May 28, 2007
For Your Viewing Pleasure:
A flier from Romney’s 94 Senate run against Kennedy:
It’s pretty clear, beyond the MSM/McCain bait, Romney has been pretty consistent on his positions. I highly doubt anyone in 94 looked at this flier and walked away thinking Romney was a liberal.
http://race42008.com/2007/05/28/for-your-viewing-pleasure/trackback/
May 28th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
It’s a little more complicated than this, and it’s not just about these basic little issues. There are more *specific* issues than this — gun control (conspicuously absent from this list), gay marriage, abortion, the Flat Tax, government intervention in health care; sheesh, even his favorite book — that cannot be addressed by this. This list is way too vague to be useful.
May 28th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
[...] post by Jason and software by Elliott [...]
May 28th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
TLG,
Of course you don’t find it useful, it contradicts everything you have been spouting off about Romney’s 180.
As for the issues at heart:
He is 100% consistent on gay marriage: Against it.
Flat Tax: Is this a prerequisite for something. As a self-employed person I am against it too. As a realist, it makes even less sense.
Abortion: He has changed position on.
Health Care: Learn more about the crisis of Health Care in MA to understand how his program was needed and is currently working. To quote Romney: A free ride is not libertarianism.
His favorite book: Uhh, my changes all the time. What is your point.
I would like you TLG to present where the exact problems are in his positions. EXACTLY. I hope you can get past the putting words in people’s mouths and actually have something good. Please no out of context quotes.
May 28th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Flat Tax — huh? I don’t care what the merits of it are, I’m saying he changed his position on it! It has nothing to do with whether it’s a good idea or not.
I’m assuming if he said he was going to be “more committed to gay rights than Ted Kennedy,” he’d have been for gay marriage at one point.
No, health care with government intervention is never needed. “A free ride is not libertarianism”? Huh? Of course it’s not. Neither is the government forcing you to buy something.
As for his favorite book, changing from week to week is rather lame, and shows that he can’t even handle the minor-league issues without changing his mind about it to try to appease different groups. I mean, if it’s Battlefield Earth, just admit it; I don’t care! But let’s not keep changing your mind about it, Mr. Romney!
Grr…
May 28th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
LTG, I want to ask you something regarding the health care, if I may… can you tell me how government intervention is different in that it denies the hospital the right to withdraw a needed care from a person? The hospital has to recover the cost somehow, meaning someone has to pay for it. Presently the hospital files a claim with the government thru medical programs (our tax money), and the difference, be it due to the ineligability of the patient to receive the government assistance or that the government pay less than what it actually cost, is then pass to the others who have the coverage. This is one of 2 or 3 major reasons we are seeing the coverage price soaring. Either way, we have to pay for this person’s cares.
Now we are left with two options - deregulating the hospital industry (good luck trying this in so liberal a state like Taxassettus!) or force the person WHO can afford the coverage to get one. Yes, it may be a lose-lose situation, but the state is actually within its rights to do so. Federal government, on other hand, should not touch this as it is outside its authority as defined by the constitution.
May 28th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Umm, yeah…
TLG,
Gay marriage wasn’t even on the horizon in 94. he was referring to employement, housing, etc. If ou read his line he said effective I believe. Effective means that he would be make changes that would be more helpful, rather than quantity. Romney was not for gay marriage in 94, he said it in his campaign.
Sure government forcing people to do stuff is not libertarian. But guess what he isn’t running on the libertarian ticket. Do you know anything about the laws prior to his plan? Do you know anything about the burden uninsured were putting on the state. Wouldn’t the state have a right to protect it’s interests as well from those who were free loading?
As for the book thing, you really sound sad. It wasn’t week to week like you claim. And most peoples favorite books change often, as do there favorite band and songs. And insinuating he was appeasing some with Battlefield Earth that is a crack up! Where was he speaking a Star Trek Convention? Who would be appeased with Battlefiled Earth? Admit what? Your poor logic. I admit it, its poor!
