comers are welcome here?

With all due respect ,the founders would not recognize the nation today . It is indeed post -Constitutional regarding the constraints they placed on the government . The opening premise that founders used was to limit society's power over each individual. Civil society to them meant protection of individual propery from confiscation for the general welfare.

So your against liberty because it represents change to you? You would rather evict legal citizens then chase illegals from your boarders as all comers are welcome here?
I'm not evicting anyone. It's their choice to stay or go.

I saw this somewhere --

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free;
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless,
Tempest-tossed to me
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

I'm not evicting anyone. It's their choice to stay or go.

I saw this somewhere --

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free;
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless,
Tempest-tossed to me
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"



And no where does it say to just come anytime you want. On any boarder immigration must be controlled. If you don't then you may find yourself short of resources and then your stuck with nothing.

With all due respect ,the founders would not recognize the nation today . It is indeed post -Constitutional regarding the constraints they placed on the government . The opening premise that founders used was to limit society's power over each individual. Civil society to them meant protection of individual propery from confiscation for the general welfare.


I am sure this was there intention, but( as you say) it doesn't seemed to have worked out that way.

However, this does not negate the fact that liberty and social contract are very much interwoven. As I said, the Founders would have understood this idea very well.

Tut

I can't agree with this. The reason is that liberty stands alone. Once you get into the creation of classes with and without rights then you have division. Liberty is not about division. A society can create laws on the consequece of actions without stepping on the rights of anyone. Liberty is at the heart of freedom. It allows a person to choose what they will and do as they please. It doesnt come without responsibility. But to enjoy liberty it has always had a price to pay. Right now in America too many have decided that the price is too high. It is the root of what is screwing up this country. That is why we stand so divided.


Actually it is all about division. Namely, the distinction between positive and negative liberty.We cannot live in a democratic society without a continual playoff of positive and negative liberty.

It is difficult, if not impossible to create a law without it having some impact one some individual(s) or groups in society. Liberty can never be about individuals doing as they please. Not within a democratic society at least.

"Liberty standing alone" is one of the reasons you are experiencing problems.



Tut

Impicit in the social contract is a surrender of some natural liberty in exchange for legal rights .

Actually it is all about division. Namely, the distinction between positive and negative liberty.We cannot live in a democratic society without a continual playoff of positive and negative liberty.

It is difficult, if not impossible to create a law without it having some impact one some individual(s) or groups in society. Liberty can never be about individuals doing as they please. Not within a democratic society at least.

"Liberty standing alone" is one of the reasons you are experiencing problems.



Tut



How is it about division by law? To me there are 2 types of law. One being that which are laws meant to govern a society. And second would be laws meant to rule a society. The later ruling class of laws are those that infringe on liberty. The former are laws in which a socieity can grow.

Example:

Making a law against stealing to me is a law meant for governing a society.

Making a law against speech such as hate speech is a law meant to rule a society. It negates ones liberty.

Liberty is a very precious commodity that requires delicate upkeep. If we are not all mindful it will die.

Impicit in the social contract is a surrender of some natural liberty in exchange for legal rights .

Hi Tom,


I think you are saying that in a state of nature men have certain rights prior to there being a organized society. Once society is organized then there is a necessity to give up some of these rights. This would be a type of explanation found in Locke's 'Second Treatise of Civil Government'

I'm not actually 100% sure what you are actually getting at.



Tut

Civil society to them meant protection of individual propery from confiscation for the general welfare.

I think we have gotten beyond confiscation of individual property, don't you Tom. The general welfare is a concept that has failed to take root.

How is it about division by law? To me there are 2 types of law. One being that which are laws meant to govern a society. And second would be laws meant to rule a society. The later ruling class of laws are those that infringe on liberty. The former are laws in which a socieity can grow.

Example:

Making a law against stealing to me is a law meant for governing a society.

Making a law against speech such as hate speech is a law meant to rule a society. It negates ones liberty.

Liberty is a very precious commodity that requires delicate upkeep. If we are not all mindful it will die.


Hi Dad,

I didn't actually say that positive and negative liberty was necessarily about division by law.

I am not sure about the distinction you are making between laws that govern a society and laws that rule society. Your example of free speech suggests to me that you are making a distinction between natural rights and the rights granted by organized society. The idea is that because some rights are natural and existed before an organized society, the society has no rights to take them away.

Again, I am not 100% sure as to what you are saying.


Tut

The society makes the rules, it is cost of being under the protection of the society. Sure there is a trade off, I can no longer kill my neighbour when he offends me, but I know society will avenge me if he kills me. You cannot have the dichotomy where you can have the right of individual action but deny that right to others. We have those who proclaim liberty is the right of individual action, unmodified, unconstrained and those who proclaim liberty is what remains when all rights of individual action are extinguished, the truth is somewhere between, and is what is reasonably allowed by society, but it is in flux

Liberty, right of freedom, In the US Constitution, this was written during a time that men still owned slaves. So did the writers of our Constitution men for black people to be "free" if so why did they not pass those laws to free them. Women did not have the right to vote, in most, hold office and had little rights. So where they free. I don't see it.

The issue is that the US is a Republic, not a democracy, The "Liberty" is that of society, not the actual individual. The person or individual is free in only as much as society allows though the morals that are acceptable and the laws placed on them.

Most of the wording comes from English Common Law and goes back to the idea of freedom from the Magna Carta that gave rights to the landowner and the freeman.

The issue as it does with most Old English is that we put modern ideas and meanings on words that when written were far from the meaning we try to give them.

Rewording things has long been a common use to provide or change the prospective. The Communist party, in specific the Fabian movement of it, that believes in change from within, a revolution using a governments own laws, changed its name and even its advertising to be "democratic" not communist many years ago. We see tax go to investment, we see liberal go to progressive.

We now look at liberty, not as a oppression of a society but as a individual person.


.

I think we have gotten beyond confiscation of individual property, don't you Tom. The general welfare is a concept that has failed to take root.

No I do not . The general welfare is not something the state can grant or guarantee . It can only promote it. Private property likewise is to be secured ;not confiscated to promote the general welfare . Private property is a right that government does not grant .

