RoR: Forum

Palin has just rocked the house with her speech to the RNC.

I think her best points were:

(1) the illumination of a laundry list of taxes that Obama plans to increase
(2) quoting Obama-Biden as saying "We'll fight for you" -- and adding that John McCain is the only man in the election who has ever actually fought for other Americans
(3) questioning out-loud what Obama will actually do after he's finished majestically parting the waters bringing healing to planet Earth
(4) shamelessly gloating about being the one candidate with any actual executive experience

It was cool seeing someone -- self-described as a Hockey-Mom -- who doesn't "fit the typical pedigree" of the career-politician, Washington fat-cat power-broker. She's enchanting, but it won't change my vote. Call me a "career" libertarian (who refuses to take that kind of a vacation with my and your money and freedom).

Ed

Post 81

Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - 8:44pm

I just finished watching Sarah Palin deliver her speech. I have to agree with Robert Bidinotto (on his blog) that choosing Palin as the VP will turn out to be possibly one of the best strategic decisions in campaign history. I think this woman is a better public speaker and more inspiring than Obama - which is saying a lot. I almost cringed thinking about McCain trying to follow this performance tomorrow night!

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 82

Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - 8:59pm

Ted,

Yes, I was " talking about her trying to have her bro-in-law fired." I'm not sure why she did that (though you seem to be sure that you know why she did it). I only heard that she has initiated an investigation of herself over the matter.

Ed

Post 83

Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - 9:30pm

Yes, Jeff - it was a wowser speech, and I had always thought that of those listed back when he was to consider a VP, she seemed actually the best, all in all - all the moreso now when Obamassiah DIDN'T pick a woman as VP [and yes, he had other than Hillary to pick]... politically speaking, this was a terrific move on McCain's part...

If she holds up the next two months, one thing for sure is that she will NOT be going away - indeed, could see her running against Hillary in 2012... successfully, too...
(Edited by robert malcom on 9/03, 9:33pm)

Post 84

Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - 10:40pm

Ed, it was either TIA or RealClearPolitics where I heard a discussion of the facts of the "scandal". Sorry, wasn't paying real close attention. (I think tues RCP.) Bottom line, if this had any real meat, it would be front page news. Looks like an proceedural thing. She fired his boss (within her prerogative as gov) because the boss wouldn't fire her bro-in-law, who was reckless. She maybe should have expected some objections from enemies, but it doesn't seem she acted in any hidden or self-serving way.

With all the adulation, I just hope she delivers. I still think a lot of people are prjecting their hopes on her. She could indeed by a female Rudy. That would certainly be refreshing. But what does a Rudy does as VP? McCain would do well to give her some real power and real responsibility if she's as good as people hope. I am so tired, Bush, Kemp, Bush, of having my heart broken.

Post 85

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 3:33am

Okay, Ted.

One thing I missed, or left out rather, when I shared "my" Sarah Palin speech highlights was when she said that her 'little-est' has special needs -- and then she looked at the camera and said calmly and reassuringly to the American people that, if they know or care for someone with special needs, that they can be sure that they'll have her as their advocate in Washington.

Like I said before, enchanting. Talk about a moral dilemma for a Liberal with a special needs kid! When O-Biden saw her do that, as I'm sure they were watching, when O-Biden saw that, I'll bet they each cringed and went immediately to the liquor cabinet for a stiff drink.

:-)

Ed

Post 86

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 6:47am

I watched the RNC last night. This campaign is starting to seem like the 1980 Reagan one. If the McCain-Palin ticket wins, what will the next four years be like? Probably better than the abomination of an Obama-nation. However, observing campaign promises is like watching cheerleaders. Palin was a spunky head cheerleader, for sure. But what will the game be like?

In 1980 the Dems remained the majority in the House, which has the greatest control over spending. Reagan promised to cut taxes and slash federal spending, but he didn't do the latter. As a result the Reagan years had record deficits. See here.

There will probably be some favorable developments on energy. The need for such developments was obvious about 7 years ago. However, the Bushman did nothing but smile at the Saudi royal family -- while 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Only the recent rise in gasoline prices has made the need obvious enough to voters. (It's the economy, stupid! (-: )

Reality check: The U.S.A. does not import all that crude oil from the Middle East, as the Republicans might want you to believe. More comes from Canada than Saudi Arabia. More comes from Mexico than Saudi Arabia. Venezuela is not far behind Saudi Arabia.

I don't see much cause for optimism on other matters. McCain's health care proposals are wishy-washy, and the Dems will fight hard to thwart them. (Hillary and Obama will still be senators.) What do others think?