May 28th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
TLG - “There are more *specific* issues than this gun control (conspicuously absent from this list), gay marriage, abortion, the Flat Tax, government intervention in health care; sheesh, even his favorite book that cannot be addressed by this. This list is way too vague to be useful”
TLG you made a similar comment yesterday. Instead of arguing through each point with you
I asked you to post a credible link to prove that Gov. Romney has changed his position
on gay marriage. I have seen no link. I dont think it is fair that you regurgitate the clear
distortions of truth which is made by the dems and MSM. If you are going to make these statements
you really need to back them up with a credible source.
By the way I really dont care if any politician changes his mind on their favourite book,
colour, song, shoes etc.
May 28th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Just to note, Gov. Romney’s position on guns is also consistant. Turns out the NRA realy doesn’t have much of a problem with his stance.
May 28th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
TLG
Just read post number 4. Your assumption is incorrect. Jasons post #6 is good.
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/front_page/mitt_romney_chose_gay_marriage.php
is also a good read if you are genuinely interested.
May 28th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
I failed to end my comment with this point, we do not want to pay for someone’s care when they could have afforded it in the first part. We should not be paying for their care with our tax money or thru the premiums at the healthcare coverage companies. We should not be responsible for the cost of this person in first place. And there IS a high chance that we will be injuried, one way or other. Until the hospitals can reject those people (who could afford, not those beyond the poverty level), they will have to take the esponsibility of the cost of healthcare, like each one of us!
May 28th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
I failed to end my comment with this point, we do not want to pay for someone’s care when they could have afforded it in the first part. We should not be paying for their care with our tax money or thru the premiums at the healthcare coverage companies. We should not be responsible for the cost of this person in first place. And there IS a high chance that we will be injuried, one way or other. Until the hospitals can reject those people (who could afford, not those beyond the poverty level), they will have to take the responsibility of the cost of healthcare, like each one of us!
May 28th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Alright, I’ve got the list for you.
Click on my user name to be brought to my blog, onto which I have copy-pasted the definitive list of Romney flip-flops, with quotes. Sorry for the crappy formatting..!
May 28th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Sorry about double comments. I was using my mobile device and I was notified that the web browser stopped because of no connection. Sorry!
May 28th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Jason,
Thanks for posting this. I saw it a week or two ago and then again at MymanMitt. It will help with reasonable people who are the ones who actually will decide the election. Unfortunately at least half of the regular posters here don’t care about facts, only distortions of facts and unfounded accusations.
All the Romney supporters have pointed out that the only real issue where Romney changed his mind was abortion. TLG, DaveG, David B, Republius and many other posters ignore these facts and only buy into perceptions that support their candidates.
This is however a good concise way to show to people that Romney is not in fact a Rockefeller Republican or a flip flopper.
May 28th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
DSkinner, check out my blog, I just posted a list of Romney flip-flops, which, um, is more than just abortion.
May 28th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Actually, the exact wording in his letter to the Log Cabin group was, “as we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent [Ted Kennedy].”
The reasoning behind that was this: Who would you think holds more sway when it comes to endorsing Mitt Romney as President - the Pope or the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? Now, I’m not saying that either are endorsing Mitt or will endorse Mitt (in fact, I know the LDS Church won’t because it stays neutral on political matters) but in a hypothetical world, the Pope endorsing Mitt would be a huge boost to Mitt’s candidacy, as opposed to Gordon B Hinckley’s endorsement which would basically be brushed off as a “Yeah, of course you support your guy.”
Mitt Romney’s support of gays and no discrimination against them would do more for the gay community because Mitt is a Republican and a conservative, and therefore his support would mean something. Ted Kennedy’s support of gays and no discrimination against them wouldn’t even make the newspaper. That’s kind of like Ted Kennedy saying he is going to get out of bed tomorrow morning. Well, duh. We kinda expect you to. Could you tell us something that’s interesting?
Back in 1994, marriage for gays was never even discussed. It wasn’t something that really anyone was pushing for. Mitt does not want to give gays the right to marriage - he never has. He even used an old law on the books when gay marriages were allowed by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2003 to keep people from going into Massachusetts, getting married, and then going back home.