I think you are saying that in a state of nature men have certain rights prior to there being a organized society. Once society is organized then there is a necessity to give up some of these rights. This would be a type of explanation found in Locke's 'Second Treatise of Civil Government'

Yes ,that is how the social contract was defined by Locke We give up some rights to the government in exchange for the security the government can provide ;but natural rights are not surrendered .

No I do not . The general welfare is not something the state can grant or guarantee . It can only promote it. Private property likewise is to be secured ;not confiscated to promote the general welfare . Private property is a right that government does not grant .
But it is entitled to promote the general welfare and in fact this is a right enhrined in your Constitution, this right existed before it was though prudent to elaborate various other rights

promote the general Welfare,
I know you hate the though of government operating in this area, Tom, but it was part of the very ideas that created your country, the general welfare, and idea that was right up there with liberty and pecularly enough tranquility. How much tranquility have you seen lately, has this aspect been forgotten?

No I do not . The general welfare is not something the state can grant or guarantee . It can only promote it. Private property likewise is to be secured ;not confiscated to promote the general welfare . Private property is a right that government does not grant .



Yes, this is the basis of the theory. But in the end it is still a theory regarding the origins of society. Some people accept the theory and others reject it.




Yes ,that is how the social contract was defined by Locke We give up some rights to the government in exchange for the security the govenment can provide ;but natural rights are not surrendered .

It isn't quite that simple when it comes to modern times. Locke did argue that all men are created equal in terms of the rights they naturally have. Locke also wants to say that such rights existed before there was an organized society to grant such rights.

Today you will find that this doctrine is widely interpreted as saying that each individual is to be afforded equal treatment when it comes to the law. 'Due process', is an obvious example of how it works. But in the end it is still a balancing act on the part of the legal system.


Tut

It isn't quite that simple when it comes to modern times.
The erosion of liberty is easily justified in modern times . At what point do you slip into a soft tyranny in exchange for what are called positive rights ;and who's rights are gored (specifically property rights ) to guarantee the distribution of those positive rights ? And are positive rights God given ,or natural rights... or are they the concoction of those who would create a Hobbesian behemoth to enforce them ?

Tell me Tom did those who wrote your constitution and conferred all those rights on you consider the possibility that people would be living cheek to jowl in your over populated cities. Did they envisage the situation where armed gangs roam the streets because of these rights? Did they envisage the situation where the freed slaves would have to fend for themselves? Where the general welfare is ignored because of these rights, of course they didn't

They created a governing document that could adequately address 21st century issues. They created a "Republic ,if you can keep it "(Benjamin Franklin) . We were warned that the system will collapse when the public realizes they can' vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury'. We are fast approaching that point if we haven't already crossed the Rubicon.

The erosion of liberty is easily justified in modern


I think anyone ( such as myself )who puts forwards the statement. "It isn't that simple", does so because it actually isn't that simple. We live in a changing and complex society because most advanced civilizations do advance towards complexity. Dealing with this complexity is an ongoing problem. I think you know my thoughts on going back to an idealized time in history in order to save the future.



At what point do you slip into a soft tyranny in exchange for what are called positive rights ;and who's rights are gored (specifically property rights ) to guarantee the distribution of those positive rights ?



As far as I can see there is no actual point we can define. What is soft tyranny to one man is another man's opportunity. Soft tyranny is in the eye of the beholder.




And are positive rights God given ,or natural rights ...or are they the concoction of those who would create a Hobbesian behemoth to enforce them ?


That is a difficult question to answer. Some people would argue that all rights are artificial. That is, the only reason we have rights is because there is an organized society that grants us those rights. They reject Locke's idea that there can be a state of nature whereby individuals naturally possess certain rights prior to their being an organized society to grant such rights.

On that basis they would also argue that the "Hobbesian behemoth" is exactly the same as every right we have in,'or out of society' They are all a creation of the state.


I DON'T support this view for a number of reasons, but the reason I mentioned it is because, of your question,"Are positive rights God given, or natural rights... or are they the concoction of those who would create a Hobbesian Behemoth?"

My answer is that it is not a legitimate question because to answer the latter part of your question in the affirmative would be to draw a false dichotomy.

Tut

Give up Tom your strawman is on fire

Hello again,

Boy, oh boy... Although I'm having trouble figuring out what liberty IS, I'm finding LOTS of examples of what liberty ISN'T. This latest example comes from Texas, the state that wants to secede because there's TOO many rules coming out of Washington. Bwa, ha ha ha..

A request for a temporary restraining order was granted (https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/victory_court_grants_rutherford_institute_request_ to_stop_texas_school_from) to prevent Northside Independent School District from removing a San Antonio high school student from John Jay High School’s Science and Engineering Academy because she objected to wearing a name badge signifying participation in the school district’s new “Student Locator Project.” The badges include tiny Radio Frequency Identification (“RFID”) chips that produce a radio signal, enabling school officials to track students’ precise location on school property.

excon

. Did they envisage the situation where armed gangs roam the streets because of these rights?


Id like to address this part. Yes they did envision such a situation when they created the Second Amendment. Without it all other rights can go by the wayside.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms.

The right to arm oneself is viewed as a personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, the right to bear arms was instituted within the Bill of Rights to suppress insurrection, participate and uphold the law, enable the citizens of the United States to organize a militia, and to facilitate the natural right to self-defense.



2nd Amendment (http://constitution.laws.com/2nd-amendment)

Hello again,

Boy, oh boy... Although I'm having trouble figuring out what liberty IS, I'm finding LOTS of examples of what liberty ISN'T. This latest example comes from Texas, the state that wants to secede because there's TOO many rules coming out of Washington. Bwa, ha ha ha..

A request for a temporary restraining order was granted (https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/victory_court_grants_rutherford_institute_request_ to_stop_texas_school_from) to prevent Northside Independent School District from removing a San Antonio high school student from John Jay High School’s Science and Engineering Academy because she objected to wearing a name badge signifying participation in the school district’s new “Student Locator Project.” The badges include tiny Radio Frequency Identification (“RFID”) chips that produce a radio signal, enabling school officials to track students’ precise location on school property.

excon

And your point is? Sounds to me like they got it right. Furthermore it looks like the law worked in this situation as it should. Im glad they issued a restraining order. In today's world we have far too many helicopter moms and dads that are ruining the whole barrel of apples. When children play they may get hurt. Its part of life. There is no reason to ban everything and try to wrap them in a cacoon then later to send them off into the real world. This line of thinking needs to stop somewhere and this is a perfect example of holding the line.

