Begun, The War On Conservatives Has (Shapiro)

[Cripplecreek]

Feel free to examine history and tell me what society has ever recovered lost liberty through civil means. Pointing fingers and saying people sound "nutty" is no reasoned rebuttal to historical fact.

Unfortunately success in revolution is nearly as rare as a unicorn and more often than not the people end up worse off than before.

[Jazzhead]

Feel free to examine history and tell me what society has ever recovered lost liberty through civil means. Pointing fingers and saying people sound "nutty" is no reasoned rebuttal to historical fact.

The AHCA would have been one such example.   Gone would have been the enforcement the "freedom-killing" individual mandate by means of the Tax Code,  and well as all the tax reporting required of individuals and employers.   

[Hoodat]

@Jazzhead

Can you come up with a single example where a government-run monopoly provided better service at lower cost than did a free market?  Just one.

[Night Hides Not]

@Jazzhead

Can you come up with a single example where a government-run monopoly provided better service at lower cost than did a free market?  Just one.

Simply can't be done.

For example, I performed an audit of a nonprofit that received funding from over 20 different state and federal agencies. My supervisor gave me a whole week to complete it.

Now I work in the public sector. My first audit took over a year, and it was one of the worst years of my life. "Audits" are not performed, they are strictly exercises in covering one's arse, to justify the amount of time spent on these "audits". We know going in that any costs we question will not be sustained in a meaningful way.

I feel like John Galt at the railroad yard.

ETA: it was far different for me at the FDIC. My work was valued, and I worked with a team of superb professionals, unlike the situation I currently find myself.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead

Can you come up with a single example where a government-run monopoly provided better service at lower cost than did a free market?  Just one.

Some would argue the Post Office.   Private carriers could well provide superior service for folks in the cities, but there's no way that any private carrier could deliver a letter to folks in remote rural areas for less than fifty cents.   The government postal monopoly is arguably the best way to guarantee affordable mail service to folks in ALL areas.

Some would argue Social Security.    It's a huge defined benefit pension program that provides income security to millions, even as the private sector has been fleeing defined benefit pensions in droves.   The private sector has proven its unwillingness to continue to provide income security for retirees -  making the SS safety net more vital than ever.

Some would argue securities regulation.   The ubiquity of our investment markets is built on the playing field of trust built by government regulations.  Ordinary, unsophisticated investors would flee the markets if the SEC didn't set rules to keep them from being ripped off. 

Government programs work best in situations where the community has decided that services must be provided without regard to individual circumstance (rural or urban, rich or poor, naïve or sophisticated or, getting back to the issue at hand,  sickness or health without regard to one's individual "virtue" or good fortune.)     

[Maj. Bill Martin]

But you have hit upon the missed opportunity. Go with the "hardline"  conservatives and dump it, lock, stock, and barrel.

I'd agree that would be the preferred choice if the votes are actually there to pass it.  If not, then it's wasting time.  As I've said before, that's a legitimate issue on a question of fact, not of principle, and people can reasonably disagree on that.

Introduce legislation to plug the holes, fill the gaps, and own the 'good' stuff, one issue at a time.

Anyone who opposes repeal without a guarantee of certain things wouldn't vote for that.  They'd worry -- rightly so -- that once repeal was passed, those other things they want to retain wouldn't have enough support from conservatives, and wouldn't pass.

Again, this isn't a disagreement on principle.  It's a dispute as to whether the votes are actually there to do what both of us would prefer.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Feel free to examine history and tell me what society has ever recovered lost liberty through civil means. Pointing fingers and saying people sound "nutty" is no reasoned rebuttal to historical fact.

I'd say that the Brits recovered some lost liberty under Thatcher, and we recovered some under Reagan.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

@Jazzhead

Can you come up with a single example where a government-run monopoly provided better service at lower cost than did a free market?  Just one.

