Reboot America

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Reboot America

Yes. And I curse "damn the government!" every time I drive on a road, flush my toilet, and eat at a restaurant that has passed code.

Hey, CT, have you thought seriously about relocating to Somalia?

I have not visited there, but from what I hear it seems it would eliminate whatever is your complaint with government, city sewage (unless your complaint has to do with your own septic tank's malfunctioning), and whatever it might be that you do not like about clean restaurants.

I think all you guys on iTulip, yes, every damned one of you, are wrong when you claim to want less government. Look at the current financial debacle that led to these so-called bailouts; as I see it, it's basis in is failure of government regulation in part, and in part the incredible greed that apparently guides the actions of some people (which is not going to be checked, even partially, without some form of government--unless vigilantism becomes the vogue). Whatever you want with regard to size of government, you ain't gonna get it unless about 1/2 to 2/3's of the US's population ceases to exist. More people require more government because you get more crooks, more deadbeats, more greedy bastards, more mutants and challenged in whatever way you want to name the challenged.

Complex societies, I think, cannot exist without governance.

What you guys are failing to express in your condemnation of government is recognition of bad government vs. government that is not bad. We, unless numbers of populace are reduced or kept absolutely to the present day population size, will never have less government. Whether we ever have some form of goverment that could actually be considered "good government" remains to be seen and were such to come to fruition it is way off from today.

The best form of government of which I can dream would be a benevolent dictator, and I don't know how that would come to past, so I don't lose sleep over it.

I think people are looking for something to really change in the next four years with how this country is run. I don't believe it will change an iota, but all those of you hoping, wishing, even praying for change have now been put "on hold" for at least three years in order to give Obama a chance to change things. Perhaps Obama is different, but the system is the same, and it will be the same in 4,8,16, and probably 32 years unless some severe event forces the dissolution of the two-party system and how it operates. In four years, most eveyone will still have hope (because for most there is no choice but "hope"), elect some new dude who promises change, and then be put "on hold" for four more years, etc, etc. etc.

[Munger]

Re: Reboot America

Hey, CT, have you thought seriously about relocating to Somalia?

I have not visited there, but from what I hear it seems it would eliminate whatever is your complaint with government, city sewage (unless your complaint has to do with your own septic tank's malfunctioning), and whatever it might be that you do not like about clean restaurants.

I think all you guys on iTulip, yes, every damned one of you, are wrong when you claim to want less government. Look at the current financial debacle that led to these so-called bailouts; as I see it, it's basis in is failure of government regulation in part, and in part the incredible greed that apparently guides the actions of some people (which is not going to be checked, even partially, without some form of government--unless vigilantism becomes the vogue). Whatever you want with regard to size of government, you ain't gonna get it unless about 1/2 to 2/3's of the US's population ceases to exist. More people require more government because you get more crooks, more deadbeats, more greedy bastards, more mutants and challenged in whatever way you want to name the challenged.

Complex societies, I don't think, cannot exist without governance.

What you guys are failing to express in your condemnation of government is recognition of bad government vs. government that is not bad. We, unless numbers of populace are reduced or kept absolutely to the present day population size, will never have less government. Whether we ever have some form of goverment that could actually be considered "good government" remains to be seen and were such to come to fruition it is way off from today.

The best form of government of which I can dream would be a benevolent dictator, and I don't know how that would come to past, so I don't lose sleep over it.

I think people are looking for something to really change in the next four years with how this country is run. I don't believe it will change an iota, but all those of you hoping, wishing, even praying for change have now been put "on hold" for at least three years in order to give Obama a chance to change things. Perhaps Obama is different, but the system is the same, and it will be the same in 4,8,16, and probably 32 years unless some severe event forces the dissolution of the two-party system and how it operates. In four years, most eveyone will still have hope (because for most there is no choice but "hope"), elect some new dude who promises change, and then be put "on hold" for four more years, etc, etc. etc.

(I forget how poorly sarcasm transmits through the internets)

[Sharky]

Re: Reboot America

Claiming ownership is immoral.