Next step is to inject the chip in preschool

Their liberty is to stay in this country and be part of the tribe or to leave and go to a country that thinks like they do.

I'm only free if you take from me to give to someone else?

Hello again,

Boy, oh boy... Although I'm having trouble figuring out what liberty IS, I'm finding LOTS of examples of what liberty ISN'T. This latest example comes from Texas, the state that wants to secede because there's TOO many rules coming out of Washington. Bwa, ha ha ha..

A request for a temporary restraining order was granted (https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/victory_court_grants_rutherford_institute_request_ to_stop_texas_school_from) to prevent Northside Independent School District from removing a San Antonio high school student from John Jay High School's Science and Engineering Academy because she objected to wearing a name badge signifying participation in the school district's new “Student Locator Project.” The badges include tiny Radio Frequency Identification (“RFID”) chips that produce a radio signal, enabling school officials to track students' precise location on school property.

excon

Again with the secession myth.

I'll tell you what's not liberty, a woman losing her job for (stupidly) exercising the rights that our honored dead fought to protect (http://bostinno.com/2012/11/20/lindsey-stone-massachusetts-woman-flips-off-tomb-of-unknown-soldier/). How's that?

P.S. Should people be free to protest naked in a Congressman's office (http://twitchy.com/2012/11/27/nude-activists-protest-in-boehners-office/)? Some things are best left covered up.

Hi Ex,


This may help to answer your original question. At least I hope so.

Basically we never find liberty as something that exists alone. In a democratic society liberty exists in a positive and negative form. If negative liberty means freedom to do as we like then this has to be balanced out against positive liberty. For example freedom of speech is not an absolute. It may well be the case that freedom of speech is an absolute necessity as far as the individual is concerned, but it is in the best interests of society to restrain the individual when it comes to such things as hate speeches.

Because we live as a collective in organized society this means we are forced to temper some of our freedoms. My interest may not be in the interest of the everyone. Basically we can say it is a balancing of positive and negative liberties.


Tut

Yes one of our liberties is to loose our money in the market because of the manipulation of that market by others exercising their supposed liberties. Basically liberty is the free exercise of every action that is not tempered by law and the exercise of every action allowed by law

I'm only free if you take from me to give to someone else?


That would depend on the degree of freedom you can rightly expect in an organized society. There is no absolute freedom in any democratic society. So under the social contract we can expect some of our freedoms will be modified.

When Ex asks the question (in another post), "Should sex offenders be free from registration/", or "Should non-violent drug offenders be freed from prison?" The answer is always considered in light of the impact such individual freedoms have on the rest of society.

Tut

That would depend on the degree of freedom you can rightly expect in an organized society. There is no absolute freedom in any democratic society. So under the social contract we can expect some of our freedoms will be modified.

When Ex asks the question (in another post), "Should sex offenders be free from registration/", or "Should non-violent drug offenders be freed from prison?" The answer is always considered in light of the impact such individual freedoms have on the rest of society.

Tut

So the answer is yes

so the answer is yes

Hi Clete,

Generally speaking I would say so because I cannot think of one freedom that is exempt from the prying eyes of the judiciary. But some freedoms seems to be better protected than others. Again, I would also think that it would depend on the case, but when push comes to shove it is usually the courts that have the final say.

Steve's example of the girl who is fighting to hold onto her job is a little more complicated in my view. I think she has to wear the social sanctions of her actions, after all she was prepared to put the picture in front of the public. The possibility of losing her job over this is a different matter.

But again it is not a case of, " I'll tell you what is not liberty" because this is falling into the trap of setting up a false dichotomy. I think I said something similar in a earlier post to Tom.


Tut

You have got to be kidding there are some people who have forfieted their liberty

you have got to be kidding there are some people who have forfieted their liberty


Do you have a specific example? I think part of the problem will be that 'liberty' can be used in a broad or narrow sense. In it's broadest sense I don't think many people have actually forfeited all of their liberties regardless of their crimes. But I could be wrong.

Tut

That would depend on the degree of freedom you can rightly expect in an organized society. There is no absolute freedom in any democratic society. So under the social contract we can expect some of our freedoms will be modified.

I don't disagree, but I do disagree with the idea we are "free" with an increasingly heavy dose of government involvement in our lives. I find it incredible that the same people whining about staying out of a woman's "choice" are the same one's fighting desperately to not only limit mine but take away my ability and right to be free to help others as I choose.

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.
Patrick Henry
A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.

John Adams, Founding Father and 2nd President; Thoughts on Government, 1776:

“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.”

James Madison, Founding Father and 4th President; Federalist Papers, No. 57, February 19, 1788:

“The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.”

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

“There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt.”

“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
John Adams

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
James Madison

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic

The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.
Benjamin Franklin

Hello again,

I WAS going to start another thread, but this post is about liberty too - liberty for the MINORITY senators.

The rules for filibustering CAN be changed ONLY on the first day of the new senatorial session.. Should the Democrats DO AWAY, or sharply curtail the filibuster?

Now, I'm all for giving the minority a voice.. But they ARE the minority, and shouldn't HAVE the privilege of deciding what happens in the Senate. With the filibuster, they DO. The problem is the Republicans used to filibuster to PREVENT ANY Democratic legislation to pass the Senate because they were afraid it would make the president look good. Well, they can't have that, so they filibustered 386 bills. Many were bills the Republicans AGREED with, and they WORKED for the country... But, they love their party BETTER, or hate the president MORE, than they love their own country... I surely don't know why that is... In comparison, when LBJ ran the Senate, he had to deal with ONE filibuster - that's ONE = 1, you know, the loneliest number, ONE!

Now, I don't know if McConnell is going to do the same thing THIS session, but why should the Democrats give him the opportunity? He already showed his colors. The American people WANT the congress to WORK. The Republicans don't. The Democrats should MAKE 'em.

excon

Get rid of the filibuster, and the super majority requirement.

