I don't want to remove politics from government agencies, I just want the majority of those agencies and politicians to be local and not national/international. The massive growth of taxation-funded national government has fed the expansion of centralized, non-elected bureaucracy in DC, Quebec, Brussels, etc.
"Removing politics from ---- department" means what exactly? Lower the noise inside the organization generated by political maneuvering? Eliminating the placement and promotion in the department by political criteria? My fear is that in order to "clear up politicization" the first instinct would be to create a new 'Department of Political Cleanliness.'
muirgeo
· 2 years ago
" Why not get government out of the business of restricting trade - of interfering in labor-market contracts - of subsidizing farmers and exporters and small businesses...."
Because the people in those industries in general like politics. They are getting very rich from their relations with politicians. Until you get publicly funded elections, outlaw lobbyist, seriously enforce infractions on politicians for conflict of interest and "open up the government" making almost every political meeting and document open to the public we will never get the stink out of politics.
That's my solution and I hear libertarians repeating over and over to get the government "under control" but never are they able to offer a suggestion on how that is to happen.
Also, most Americans want clean government but most don't want the deregulated markets you favor. So again how do you get to you desired end? Seems a Quixotic endeavor for the libertarian with no solution except an end to democratic rule.
LowcountryJoe
· 2 years ago
There are plenty of suggestions that classical liberals offer -- cut spending (reduce the list from the link above), legislate (and only when needed) at the lowest level of government possible, and minimize the ability of the majority to take the liberties of evryone.
There's plenty we suggest but you are just too pigheaded to realize that they are suggestions. Or, you're just goading us into replying to you after you've convienently forgotten that these are rehashed discussions that you have ducked out of or have previously lost.
shawn
· 2 years ago
even negative attention is attention.
Chris Meisenzahl
· 2 years ago
Quote of the day. ;-)
"Trying to remove politics from the U.S. Department of Justice would be like trying to remove the bottom ten floors from the Empire State Building: it cannot practically be done."
Russ Nelson
· 2 years ago
Can we maybe ignore muirgeo's inanity Just Once?
Gil
· 2 years ago
:P
muirgeo
· 2 years ago
Russ you can ignore me but the fact is I have far more Americans on my side then you do on yours. Very few Americans think a libertarian economy or society will work....actually they've seen it's failings these last 25 post Reagan years.....they ain't happy. I'm no radical....the people running the Republican party are indeed very radical.
Flash Gordon
· 2 years ago
This should be easy. All that is needed are politicians that are wise and who care more for the general good than their own personal benefit, or at least equate the two. And of course we also need wise and educated voters to elect the wise and selfless politicians. And, oh yes, we would need a large pool of wise and competent individuals for the wise politicians to appoint to bureaucratic posts.
I think that would be a sufficient pre-condition to bring about the sort of freedom, prosperity and human happiness that we all want.
So what are we waiting for?
Flash Gordon
· 2 years ago
Muirego, the problem with the socialist paradise you desire is that it would be what it has always been everywhere it has been in place, namely rule by a criminal gang.
It's odd that you think the past 25 years have been a failure, given the economic growth that has taken place in that time period.
shawn
· 2 years ago
Muirgeo:
...equally odd that you would equate what currently exists ("these last 25 post reagan years") with a "libertarian economy or society". I assume you must know the difference.
T L Holaday
· 2 years ago
Professor Boudreaux suggests getting government out of law enforcement, claiming that law enforcement is inherently political.
There is no rule of law, only rule of party.
lowcountryjoe
· 2 years ago
Professor Boudreaux suggests getting government out of law enforcement, claiming that law enforcement is inherently political.
I am pretty sure that if he wanted and if you were willing to give him some time (as long as you could focus), Don Boudreaux could probably make a strong case for an alternative to our current judiciary.
But to state that Don "suggests getting government out of law enforcement..." is an entire misread of his post. In fact, Don writes the following:
Trying to remove politics from the U.S. Department of Justice would be like trying to remove the bottom ten floors from the Empire State Building: it cannot practically be done. And even if done in theory, such a change would alter fundamentally the thing itself -- and such a fundamental change will not be tolerated.
Go back and check that out and see if you come to the same conclusion!
All Comments
I don't want to remove politics from government agencies, I just want the majority of those agencies and politicians to be local and not national/international. The massive growth of taxation-funded national government has fed the expansion of centralized, non-elected bureaucracy in DC, Quebec, Brussels, etc.
"Removing politics from ---- department" means what exactly? Lower the noise inside the organization generated by political maneuvering? Eliminating the placement and promotion in the department by political criteria? My fear is that in order to "clear up politicization" the first instinct would be to create a new 'Department of Political Cleanliness.'
" Why not get government out of the business of restricting trade - of interfering in labor-market contracts - of subsidizing farmers and exporters and small businesses...."
Because the people in those industries in general like politics. They are getting very rich from their relations with politicians. Until you get publicly funded elections, outlaw lobbyist, seriously enforce infractions on politicians for conflict of interest and "open up the government" making almost every political meeting and document open to the public we will never get the stink out of politics.
That's my solution and I hear libertarians repeating over and over to get the government "under control" but never are they able to offer a suggestion on how that is to happen.
Also, most Americans want clean government but most don't want the deregulated markets you favor. So again how do you get to you desired end? Seems a Quixotic endeavor for the libertarian with no solution except an end to democratic rule.
There are plenty of suggestions that classical liberals offer -- cut spending (reduce the list from the link above), legislate (and only when needed) at the lowest level of government possible, and minimize the ability of the majority to take the liberties of evryone.
There's plenty we suggest but you are just too pigheaded to realize that they are suggestions. Or, you're just goading us into replying to you after you've convienently forgotten that these are rehashed discussions that you have ducked out of or have previously lost.
even negative attention is attention.
Quote of the day. ;-)
"Trying to remove politics from the U.S. Department of Justice would be like trying to remove the bottom ten floors from the Empire State Building: it cannot practically be done."
Can we maybe ignore muirgeo's inanity Just Once?
:P
Russ you can ignore me but the fact is I have far more Americans on my side then you do on yours. Very few Americans think a libertarian economy or society will work....actually they've seen it's failings these last 25 post Reagan years.....they ain't happy. I'm no radical....the people running the Republican party are indeed very radical.
This should be easy. All that is needed are politicians that are wise and who care more for the general good than their own personal benefit, or at least equate the two. And of course we also need wise and educated voters to elect the wise and selfless politicians. And, oh yes, we would need a large pool of wise and competent individuals for the wise politicians to appoint to bureaucratic posts.
I think that would be a sufficient pre-condition to bring about the sort of freedom, prosperity and human happiness that we all want.
So what are we waiting for?
Muirego, the problem with the socialist paradise you desire is that it would be what it has always been everywhere it has been in place, namely rule by a criminal gang.
It's odd that you think the past 25 years have been a failure, given the economic growth that has taken place in that time period.
Muirgeo:
...equally odd that you would equate what currently exists ("these last 25 post reagan years") with a "libertarian economy or society". I assume you must know the difference.
Professor Boudreaux suggests getting government out of law enforcement, claiming that law enforcement is inherently political.
There is no rule of law, only rule of party.
Professor Boudreaux suggests getting government out of law enforcement, claiming that law enforcement is inherently political.
I am pretty sure that if he wanted and if you were willing to give him some time (as long as you could focus), Don Boudreaux could probably make a strong case for an alternative to our current judiciary.
But to state that Don "suggests getting government out of law enforcement..." is an entire misread of his post. In fact, Don writes the following:
Go back and check that out and see if you come to the same conclusion!