In Defense of Republicans

By Liberal Anthropologist

I am a strong libertarian. I thought it useful to remind everyone that most or all of us that post here identify as Republicans. You see a lot of complaints – especially at the local level – about Republicans on here. There is a simple reason for that. The Democrats in Loudoun are weak and useless. If there was a dem who was out there making decisions to criticize locally, you can be sure it would be done – in a big way.

The local Republicans have certainly made mistakes, some of them serious. But they have also done good things. I am quite open that I don’t follow local events and politics as much as many others on here, but there are many good Republicans in Loudoun County.

Some examples. Ralph Buona and Shawn Williams working to try to resolve the Openband issue and then helping to get the board to vote against the Franchise of a local monopoly. It is not easy to go up against MCDean, especially when they are threatening to sue the county. But they did it and it was the right thing.  Bill Fox – whom I assume at least leans Republican – is another great example. He is helping to drive the school board in a positive direction and bringing real positive changes to the schools. Year Round School is a perfect example. Randy Minchew is another example. He has mainly comported himself very well in his position and has helped to move things forward and represented his constituents well.

This is just some I am more familiar with. I am sure there are many more. I know there are good democrats too. I hope they take back their party locally from the extreme elements that are destroying it as we certainly need a strong opposition in any area of government.  I am proud to have voted all Republican in the most recent election. They were all good people and all of them were the better candidate. I don’t always vote Republican. I am no party hack. It is just that the dems so rarely offer someone worth voting for if you are a libertarian.

No matter how many failings the Republicans have, such as anti-gay stances, prohibition, and overspending on defense, the Democrats are either no different or worse. Obama obviously has issues with gay people as evidenced by his capability of expressing an opinion against gay marriage (no matter how much it has “evolved”). The dems are also for prohibition. The dems overspend on EVERYTHING, including defense.

I can’t find a reason to regularly vote Democrat. Their platform offers almost nothing I agree with. There are many democratic partisan readers of this blog. Please tell me why I – a pretty standard libertarian – who is also pro-life, should be enamored with the Democratic party. Sell me on it. I don’t see anything there.


Comments

  • Elder Berry says:

    Yo, LA, Mr. Mensa. You spelled “separation” wrong. Twice.

    And for me it comes down to this. I get no direct vote on a corporation’s policy, actions or direction. I do get a vote on our government. Which one is likely to have my interests ANYWHERE in its priorities?

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    elderberry, you get a vote if you’re a shareholder, and you get a much more important vote whether you own a piece or not: you can choose whther or not to give them your business as a free consumer (although freedom of choice there is getting more regulated, from being subject to penalty if you don’t buy insurance, to being banned from buying a soft drink one’s betters know is too large), or giving your business to anyone who does business with them.

    It’s in their interests to take cognizance of that.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Choice (choosing where/what to buy) isn’t what it used to be though, is it? In some cases we have more choice and in some cases we have less.

    Governments can distort markets. Corporations can distort markets.

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    Sine we are lauding our current 9-0 Republican BOS on this thread, did anyone see this post:

    http://realloudoun.com/2012/12/13/so-much-easier-to-govern-without-those-annoying-citizens-getting-in-the-way/#more-911

    Ah, yes, let’s reduce the relevancy of the public in our decisions to the maximum extent possible while we jet set across the globe on the taxpayer dime. What fantastic job they are doing…

  • David Dickinson says:

    Kudos to Al. That was well stated.

    But, as other comments noted, the danger of government is that government is where people go when they want to coerce and control you. There is no free market with the law. Unlike with businesses, patronage is not a choice.

    Big is bad. Period. Big business, big unions, and–especially–big government. The larger the entity, the smaller the individual. It doesn’t matter what it is.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    “Big is bad. Period. Big business, big unions, and–especially–big government. The larger the entity, the smaller the individual. It doesn’t matter what it is.”

    A very good point. I would argue, however, there is a certain level of accountability for big businesses and even unions, which is lacking with the government.

  • ed myers says:

    L.A. I must be missing something. How can one’s liberty be enhanced by enslaving oneself to one political party or another? (l)ibertarians would never be associated with any party because that would restrict their freedom to be independent thinkers and voters (loyalty pledges et.al.)

    Which politicians a liberty-minded voter favors probably is decided by what liberties they feel most at risk.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “There is no free market with the law.”

    “I would argue, however, there is a certain level of accountability for big businesses and even unions, which is lacking with the government.”

    What is the ballot box then?

  • ed myers says:

    Government is limited when people are able to vote with their feet. That is why the liberty restrictions are best left to the state and not the federal government. If I want to have recreational pot I’ll move to CO or WA. I think the federal government whould stand down in enforcing drug laws in those states provided the weed is locally grown and not crossing state lines.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    The ballot box holds the elected officials accountable (at least in theory — depending on how safe the particular State/Congressional District is). Bureaucrats, however, have no such accountability, and they are the ones who handle the daily functions (or lack thereof) of the government.