Boy I remember how they howled when the Repubics threatened to use the nuclear option. Now I guess they's OK with it.

Let 'em howl! Howling has never stopped repubs from doing what they want, so why should it stop the dems?

Hello again, tom:

How did your guy put it? What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.. He's right.

Look. The Democrats aren't always going to be in the majority. I'm FINE with Democrats living under the same rules. Simple up or down votes work for me. Let's move FORWARD.

excon

So when Republicans take the Senate back are you going to miss the filibuster?

When was the last democratic filibuster in a republican controlled senate? When will repubs take back the senate?

Well the gang of 14 prevented the use of the nuclear option. So it's not really sauce.

I like the fillibuster for the reason the founders designed the Senate. Here is the analogy Washington used... the Senate was created to "cool" House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea . Madison said it was to be the great "anchor" of the government. Madison explained that the Senate would be a "necessary fence" against the "fickleness and passion" that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives.The filibuster is a good thing because it frustrates, literally and intentionally.

A fillibuster has not prevented the Senate from passing a budget . A fillibuster has not prevented the President from proposing a plan to steer away from the fiscal cliff . Why should the President care about Senate rules anyway ? It didn't prevent him from making recess appts when the Senate was still in session.

When was the last democratic filibuster in a republican controlled senate? When will repubs take back the senate?

So you don't want to answer the question. I understand.

I got a different solution. Get rid of the changes to the fillibuster rules the Robert Byrd Senate made in the 70's . Before then ;a fillibuster shut down the Senate until the issue was resolved. But the Byrd rule changes made it possible to stall a specific bill or appointment and still conduct other business.

Harry Reid has only himself to blame for the frequency of fillibusters . He acts like an autocrat keeping Republic amendments on the shelf and not allowing them to be properly debated . Frankly the Dems would do well to dump the chump and get a better majority leader . I suspect even the Schmuckster would do a better job.

Hello tom:

You FORGOT McConnell's PLEDGE to make Obama a one term president. Then he tried, and tried, and tried. It didn't work. Bummer. People noticed. But, not you.

excon

Hello again,

After digesting this and the 2010 elections, I have a final thought. You wingers have a habit of shooting yourselves in the foot. You SHOULD be running the Senate, but you ran some clowns instead. You SHOULD be running the presidency, but you ran some more clowns. Obama was eminently beatable, but you ran Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, the Newster, the forgetful guy, and the pizza guy. Romney was the DEFAULT candidate. If you'da run ANY of the guy's who refused, such as Chris Christy, Rob Portman, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, and a couple more, you'd be RUNNING THE WORLD.

That you aren't in charge of EVERYTHING is TOTALLY on you.

excon

So is every thread going to be about calling us losers? More of that uniting the country stuff?

Agreed . My solution would be to change the primary process. Stop using Iowa as the 1st caucus ;have a rotating system instead ;and most important... end all open primaries. Primaries only open to registered Repubics .T Pawlenty would've been the nominee if the Repubics had their heads out of their a** .Mitch Daniels ,my personal favorite had personal reasons for not running... (forget Christe... you guys would love to have the Repubics run another North East big government governor... same with Jeb Bush ) . The Repubics have 30 of 50 state governors ;and Rubio and some others will have more experience in 2016 . There will be plenty to choose from if the country survives the next 4 years .

Hello tom:

You FORGOT McConnell's PLEDGE to make Obama a one term president. Then he tried, and tried, and tried. It didn't work. Bummer. People noticed. But, not you.

excon

What about it ? What exactly is the role of the minority party ? I'll remind you that when it came to a domestic agenda ;it was GW Bush that crossed the aisle ;not the other way around.

Looking for solutions and compromise ? Is that the President's posture ?
Obama on tax cuts: Don (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-spotlights-middle-class-meets-ceos-fiscal-cliff-141910370--politics.html)

To Dems compromise means Republic surrender.

looking for solutions and compromise ? Is that the President's posture ?
Obama on tax cuts: Don (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-spotlights-middle-class-meets-ceos-fiscal-cliff-141910370--politics.html)

To Dems compromise means Repubic surrender.

Oddly enough the still-campaigner-in-chief is also in favor of Reid's filibuster changes (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/obama-filibuster-reform_n_2204589.html?1354119681). Something about the American people deserving "a United States Senate that puts them first, instead of partisan delay."

Yeah that would be the same Democrat-controlled Senate that hasn't bothered to even consider a budget for going on 4 years now. The same Democrat-controlled Senate that refuses to consider anything out of the House.

There's a key to understanding what Obama says though. When he isn't referring to himself he really is, as in when he says "the American people deserve a United States Senate that puts them first" he means "The American people deserve a United States Senate that puts me first."

"The American people deserve a United States Senate that puts me first."That is every single US politician.

What planet do you live on

Liberty and the way it should be.

Best Second Amendment Video Goes Viral (DollarDVDProjectLiberty.com) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncdXfUAkMUI)

What a tear jurker, what that demonstrates is that arms should be kept in a secure place not in peoples homes

Apparently liberty isn't being able to keep your 100-year-old family business (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Feds-boot-Drakes-Bay-Oyster-Co-from-Pt-Reyes-4077624.php)because the feds renege (http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/) on an agreement...

The Drakes Bay Oyster Company, California's only remaining cannery has been ordered shut down by Interior Secretary Salazar in spite of the fact the federal government convinced property owners in the area to sell their land to the National Park Service in exchange for protection from developers and 40 year leases to be renewed in perpetuity.

The Lunny family which owns the company and employs 30, once featured as an outstanding example of environmental stewardship, was targeted by environmentalists and has fought a 7 year battle with the feds being falsely accused of environmental damage based on manipulated evidence (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Scientists-side-with-Drakes-Bay-oyster-farmer-3242873.php).


The Framing of an Oyster Farm (http://vimeo.com/52331881#)

Environmentalists are cheering the federal bullying of a responsible company into extinction. Liberal compassion at its finest.

Meanwhile, the feds are subsidizing new oyster farms on the east coast (http://www.chesapeake-bay.org/index.php/10-2010/27/maryland-subsidized-shellfish-aquaculture-loans/).

Is this about liberty,or legality?

