On May 12th, 2008 at 02:02 PM, Champaign Dweller said:
This year is a tight year for taxpayers, so I would expect, at the very least, my local government to try to hold the line, and I thought that the City of Champaign had done that by no new fees or taxes and a reduction in its budget of 1 1/2%--not a big reduction, but at least an acknowledgement that things are tough for people. Then I read the newspaper over the weekend and find out that Neighborhood Services is proposing the addition of not one but two new inspectors for the rental inspection program, and to pay for it, they propose a fee of $12 per rental unit. Surely this year isn't the year to add more staff and charge new fees. On the one hand, at least a number of the council members are skeptical, but of course, Gina and Marcie are all for it.
Considering the number of violations they found I think they need the additional inspectors. The property owners are the logical people to pay the salaries since they are the ones not maintaining their units.
This article suggests that all candidates should disclose their medical records, and is concerned that John McCain not only has early stage dementia as is frequently noted, but he also is likely to succumb to other medical conditions within 4 years or less. http://www.nolanchart.com/article3760.html
On May 13th, 2008 at 06:19 AM, West of Wright (not verified) said:
How can it be asserted that the "Landlords" should have to pay for it? Of course if you levy a tax on an industry, equally and across the board it will be 100% passed through to the customers of that industry. In other words, a $12 per year per unit tax on rental property will raise the cost of housing by about $1 per unit per year.
The argument is not about inspections. Its about taxation on housing. Why not inspect motor vehicles? Would the finding of violations justify the cost? The government loves two things: Inspecting and taxing. One justifies the other.
"and is concerned that John McCain not only has early stage dementia as is frequently noted..."
Boggle.
I'll keep saying this every time you post another bizarre conspiracy theory about John McCain: I'm not a John McCain fan. There are lots of legitimate reasons to criticize him, and/or not support him. When you post things like this, it makes you (and other Ron Paul supporters and Ron Paul himself) look bad, not John McCain.
The difference is, they're renting out this place to be people's homes and failing to keep those properties up to code, and therefore safe. If there is no incentive to keep things up to code, why should they bother addressing tenant complaints (which many do not, thanks to the high turnover in housing in the area)? It's so easy for the landlord to tell a tenant "no, we're not fixing that" when it is actually a code violation and is required to be fixed. Most people will take the landlord on their word, because after all, the free market should be protecting them, and many think if they complain the landlord will punish them (which is prohibited by law). It is about inspections and keeping residents who have very little recourse safe at a minimum standard.
I think it's finally over for Ron Paul he received less votes in West Virginia then Huckabee and Huckabee is helping McCain. Maybe Ron Paul is the one with the dementia.
"There are hundreds of thousands of Huckabee supporters, evangelicals who will never ever vote for liberal fascist-socialist McCain."
To be honest, Huckabee supporters seem less likely to vote for Ron Paul than John McCain.
At least Huckabee and McCain share a philosophical goal that the government exists to provide everything for everyone, protect everyone from everything and regulate America to death.
They just disagree on whether to invoke God while doing so.
At least Huckabee and McCain share a philosophical goal that the government exists to provide everything for everyone, protect everyone from everything and regulate America to death.
IP has apparently converted to the "First Church of RON PAUL!" by assuming that any of the main candidate believe this.
"IP has apparently converted to the "First Church of RON PAUL!" by assuming that any of the main candidate believe this."
Nah. I'm exaggerating Huckabee and McCain's love for federal regulation to make a point - Huckabee has more in common with McCain than he does with Paul.
"Isn't there an oxymoron somewhere in "liberal fascist-socialist?""
At least one, probably two.
Nothing mutually exclusive in that combination, my friends. As IP notes, it describes McCain to a T.
Liberalism - an ideology associated with support for a strong role of government in regulating capitalism and constructing the welfare state.
Fascism - an ideology that combines dictatorial government, militarism, control of the personal freedom, extreme nationalism, and government control of business.
Socialism - An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity.
Let see the evangelicals won't vote for McCain but they think Hillary maybe the devil and Obama is more Liberal then Hillary, some how I don't think they will have a problem with McCain. There will be no other choice and Ron Paul sure wouldn't have been a better alternative for evangelicals unless they have been smoking pot of course. Would it be better to turn the whole shoot ‘in match over to Pelosi, Reed and Obama they're the real example of people that love big Government? That would be much better then supporting the nominee of the party who most party regulars say they can support even though they do not agree with McCain on all the issues.