  • David Dickinson says:

    “There is no free market with the law.”

    “What is the ballot box then?”

    You have no individual choice with the law. You comply, or go to jail. No individual can say, “I don’t want to abide by that law” (caveat: unless you are the current administration and selectively choose to not enforce laws you don’t like). Government exists to force people to do or not do things. Sometimes it is a blessing, sometimes it is a curse, but it is always dangerous. Like a fire, in moderation it is beneficial and keeps us warm, and in excess it destroys.

  • Indeed, a very good point, Nate; “I would argue, however, there is a certain level of accountability for big businesses and even unions, which is lacking with the government.”

    Yes… for example you cannot find many lawyers who are willing to sue the government and in many cases the government has immunity, which corporations, businesses and individuals do not. And when it comes to accountability, that is the law… it is not because it is a corporation that an entity may be less accountable, only the degree of lawlessness its shareholders and board are willing to accept.

    Same goes for government. Right now we have a lawless administration, an Attorney General (supposedly our lawyer) and his justice department being given immunity from Congressional oversight by a President who routinely ignores the law by appointing unaccountable czars and even cabinet level officers while Congress is in session. What ever happened to that Benghazi “investigation” that was due November 15th? Have we been told any more today than the lies we were told in the first three weeks? Answer, “no” and, just like Fast & Furious we will never learn what happened or the name of any responsible individual. There has never been a more lawless or less transparent administration than this one. Never.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Laws are made by your voted representatives. Bureaucrats follow policies laid out by winners of elections who then hold pubic hearings, etc…

  • David Dickinson says:

    EB, on a stretch, you could say you have the freedom to move to another country and that is about as “free market” as you get with governments.

    While the ballot box gives you some modicum of choice, your individual choice is so infinitesimally insignificant that it is hard to correlate your individual choice with any policy action.

    You simply can’t walk away from government. I can’t send the County a note saying that I don’t have any kids in the public schools, so I knocked off 70% of my property tax bill this year and say here is the difference. I can’t tell the Commonwealth of Virginia that their facial recognition scanning of my face for getting a driver’s license is a violation of my civil rights and decline the photo and get my license. I can’t be Orchard Run and say “no thanks” when they run a road through my private property. Heck, even after getting paid 2-weeks in arears, I can’t even put a check in the bank of money I’ve earned and take out more than $500 without clearing it through DHS first.

    If I don’t like BP, I can buy from Exxon. If I don’t want to work for union thugs I can pick another job (or line of work). I can pick coffee over tea. I can pick my nose.

    But I can’t opt-out of government. That makes all the difference in the world.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    To what effect can you not buy from Exxon?

    Your vote at the pump seems less effective than the one at the ballot box.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    The question that Al brings forward, DD is not about elimination of corporations or elimination of government. It seems to me his comment is about asserting “power”.

    I’m not sure if he is equating power and liberty, but I do think he believes the invisible hand of the marketplace is not the check on corporate power that you believe it to be.

    A guy like Adam Smith would likely be appalled at the power corporations currently possess in both the marketplace and in government.

  • But corporations are nothing but the millions of fellow shareholders who directly or indirectly own them, who buy goods and services from them, and they are ultimately responsible for the unpatriotic and uncivil behavior of the boards and management. I for one will not buy any products from a company who’s CEO claims that while communism “may not by [my] cup of tea”, he finds that China “works”. Works for who? And this is the guy in charge of Obama’s jobs task force.

    I can just imagine if Howard Hughes owned United Health Care and was summoned to the White House to be told the government was going to tell him what to sell, how much to sell it for and who to sell it to… he would have immediately announced to all the subscribers that he was no longer going to be in the health insurance business. If the leaders of the whole industry had followed suit, that this was not the America their parents bequeathed to them, the whole Unaffordable Care Act would have fallen flat on its face. But no, they let their mercenary interests eclipse their patriotism and decided that using the law to compel everybody to buy from them would guarantee success regardless performance and save them billions in marketing costs.

    Now you’ve got a bunch of Democrat Senators, who didn’t read it before they voted for it, crying about the medical device tax and looking for yet additional waivers for their own constituents without the slightest concern for anybody else or whether America will remain a country of free individuals. In the end you will see the same thing Jeffrey Immelt apparently loves about China… corruption and political kickbacks up and down the line as privilege is disbursed among political supporters. The only difference will be that where in China there is a military connection to the board of every major business we will instead have campaign bundlers in every board room.