There is a line between not discriminating against gays by hiring them, etc, and letting them get married. Some people seem to think that if you are for treating gays with respect and dignity and hiring them, that you must also be for allowing them to get married. Wrong. They are not the same issue. My BIL is gay and has been living with his boyfriend since I got married to my husband, so more than five years. I don’t think they ought to be able to get married, but does that mean that I am discriminating against them and hate them? No. It’s just that I have this (apparently) old-fashioned idea that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman.
Flat Tax huh? I don’t care what the merits of it are, I’m saying he changed his position on it! It has nothing to do with whether it’s a good idea or not.
I hadn’t heard that charge before. Any links to follow that statement up with? I know that he thinks Steve Forbes and his Flat Tax plan was a gimmick. When was he for the Flat Tax?
Neither is the government forcing you to buy something.
The government forces you to buy auto insurance. How is this any different? Let me guess: You don’t think the government should force you to buy that either, right?
There are Libertarian ideas that I like, and then there are some that are just pretty far out there…
Hava
http://mittforpresident.wordpress.com/
May 28th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
On Guns:
Old Mitt: Supported Gun Control, Bragged That His Views Were “Not Going to Make Me the Hero of the NRA.” In 1994 and 2002, Romney supported the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban, even bragging that his positions were “not going to make me the hero of the NRA.” As governor, Romney signed
a 2004 law making Massachusetts the first state to pass a permanent assault weapons ban. [Boston Globe, 1/14/06]
New Mitt: Opposes Gun Control, Brags About Brand New NRA Card. Romney admitted that he had just joined the National Rifle Association last August. [Boston Globe, 2/19/07] This follows his efforts in January to highlight his newfound support for gun owners by heading to Orlando to tour one of the country’s largest gun shows with Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. On Wednesday he told the online The Glenn and Helen Show that states should “continue to ease regulations on gun owners” and claimed “I have a gun of my own.” Later, Romney was forced to admit to reporters in Orlando that he in fact did not personally own any guns. [Boston Globe, 1/14/06]
Just this one alone can be torn to pieces. You honestly want to go there?
I need to get some stuff done right now but I’ll be back later - if someone hasn’t addressed this one by that time, I’ll do it.
Hava
http://mittforpresident.wordpress.com/
May 28th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
All the Romney supporters have pointed out that the only real issue where Romney changed his mind was abortion.
I’m a Romney supporter. Besides abortion, I think Romney appears to have changed positions over time on Reagan. I also think there’s been some minor evolution on immigration, though nowhere near enough to call a “flip-flop.” There may also be some slight changes on guns, though I think he’s been pretty consistent there.
I think that’s a pretty objective viewpoint. Every other alleged flip-flop I’ve seen has been
pretty pathetic. By the normal flip-flop standards, Giuliani is by far the biggest flipper in the race, but no one really minds it, which tells me its really not a problem with Romney. Its just mudslinging, its just politics.
May 28th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
I love how Romney critics feel the need to speak for Mitt. It’s one thing to criticize a guys positions, it’s another to restate their positions for them.
May 28th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
No, Hava, the government shouldn’t force you to buy auto insurance because not everyone wants to buy auto insurance. Have you even thought this issue over?
If you don’t have auto insurance and you cause a crash, it is then your own responsibility to pay off fixing the other person’s car — as the government should mandate, because it involves messing up someone else’s property — and your own, if you want to. But not everyone needs or wants insurance. Most do, and most would buy it even if the government didn’t mandate it. And government-mandated car insurance allows the car insurance industry to come together and form ludicrous policies such as this: If you make a claim, they will raise your insurance even if you were not the cause of the accident, much of the time. How, in a capitalist society, would a ludicrous policy such as that ever find form? Only in the twisted world of government-caused monopolies!
Can you justify the government mandating people to buy car insurance, if the government would make a person pay off someone else’s car bill when they caused a crash, other than with “government knows what you need, and you need car insurance”? Why not mandated life insurance or, as Mr. Conservative Mitt Romney forced on Massachusetts citizens, mandated health insurance?
Government knows how to run your finances best! -rolls eyes-
May 28th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Bjalder, Romney speaks for himself! Click on my username…
May 28th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
TLG,
can you cite the 1st sentence of old mitt on Gay Marraige?