Feds deny Drakes Bay Oyster Company lease renewal | abc7news.com (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/north_bay&id=8902386)

There are several links associated with this story that are notable. Not taking sides, just looking deeper.

What nonsense ! How could a single oyster harvesting operation be a threat to harbor seals ? And even if it was there were mitigations that could've been employed to remedy. Being from NY ,I'm well aware of and approve measures to protect the oyster beds of the nation . It wasn't that long ago that oysters were a staple food of the poor here. Long before pizza ,Nathan's hotdogs ,bagels and street cart prezels ,oysters were the food identified with NY .The NY harbor beds virtually disappeared with the combination of harbor dredging and pollution. Now they are on the rebound thanks to conservation efforts. But what good are all the efforts if managed harvesting cannot take place?

As usual the left has it all backwards. The best way to manage and preserve public lands is not government management . The best proven way is leasing rights to private enterprise.

Did you bother reading any of the links?

Drakes Bay Oyster Company Special Use Permit Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Point Reyes National Seashore (http://www.nps.gov/pore/parkmgmt/planning_dboc_sup_deis.htm)

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/assignment_7&id=8599796

Yes especially the part about the bogus $1 million study on the effect of the oyster operation on harbor seals. If even Sen Dianne Feinstein has a problem with the decision then you know it's extreme.

As usual the left has it all backwards. The best way to manage and preserve public lands is not government management . The best proven way is leasing rights to private enterprise.

Good idea. That way we can drill it and mine it.


Tut

Hello Tut:

The best proven way is leasing rights to private enterprise.

Good idea. That way we can drill it and mine it.Good one. VERY good!

Excon

You couldn't have asked for a more responsible steward of the environment than this oyster company. Apparently you're fine with government using shoddy "science" to bully them out of business and renege on their promise, causing people to lose their jobs, homes and land. Again so much for liberal compassion...

You can mock it all you want to ;but the only reason there is a lobster industry left in New England is because there were leasing rights and a quota system established. Leasing rights for public lands is the best way to preserve them and for conservation .

The best way to preserve the land and its ecology is to leave them alone and let nature do what she does.

Its just more profitable for them to be leased to private interests. Still looking for the science and studies that say this fellow was a good steward while he made his million on oysters, and how he treated and paid his 30 workers.

I gave you all the links you needed. Drakes Bay was recognized as an outstanding steward of the environment, scientists sided with them over the feds (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Scientists-side-with-Drakes-Bay-oyster-farmer-3242873.php), and their employees are devastated (http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/U-S-evicting-Point-Reyes-oyster-farmer-4077624.php#ixzz2E0hHItIn).


"It's disbelief and excruciating sorrow," he said of the mood at the oyster farm, where 30 people are employed, including seven families that live on the property.

"There are 30 people, all in tears this morning, who are going to lose their jobs and their homes," Lunny said. "They are experts in seafood handling and processing in the last oyster cannery in California, and there is nowhere for them to go."

Not to mention the feds broke the contract that was to be renewed in perpetuity. But go ahead, keep bobbing an weaving and otherwise showing your lack of compassion and disrespect for science and the truth.

Tal ,you in Texas should know what happens when we let the brush grow unmanaged . Natures ways are not always in the best interests of humans . We can harvest oysters and also preserve them at the same time. Around here we have a terrible need to cull the deer herds ;they are a great source of nutrition ,while at the same time collecting license fees for the right to hunt them . It wasn't that many years ago that progressives understood conservation. I guess the enviro-wackos took over the movement .

Deer herds were culled naturally by predators, but man has moved into their territory and upset the balance of nature.

OK what would the natural predators for deer be ? Maybe you think we should coexist with coyotes and bobcats in the suburbs too ?

Deer herds were culled naturally by predators, but man has moved into their territory and upset the balance of nature.

Man is part of nature, too.

Nah we are locust who need to be exterminated in the womb.

nah we are locust who need to be exterminated in the womb.

Locust are probably protected.

As if the Drakes dilemma isn't a bad a enough example of the federal government that 3/4 of liberals love run amok, the IRS has been chasing an "illegal eagle", sending the owners of Robert Rauschenberg's "Canyon" depicting a stuffed bald eagle a $29.2 million tax bill plus "undervaluation penalty" of 40% for another $11.2 million plus interest.


On Wednesday last week, New York's Museum of Modern Art unveiled its most recent gift, and one of the most significant in its history: Robert Rauschenberg's "Canyon" (1959). Rauschenberg was among the leading American artists of the post-World War II era, and "Canyon" is a "combine," a kind of large-scale, three-dimensional collage that includes photographs, pieces of wood, a mirror, a pillow and a stuffed bald eagle.

The arrival of "Canyon" at MoMA is the culmination of a five-year absurdist farce—one tinged more by Kafka than Feydeau—that involved the IRS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the heirs of art dealer Ileana Sonnabend. It might have been laughable, except that the stakes were so high.

Sonnabend, a dealer and collector, died in 2007, leaving a collection of art by Rauschenberg as well as such contemporaries as Andy Warhol and Jasper Johns. It was valued at about $1 billion. Her heirs, Nina Sundell and Antonio Homem, paid about $471 million in taxes on the value of the collection, selling some $600 million worth of art from it to do so.

But "Canyon" was another story. The presence of the stuffed eagle meant it couldn't be sold without violating the 1940 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Since the artwork couldn't be sold, logic dictated that it be listed as having zero value, which is what the Sonnabend family's three appraisers, one of them Christie's auction house, did.

But don't look for "logic" in any government dictionary. In the summer of 2011, the IRS sent the family an unsigned report appraising "Canyon" at $15 million. When they rejected the valuation, the government upped the ante: The appraisal was increased to $65 million, which yielded a $29.2 million tax bill. And the IRS levied a special "undervaluation penalty" of 40%, applied in cases where a party has made what the IRS deems a "gross understatement" of a property's value. That added $11.2 million to the tab. Plus interest.

Only in the fantasy bazaar of the U.S. government's imagination can an item that is worthless carry a multimillion-dollar price tag.

Ms. Sundell and Mr. Homem had another option: donate "Canyon" to a museum. But since they were declaring that it had no value, they would have to forfeit the charitable deductions that normally accrue to individuals in such cases. In the end, this is what they chose to do. "Canyon," which had been on extended loan to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, now joins five other Rauschenberg combines at MoMA. In exchange, the government has dropped its $40 million-plus claim against Sonnabend's estate.

