Libertarians are "also rans", BUT !! ...

Anyone that's checked the LP.org site understands what a bunch of Don Quixote's the Libertarians are.

It doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong.
What it means is, they rarely if ever get elected.

BUT !!

I've got a few paragraphs from my favorite presidential candidate of all time.

I'll start with one sample, more available on request:

The following excerpted from U.S. Presidential candidate Libertarian Andre Marrou's
1992 stump speech.

"The annual subsidy for each American dairy cow is between $600-$700 dollars a year.
This is greater than the per capita income of half of the worlds population. And what do
we get for that? We get a price for milk and other dairy products that's double the
world's level.
Who does this impinge on? Primarily poor people with children. Rich people could care
less what the price of milk is. Poor people without children, they don't use much milk.
It's the poor people with children who are primarily hurt by this."

Click to expand...

I've never fact-checked that. But isn't it a nice thought?

sear said:

Anyone that's checked the LP.org site understands what a bunch of Don Quixote's the Libertarians are.

It doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong.
What it means is, they rarely if ever get elected.

BUT !!

I've got a few paragraphs from my favorite presidential candidate of all time.

I'll start with one sample, more available on request:

I've never fact-checked that. But isn't it a nice thought?

Click to expand...

Yup, there is no excuse for government to subsidize cattle.

f #2

Fair enough. But if you'll pardon a little probing here:

a) It's not really a subsidy to cattle. It's a subsidy FOR cattle, which goes to cattle ranchers.

b) What about the "promote the general welfare" stipulation in the Preamble?

You see fw,
I was born in 1954.
My elementary school teachers had all lived through WWII as adults. It was a memory to them more vivid than the attacks of 09/11/01 are to you and me.

And when I was in first grade, there was a school milk program.
For three pennies a day, students could buy a one cup (one forth of a quart) of milk in its individual carton.

So what?

Our legislators realized:

1) There was a lot of poverty around. And many of the students whose parents didn't buy much milk would be drinking water instead.
And water doesn't have as much Calcium. So they might not be as sturdy as adults. AND !!

2) The ones from poorer families might be more likely the ones to populate our military, when they became of age. Therefore that school milk program was:

3) A subsidy to dairy operators.
A means to provide Uncle Sam a fresh crop of military troops for the next big war.

Kind of a win / win.

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

So my question to you fw:
Should the U.S. reject ANY such subsidy, no matter how much of a net benefit it is; simply on principle? Or:

should we only consider such subsidy if it's a net benefit?

sear said:

f #2

Fair enough. But if you'll pardon a little probing here:

a) It's not really a subsidy to cattle. It's a subsidy FOR cattle, which goes to cattle ranchers.

Click to expand...

You assumed that I believe cattle have bank accounts?

b) What about the "promote the general welfare" stipulation in the Preamble?

Click to expand...

What about the concept of equality shared by the founders?

You see fw,
I was born in 1954.
My elementary school teachers had all lived through WWII as adults. It was a memory to them more vivid than the attacks of 09/11/01 are to you and me.

Click to expand...

I was born in 1944 during WWII

And when I was in first grade, there was a school milk program.
For three pennies a day, students could buy a one cup (one forth of a quart) of milk in its individual carton.

So what?

Click to expand...

So nothing as long the school district didn't lose money in the transaction.

Our legislators realized:

1) There was a lot of poverty around. And many of the students whose parents didn't buy much milk would be drinking water instead.
And water doesn't have as much Calcium. So they might not be as sturdy as adults. AND !!

Click to expand...

what does that have to do with anything?

2) The ones from poorer families might be more likely the ones to populate our military, when they became of age. Therefore that school milk program was:

3) A subsidy to dairy operators.
A means to provide Uncle Sam a fresh crop of military troops for the next big war.

Click to expand...

There is no excuse for government subsidizing ag products or school meals. Sorry.

So my question to you fw:
Should the U.S. reject ANY such subsidy, no matter how much of a net benefit it is; simply on principle? Or:

should we only consider such subsidy if it's a net benefit?

Click to expand...

Net benefit is subjective. It is opinion. That is why we need to concentrate on equality. I won't repeat my position on government subsidies. It should be clear by now.