If I work and receive something in trade, what I receive is mine by right. How can man survive if he cannot own that which he works for? Are you suggesting that someone else should decide what I get to keep? Based on what principle? Sounds like simple statism and socialism to me.

Look at the current financial debacle that led to these so-called bailouts; as I see it, it's basis in is failure of government regulation in part, and in part the incredible greed that apparently guides the actions of some people (which is not going to be checked, even partially, without some form of government--unless vigilantism becomes the vogue).

The current debacle wasn't caused by a failure of regulations. It was caused by the regulations!

More people require more government because you get more crooks, more deadbeats, more greedy bastards, more mutants and challenged in whatever way you want to name the challenged.

So you agree that there are a lot of crooks in the world? Then why would you advocate government as a solution, when, as a centralized source of power, the worst among us will be attracted to it?

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Reboot America

If I work and receive something in trade, what I receive is mine by right. How can man survive if he cannot own that which he works for? Are you suggesting that someone else should decide what I get to keep? Based on what principle? Sounds like simple statism and socialism to me.



The current debacle wasn't caused by a failure of regulations. It was caused by the regulations!



So you agree that there are a lot of crooks in the world? Then why would you advocate government as a solution, when, as a centralized source of power, the worst among us will be attracted to it?

I'm open to suggestions of what is even to attempt to control those entities that will steal, cheat, lie in their business pursuits in order to gain more "almighty bucks."

What do you suggest? Will anarchy work to stop those who will do whatever to achieve wealth at any costs that do not consider fairness? Or is vigilantism the correct answer?

I'm serious, give me a workable alternative that might even begin to control greed/dishonesty in the business/investment world, that does not involve a government.

[Sharky]

Re: Reboot America

Will anarchy work to stop those who will do whatever to achieve wealth at any costs that do not consider fairness?

Yes, it will.

I'm serious, give me a workable alternative that might even begin to control greed/dishonesty in the business/investment world, that does not involve a government.

Do you have a particular situation in mind where you think anarchy or minarchy wouldn't work as well as a traditional government?

Government just empowers the very people that you're trying to stop. We have more than a million people in prison in the US already. Do you really feel any safer as a result? Dishonesty in business has grown out of proportion as a result of the government regulation that empowered it. For example, without government, it would have been impossible for a few people to steal trillions from the rest as they recently did.

I could also turn your question around: give me a workable scenario where the people in government don't end up being crooks who rob the rest of us blind (or help others to do so).

For an articulate discussion of the subject, I found the "Statism is Dead" series of videos to be very good, starting with this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGIgOIFdnMQ

[Munger]

Re: Reboot America

If I work and receive something in trade, what I receive is mine by right. How can man survive if he cannot own that which he works for? Are you suggesting that someone else should decide what I get to keep? Based on what principle? Sounds like simple statism and socialism to me.

Where was it gotten originally? By depriving others of its use. Someone originally claimed right to what was everyone's.

The current debacle wasn't caused by a failure of regulations. It was caused by the regulations!

Complete bs. Your proof/evidence? The Chicago school and their acolytes gave the world unprecedented deregulation for 30 years. Is it coincidence that this is the result? That markets are most effecient is also complete BS - when was the last time you read an insurance contract in full, or a stock company prospectus? Wherever there is assymetry in information there are not effecient markets. Corporations pay good money to lawyers to make these contracts completely incrompehensible and usurous. And your answer is to give them more freedom to do as they wish, and that the markets will work it out? Bollacks. The lessaiz faire intellectuals themselves are rethinking their dogma:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...=a3GVhIHGyWRM&

So you agree that there are a lot of crooks in the world? Then why would you advocate government as a solution, when, as a centralized source of power, the worst among us will be attracted to it?

You advocate wealth to have unchecked power to do what it likes. Government allows the rest of the population to have a say in what the powerful attempt to do. It's everyone's world, not just the rich.

You fail to take into account that international corporations are completely centralized sources of power - but are different than government in that they are unnaccountable. Corporations are complete tyrannys. Your perverse form of libertarianism is a complete sham - an intellectual justification for the powerful to screw everyone else over.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Reboot America

Yes, it will.

Then I take it your answer is anarchy is the best way for a society to exist, or am I misinterpreting your comment?