  • David Dickinson says:

    EB, my individual choice may have little effect on Exxon. But it doesn’t matter. I don’t have to live under the rules of Exxon. I have options. I, as an individual, can completely ignore Exxon for the rest of my life if I choose to do so.

    That doesn’t mean that Exxon will change immediately, if ever based on my choice. But the point is that I am not forced to participate with Exxon. With government, my servitude is coerced. I am not free in regards to government because I have no choice.

    “A guy like Adam Smith would likely be appalled at the power corporations currently possess in both the marketplace and in government.”

    I agree, and so am I. The current situation is not one of free markets. Regulations that are being struck down, for the most part, aren’t creating freer markets, they are just tilting advatatges from one side to the other.

    However, I do think “bigness” rises and falls together. Big business begets big government. Shrinking the size of both is in the best interests of the individual.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “But corporations are nothing but the millions of fellow shareholders who directly or indirectly own them, who buy goods and services from them, and they are ultimately responsible for the unpatriotic and uncivil behavior of the boards and management.”

    Is it easier for a guy that has 1000 shares of Nestle to change their behavior, or vote/petition their Congressional representatives that may have some impact on their corporate behavior?

    Board members and CEOs belong more in the revolving door category than politicians. Failing upward is seemingly part of corporate governance.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “I don’t have to live under the rules of Exxon.”

    Hmm…

  • David Dickinson says:

    “Is it easier for a guy that has 1000 shares of Nestle to change their behavior, or vote/petition their Congressional representatives that may have some impact on their corporate behavior?”

    EB, why must you control what businesses do? The business’s business is their business. If you don’t like it, don’t work for them, or patronize them, or own their stock.

    As long as I am free to choose, I don’t need to control.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Well, must I go back to the very quote from your pal Milton Friedman that I posted a couple of days ago, DD?

    Rules are essential to markets.

  • David Dickinson says:

    EB, must I go back to my reply to that and say that some rules are needed.

    A free market is not a free-for-all market.

    Government is still needed in a free market to ensure that the businesses play by some basic rules. Laws that say that when you buy a gallon of gas that is actually a gallon, or that a product is sold for the price advertised, etc. are all part of a free market.

    Government isn’t all or nothing. We need some government, but not nearly as much as we have.

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    “EB, why must you control what businesses do? The business’s business is their business. If you don’t like it, don’t work for them, or patronize them, or own their stock.”

    Tell that to the Michigan legislature and governor, please!!

  • Yes, when the Michigan legislators take steps to assure the rights of the individual worker over the powerful unions and corporations it’s a bad thing, right? It used to be that you couldn’t get a job unless you were white, and that was a bad thing that we fixed, but it’s still OK if you can’t get a job unless you are a dues paying union member?

  • Eric the half a troll says:

    Just don’t tell me you are against government intrusion into corporate business. You know you are and now we know as well.

  • Eric the half a troll says:

    Aren’t! Grrrr…. Damn touch screen….

  • Eric the half a troll says:

    Funny how those thoughtful intrusive MI legislators decided that their freedom campaign could not be extended to cops and firefighters.

  • I don’t see how that “intrudes” on business any more than any other anti-discrimination laws. It does not limit the choices of employees and employers, it expands them. What it DOES do is force the unions to compete for membership instead of enjoying compulsory membership, to show employees a value proposition where the dues are worth the money.

  • David Dickinson says:

    What Michigan did was open markets. Before, there was a prohibition against non-unionized employees and only a narrow sliver of the population could participate. Now, they have an inclusive labor force. Monopolies, either by businesses or unions, are the antitheses of free markets.

    Three cheers for Michigan. Hip-hip, horray. Hip-hip, horray. Hip-hip, horray.

  • Eric the half a troll says:

    The compulsory aspect of the union is the result of an agreement between the corporation and the union. You are fine with govt dictating the terms of a private business agreement. At least be honest about it.

  • Eric the half a troll says:

    “What Michigan did was open markets. Before, there was a prohibition against non-unionized employees and only a narrow sliver of the population could participate.”

    That prohibition was a private business agreement. You are cheering for govt intrusion into private business agreements. Glad you now support the idea.

  • You obviously don’t know what Taft Hartley was all about. Under law, once an employer was deemed a “closed shop” they had no choice but to hire union labor, now they will not have to. That is less intrusive, not more. Even so, existing contracts with unions will still be in place until they expire and can be renewed under collective bargaining as before. The only difference is that employees need not be dues paying union members, and what you will find is that many will continue paying dues because the unions will now try harder to earn the trust and dollars of their membership.