Immigration–not a flip. no benefits, but can apply. force out only criminals.
health care–last sentence on new mitt–quoting him?
Social security…um, that’s the same article…maybe you’re taking it out of context?
Min. wage–too much time passed, not enough info (was the hike with inflation?)
Conservative candidate—he is not the most cnservative on EVERY issue, that doesn’t mean he can’t be farther right than Rudy or John.
May 28th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
all talking about your site, TLG.
May 28th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
TLG,
I have thought about it plenty and auto insurance makes some serious sense. Predictably you are combining to totally different things to make your point. Insurance companies raising rates if you are not at fault since statistically you are likely to make another claim in the future. If you make a claim it is because you have no one else to make a claim, so you are the one responsible. You can choose to make the claim, but your rate will reflect the fact you are more likely to make another claim. But really this has nothing to do with government interference as much as it has to do with actuaries and statistics.
As far as government mandating it makes perfect sense. If you were to total a car the cost could easily come to $20-30,000 today. Most people (especially those in the largest group likely to cause accidents, 16-24) do not have that kind of expendible cash. People are then left with the need to collect that money over large periods of time, or sue. Therefore would have no car, unless they were covered by their insurance which would amount to much higher rates.
Government does have the right to protect the right of the majority of the people (since that is what it represents) by making laws that protect there financial interest. In truth government is best when it does this sparingly, but auto driving with it’s many hazards that are posed without any part on the individual (let alone those caused by the individual) represent a clear instance where government is doing it’s role. Since the government owns the roads you drive on, and driving is not a specific right, making regulations such as insurance are totally within its scope.
Unfortunately for Libertarianism, it fails to recognize we all give up some rights for the protection of our most basic rights. We give up the right to drive uninsured so that we can have our highways be places we can drive and trust we won’t go broke in a flash.
May 28th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
TLG,
question for you–
what are your opinions of Romney’s church, compared to churches in general?
May 28th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Jason –
“As far as government mandating it makes perfect sense. If you were to total a car the cost could easily come to $20-30,000 today. Most people (especially those in the largest group likely to cause accidents, 16-24) do not have that kind of expendible cash. People are then left with the need to collect that money over large periods of time, or sue. Therefore would have no car, unless they were covered by their insurance which would amount to much higher rates.”
Yep, that’s why governments wouldn’t have to force people to get auto insurance, while at the same time making auto insurance companies prone to competition instead of getting together to make ludicrous policies that can’t be changed because the government helps them monopolize.
May 28th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Jasonjack — Post #25 — I hate all churches and think religion is a plague upon mankind. I’m an atheist.
May 28th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Mandating auto insurance and monopolies are two different things. While at times the ymight go hand in hand that is more do to a lack of integrity amongst public officials rather than a natural effect f mandating.
I would also ad you have totally avoided the points in my post.
May 28th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
TLG,
fair enough.
I believe in God and that he pays an essential, critical role in our lives.
May 28th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
TLG,
#23?
May 28th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
JasonJack, libertarians aren’t worth your time. Fifteen minutes of googling “Richard Thaler” or “behavior economics” undermines any support for libertarian nonsense.
If these guys aren’t perceptive enough to figure out they been proven wrong decades ago why should we pay attention to them?
May 28th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
econ grad stud, I thought you made a pledge not to make such smears.
May 28th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
#23 — I didn’t really peruse the list extremely thoroughly, but I think it’s a damning enough indictment of him to merit quite a bit of criticism. Enough of them are utterly legitimate, and the rest are at the very best for him ambiguous. Surely we can do better in a candidate than that. If you’re looking for a reliable conservative, at least can we go with Thompson? I’d be willing to vote for Thompson.
Econ Grad Stud — Brilliant logic. I take it all back! Individualism and the government leaving you alone was proven wrong decades ago. Silly Founding Fathers. Silly Milton Friedman, Barry Goldwater, Thomas Sowell, and the rest.
David B — You’re online but your screen name isn’t showing up. Pity! Get on AIM.