Post 87

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 7:58am

Reagan was a great leader, super charismatic, and much brighter than credited, but still couldn't get a cut in spending - and it is leadership that matters in administrative effectiveness.

McCain isn't charismatic - more like dependable. I expect him to get very little through congress other than things that they already like - and as a middle of the road guy, he will find some common ground with the democrats and pass some more spending bills. He will do some vetoing and frustrate the democrates - that is about all I'd expect other than getting a semi-intelligent energy package through.

Palin won't be able to do much from the VP position. She may really be a leader and if McCain were generous in helping her prepare for and get public exposure as the next president she might be able to do something starting in 2012. Major change takes getting the 'base energized' (I got so sick of hearing that phrase last night), and the base we are talking about, to turn the country around, is most of the electorate.

We are so hungry for an authentic, gutsy, good person in that office, or just in politics anywhere, and want it so bad that there is bound to be lots of projection. I think Ted is completely right on that.

And the big problem still remains. Even if she is this fantastic, charismatic leader - authentic, gutsy, and honest - she is still, at best, a religious conservative - and it is their lack of real understanding of freedom and their philosophical fuzziness and faith-based approach that has been the problem all along. There will always be enemies of freedom coming from the left - the problem is that there are no rational defenders to point out why they are wrong. Rand was correct - you can't defend capitalism from an altruistic foundation.

Did anyone see any of the interviews with Ron Paul? It was great to hear an intelligent discussion of real issues - in contrast to the flag-waving and mindless cheering.

Post 88

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 9:44am

I have a problem with Sarah Palin initiating an ethical investigation into her own behavior. It reminds me of the 911 Commission, where the Executive Power took some of the responsibility for looking into itself.

This is not what the Founders intended with the "separation of powers"

There used to be an office called the Independent Counsel. It was independent of the executive. The most famous person to lead this was Ken Starr.

Ken Starr made a mockery of the office. As a result, the public lost confidence in the whole idea of having one. The office was killed. Some people say that Ken Starr purposedly did all this just so that it would get killed.

Post 89

Friday, September 5, 2008 - 3:41am

Jeff wrote (post 77):

OK Merlin, you win. I'm convinced that the current setup regarding state-ownership of vast tracts of the US is not only the best possible arrangement in practical terms, but also the model of morality and an example of the principles of individualism, freedom and rights in action. Objectivism has finally won! Hurray for the home team!

Jeff, you know very well that I have not tried to justify state-ownership of all the vast tracts of land in the U.S. that do exist. I argued only to justify the state of Alaska getting revenues based on the oil found and taken from land it owns, or better yet, is custodian for the citizens/residents of Alaska. You have advocated auctioning off state-owned property to the highest bidder. That would result in revenue to the state government. Why is that so different in principle from leasing the land and receiving money -- rents or maybe royalties based on oil? Indeed, as I have pointed out, leasing may be the optimal way to handle the matter. It is surely optimal regarding concessionaires in state-owned airports!

I am baffled by the often expressed principle that a government should never own or manage property. I have even heard some say that government should not own real estate like a military base or government building (the government should rent, period). You might reply this is preferred because public officials are prone to be corrupt or incompetent. If that's the case, they are similarly prone in the case of auctions and government being a renter or lessee.

A big thorn in the side of the advocate of a limited government is how to finance it without coercive taxes. Lotteries and user fees, such as registration fees for contracts to support the cost of a court system, are sometimes proposed. A clear plus for these is they are not coercive (except to somebody like Steve Wolfer).

When I didn't agree with the knee-jerk reaction here that there is surely something wrong with a government getting revenues from oil, I wasn't surprised. This has happened before a few times, although the cases weren't always about oil. Akin to what Ted wrote in post 65:

The "privatist absolutists" scream in indignation that "government can't own property"

Aren't royalties oil companies pay to the state of Alaska a sort of user fee? They may be called "taxes" but they aren't coercive like taxes in general.

P.S.: I wrote in post #63 that the state of Alaska imposes no personal income tax. There is no state sales tax either.
P.S.S: William Seward was quite an entrepreneur, whether or not he knew it. :-)

Post 90

Friday, September 5, 2008 - 7:33am

McCain rocked the house with his RNC acceptance speech last night. Here are my chosen highlights (paraphrased quotes):

=====================
(1) America is not just a place, but an idea (a moral idea)

(2) There is no greater purpose that a country could have than America's world-premier acknowledgement of inalienable, individual rights (i.e., we're morally superior to other countries on this planet)

(3) The constant partisan rancor in Washington is a symptom of people going to Washington to work for themselves (via political corruption), and not to have gone there in order to work for you (for the people of America)

(4) We (both parties) lost the trust of the American people when we (both parties) put our own power-lust ahead of our espoused principles -- (i.e., the US Congress -- and the last president -- have been nothing but a bunch of looting thugs)

(5) My administration will set a "new standard" for transparency and accountability

(6) I will veto the first pork-barrel spending bill that crosses my desk -- and I will make the authors' names public (i.e., he'll tell us which constituents are trying to loot from us, trying to screw us, the most)
=====================

Caveat:
And here's what I would call a low-light (opposite of highlight) of McCain's acceptance speech ...