    Being a member of a union is a brotherhood and many aspects of union life have nothing to do with the workplace, like drinking and smoking pot on the job, “persuading” members to vote correctly on matters politic, occupying capitol buildings and beating up news reporters… all social activities that are apparently quite satisfying to the membership. Even in RTW states the percentage of union membership in industries such as auto manufacturing is well over 95% and the same will be the case in Michigan.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    “That prohibition was a private business agreement. You are cheering for govt intrusion into private business agreements”

    That is a distortion. There were already laws in place that allowed workers to form unions. OK. No problem.

    But it was also illegal to fire workers for joining the union.

    So a Union was effectively forced on the business by law if the workers demanded it.

    It still is.

    So, it is mucking about in stuff it was already mucking about in. Not simply interfering with purely private agreements.

    I am against all of these employment laws. Companies and employees should be free to do what they want. Everyone “at-will” in every direction.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    Here are the Michigan Labor Laws. Hardly simply private agreements.

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28k1f4bm552voidy55d5ry3m45%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=MCLIndex&objectname=mcl-chap423

  • Cato the Elder says:

    “A guy like Adam Smith would likely be appalled at the power corporations currently possess in both the marketplace and in government”

    And all that could be fixed in about five minutes if you enforced existing anti-trust laws and take some radical action to get money out of politics.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    In other news….

    IPCC AR5 WG1 draft was “leaked”. If you are one of the anthropogenic CO2 worriers, you might want to hold your hands over your ears for a year or two.

    And find a therapist.

  • Eric the half a troll says:

    “A union security agreement is a contractual agreement, usually part of a union collective bargaining agreement, in which an employer and a trade or labor union agree on the extent to which the union may compel employees to join the union, and/or whether the employer will collect dues, fees, and assessments on behalf of the union.”

    Seeing as how no govt in involved with this definition, I would say it meets the criteria of a private agreement.

    Yes, you can not fire a person for joining or forming a union. Seems very consistent with the constitution to me.

    I also get that you are in favor of this particular govt intervention in private business. Glad to have you on the team, comrades.

  • Eric the half a troll says:

    Forgive me, LA, if I wait until the dust settles around this report before I seek professional help.

    Frankly, I hope the scientific world actually does determine the global climate change is natural. In fact, we all better damn well hope it is. I don’t see any humans in our country at least being able to do anything to address it. If its not natural, we are in for a world of hurt, that’s for damn sure. We probably are in either case.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    It’s curious how some climate people that rail against hasty conclusions… make hasty conclusions.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    HEY!!! Can we get a thread going about RG3 and the comments made by the ESPN reporter?

    That one is going viral, it’s a local subject, I’m sure a lot of people have an axe to grind about it, and this thread is getting too long.

    Thanks much! :)

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    eb, if the IPCC were credible, they might find it curious that the team working on the conclusions for AR5 were working concurrently with, yet separately from, the various teams doing the research that supposedly produces the conclusions.

    You should read the drafts (before they disappear). The conclusion team already has a nice scary statement going about human effects, while the solar resonance team acknowledges much greater natural forcing from the interaction of solar with clouds than has ever been programmed into any model (or report).

    Don’t you find it a bit curious that the “conclusions” are predetermined? Maybe not, but then let’s not call it science–rotfl! It’s politics, and as far as the IPCC is concerned, it always has been.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “while the solar resonance team acknowledges much greater natural forcing from the interaction of solar with clouds than has ever been programmed into any model (or report).”

    Yes. I’ve read the chapter getting all the skeptics excited.

    If you want to believe Alec Rawls, go right ahead, but this does seem to be another cry of Wolf from those that are saying the others guys are are crying Wolf.

    Do you find anyone credible that you disagree with Barbara?

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    “the other guys” cried wolf quite spectacularly over the last 40 years, with global cooling, and the population bomb depleting all resources–we’re all supposed to be already dead, remember?

    Do you always assign blanket credibility to those with whom you comfortably agree?

    “Skeptic” by itself is a fine word, particularly in the discipline that (used to be) science.

    Just as both “liberal” and “conservative” are fine original words too.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Comfortably agree?

    I’m a listener on this. Right now, I think the odds are we have a problem that we are not prepared to tackle. Are there politics involved? Sure, on both sides.

    Lumping population zealots with climate scientists? Odd.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    not at all odd, eb–some are one and the same.

    Yes, we DO have a problem that we aren’t prepared to tackle: thinking we can be successful controlling the climate! ManBearPig to the contrary.

  • Barb, I have been concerned about the alkalinity of the oceans for years, which is why wade out and urinate into the breakers every morning. If enough of us do it perhaps we’ll bring things under control. I was going to try to use the same technique in the afternoon when my pH was higher in order to reduce acid rain, but I realized that would just be pissing into the wind.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “not at all odd, eb–some are one and the same.”

    Example?

Leave Comment