Hmm let me see. Groceries in Venezuela, cars in Cuba, everything in the USSR. Nope, I got nothing.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Some would argue the Post Office.   Private carriers could well provide superior service for folks in the cities, but there's no way that any private carrier could deliver a letter to folks in remote rural areas for less than fifty cents.   The government postal monopoly is arguably the best way to guarantee affordable mail service to folks in ALL areas.

Some would argue Social Security.    It's a huge defined benefit pension program that provides income security to millions, even as the private sector has been fleeing defined benefit pensions in droves.   The private sector has proven its unwillingness to continue to provide income security for retirees -  making the SS safety net more vital than ever.

Some would argue securities regulation.   The ubiquity of our investment markets is built on the playing field of trust built by government regulations.  Ordinary, unsophisticated investors would flee the markets if the SEC didn't set rules to keep them from being ripped off. 

Government programs work best in situations where the community has decided that services must be provided without regard to individual circumstance (rural or urban, rich or poor, naïve or sophisticated or, getting back to the issue at hand,  sickness or health without regard to one's individual "virtue" or good fortune.)     

Those are not monopolies. Have you ever taken Econ 101? Is there a reason the government shouldn't distribute all our scarce resources?

[Smokin Joe]

Unfortunately success in revolution is nearly as rare as a unicorn and more often than not the people end up worse off than before.

True enough, but that still did not address the original question.

"What society has ever recovered lost liberty through civil means?"

Arguing that no chance is better than one, however slim, of success doesn't work.
The Signers (of the Declaration of Independence) were fully aware of the possible consequences of actions which would be construed by the Crown as treason. Many of them lost their lives, their livelihoods, their homes, businesses, and family members, and no small few died in poverty, even though they were prosperous before the Revolution. Yet they took the risk, knowing full well that possibility, on that thin chance that the upstart colonies might be able to defeat the resolve of King George III and the most powerful army/navy in the world.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/DOCUMENTS/the_signers.html

Retaining our liberty is the key.

[INVAR]

Retaining our liberty is the key.

Retaining our liberty is not possible when:

1.  This people define liberty as empowering government to make provisions while redistributing wealth and property in the name of 'fairness'.

2.  Have grown accustomed to tyranny and argue about how best to appease and manage tyranny.

3.  Insist that we must accept the loss of our liberty and compromise with those who want to enshrine our stolen liberty as legal and legitimate.

4.  We have rejected as a society the Source of our liberty and blessings.

[bigheadfred]

Think how it will be when people don't wish for a Dick Tracy wristwatch...they ARE a Dick Tracy wristwatch.

[Hoodat]

@Jazzhead

Can you come up with a single example where a government-run monopoly provided better service at lower cost than did a free market?  Just one.

Some would argue the Post Office.   Private carriers could well provide superior service for folks in the cities, but there's no way that any private carrier could deliver a letter to folks in remote rural areas for less than fifty cents.   The government postal monopoly is arguably the best way to guarantee affordable mail service to folks in ALL areas.

The Post Office is so afraid of private competition that they make it illegal.  Companies can be fined or have their employees sent to prison for providing profitable mail service.  And who are you to dictate that private carriers can't provide service in rural areas for less than fifty cents?  If they couldn't do it, then the Post Office wouldn't have to outlaw it, would they? 

Consider a company that delivers mail to a central location in a rural area and sends out emails notifying people that mail is available for pickup.  The mail is then loaded into a machine like Redbox, and people can collect it for 40 cents per ounce.

So the answer to the question is "No, the Post Office monopoly does not provide better service at lower cost than the private sector."

Some would argue Social Security.    It's a huge defined benefit pension program that provides income security to millions, even as the private sector has been fleeing defined benefit pensions in droves.   The private sector has proven its unwillingness to continue to provide income security for retirees -  making the SS safety net more vital than ever.