May 28th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Recommended reading for Econ Grad Stud:
- Thomas Sowell, “The Vision of the Anointed,” “Basic Economics”
- Ayn Rand, “Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal”
- Milton Friedman, “Capitalism and Freedom”
- Thomas DiLorenzo, “How Capitalism Saved America”
- Robert Murphy, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism”
- John Stossel, “Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity”
^ Libertarian nonsense.
May 28th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
David B, I’m sorry for the strength of the rhetoric but not for the sentiments.
I’ll try to be gentler with the libertarian posters.
May 28th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
TLG,
It would be nice to hear you actually back up your many statements that have been called out on.
May 28th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Jason, I do the best I can, there are a lot.
What would you specifically like replied to?
May 28th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Interesting flier, Jason.
It does show that the allegation he ran as a liberal in 94 to be wrong. He certainly emphasizes his differences to Ted, although not abortion.
Fascinating also that the quote of being “more supportive than Ted” is a misquote. Unfortunately its hard to correct that sort of thing (as Al Gore found out when people claimed he’d said he’d invented the internet - rubbish, but in a partisan climate, effective)
May 28th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
TLG, I have a story I want to share with you. You own a property, of which you have the absolute rights, including to protect it at all cost. To protect it, you have two choices — you could foresake your career, and sitting on your porch all day with a shotgun (pretty much impossible for most people, as they could not earn salary from their property). Or, you could entrust another person (sheriff) to protect your property for you. This is the meaning of the government, to entrusting others to protect your rights.
Yes, the Federal Government have gone beyond the boundaries defined by the US Constitution, and it should be reined back in. However, the US Constitution is just this, a set of the laws, if you may, for the Federal Government itself, and not for the state governments. The state governments are bounded by the entirely different set of laws, and they are within a wider scope to protect their residents, as does the local government. If you disagree with something, you are in a better position to influence your local and state governments.
It so happened that many people in early 1900s started to pool their money together to protect their properties (including the vehicles), (like entrusting the sheriff) and from that point, the insurance industry came into being. There had been some abuses, so the people asked the states to enforce the agreements, and to ensure that they are being paid for the damages to their properties by others.
Unfortunately, Federal government eventually stepped in. But, my point is, the many of the mandates exist because the residents have asked for them. They accomplished what they wanted through the representatives as in Republic government. You may not like something, but it does not change the fact that you could experience the security of having your property being protected.
May 28th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
How about this for starters:
“Since the government owns the roads you drive on, and driving is not a specific right, making regulations such as insurance are totally within its scope.”
or this:
“Gay marriage wasn’t even on the horizon in 94. he was referring to employement, housing, etc. If ou read his line he said effective I believe. Effective means that he would be make changes that would be more helpful, rather than quantity. Romney was not for gay marriage in 94, he said it in his campaign.”
or how about the fact that Romney still supports assault weapons bands and would the brady bill if it wasn’t made absolete by todays technologies.
How about answering what specific group he was pandering to with “Battlefield Earth?”
That would be a nice start.
May 28th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
“How about answering what specific group he was pandering to with Battlefield Earth?”
Scientologists for Romney???
May 28th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
TLG, not all states require drivers to have automobile insurance.
The states that don’t require insurance simply require a driver to be able to meet any financial liability due to their driving.
Since insurance laws are statewide regulations the only ones that are your business, TLG, are the ones in your state (if it is a mandated insurance state).
May 28th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
TLG:
I want to thank you for your continuing effort to slander Romney. The lies and half truths you have proffered have been met with clear evidence to refute your bogus claims and have served only to strengthen my opinion that Romney is the best qualified candidate for the POTUS.
May 28th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Tommy,
The all so precious Mork and Mindy vote.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:11 am
Jason - HA!
(I wish I didn’t laugh like Chris Matthews.)
May 29th, 2007 at 12:22 am
Fred Thompson will ruin ROMNEY’S chances for getting the nomination because they are going after the same people for support.It will be between Thompson and Giuliani with McCain being the long shot.For some reason Romney’s numbers are just pathetic{5%-8%} in the Southern states and with Fred getting in they will shrink even further.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:09 am
TLG,
When Fox News interviewed Romney, didn’t they ask for his favorite novel, not book? Isn’t it possible to have a favorite novel, yet also to have a favorite book that supercedes that?