"Nothing brings greater happiness in life than to serve a cause greater than yourself."

Yucko.

:-(

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 9/05, 11:20am)

Post 91

Friday, September 5, 2008 - 8:21am

Merlin,

I like the idea that government can be funded voluntarily - we may disagree over the degree to which this particular instance is voluntary - but the alternative is likely to be taxes which are not voluntary. I like Alaska not having an income tax and not having a sales tax. That is great. We both have the same ideal in mind.

My point that government cannot own property is philosophical - not political or legal. It is an argument all by itself that is important for the purpose of keeping pure the understanding of individual rights - if we act as if anything other than humans have individual rights all kinds of problems appear and there is no longer a way to defend capitalism on the basis of a rational egoism and individual rights. Note that I don't say that government can't hold things as custodian - they can, they should, and they do. Answering the question of what should government hold leaves the area of philosophy that demonstrates that humans have rights because they are humans and moves into politics and economics.

As to whether government holds fee-simple title to the land under the court house or they lease it is of no concern to me. Whatever legal rights they hold doesn't alter the fact that the land (or the leasehold) is held in commons and government is the custodian and the people are the actual 'owners' and that only individuals can have property rights at a moral level. Commons are such an intellectual mess and so hard to work with and so ripe for political abuse that anything that can be done to reduce them should be considered.

In the area of politics we agree that the purpose of government is to protect individual rights. And they need to be custodians of property to satisfy that end. And, they should not control any more property than necessary.

Government needs to be funded. The more voluntary, the better. I am not outraged or up in arms over the royalty arrangement in Alaska. I think that it would be better for everyone if Alaska auctioned off those mineral rights. The present value of that income stream could be estimated by those that want to be in the business of managing those mineral rights, and the funds received from the auction would be used to replace tax dollars. That is better only because that property is then in private hands and the commons have been reduced. Then those mineral rights could be freely bought, sold, shared, used as collateral - whatever - responding to changes in the market and being fully a part of the market. But, like I said I don't think it is big thing (unlike say, eminent domain, or welfare - those are big things to me).

I think the need to use the awkward language of 'custody' when talking about government controlled resources is important - just to protect the concept of individual rights which is the foundation of liberty.

I think it is good to always look for ways to move resources out of government hands into private hands - as a principle. And because commons are often a source of problems and because private hands will always manage them more effectively. And we don't appear to disagree on this except for some of the mineral rights in Alaska.

And moving every resource that one can out of government hands is also good economically as it reduces the amount of government interference or competition in the free market.

For me, what is important are those principles - they guide us on what we would like to see in all states with all resources. Having angry discussion over Alaska doesn't make much sense to me - unless it is a disagreement on the principles.

I jumped into the argument in a 'knee-jerk fashion', if by that you mean automatically, but only to protect the concept of individual rights from being clouded... and then to voice my opinion on the preference of resources being moved out to private hands.

Post 92

Friday, September 5, 2008 - 8:41am

McCain's speech was like an emotional yo-yo. DOWN: Being sickened by calls for selfless service and the enshrining of sacrifice as the defining virtue, calls to faith, bowing to God's grace. They even found a place for Mother Teresa! UP: Independence from partisan loyalty, elimination of corruption and special interest politics, reduced government size, reduced taxes, recognition that taxes can hurt the economy (isn't it pathetic that voicing such an obvious understanding can make ones hopes soar?), and the sense of a far more authentic and honest person than Obama.

Talk about flag-waving... I was disgusted with the constant, never-ending parade of McCain's Vietnam imprisonment and torture so shamelessly used to build support. But at the same time I could not help but be horrified at what he endured - spending 5 years under those conditions. And I couldn't help admiring his courage and integrity. It is that same old conservative package - the good and the bad, the smell of gun powder, the flags waving, the emotions all driving an altruistic ship of state. I needed to remind myself once or twice of the fundamental principles that caused that ship to end up where we are today. I'm still voting Libertarian.