If Social Security were a private company, their entire upper management team would be facing 40 years to life in maximum security prison.  It is not a pension program.  It is a ponzi scheme in the purest sense of the word.  There is zero truth in any of your statements above.  Investments in the stock market has never been higher.  Historically, stocks deliver a return five to eight times higher than the promised 'benefit' [sic] of Social Security.  And when you die, your descendants inherit your remaining portfolio while Social Security steals the remainder of yours.

So not just 'no', but "HELL NO, Social Security does not provide better service at lower cost than does the private sector."  If it did, then they wouldn't force you to 'invest' [sic] at the point of a gun.

Some would argue securities regulation.   The ubiquity of our investment markets is built on the playing field of trust built by government regulations.  Ordinary, unsophisticated investors would flee the markets if the SEC didn't set rules to keep them from being ripped off.

These would be the same regulators that caused the 2008 recession because of their lax regulation of FMHA?  How much did that end up costing?

Government programs work best in situations where the community has decided that services must be provided without regard to individual circumstance (rural or urban, rich or poor, naïve or sophisticated or, getting back to the issue at hand,  sickness or health without regard to one's individual "virtue" or good fortune.)     

But I asked you to come up with a single example where a government-run monopoly provided better service at lower cost than did a free market.  And you failed.

So that leaves the question of why you think it will work here when it hasn't worked anywhere else in the history of man?

Why not just be honest for once.  You really don't care that it ends up providing worse service at higher cost because your motive lies elsewhere.  For you, 'Practical' takes a back seat to 'emotional satisfaction'.  Think of how many more Jews the National Socialists could have killed at lower cost had they contracted out to the private sector.  But that just didn't deliver the emotional satisfaction they were looking for, just as you are with forcing socialism on everyone else.

[INVAR]

@Jazzhead
But I asked you to come up with a single example where a government-run monopoly provided better service at lower cost than did a free market.  And you failed.

So that leaves the question of why you think it will work here when it hasn't worked anywhere else in the history of man?

Why not just be honest for once.  You really don't care that it ends up providing worse service at higher cost because your motive lies elsewhere.  For you, 'Practical' takes a back seat to 'emotional satisfaction'.  Think of how many more Jews the National Socialists could have killed at lower cost had they contracted out to the private sector.  But that just didn't deliver the emotional satisfaction they were looking for, just as you are with forcing socialism on everyone else.

Ouch.  That left a brilliant scarlet mark.

Well done.

Either his reply will be another mind-bending traipse of scatology logic, or he erects another emoting straw man if he replies at all.

[Jazzhead]

But I asked you to come up with a single example where a government-run monopoly provided better service at lower cost than did a free market.  And you failed.

For my argument to "fail" you'd have to address the points I made. 

The reason the Post Office has a monopoly on first class mail delivery is to allow affordable mail service in remote and rural areas.   No one disputes that private competition could kick the Post Office's arse here in Philadelphia,  because mail delivery in urban areas is profitable, low-hanging fruit.  But what private carrier would provide affordable service in remote areas in the absence of common carrier requirements?     

Government monopolies exist in areas where the community recognizes the need for equal access to a valuable service.   Mail delivery to both city and country.   A minimum level of income security in retirement.  Consumer confidence in markets where disparities in information create natural conditions for fraud and abuse. 

The government's role in private markets should be as limited as possible.   But there are exceptions where government's role is both beneficial and, in the eyes of the community, essential. 

And in our nation - a representative democratic republic - the desires of the community as expressed through laws passed by our elected representatives are not "tyranny".    ObamaCare can be repealed, repaired and/or replaced,  by the same means by which it was enacted.   ObamaCare passed because Dems were unified.   ObamaCare still lives because conservatives are not.   But that doesn't mean that ObamaCare represents tyranny.   The reason that "tyranny" still exists?  Look in the damn mirror.   
 

   

[Idaho_Cowboy]

For my argument to "fail" you'd have to address the points I made. 