Forgive me if I may be splitting hairs, but you are the one loosely defining flip-flops so that anything that has a semblance of miniscule difference is considered contradictory.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:32 am
Carmine,
Fred Thompson will ruin Rudy’s chances, not Mitt’s. They’re both strong fiscal and defense conservatives, though neither is a social conservative at heart. They give the same vibe, though Fred is much more palatable because of his stronger moral character. Romney will welcome Fred into the race because he’ll take support from Rudy in Florida, Texas and California, allowing Romney to run a competitive campaign in those States.
None of the recent polls that include Fred give support to the theory that Romney is at risk if Fred enters. On the contrary, Rudy and McCain both have seen their support decrease slightly, while Romney continues to show steady gains.
May 29th, 2007 at 6:25 am
“Fred Thompson will ruin Rudy’s chances, not Mitt’s. They’re both strong fiscal and defense conservatives, though neither is a “social conservative at heart.” They give the same vibe, though Fred is much more palatable because of his stronger moral character.”
-uhhh… My IQ must be lowering quickly. Thompson is not a socon at heart? I guess I better quit my job and give up on all the research I’ve spent days and days working on, since he’s not a socon at heart anymore.
May 29th, 2007 at 7:44 am
I will say that I shouldn’t have brought up Romney’s book flip-flop in the first place because it detracts from the overall arguments. It allows people to focus on that, which is trivial (which was my point — that changing your mind about your favorite book is so trivial, can’t he even make up his mind on a little thing?), when there are so many larger issues.
OK, as for the other crap that Jason wanted replied to –
We disagree philosophically on what the role of a government. I guess, by that same logic, you could also say, well — the government allows you to own the land it staked out here, so the government can demand of you whatever it wants for whatever reason. Hey, wait! That’s already happening. I’m assuming you support imminent domain?
The solution, here, of course, would be to have regulated private roads — regulated in the sense that all of the roads must meet a certain requirement for two lanes that would fit a standard of vehicle size.
But either way, buying insurance has nothing to do with the roads themselves. It’s something useful, but let’s not act like it’s impossible to pay off someone without insurance. The logic here must be — well, as long as you’re on the road, the government can do whatever it wants with you because you’re on its property. I guess you could say that you could wear pants when you’re driving, too. Could the government demand everyone drive naked? Hey — it’s not a specific right to wear clothes, and it is the government’s land, after all. That may sound outlandish, but following your logic, there’s nothing wrong with it.
May 29th, 2007 at 7:45 am
And as for gay marriage — Fine. Let’s say Romney didn’t flip-flop *specifically* on gay marriage. I should have said “recognizing the legitimacy of homosexual relationships” or something.
May 29th, 2007 at 7:50 am
Silly Founding Fathers. Silly Milton Friedman, Barry Goldwater, Thomas Sowell, and the rest.
The Founding Fathers would have horsewhipped modern libertarians. Barry Goldwater was so socially conservative when he ran his campaign that he was for outlawing pornography.
May 29th, 2007 at 7:52 am
And as for gay marriage Fine. Let’s say Romney didn’t flip-flop *specifically* on gay marriage. I should have said “recognizing the legitimacy of homosexual relationships” or something.
Some of us oppose gay marriage without wanting a witch-hunt for gays or discrimination against them. You can’t grasp that this position is possible.
May 29th, 2007 at 8:01 am
Fred Thompson is not a social conservative at heart? That may have been true at one point. But in his personal life Thompson has got much more socially conservative. He ended his swinging days and got married, had kids, and got older. He seems to have become a lot more politically socially conservative as he has become personally more socially conservative. Fred Thompson is certainly a social conservative from the heart now and now is when we’re voting.
May 29th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Actually TLG,
“But either way, buying insurance has nothing to do with the roads themselves.”