"b) What about the "promote the general welfare" stipulation in the Preamble?" s

"What about the concept of equality shared by the founders?" fw

Click to expand...

So you acknowledge there are competing principles involved?

"For three pennies a day, students could buy a one cup (one forth of a quart) of milk in its individual carton."

So what?
"So nothing as long the school district didn't lose money in the transaction." fw

Click to expand...

And if they did?

$Money is fungible.

Skim (no pun intended) 3 cents per student from the school budget, to pay HUGE dividends for the defense budget decades later;
it's all United States government.
Not tidy, I admit.
But in the broader scheme, don't you think it's rather trivial?

Let's focus:
Trump is gunning for Meals on Wheels. Perhaps he deems it a "liberal" waste of $tax $dollars.

BUT !!

In some cases it can save $money. Beware the penny wise & pound foolish.

Skimping a few dollars on Meals on Wheels which enables handicapped seniors to remain living at home,
can result in them having to move to a nursing home; where it's vastly more expensive than their share of Meals on Wheels.

"Net benefit is subjective. It is opinion."

Click to expand...

Potentially, but not necessarily.

We can quantify the costs of outcomes with numerical precision. We needn't actually spend the money.
We can simply determine the A : B $cost contrast.

"That is why we need to concentrate on equality."

Click to expand...

How very tidy! Locking in their powerful advantage in an intrinsically unbalanced system, all in the noble sounding name of "equality"!

Many a Republican has banged that gong.
Who do you (they) think you're kidding?

They wish to preserve the uneven playing field, one where we all KNOW the outcomes will not be equal,
and they advocate maintaining the disparity in the name of "equality".

"It's another example of mismanagement in corporate America where we're now expected as tax payers to bail them out. They're capitalists when they make money. But they're socialists when they lose money."
Actor Tim Robins, commenting on a California commercial electric power crisis

Click to expand...

sear said:

So you acknowledge there are competing principles involved?

And if they did?

$Money is fungible.

Skim (no pun intended) 3 cents per student from the school budget, to pay HUGE dividends for the defense budget decades later;
it's all United States government.
Not tidy, I admit.
But in the broader scheme, don't you think it's rather trivial?

Let's focus:
Trump is gunning for Meals on Wheels. Perhaps he deems it a "liberal" waste of $tax $dollars.

BUT !!

In some cases it can save $money. Beware the penny wise & pound foolish.

Skimping a few dollars on Meals on Wheels which enables handicapped seniors to remain living at home,
can result in them having to move to a nursing home; where it's vastly more expensive than their share of Meals on Wheels.

Potentially, but not necessarily.

We can quantify the costs of outcomes with numerical precision. We needn't actually spend the money.
We can simply determine the A : B $cost contrast.

How very tidy! Locking in their powerful advantage in an intrinsically unbalanced system, all in the noble sounding name of "equality"!

Many a Republican has banged that gong.
Who do you (they) think you're kidding?

They wish to preserve the uneven playing field, one where we all KNOW the outcomes will not be equal,
and they advocate maintaining the disparity in the name of "equality".

Click to expand...

What you are failing to get from my position is that I don't think these things are an appropriate role for government whether they are effective, useful, successful, helpful or not. It is my opinion. You disagree with it. We're done here.

So you oppose utilitarianism, and maximum efficiency in government spending for a prosperous nation? Fine.

Are you familiar with the recent "happiness" studies done among nations?
I gather Denmark was the winner for years, but may have recently been bumped (to #2?).

We pay for 9 nuclear aircraft carriers. They get subsidized access to higher education, tuition $plus a stipend.

We spend $X on government, whatever that amount may be.

IF we are to spend that $amount, don't you think prosperity, the benefit to the People that are paying the $bills should be a criterion in how it is spent?

I'm not saying government should buy everyone a "free" pony.

But some that I've read indicates some government "spending" programs may pay for themselves: the G.I. Bill comes to mind.

Did it cost the $government? ABSOLUTELY!!