The reason the Post Office has a monopoly on first class mail delivery is to allow affordable mail service in remote and rural areas.   No one disputes that private competition could kick the Post Office's arse here in Philadelphia,  because mail delivery in urban areas is profitable, low-hanging fruit.  But what private carrier would provide affordable service in remote areas in the absence of common carrier requirements?     

Government monopolies exist in areas where the community recognizes the need for equal access to a valuable service.   Mail delivery to both city and country.   A minimum level of income security in retirement.  Consumer confidence in markets where disparities in information create natural conditions for fraud and abuse. 

The government's role in private markets should be as limited as possible.   But there are exceptions where government's role is both beneficial and, in the eyes of the community, essential. 

And in our nation - a representative democratic republic - the desires of the community as expressed through laws passed by our elected representatives are not "tyranny".    ObamaCare can be repealed, repaired and/or replaced,  by the same means by which it was enacted.   ObamaCare passed because Dems were unified.   ObamaCare still lives because conservatives are not.   But that doesn't mean that ObamaCare represents tyranny.   The reason that "tyranny" still exists?  Look in the damn mirror.   
 

 

The reason the post office has a monopoly on first class mail is because the law says no one else can stick a letter in your mailbox. They are afraid of competition.

Not to mention the fact they lose money; it varies year to year, but they are a dog.

What makes the letter so special that the Post office has to lose money to get it to rural area vs. the parcels the Fed-Ex and others make money delivering to rural areas?

[Doug Loss]

The reason the post office has a monopoly on first class mail is because the law says no one else can stick a letter in your mailbox. They are afraid of competition.

Not to mention the fact they lose money; it varies year to year, but they are a dog.

What makes the letter so special that the Post office has to lose money to get it to rural area vs. the parcels the Fed-Ex and others make money delivering to rural areas?

I'd support something like this: open all mail delivery to private competition.  In those portions of the country where no private company picks up the gauntlet to provide the service, a rump-USPS would guarantee the service, operating at a loss if needed.  Since they operate at a loss anyway, they might as well be reduced in size by removing the profitable routes.

[INVAR]

For my argument to "fail" you'd have to address the points I made.

Yup.  You gave us another mind-bending traipse of scatology logic into the Liberal Socialist Wonderland you seek to impose on the rest of us.

Government monopolies exist in areas where the community recognizes the need for equal access to a valuable service.   Mail delivery to both city and country.   A minimum level of income security in retirement.  Consumer confidence in markets where disparities in information create natural conditions for fraud and abuse. 

'Community', 'equality', income security, 'disparity in information', 'disparity in income', 'disparity in fairness', 'disparity in skin color', 'disparity in sex'...... 'the government's beneficial role' and on and on you go to give us the code words for the Communism you actually stand for.

And in our nation - a representative democratic republic - the desires of the community as expressed through laws passed by our elected representatives are not "tyranny".

ObamaCare is tyranny.  Period.  And I will continue to call it, and people like you who support it, the tyrants you are.

ObamaCare can be repealed, repaired and/or replaced,  by the same means by which it was enacted. 

Fine.  The GOP should create a new bill called the "Saving Our Health Care Act of 2017".  In the 3,000 pages of legal speak is the total repeal root and branch of Obamacare.  They should pass it in the middle of the night, and prevent any legislator from reading the bill before they vote on it.  Tell the people that they have to pass it before we can know what is in it.

But that doesn't mean that ObamaCare represents tyranny.   

ObamaCare IS TYRANNY.

The reason that "tyranny" still exists?  Look in the damn mirror.   

Yes, you should.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

I'd support something like this: open all mail delivery to private competition.  In those portions of the country where no private company picks up the gauntlet to provide the service, a rump-USPS would guarantee the service, operating at a loss if needed.  Since they operate at a loss anyway, they might as well be reduced in size by removing the profitable routes.