Actually it has everything to do with what road you are on. When the government owns specific property, and you do not have a right, but rather the privledge to be on it, they can restrict the use with things they find neccesary. For instance they would restrict someone driving without mufflers and speeding too fast. Of course on private land those things are legal and the government can’t restrict them, such as a race track. You can drive without insurance on private roads, it’s on public ones that you can’t.
Again it has everything to do with who owns the land, they make the rules. As far as selling property, you bought it’s yours, no longer the government. If they want to set certai restrictions at time of sale than that is fine. I am in favor of immenent domain when it is used as intended in the consititution, not for rich land developers.
Sadly you ignorance on a basic issue of the role of government is great.
“The solution, here, of course, would be to have regulated private roads regulated in the sense that all of the roads must meet a certain requirement for two lanes that would fit a standard of vehicle size.”
Good luck. Do you really think you are going to turn all roads private?
“but let’s not act like it’s impossible to pay off someone without insurance.”
Not impossible, but is it possible to expect an entire society to have those means? I am pretty positive you would have a much larger class of unisured who can’t afford an accident and good people would be stuck with the bill. That’s why the government sets up a law that to protect other peoples rights and personal property. Unfortunately this is the very heart of the matter that you fail to grasp:
The government has the job of protecting rights. Some times it has to limit some rights in order to protect others. Its the very nature of the government and Locke and Hobbes.
This is where libertarianism is way off, they somehow think any intervention is usurpation of power. I do agree in nearly every context less is more, but libertarians (like yourself) seem to think none is best, which is a clear smack in the face of civilization and why this one chose to form a government. There are times when the government needs to regulate things that are in it’s interest, albeit sparingly. Examples would be: Marriage, workers rights, traffic safety, etc.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:10 am
You totally misrepresented my arguments, most strikingly here:
“Not impossible, but is it possible to expect an entire society to have those means? I am pretty positive you would have a much larger class of unisured who can’t afford an accident and good people would be stuck with the bill.”
You’re acting like I said that no one should have insurance. I said that it should be optional. If someone doesn’t have it, it’s their responsibility to pay the money off ASAP, as can be overseen by a court.
Can you tell me how sponsoring marriage is in the best interest of a government, or why it’s proper for the government to endorse marriages? “Workers’ rights”? That’s just vague enough to work! What entails “workers’ rights”? Traffic safety — I’ve already told you that roads should be regulated, and are one of the only things that should be.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:22 am
“I’ve already told you that roads should be regulated, and are one of the only things that should be.”
Stipulating who can drive on the road by making requirements would be ok then?
I know you said it is optional, I am reffering to the large amount of people who can’t afford to pay for an accident that will go without insurance. THus leaving those who abide the law with higher rates, and stuck with a bill in an accident. C’mon think this through.
Marriage,
Government can promote relationships that are most likely to cause reproduction and continuation of it’s civilization. Therefore strong marriages between a man and women are something which the gvernment has an obligation to protect.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:26 am
No! They’d be forced to pay off the accident with a percentage of their income determined by the courts! At the very worst here, in our current system, tax money could be used to pay off the person whose car was damaged and the person who caused it would pay back the government over time.
And you’ve *got* to be kidding when you say that for people to reproduce, government encouragement is needed. That one’s too easy!
May 29th, 2007 at 11:49 am
“And you’ve *got* to be kidding when you say that for people to reproduce, government encouragement is needed. That one’s too easy!”
Actually that is not what I said. Please reread and put some thought into it.
“No! They’d be forced to pay off the accident with a percentage of their income determined by the courts! At the very worst here, in our current system, tax money could be used to pay off the person whose car was damaged and the person who caused it would pay back the government over time.”
Hmmm, you support tax money to make loans to fix someones car and I support people being responsible for there own car. OK… Who is the libertarian Free Marketer here? You still have not sorted out why you think the government can regulate traffic laws, buit some how a requirement for insurance is unacceptable. It’s actually pretty contradictory. And in this above paragraph I really can’t see how your approach lessens government intervention when you have people being forced to go to court with a judgment or the government making loans to them.
May 29th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
[...] “I highly doubt anyone in ‘94 looked at this flier and walked away thinking Romney was a liberal.” [...]