Did it pay for itself? Perhaps (according to source) with a net $gain for the government. How? College educated workers (veterans) earn higher $salaries. Thus the $tuition benefit they drew for 4 years could pay income tax dividends to government for 40 years or more.

Is a net benefit to government really such a high price to pay for rewarding our U.S. military veterans an elevated standard of living, for their faithful service?

If I may go on a bit of a rant against milk for a second... I have become so sickened by the practices of the cattle/dairy industry that I have stopped drinking milk altogether. The propaganda about animal milk being essential to human survival is so pervasive... yet we are the only animals that continue to drink milk into adulthood. Cow milk is meant as calf growth formula. It is meant to make the calf grow tremendously in a short amount of time. Somehow I do not see that as being beneficial for humans, especially while facing an obesity epidemic.

G #8

Excellent G, even if it doesn't qualify as a rant.

I'm w/ you on it. There are substitutes now that seem to be as good or better; "silk" for example.
I don't recall having tried any of the substitutes. But they seem to be holding their own in the market.

Want to put people off milk even more?
I once read (have not corroborated) that when the mammary gland is traced back in evolution, that it originates in what is essentially a sweat-gland.

Mmmmm

Here's another from Marrou:

In 1992 Libertarian candidate for U.S. President Andre Marrou included in his campaign
stump speech:

"... the United States is increasingly socialistic under the Democrats & Republicans.
The Democrats are essentially left wing socialists. The Republicans are right wing
socialists. How do you define socialism? More money to government, more power to
government, more bureaucrats, and more regulations, and on and on ... .
The federal government spends 25% of the Gross National Product. State, county, and
local government spend another 22%. That's 47% of the Gross National Product of this
country being spent by the government bureaucrats primarily on themselves. That
leaves 53% in your pockets. You're the people who earn it. 47% vs 53%; how can we
get your 53% up to 90%? One and only one way, we must reduce the 47% the
government spends, down to 10%. That is the only way it can be done. Individual
Liberty is diametrically opposed to governmental power.

Click to expand...

Geoist said:

If I may go on a bit of a rant against milk for a second... I have become so sickened by the practices of the cattle/dairy industry that I have stopped drinking milk altogether. The propaganda about animal milk being essential to human survival is so pervasive... yet we are the only animals that continue to drink milk into adulthood. Cow milk is meant as calf growth formula. It is meant to make the calf grow tremendously in a short amount of time. Somehow I do not see that as being beneficial for humans, especially while facing an obesity epidemic.

Click to expand...

You are right. Medical professionals do not recommend milk drinking by adults. What are the sickening practices of the dairy industry?

"Medical professionals do not recommend milk drinking by adults." fw #10

Click to expand...

"Medical professionals do not recommend milk drinking by adults" comma, not period.

"Medical professionals do not recommend milk drinking by adults" in many cases, BUT !!

For a woman in her 80's, a broken hip is reportedly most often a death sentence. Women that age with a broken hip generally do not recover.

And!!

While our bones and teeth may be composed substantially of Calcium, the human body uses Calcium for more than only that.

AND !!

If the amount of Calcium and vitamin D is not fully present in the diet, the body will scavenge it from elsewhere, and that means bones, and bone loss.

SO !!

Post-menopausal women might do well to insure that their dietary intake includes sufficient Calcium and vitamin D * to minimize bone mass reduction related to late life profile.

* The human body is reported to not efficiently metabolize Calcium without vitamin D, thought to be the reason the early humans that migrated North from the warmer, sunnier zones lost their melanin, so they could metabolize Calcium in sufficient amounts.

Geoist said:

If I may go on a bit of a rant against milk for a second... I have become so sickened by the practices of the cattle/dairy industry that I have stopped drinking milk altogether. The propaganda about animal milk being essential to human survival is so pervasive... yet we are the only animals that continue to drink milk into adulthood. Cow milk is meant as calf growth formula. It is meant to make the calf grow tremendously in a short amount of time. Somehow I do not see that as being beneficial for humans, especially while facing an obesity epidemic.

Click to expand...

While I agree I would simply say this:

cheese.

Quality life is impossible without cheese.


On a more serious note milk represents a low cost source of high quality protein so while it isn't essential to human adults it is a useful food.