For John, BLUF: Some people seem to need enemies. Nothing to see here; just move along.
From The International New York Times (the successor to The International Herald Tribune), we have an article by Mr Nicholas Confessore, telling us about the rise of the Koch Brothers (or rather, two of them) in the game of politics.
From the lede:
He backed the full legalization of abortion and the repeal of laws that criminalized drug use, prostitution and homosexuality. He attacked campaign donation limits and assailed the Republican star Ronald Reagan as a hypocrite who represented “no change whatsoever from Jimmy Carter and the Democrats.”So what is it with the issue of the "rent-stabilized apartment" in New York City? Isn't that the way things go in NYC? They can't build more housing so they prevent rents from going through the roof by capping them, thus forcing the poor to live on the street or to move out of the City or to double and triple up in houses. That is the way the market works. That is why Libertarians are against things like price controls. That is why 40% of cigs sold in Boston are smuggled in from out of state.It was 1980, and the candidate was David H. Koch, a 40-year-old bachelor living in a rent-stabilized apartment in New York City. Mr. Koch, the vice-presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party, and his older brother Charles, one of the party’s leading funders, were mounting a long-shot assault on the fracturing American political establishment.
Test question: What percent of the US economy is in the "gray" zone (the under the table or underground economy, the black market).
Answer: 15%.
I think the Koch brothers are scary only if you want a big government telling you what to do and you don't want anyone objecting to that approach. The not so scary version of that is you like the European, Bonapartist, approach to Government. The way England has been sliding in fits and starts since the Summer of 1945.
Well, and if you are Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and you are looking to pick up Pinocchios from The Washington Post.
Hat tip to the Instapundit.
Regards — Cliff
"I think the Koch brothers are scary only if you want a big government telling you what to do and you don't want anyone objecting to that approach."
ReplyDeleteIs that some sort of tepid endorsement of the SCOTUS decision of Citizens United?
And all this time, I thought you were sympathetic to Lessig's cause.
Not really an endorsement of Citizens United so much as it is rejection of the socialist, Bonaprtist, tendencies of the true believing Democrat Progressives. (That said, how did Sen Harry Reid ever fall in with the likes of Rep Nancy Pelosi? They seem so ill-matched.)
ReplyDeleteThe true liberals (see this article from Smarter Times) want freedom.
Regards — Cliff
As you know, this paragraph for the Constitution of our Commonwealth is one of my all time faves:
ReplyDelete"The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation, and a faithful execution of them; that every man may, at all times, find his security in them."
The notion of corporate personhood is disqualified, as no corporation can 'covenant,' unless it meets its fiduciary obligations to the shareholders.
On its face, the idea of a corporation deserving the same treatments under our Bill of Rights is utter crapola.
Jack
ReplyDeleteI am fully with you. We need a new understanding of Corporations, one that does not treat them as humans, as People, as Citizens with all the rights therein. On the other hand, we have hundreds of years of jurisprudence doing just that. In fact, we have the US Supreme Court making that understanding in line with the US Constitution.
So, we need a transition, one that doesn't overthrow existing relationships, invite new litigation, for those cases already settled, and which does not throw into chaos those cases currently in litigation. We need new definitions and new rules.
At this point I hate to go to the Democrat Party Play Book, but really, it is worth doing because we hear a lot about changing the law but no suggestions of what would come next. Is is sort of like the Democrats complaining about the PP&ACA (Reid/Pelosi Care to you). The complaint is that the Republicans have no alternatives. In fact, I do, although Neal won't like my employment of the Public Health Service, one of the seven uniformed services. In the case of Corporations—crickets.
And, some slap dash Amendment to change the First Amendment is scary to me, because once we start making exceptions we will eventually start silencing a broader range of people, real people. We need a well thought out change in relationships. Something that protects corporations and people, including investors and creditors. Something that allows for contracts to be executed and enforced. Something that allows Boards and officers to express concerns to our legislators and regulators, but without allowing them to be involved in financing campaigns.
Tell me…
Regards — Cliff