On May 15th, 2008 at 08:52 AM, Kevin Sandefur said:
"Nothing mutually exclusive in that combination, my friends."
Well, sure, if you can just make up definitions willy nilly. Here are some from dictionary.com you might find helpful:
Fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
Liberalism: a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
For starters, liberalism simply can not survive under fascism. Also, fascism often retains private ownership of industry, while socialism does not. And those are just the superficial differences...
I had no idea that today's liberals were so interested in the freedom of the individual. I thought they wanted higher taxes. They certainly won't let you exercise your freedom to pump oil out of the ground or even have a toilet that can legally take care of things in one flush. Hmm, that sounds more like the dictionary definition of Fascism.
So I guess to go along with Kevin's admonition to not make up definitions, we shouldn't let people make up their own misleading labels either.
They certainly won't let you exercise your freedom to pump oil out of the ground or even have a toilet that can legally take care of things in one flush. Hmm, that sounds more like the dictionary definition of Fascism.
Well that certainly explains why Mussolini was elected as a member of the Italian Plumber's Party. In fact, wasn't Stalin's first order to mandate low-flow toilets? I guess that's why he shipped all the sanitation workers to the Poolaug.
Seriously, though, come on. Hysterically overreact much?
"I had no idea that today's liberals were so interested in the freedom of the individual." They are and they aren't, just as it is with American conservatives.
Liberals support freedom of the individual on things like abortion where conservatives don't. Conservatives support freedom of the indivdual on things like taxes where liberals don't.
It's not like either philosophy is coherent, at least not how they're most commonly described in American politics.
On May 15th, 2008 at 09:38 AM, Kevin Sandefur said:
"It's not like either philosophy is coherent, at least not how they're most commonly described in American politics."
Sadly, all too true. Hopefully, the one thing that remains consistent today for the majority of both American liberals and conservatives is an abiding interest in perfecting representative democracy, an attitude which places both of them at odds with the totalitarian and authoritarian extremes of fascism.
Of course these definitions are not made up Willy-Nilly. Willy and I are not even exchanging barbs through our attorneys, blogs or the media, let alone being on speaking terms.
Kevin has, of course, pulled out the definition of "classical liberalism" which is an ideology closely related to Libertarianism. I think that in the general definitions of left/right this one I quoted is more functionally accurate.
"liberalism." The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005. 15 May. 2008. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberalism>
"socialism." The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005. 15 May. 2008. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism>.
On May 15th, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Kevin Sandefur said:
"Kevin has, of course, pulled out the definition of "classical liberalism" which is an ideology closely related to Libertarianism. I think that in the general definitions of left/right this one I quoted is more functionally accurate."
Um, no, not "of course" at all. Actually we're both pointing to exactly the same web page. I used the very first definition of straight up liberalism from the top of the exact same page that you and I both cited. It's based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary. You cherry picked a single phrase out of a larger American Heritage Dictionary of Cultural Literacy reference that makes up the very last definition on that page. I should point out that the regular American Heritage Dictionary citiation from the middle of that same page is more in line with what I cited:
"A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority."
In any case, nearly all of the sources make the point that liberalism prefers democracy; fascism does not. I'd call that a fundamental difference. And in regards to "the general definitions of left/right," let's just say that you probably really don't want to go there, since fascism usually gets put on the extreme right end of that spectrum.
Personally, I think that particular conventional wisdom is a bit of a misnomer; fascism isn't really left or right so much as wrong. This is part of the confusion here, since we are really comparing apples and oranges and gorillas. Liberalism is a political philosophy. Socialism is an economic ideology. Fascism is a management model.
The three things have points of intersection in the real world, so that sometimes there might appear to be commonalities or similarities in isolated particulars, but at their core they are really three very different things. Eventually, there were no liberals left (at least publicly) in Nazi Germany, but there were still many individuals who held private ownership of factories and farms.
In any case, nearly all of the sources make the point that liberalism prefers democracy; fascism does not. I'd call that a fundamental difference. And in regards to "the general definitions of left/right," let's just say that you probably really don't want to go there, since fascism usually gets put on the extreme right end of that spectrum.