Do you have a particular situation in mind where you think anarchy or minarchy wouldn't work as well as a traditional government?

I am no expert in anything, but to my assessment Somalia now is the closest thing to anarchy of which I am aware. I can tell you there is nothing in Somalia today that would make me consider it on the list of places I might choose to live. They may or may not have something resembling the FIRE economy or for the fact even "an economy."

Government just empowers the very people that you're trying to stop. We have more than a million people in prison in the US already. Do you really feel any safer as a result? Dishonesty in business has grown out of proportion as a result of the government regulation that empowered it. For example, without government, it would have been impossible for a few people to steal trillions from the rest as they recently did.

I definitely feel safer because we have a prison system and a local police department neither of which are 100% effective in deterring, much less eliminating, crime. And I also like the fact we have a fire department and codes that influence what people are allowed to do with their properties.

It seems a stetch to me to blame some American's penchant for dishonesty on the form of government we have, except perhaps in a place like Somalia today one might blame some of its crime on its form of "government."

In my opinion, we definitely do not need "no goverment." What all civilized societies when the population continues to increase way beyond levels that existed when the USA declared its independence is "good government" that takes into consideration the freedoms and needs of all the populace equally. Thinking that could happen here is probably utopian in this century, but not in the next 1000 years.

I could also turn your question around: give me a workable scenario where the people in government don't end up being crooks who rob the rest of us blind (or help others to do so).

This is "king of the world" type stuff, but were I the KING, elections would be publicly funded, lobbying would be forbidden, those in government would not receive benefits that exceed whatever are the average benefit of all Americans (one would not get a lifelong pension based on some 8 years of service), congress critters would have two term limits of four years for all comers, there would be no "power players" in the congress based on seniority, any elected official determined to be enriching him or herself through bribes would face the death penalty. Various concepts for laws based on the views of some religious groups would forbidden to become laws. Think abortion, legalized drugs, euthanasia, stem-cell research. People in places of responsibility who act dishonestly, think perhaps Madoff, Milken, Evers, Lay, etc. would not get long sentences, they would get forever sentences and their families stripped of weath to the degree of then existing in penury.

Be glad I ain't king.

[Supercilious]

Re: Reboot America

Rebooting America is not enough. We should also take her out of Wall Street Vista and and we should start using an open source linux.

Whenever yo have black box hidden processes in time the system gets overbloated and inefficient, wasting resources and it it crashes all the time.

[FRED]

Re: Reboot America

Rebooting America is not enough. We should also take her out of Wall Street Vista and and we should start using an open source linux.

Whenever yo have black box hidden processes in time the system gets overbloated and inefficient, wasting resources and it it crashes all the time.

How's this for an extension of Friedman's analogy. Monopoly software companies write lousy code filled with memory leaks that eventually crash the system. Need to break up the monopoly. That includes getting rid of the monopoly's sales and marketing team, including Friedman.

[Sharky]

Re: Reboot America

Where was it gotten originally? By depriving others of its use. Someone originally claimed right to what was everyone's.

A thousand years ago, if I claimed ownership over a bunch of oil in an area where we both lived, you probably couldn't have cared less. You wouldn't have been "deprived" of anything, because you didn't see the value. Similarly, if I built a house on a section of wild unoccupied land and then claimed ownership of the land because I saw its value to me, then who would I be depriving?

It comes down to the concept of private property. If I can obtain something through honest work and honest, voluntary trade, then it should belong to me. Similarly, if I see value where no one else does, I should be able to claim the right to it.

Complete bs. Your proof/evidence?

For the mortgage crisis:
Fannie Mae
Freddie Mac
The Community Reinvestment Act (1995)
Federal Reserve setting interest rates at below-market levels

For the auto manufacturer debacle:
They were forbidden by law from firing unproductive union workers
They were forbidden by law from dropping unproductive dealers
They were required by law to produce high-mileage cars, in spite of the fact that they were not profitable
The hovernment bailed-out Chrysler 30 yrs ago, increasing competition for Ford and GM today
Foreign auto companies get huge government subsidies for setting up plants in the US

There are similar long lists for industries such as insurance, and other economic problem areas such as student loans and credit cards.