"Canyon" had, in fact, been in the feds' sights long before this particular debacle. According to a New York Times story last summer, in the early 1980s the combine had caught the attention of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, which tried to seize it from Sonnabend.

A deal was struck allowing her to keep possession as long as the work remained on public display. The issue resurfaced a few years later. In 1988, Rauschenberg himself had to submit a notarized letter stating that the eagle had been killed and stuffed by one of Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders long before the 1940 law went into effect.

Someone inherits a piece of art, pays the estate taxes on it, then gets pursued by the IRS again which says it can't be sold rendering it worthless, then bills them $29 million in taxes plus an undervaluing fee plus interest. Seriously?

If only Rauschenberg had used an eagle killed by a windmill (http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/09/interior-looks-to-expand-permits-for-killing-bald-eagles-to-accommodate-wind-energy/) instead of one shot by a Rough Rider. Perhaps Drakes Bay Oyster Co. should have gotten windmills involved as well.

Speaking of windmills, could Don Quixote be resident in the IRS

You couldn't have asked for a more responsible steward of the environment than this oyster company. Apparently you're fine with government using shoddy "science" to bully them out of business and renege on their promise, causing people to lose their jobs, homes and land. Again so much for liberal compassion...


I completely agree with your thoughts on the matter, but my response was in relation to the claim that, "The best way to manage and preserve public lands is not government management. The best proven way is leasing rights to private enterprise"

I was just wondering what Tom had in mind with the above statement.

Is he suggesting that the best form of management of a wilderness area can be found in actively digging something up or chopping it down?

Is he suggesting that a wilderness areas is properly managed by handing out a variety of leases to private companies and that somehow the total of these private activities will constitute overall management?

The oyster farmers appear to manage their small part of the environment very well. But they don't constitute the overall management of the park. I am sure they were happy managing their bit.


Tut

Is he suggesting that the best form of management of a wilderness area can be found in actively digging something up or chopping it down?

Sometimes yes . I already spoke of the lack of wilderness management related to out of control wild fires . One of the things I do in my spare time is help trail blaze in public parks . The advantage of my efforts to make access easier for recreational purposes is that the trails become conviently placed fire breaks .
I'll go further to say that managed logging is better for a forest than unimpeded growth . I also already pointed out that leasing rights of federal ocean areas to fisheries and lobstermen resulted in the preservation and conservation of the lobster population in New England .
Before enviro-wackos took over the debate ,conservationists recognized these facts.

So you trail blaze with a bulldozer Tom

sometimes yes . I already spoke of the lack of wilderness management related to out of control wild fires . One of the things I do in my spare time is help trail blaze in public parks . The advantage of my efforts to make access easier for recreational purposes is that the trails become conviently placed fire breaks .
I'll go further to say that managed logging is better for a forest than unimpeded growth . I also already pointed out that leasing rights of federal ocean areas to fisheries and lobstermen resulted in the preservation and conservation of the lobster population in New England .
Before enviro-wackos took over the debate ,conservationists recognized these facts.


I agree with most of that, but do you see the need for some type of overall government management of a wilderness area? It seems to me you were suggesting that overall management is best achieved through a variety of 'private concerns'. At least this is what I think you were saying.


Tut

Tom it seems you can't find a role for government anywhere, you cannot really believe that left to its own devices private enterprise will preserve the environment, no, they will pursue profits and that doesn't include cleaning up after themselves

Don't confuse "better" with "only." It's like the saga of the Delta smelt (http://naturalresources.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=5921), the feds turned one of the most agriculturally productive regions in the world, the San Joaquin Valley, into a dust bowl to protect a minnow.

We all acknowledge government has a proper role. As with the above example, bullying environmentally responsible people out of their homes and businesses on cherry-picked evidence in contravention of the contract the government made isn't one of them.

Yes Speech, things can go too far, we have all seen it

I'm kind of sick of answering this strawman canard . I hope I make this clear. Because I think a limited government role is ideal does not mean I don't think government plays a role . First off ;I've never diminished the role of the local and state governments . They are only restricted by their own local charters or state constitutions .
AND I've never said that the Federal Government doesn't have a role . I only ask that they confine their powers to those enumerated in the constitution . Capiche ?

And YES ,leasing rights are the best way to manage public lands . Look up the 'tragedy of the commons'.

Yes Speech, things can go too far, we have all seen it

The feds want me to eat good fats like in avocados... they cost me nearly $2.00 each thanks to their intervention. That's not going too far, it's stupidity. Encourage good behavior while making it impossible except for the wealthy that they allegedly hate. What's the price of arugula these days anyway? Oh that's right, the taxpayers buy it for Obama so who cares? Let 'em eat cake... oops, no Twinkies for us either.

I don't think you can have an effective government when you have a powerful business class with a bunch of loot.

What good is even having a constitution if business makes the local rules in there own interests, and the central government cannot work in the peoples interest? That's not an environment for effective governent.

As bad as we complain about government stifling business, its obvious these rich guys have done quite well in this down economy. That's without all those land leases, and taxes and regulations. They still don't create jobs here, despite record low taxes, and high profits.

So if government is the problem we also have to blame the job creators for failure to live up to their title also.

I'm kinda sick of answering this strawman canard . I hope I make this clear. Because I think a limited government role is ideal does not mean I don't think government plays a role . First off ;I've never diminished the role of the local and state governments . They are only restricted by their own local charters or state constitutions .
AND I've never said that the Federal Government doesn't have a role . I only ask that they confine their powers to those enumerated in the constitution . capiche ?

And YES ,leasing rights are the best way to manage public lands . Look up the 'tragedy of the commons'.

But Tom they can't assume powers they don't have, this is why you have the Supreme Court, but if quangos like the EPA exercise powers it is because those powers have been given them by Congress, otherwise known as the legislature, so what you are saying is the legislature is acting outside its constitutional power and authority. You put too much reliance on local and state governments, there are too many vested interests at local level, this is why you have federal legislation.