Post 93

Friday, September 5, 2008 - 10:22am

Steve Wolfer,
I much appreciated post #91 and gave you some Atlas points for it. I think we made some significant progress in mutual understanding w/o it degenerating into a major hostility and name calling. I will make only a minor comment, expanding on one I already made.

You wrote:

Government needs to be funded. The more voluntary, the better. I am not outraged or up in arms over the royalty arrangement in Alaska. I think that it would be better for everyone if Alaska auctioned off those mineral rights. The present value of that income stream could be estimated by those that want to be in the business of managing those mineral rights, and the funds received from the auction would be used to replace tax dollars. That is better only because that property is then in private hands and the commons have been reduced.

I refer you to my largest paragraph in post #75, and add the following. I'm not in the oil business, but spent much of my career in financial risk analysis, often many years stuff. It seems to me the present value is a shot in the dark. It would have to take into account an iffy probability of striking oil, an iffy probabilty of how much oil, and an iffy value of the future price of oil. Let's split up the present value into PVS - PVD. There is a huge amount of cash needed up front to explore, map and test drill, up to the decision point to go for it or walk away. That's PVD. PVS is for a strike and big compared to PVD. (If no oil or an insufficient quantity is found, then PVS ex post is zero.) In an outright buy the oil company would have to pay the landowner based on PVS - PVD since the landowner walks away after the transaction. In a lease the oil company only pays the lessor early on based on PVD and maybe a tiny fraction of PVS (ex ante). That's because if there is a strike (of sufficient quantity) the oil company can pay the lessor a part of PVS much later on when the oil brings in revenue.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 9/05, 4:02pm)

Post 94

Saturday, September 6, 2008 - 7:28am

There is now a video out on her...

http://animoto.com/play/XClHuD3uJd9St6ui2a1Gcg

Post 95

Saturday, September 6, 2008 - 4:13pm

What I think is going on, at least in part, with the Palin phenomenon is that a large portion of the population is fed up to the teeth with political correctness and Nanny regulations. These go from helmet laws to trans-fat bans to global warming hysteria and spotted owl environmentalists and everything in between. So when it is said that her goal in life is to kill caribou it's a throw-it-in-your-face cry of 'enough already' to the latte-sipping solipsistic city-dwelling sissies who don't know how to do anything practical. Many of rural Americans do know how to change their own oil, shoot varmints, cook an apple pie and build a fence and they're finally having their say.

Sam

Post 96

Saturday, September 6, 2008 - 4:51pm

Sam, I agree - but is even bigger. It is authenticity - she isn't courting the PC crowd, or the elites, or the special interests, or the party - she also isn't courting the red necks or rural vote as such - there isn't any sense of her putting on a hokey, gosh, gee whiz folksiness. She is actually just being herself and saying what she believes. She isn't talking up to us or talking down to us. (At least this is what she appears to be at this early date).

Other politicians have to be interpreted - first to guess what they really mean, second to guess what they will do, and third to figure out who they really are (if anyone) under the layers of pretense.

Just by being herself and being quite extraordinary and a regular person all at the same time reaffirms authentic values as opposed to the phony values of the elites, the beautiful people, the political spin meisters, Hollywood, Madison Avenue, The Rich and Powereful, the strutting politicians who hire people to tell them how to look, how to talk, so that they project some kind of superiority. No false humility and no bragging. She gives the meta message that all of that stuff is so much crap that it wouldn't even occur to her to give even 5 seconds to explaining how stupid it is.

Watching her, everyone can say to himself, somewhere in his subconscious, "The best within me is like her (even if not as successful, or powerful, or whatever) and as long as I'm being honest and standing up for my values I too am a hero (even if on a smaller scale)." With all the phony heroes put forth by PR agents there is some kind weird, unknowable barrier between 'regular' people and 'greatness' - the 'heroes' are different in some almost magical way that makes us by comparison, not heroes. We end up looking for "presidentialness" or "star quality" or super hero traits - but those are all phony creations to trick everyone out of a vote, or to buy some toothpaste, or see the latest movie. Real heroes are measured by real accomplishments that arise out of authentic character.

Maybe we are projecting onto her because we need this, but if not, the incredible gift she gives is being a mirror for the good in our own character and it's connection to real heroes.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 9/07, 10:55am)

Post 97

Saturday, September 6, 2008 - 5:21pm

Well said, Steve.

"The best within me is like her (even if not as successful, or powerful, or whatever) and as long as I'm being honest and standing up for my values I too am a hero (even if on a smaller scale)."

Sam

Post 98

Sunday, September 7, 2008 - 6:49am

Post #96 was great.

Sunday, September 7, 2008 - 10:09am