Not a bad idea. We also might have to come to grips with the thought that *gasp* some letters cost more to deliver than others. It's true of the rest of the world of freight and trucking.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I'd support something like this: open all mail delivery to private competition.  In those portions of the country where no private company picks up the gauntlet to provide the service, a rump-USPS would guarantee the service, operating at a loss if needed.  Since they operate at a loss anyway, they might as well be reduced in size by removing the profitable routes.

I kind of like the idea, but the problem is a bit more knotty than that.  The whole point of mail is that you can stick a letter in your box and have it delivered...wherever.  But if private services only serve "portions" of the country, that wouldn't work.  And if you had multiple companies serving the same regions -- which is the whole point of competition -- then you'd never know when mailing a letter with one company if the person on the other end is served by the same company.

I dunno -- maybe get the postal service out of the package delivery business, and let private carriers like UPS, etc., pick up that slack.  And hopefully, the "mail" portion of the business should be reduced over time as more people move to electronic mail.  Half of what most of us get is junk anyway.

[Doug Loss]

I kind of like the idea, but the problem is a bit more knotty than that.  The whole point of mail is that you can stick a letter in your box and have it delivered...wherever.  But if private services only serve "portions" of the country, that wouldn't work.  And if you had multiple companies serving the same regions -- which is the whole point of competition -- then you'd never know when mailing a letter with one company if the person on the other end is served by the same company.

I dunno -- maybe get the postal service out of the package delivery business, and let private carriers like UPS, etc., pick up that slack.  And hopefully, the "mail" portion of the business should be reduced over time as more people move to electronic mail.  Half of what most of us get is junk anyway.

It works for phone companies; doesn't matter who your carrier is, you can connect to the recipient you want to.  It could be worked out.

[Smokin Joe]

I kind of like the idea, but the problem is a bit more knotty than that.  The whole point of mail is that you can stick a letter in your box and have it delivered...wherever.  But if private services only serve "portions" of the country, that wouldn't work.  And if you had multiple companies serving the same regions -- which is the whole point of competition -- then you'd never know when mailing a letter with one company if the person on the other end is served by the same company.

I dunno -- maybe get the postal service out of the package delivery business, and let private carriers like UPS, etc., pick up that slack.  And hopefully, the "mail" portion of the business should be reduced over time as more people move to electronic mail.  Half of what most of us get is junk anyway.

UPS and Fed Ex are already having the USPS do the last leg of deliveries. They do the sorting and shipping, the USPS does the postal carrier thing the last leg.

[geronl]

In a perfect world, sure.  But reality is that the GOP needed to pass reform with the support of both moderates and conservatives,

stomping conservatives in the face and leaving them out of the process was a great strategy to do that, I guess.

[geronl]

My understanding is that Trump was willing to give the FC a major change they sought -  elimination of the EHB requirements -   

Actually repealing ObamaCare was the big roadblock

[geronl]

The reason the post office has a monopoly on first class mail is because the law says no one else can stick a letter in your mailbox. They are afraid of competition.

Someone did start a private mail business (based in Oklahoma I think) decades ago, but they were shut down by the federal government even though it was making a profit.

EDIT

In 1968, Thomas M. Murray (1927–2003) founded the Independent Postal System of America (IPSA)[5] as a nationwide commercial carrier of Third and Fourth Class Mail,[6] in direct competition with the United States Post Office (USPO), now the United States Postal Service (USPS).[5][7][8] But in 1971, when the company entered the First Class delivery business, they endured a number of lawsuits brought against them, which finally led to the company's collapse in the mid-1970s.[9][10][11][12] The company issued a number of stamps during the years of its operation, including commemoratives for Lyndon B. Johnson, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.[13] and Charles Lindbergh before the USPS did

EDIT 2

In 1844, Lysander Spooner founded the American Letter Mail Company, competing with the legal monopoly of the United States Post Office (USPO), now the United States Postal Service (USPS), in violation of the Private Express Statutes. It succeeded in delivering mail for lower prices, but the U.S. government challenged Spooner with legal measures, eventually forcing him to cease operations in 1851.