The Chicago school and their acolytes gave the world unprecedented deregulation for 30 years. Is it coincidence that this is the result?

American industry has more regulation now that at any time in its history. So-called "deregulation" is a myth, an illusion.

when was the last time you read an insurance contract in full, or a stock company prospectus?

Well, I happen to read things like that before I buy or sign them (and much more). I realize that I'm in the minority, but there's no reason it has to be that way.

Wherever there is assymetry in information there are not effecient markets.

You certainly don't solve market inefficiencies through government! The sudden imposition of regulations or taxes that help one industry at the cost of another is the most egregious and damaging form of inefficiency.

Corporations pay good money to lawyers to make these contracts completely incrompehensible and usurous. And your answer is to give them more freedom to do as they wish, and that the markets will work it out? Bollacks.

What I'm suggesting is to break the tie between corporations and government. It's corporatism and government that are the problems, not laissez-faire (which, FWIW, we've never had in the US).

You advocate wealth to have unchecked power to do what it likes.

You say that as though wealth was a bad thing. I enjoy my wealth, and I hope others enjoy theirs too -- provided that it was earned honestly. What I advocate is freedom. "Checking" power means controls and restrictions -- and worse, manipulation of those controls by the very people who are most likely to abuse them.

Government allows the rest of the population to have a say in what the powerful attempt to do. It's everyone's world, not just the rich.

You mean government allows the rest of the population to steal from the wealthy? That's socialism, communism, totalitarianism -- slavery in one form or another. No thanks!

You fail to take into account that international corporations are completely centralized sources of power - but are different than government in that they are unnaccountable. Corporations are complete tyrannys. Your perverse form of libertarianism is a complete sham - an intellectual justification for the powerful to screw everyone else over.

The evil that international corporations have comes about when they use government to manipulate laws in their favor. Without that tie, they become directly accountable to a much stronger force: the free market can destroy the corrupt in an instant -- just look at what happened with Arthur Andersen or Enron.

Oh, and exactly who would I be screwing over? Those who want to steal from me that which they didn't earn?

[Sharky]

Re: Reboot America

Then I take it your answer is anarchy is the best way for a society to exist, or am I misinterpreting your comment?

Yes, my preference is for anarchy. I used to favor a small government, but I can't figure out a way to do it that wouldn't still attract the bad elements of society, and that would therefore lead to future abuse. The best I've been able to come up with so far is a middle-ground, with insurance-like companies that would take the place of a minimalist government. The idea is that they would be funded voluntarily, and they would compete with one another. Poorly-performing or corrupt companies would be unable to stay in business. Companies that helped their subscribers would thrive.

I am no expert in anything, but to my assessment Somalia now is the closest thing to anarchy of which I am aware. I can tell you there is nothing in Somalia today that would make me consider it on the list of places I might choose to live. They may or may not have something resembling the FIRE economy or for the fact even "an economy."

Somalia is almost as far away from true anarchy as I could imagine; they're closer to being totalitarian -- it's just that we call their rulers "warlords" instead of "congressmen," and they use guns to enforce their rules instead of judges and prisons (whether they hold elections or not is immaterial; just look at Zimbabwe). It's the same problem as with corporate entanglement with government, just on a different scale. Things didn't get bad in Somalia as a result of unbridled free trade; the warlords would never have the kind of power they do if it wasn't for lots and lots of outside "foreign aid."

Pre-1997 Hong Kong is a closer example to what I'm talking about (although they're still a long way off): minimal laws, minimal taxes, minimally-invasive government.

I definitely feel safer because we have a prison system and a local police department neither of which are 100% effective in deterring, much less eliminating, crime. And I also like the fact we have a fire department and codes that influence what people are allowed to do with their properties.

Where you feel safer, I feel the opposite. Laws are used to unjustly imprison thousands for harming no one but themselves. Laws can be passed on a whim that suddenly make previously-legal things illegal and prison-worthy (Patriot Act, etc). In my view, the prison and justice systems don't deter crime; they increase it. The legal profession is out of control, fed by the monster. Fighting an unjust legal case can drain away all of the assets of a middle class family in the blink of an eye.