The feds want me to eat good fats like in avocados...they cost me nearly $2.00 each thanks to their intervention. That's not going too far, it's stupidity. Encourage good behavior while making it impossible except for the wealthy that they allegedly hate. What's the price of arugula these days anyway? Oh that's right, the taxpayers buy it for Obama so who cares? Let 'em eat cake...oops, no Twinkies for us either.

If Hostess had been better managed, they might till be around and the workers who lose their jobs are not at fault, yet the ones that ran things in the ground will benefit.

But Tom they can't assume powers they don't have, this is why you have the Supreme Court, but if quangos like the EPA exercise powers it is because those powers have been given them by Congress, otherwise known as the legislature, so what you are saying is the legislature is acting outside its constitutional power and authority. You put too much reliance on local and state governments, there are too many vested interests at local level, this is why you have federal legislation.

Yes there was a reason for a central federal government ;it was intentionally designed to be restricted by the powers enumerated to it by the Constitution. That is the system I prefer . It is the reason I live here and not in other nations where the powers of the central government are seemingly limitless and not defined .

Are you saying that because Congress acts that makes their action constitutional ? The fact that so many of their acts are declared unconstitutional proves that point false. But in this case I'm not arguing against a federal authority like the EPA. I'm saying that public lands are better managed by leasing arrangements with private interests .

Let me give you another example... NYC used to manage Bryant Park. Under their leadership is was an unsavory dangerous place for the public to go . So how did it change ? NYC handed over leasing rights to a businessman ;Dan Biederman ,who runs a conservancy in a nonprofit public-private partnership model . He raised private funding from businesses(those greedy rich people ) around the park, real estate owners, concessions and events sponsors. Since 1966 it has been a place that the public feels welcome and safe to go. Oh they pass by the occasional vendor or 2 selling food and gifts;but the park has been self sustaining not requiring a dime of taxpayer's money since.
A little known secret is that NYC has also adopted that model for the management of Central Park. It was once managed by the city ;and it was a dangerous crime infested place . Now ;it is a model of what a public commons can become.

In both cases the government role is oversight ;not direct management ;and that is a superior model .

"That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it." Aristotle

We can disagree with the actions of government, but that doesn't make the action unconstitutional. Only SCOTUS can rule on that so it either meets or NOT a constitutional challenge. That's the system intended or NOT. Right or wrong.

As for the best way to manage public lands, agree or disagree, there is also a process for that too. If the owners of Oyster bay want to bring a challenge to government actions they can avail themselves of that option.

That's up to them and the court of public opinion has little to do with the owners decision.

Tom what you speak about is some sort of policing model if implemented with private security and the city was perfectly capable of implementing such a plan they just didn't do so. There is a big difference between what local government has the power to do and what it directs its priorities too. The Parks simply weren't a priority, no matter what the local politicians said. So someone got a single focus organisation to look after a specific tract of land, very different priorities, Not that government couldn't do it, it wasn't a priority. That model worked in one place but it cannot be implemented everywhere because there just aren't enough private benefactors. You see look at the national parks, same principle but in government hands, those lands had to be protected from the exploitation of private interests

AND I've never said that the Federal Government doesn't have a role . I only ask that they confine their powers to those enumerated in the constitution . capiche ?


Yes, but what good is this. It depends on the political makeup of SCOTUS at the time.




And YES ,leasing rights are the best way to manage public lands . Look up the 'tragedy of the commons'.

Tom this can mean whatever we want it to mean. Based on the total of all arguments presented one could argue for the exact opposite. That private leasing rights is the least attractive alternative.

Tut

Tom what you speak about is some sort of policing model if implemented with private security and the city was perfectly capable of implementing such a plan they just didn't do so. There is a big difference between what local government has the power to do and what it directs its priorities too. The Parks simply weren't a priority, no matter what the local politicians said. So someone got a single focus organisation to look after a specific tract of land, very different priorities, Not that government couldn't do it, it wasn't a priority. That model worked in one place but it cannot be implemented everywhere because there just aren't enough private benefactors. You see look at the national parks, same principle but in government hands, those lands had to be protected from the exploitation of private interests

Wrong . The fact is that they are better managed by private interests . Under your model the California oysters are an endangered species. Under the privately managed arrangements oyster beds grow and the public benefits . This is just a demonstratable fact be it oysters or ;lobsters ,or parkland ,or forest management . Had that model been employed in the San Joaquin Valley the farmers would've gotten the water needed to maintain their business ;and the smelt would still be saved .

Tom this can mean whatever we want it to mean. Based on the total of all arguments presented one could argue for the exact opposite. That private leasing rights is the least attractive alternative.
Make the case .

go ahead and make the case .

In short, people's behaviour does sometimes cause threatening situations, not initiated by malicious outside forces, but rather, resulting from the apparently innocent decisions of individuals and small groups acting alone

(Hardin 1968)

Yes, I could also find quotes that claim governments implementing a top down approach to managing 'the common' will result in similar threatening situations.

The theory has along history and therefore is subject to volumes of debate. In fact there are probably volumes of debate.

Tut

As for the best way to manage public lands,agreeor disagree, there is also a processfor that too. If the owners of Oyster bay want to bring a challenge to government actions they can avail themselves of that option.

The feds just unilaterally evicted them from their homes and jobs on bad science. I thought you like science, I thought you were for the underdog. You rant endlessly about big business running roughshod over the little guys but don't seem to be bothered by big government doing the same.

In short, people's behaviour does sometimes cause threatening situations, not initiated by malicious outside forces, but rather, resulting from the apparently innocent decisions of individuals and small groups acting alone

(Hardin 1968)

Yes, I could also find quotes that claim governments implementing a top down approach to managing 'the common' will result in similar threatening situations.

The theory has along history and therefore is subject to volumes of debate. In fact there are probably volumes of debate.yes but I'm presenting examples of demostrated results . In 1989 the Montana Legislature approved a pilot program that allowed the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks to lease some water rights for in-stream flow during a 10-year trial period. The problem was that water rights were being used almost exculsively for agriculture and it was destroying the fish in Montana streams. In 2005, the pilot program became permanent.
The results ? Zero fish were found on Wasson Creek in Montana in 2003. In 2008, after five years of leasing there were five fish per 100 feet in the stream. In Murphy Spring Creek , populations were measured at three fish per 100 feet of stream . In 2010, populations increased to 14 fish per 100.

