Comments for Enableate

Comment on Someone Shoot John a Memo by steve

steve — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:51:00 +0000

Nuance is never ever key to an argument.

Comment on Someone Shoot John a Memo by darwin

darwin — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 05:13:19 +0000

Either way steve, it’s great to see you paying this much attention to nuance. I see you’ve learned a lot from me. Nuance is key in any argument, right?

Comment on Someone Shoot John a Memo by steve

steve — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:01:13 +0000

Does being a public/private hybrid mean you are private. I would think that if you were private you would be called ‘private’ and not ‘public/private hybrid’.

Comment on Energy Crisis Solved by darwin

darwin — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:56:28 +0000

Basically, the Libertarian position has problems with thing sthat are federally owned, such as airways, federal land, rivers, and oceans. Is there more liberty in basically giving these away free to corporations with no regulation or restrictions, or in carefully meting them out in a way that serves all the people and stops some from trampling on the rights of others? Clearly there’s nothing in the constitution that says farmers have a right to the rivers that flow onto their lands, but does that mean we should allow agribusiness corporations to divert rivers away from small farmers? There’s nothing in the constitution saying that everyone has a right to a portion of the ariwaves, but does that mean we should allow the few largest cell phone and radio companies to monopolize the entire broadcast spectrum, or send out interference on any spectrums they’re not using in order to prevent competition?
In the current case, there’s nothing in the constitution saying that condo owners have a right to clean, swimmable water and a nice view of the ocean on their privately owned beachfront property, but does that mean we should let oil companies dig along the coast, ruining their investments?

Comment on Someone Shoot John a Memo by Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:56:10 +0000

They are actually a public/private hybrid. They are privately owned and operated, and have been since 1968. They are “government sponsored”, in the sense that it is unlikely that the government would let them fail. Many economists believe that Freddie and Fanny are the worst of both worlds. There is no regulation to stop them from doing stupid things, while at the same time, they don’t have to worry about going under, because they know that the government will bail them out. It’s not entirely clear how to solve this problem. On the one hand, the hybrid model does not work. On the other hand, its not clear that they could survive without the government sponsership (few people would invest in them in their current state), or whether the US economy could survive them going under.

Comment on Redistribute Wealth by Trampage

Trampage — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:48:50 +0000

YES!

Comment on Energy Crisis Solved by Trampage

Trampage — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:41:42 +0000

Let the market decide the price…FREE WILLEY

Comment on Energy Crisis Solved by steve

steve — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:35:47 +0000

I’m not sure what you are asking me.

Comment on Energy Crisis Solved by Jamie

Jamie — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 03:03:37 +0000

So if California or Florida decided that offshore drilling would hurt their economy but service the fed, what should you do? Is it unconsitutional for them to declare that they aren’t interested?

Comment on Energy Crisis Solved by steve

steve — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:08:05 +0000

How does one mediate between state and federal demands? Honestly, in most instances I would argue that the state government should have more to say. I follow the proposition that laws should be as local as possible so at to better account for idiosyncrasies found within differing regions. If the federal government does away with restricting offshore drilling, but a state still implements such restrictions the property owners must abide the state law.

There are several exemptions to preferring state law over federal law. States that pass laws that blatantly violate our constitutional rights should be made invalid. I also think the federal government should take the primary role in nation’s interaction with other countries. This goes for diplomacy, trade, and most obviously, war. I can see exemptions being made when the federal government is used to mediate discrepancies between state governments. This last exemption, known as the commerce clause, should be used sparingly. Unfortunately this exemption has been repeatedly abused at the federal level to force legislation on citizens who voted at the local and state level against those laws.