Why do you like the fact that some people can't do what they want with their properties? Are you saying that a below-code apartment building for the poor would be worse than having them sleep on the street? Plus, code requirements lead to a requirement for licensed builders, which artificially boosts their wages, while suppressing the number of total jobs available. And in the end, who's to say that the codes are really any safer than other ways of doing things? Not to mention the huge amount of fraud that happens in that area -- bribes paid to inspectors to ignore code violations, etc. How do you even know for sure that the building you live in actually meets code?

This is "king of the world" type stuff

OK, here's my version (off the top of my head): All government and related institutions as we know them would be abolished over a period of three or four years. All government assets would be sold to the highest bidder, including buildings, roads, parks, land, water and mineral rights, etc (nukes and similar dangerous tech would have to be handled as a special case). The resulting fund would be used on a pro-rated basis to pay off existing holders of US debt and to provide a one-time stipend to government pensioners and people who have paid into social security. The country's gold reserves would be distributed in exchange for dollars remaining in circulation, and would become the new currency. Everyone in prison for a non-violent crime would be pardoned and released. All taxes of any kind would be gone. I would then resign as king, stand back, and let the real free market work.

[Munger]

Re: Reboot America

A thousand years ago, if I claimed ownership over a bunch of oil in an area where we both lived, you probably couldn't have cared less. You wouldn't have been "deprived" of anything, because you didn't see the value. Similarly, if I built a house on a section of wild unoccupied land and then claimed ownership of the land because I saw its value to me, then who would I be depriving?

It comes down to the concept of private property. If I can obtain something through honest work and honest, voluntary trade, then it should belong to me. Similarly, if I see value where no one else does, I should be able to claim the right to it.

The government had the land first - and they still claim right to it in the form of taxes. You support this I am sure.

For the mortgage crisis:
Fannie Mae
Freddie Mac
The Community Reinvestment Act (1995)
Federal Reserve setting interest rates at below-market levels

Would nicely support your argument if true. Complete BS of course:

Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

• More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
• Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
• Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.

Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their ability to pay the mortgages.

"I don't remember a clarion call that said Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster," said Neil Cavuto of Fox News.

Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans.

It's a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

American industry has more regulation now that at any time in its history. So-called "deregulation" is a myth, an illusion.

Would nicely support your argument if true. Complete BS of course.

Well, I happen to read things like that before I buy or sign them (and much more). I realize that I'm in the minority, but there's no reason it has to be that way.

I am calling BS on this as well. I read contracts for a living - even if you happen to read every contract and EULA you sign/click, it would be impossible for you to understand what you are signing. We have teams of people researching what terms of art and certain clauses mean - and there is no way for anyone realistically to do this for every contract they get into.

You certainly don't solve market inefficiencies through government! The sudden imposition of regulations or taxes that help one industry at the cost of another is the most egregious and damaging form of inefficiency.

And why not, because it is - gasp! - centrally planned? How exactly do you think a corporation makes business decisions? I would also suggest familiarizing yourself with information economics, especially the work of Stiglitz:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_...s_to_economics

What I'm suggesting is to break the tie between corporations and government. It's corporatism and government that are the problems, not laissez-faire (which, FWIW, we've never had in the US).

I will agree with you on this if you are advocating for the breaking of ties between corporations and government. It sounds to me like you are advocating pure "libertarianism"/the abolition of government though - which is utterly insane.

You say that as though wealth was a bad thing. I enjoy my wealth, and I hope others enjoy theirs too -- provided that it was earned honestly. What I advocate is freedom. "Checking" power means controls and restrictions -- and worse, manipulation of those controls by the very people who are most likely to abuse them.

Honesty and freedom. How can I argue with that. If government would just get out of the way, surely people/corporations would act honestly and in the interest of my freedom.

You mean government allows the rest of the population to steal from the wealthy? That's socialism, communism, totalitarianism -- slavery in one form or another. No thanks!

Slavery is bad - you win. You chose to keep your savings in US dollars and to live in the US, knowing that the US has the power to coin money and levy taxes. Now it sounds like you want a bail out. Not my kind of freedom.