BTW ;to improve the system even more ,the Alaska model should be employed where the revenue from the leases goes back to the citizens in the form of commons land and water use dividends . What that does is recognize the basic truth that everyone has property rights in the commons .

The feds just unilaterally evicted them from their homes and jobs on bad science. I thought you like science, I thought you were for the underdog. You rant endlessly about big business running roughshod over the little guys but don't seem to be bothered by big government doing the same.

I thought that in the end there was too much flack over the science, so the Feds opted for the easy way out by not renewing their lease.

.

yes but I'm presenting examples of demostrated results . In 1989 the Montana Legislature approved a pilot program that allowed the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks to lease some water rights for in-stream flow during a 10-year trial period. The problem was that water rights were being used almost exculsively for agricuture and it was destroying the fish in Montana streams. In 2005, the pilot program became permanent.
The results ? Zero fish were found on Wasson Creek in Montana in 2003. In 2008, after five years of leasing there were five fish per 100 feet in the stream. In Murphy Spring Creek , populations were measured at three fish per 100 feet of stream . In 2010, populations increased to 14 fish per 100.

BTW ;to improve the system even more ,the Alaska model should be employed where the revenue from the leases goes back to the citizens in the form of commons land and water use dividends . What that does is recognize the basic truth that everyone has property rights in the commons .


Ok, that's well and good, but you told me to read the commons thing and I did. Obviously I could not read everything, but based on what I did read it seemed obvious that one could use the arguments either way.

You said to make the case for that. And I did,


Tut

Like the Colorado river being polluted by Shale oil, or the pipeline from Canada to Texas, and the farmers that lose their land for private profits? Its not so cut and dried.

Like the Colorado river being polluted by Shale oil, or the pipeline from Canada to Texas, and the farmers that lose their land for private profits? Its not so cut and dried.

Tal, when the government builds a false case then reneges on their agreement that's pretty cut and dried.

Mr .Lunney bought the land with full knowledge the lease may NOT be renewed, and he can always contest the findings used against him and present his true science if he wished. So in fact he has options (the courts), and he was not reneged on since the original agreement for lease renewal was NOT part of his agreement.

Mr .Lunney bought the land with full knowledge the lease may NOT be renewed, and he can always contest the findings used against him and present his true science if he wished. So in fact he has options (the courts), and he was not reneged on since the original agreement for lease renewal was NOT part of his agreement.

Tal, your compassion is overwhelming.

Still gathering facts which are hard to find other than how much money he was making. Doesn't seem to be much about the 30 employees who will lose their jobs or what they were paid and the benefits they got from this million dollar operation.

That's where my compassion starts. People before profits.

Still gathering facts which are hard to find other than how much money he was making. Doesn't seem to be much about the 30 employees who will lose their jobs or what they were paid and the benefits they got from this million dollar operation.

Thats where my compassion starts. People before profits.

Dude, I already posted that the employees were devastated and some will lose their homes. What is too hard to understand here? They deserve to lose their jobs if the owners made more profit than you think is fair? They're better off anyway if they don't make $100k, have 3 weeks paid vacation, dental, vision, life and health and a guaranteed pension? What? Your logic is unbelievably illogical.

Don't put words in my mouth or assign me positions I haven't taken. Especially since you have in the past supported rich guys laying people off to make more money even though the loss of a job and living made them lose their homes too.

I have stated I had NO facts in this case. Care to share what FACTS you know without the opinionated rhetoric? Or do these 30 workers become lazy a$$holes that don't deserve taking YOUR tax money for food stamps, or assistance until they can regroup?

Links are welcome and appreciated.

Don't put words in my mouth or assign me positions I haven't taken.

"People before profits," those were your words. Since the fact that these people are losing their jobs solely to the Interior Secretary's unilateral decision, explain what the heck profits have to do with anything. This is allegedly about putting harbor seals and eelgrass before people in spite of any evidence showing the harm the people have done to either. Do people come first or not?


Especially since you have in the past supported rich guys laying people off to make more money even though the loss of a job and living made them lose their homes too.

I support a free market, not government bullying.


I have stated I had NO facts in this case. Care to share what FACTS you know without the opinionated rhetoric? Or do these 30 workers become lazy a$$holes that don't deserve taking YOUR tax money for food stamps, or assistance until they can regroup?


Links are welcome and appreciated.

You've already been referred back to the sources I cited in the initial post. You're welcome.

QUOTE by speechlesstx;
"People before profits," those were your words. Since the fact that these people are losing their jobs solely to the Interior Secretary's unilateral decision, explain what the heck profits have to do with anything. This is allegedly about putting harbor seals and eelgrass before people in spite of any evidence showing the harm the people have done to either. Do people come first or not?

Evidence was submitted a basis for hiss decision and questioning it without counter evidence is but an opinion and can be challenged. He should if he indeed has a case and facts on his side and not just opinion. I mean this has been going on for years as it is.


I support a free market, not government bullying.

The free market has cost us many jobs and as much of a bully as the government.



You've already been referred back to the sources I cited in the initial post. You're welcome.

There were no FACTS backing up his claims just questioning methodology in your links so I am digging deeper, why aren't YOU?

Evidence was submitted a basis for hiss decision and questioning it without counter evidence is but an opinion and can be challenged. He should if he indeed has a case and facts on his side and not just opinion. I mean this has been going on for years as it is.

So your answer is government before people.


The free market has cost us many jobs and as much of a bully as the government.

What part of the government is supposed to protect us, not ruin us do you not get?


There were no FACTS backing up his claims just questioning methodology in your links so I am digging deeper, why aren't YOU?

No facts?? LOL. And why am I not digging deeper? I actually do put people first. Government is not even a distant 30th.

QUOTE by speechlesstx;
So your answer is government before people.

The government is the people or should be because that's what the constitution is all about.


What part of the government is supposed to protect us, not ruin us do you not get?

The free market ruined us and you think that's okay??


No facts?? LOL. And why am I not digging deeper? I actually do put people first. Government is not even a distant 30t,

I want the whole story not just the fragments that have dripped out. I can withhold my opinion till then.