The evil that international corporations have comes about when they use government to manipulate laws in their favor. Without that tie, they become directly accountable to a much stronger force: the free market can destroy the corrupt in an instant -- just look at what happened with Arthur Andersen or Enron.

So you are saying Enron is an argument for deregulation? It was fair for them to lie about their dealings because the market, after 10 years, figured it out? They kept their finances in a black box and wiped out peoples' life savings, but it is ok because the market worked it out? Why didn't the market discount the value initially? What about the scumbags who stole the investors money while the black box was still working and are living on private islands? Surely a triumph of the free market. As was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califor...tricity_crisis

[Munger]

Re: Reboot America

OK, here's my version (off the top of my head): All government and related institutions as we know them would be abolished over a period of three or four years. All government assets would be sold to the highest bidder, including buildings, roads, parks, land, water and mineral rights, etc (nukes and similar dangerous tech would have to be handled as a special case). The resulting fund would be used on a pro-rated basis to pay off existing holders of US debt and to provide a one-time stipend to government pensioners and people who have paid into social security. The country's gold reserves would be distributed in exchange for dollars remaining in circulation, and would become the new currency. Everyone in prison for a non-violent crime would be pardoned and released. All taxes of any kind would be gone. I would then resign as king, stand back, and let the real free market work.

Why should nukes be a special case? F that - free markets will deal with it.

How did this work out in Argentina btw? Or "The New Zealand Experiment?"

Nevermind well-known market failures such as monopolies etc; nevermind that a new totalitarian state would emerge that would be accountable to no one. The market is all-knowing - let self-interest reign!

Luckily such a system is so obviously unworkable and debased to anyone with an iota of common sense that it will never happen.

[bart]

Re: Reboot America

• "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”
  -- Benito Mussolini

• "The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling power. Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing."
  -– President Franklin Roosevelt

• "The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlled, each a jumble of incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly on what should be said on the vital issues of the day."
  --Theodore Roosevelt

• "Unrestricted laissez faire capitalism allocates resources in a most efficient way to satisfy human wants without regard to the rationality or morality of those desires.
  
  The difference between Libertarian and Conservative is that Conservatives understand this, and know that unregulated capitalism will eventually end with human meat sold in market places, and slavery. Alas, many Conservatives think that everything has to be regulated and controlled."
  -- Dr. Jerry Pournelle

• The ultimate effect of shielding man from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
  -- Herbert Spenser

• The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise. The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates.
  -- Tacitus

• "In a world of businessmen and financial intermediaries who aggressively seek profit, innovators will always outpace regulators; the authorities cannot prevent changes in the structure of portfolios from occurring. What they can do is keep the asset-equity ratio of banks within bounds by setting equity-absorption ratios for various types of assets. If the authorities constrain banks and are aware of the activities of fringe banks and other financial institutions, they are in a better position to attenuate the disruptive expansionary tendencies of our economy."
  -- Hyman Minsky, 1986

• I find it hard to understand why those who demand Unitary Education by the State do not also demand a Unitary Press by the State... Either the State is infallible, in which case we could not do better than to submit to it the entire domain of intelligent thought, or it is not, in which case it is no more rational to hand over education to it than the press.
  -- Frederic Bastiat

• The real art of governing consists, so far as possible, in doing nothing.
  -- Lao Tzu

• "The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt!"
  -- Marcus Tullinus Cicero, Roman Senator, 63 B.C.

• "We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state."
  -- Margaret Thatcher

• "Self-regulation stands in relation to regulation the way self-importance stands in relation to importance."
  -- Willem Buiter of the London School of Economics

• "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere,diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies."
  -- Groucho Marx

[Scot]

Re: Reboot America

Where was it gotten originally? By depriving others of its use. Someone originally claimed right to what was everyone's.

And if that which was gotten in trade was the skills of a surgeon, then I guess a surgeon's hands are really "the people's hands" in your world. After all, they were built from the people's food grown from the people's soil on the people's land.

And what happens if a surgeon takes the people's hands away to the land of the free market?

Why just build a wall to keep them in!

It's been done before, of course.