But, but, but ... a conservative wrote a book, so it must be true!
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2008/05/12/rantoul_towing_could_rise_tenfold_with_plan
If the City of Champaign needs the money, perhaps they should look to their neighbors to the north to get added revenue.
This year is a tight year for taxpayers, so I would expect, at the very least, my local government to try to hold the line, and I thought that the City of Champaign had done that by no new fees or taxes and a reduction in its budget of 1 1/2%--not a big reduction, but at least an acknowledgement that things are tough for people. Then I read the newspaper over the weekend and find out that Neighborhood Services is proposing the addition of not one but two new inspectors for the rental inspection program, and to pay for it, they propose a fee of $12 per rental unit. Surely this year isn't the year to add more staff and charge new fees. On the one hand, at least a number of the council members are skeptical, but of course, Gina and Marcie are all for it.
Considering the number of violations they found I think they need the additional inspectors. The property owners are the logical people to pay the salaries since they are the ones not maintaining their units.
When you think nothing else whacked can happen this election season...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080512/ap_on_el_pr/barr_presidential_run_5
This article suggests that all candidates should disclose their medical records, and is concerned that John McCain not only has early stage dementia as is frequently noted, but he also is likely to succumb to other medical conditions within 4 years or less.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article3760.html
How can it be asserted that the "Landlords" should have to pay for it? Of course if you levy a tax on an industry, equally and across the board it will be 100% passed through to the customers of that industry. In other words, a $12 per year per unit tax on rental property will raise the cost of housing by about $1 per unit per year.
The argument is not about inspections. Its about taxation on housing. Why not inspect motor vehicles? Would the finding of violations justify the cost? The government loves two things: Inspecting and taxing. One justifies the other.
"and is concerned that John McCain not only has early stage dementia as is frequently noted..."
Boggle.
I'll keep saying this every time you post another bizarre conspiracy theory about John McCain: I'm not a John McCain fan. There are lots of legitimate reasons to criticize him, and/or not support him. When you post things like this, it makes you (and other Ron Paul supporters and Ron Paul himself) look bad, not John McCain.
The difference is, they're renting out this place to be people's homes and failing to keep those properties up to code, and therefore safe. If there is no incentive to keep things up to code, why should they bother addressing tenant complaints (which many do not, thanks to the high turnover in housing in the area)? It's so easy for the landlord to tell a tenant "no, we're not fixing that" when it is actually a code violation and is required to be fixed. Most people will take the landlord on their word, because after all, the free market should be protecting them, and many think if they complain the landlord will punish them (which is prohibited by law). It is about inspections and keeping residents who have very little recourse safe at a minimum standard.
bizarre conspiracy theory about John McCain
Even more bizarre, I think it is not just a theory...
I think it's finally over for Ron Paul he received less votes in West Virginia then Huckabee and Huckabee is helping McCain. Maybe Ron Paul is the one with the dementia.
Heresy! He will be the nominee once the mother ship lands.
r4cl: There are hundreds of thousands of Huckabee supporters, evangelicals who will never ever vote for liberal fascist-socialist McCain.
r4cl: There are hundreds of thousands of Huckabee supporters, evangelicals who will never ever vote for liberal fascist-socialist McCain.
Isn't there an oxymoron somewhere in "liberal fascist-socialist?"
"There are hundreds of thousands of Huckabee supporters, evangelicals who will never ever vote for liberal fascist-socialist McCain."
To be honest, Huckabee supporters seem less likely to vote for Ron Paul than John McCain.
At least Huckabee and McCain share a philosophical goal that the government exists to provide everything for everyone, protect everyone from everything and regulate America to death.
They just disagree on whether to invoke God while doing so.
James Dobson on McCain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW4opGaLZ90
"Isn't there an oxymoron somewhere in "liberal fascist-socialist?""
At least one, probably two.
At least Huckabee and McCain share a philosophical goal that the government exists to provide everything for everyone, protect everyone from everything and regulate America to death.
IP has apparently converted to the "First Church of RON PAUL!" by assuming that any of the main candidate believe this.
"IP has apparently converted to the "First Church of RON PAUL!" by assuming that any of the main candidate believe this."
Nah. I'm exaggerating Huckabee and McCain's love for federal regulation to make a point - Huckabee has more in common with McCain than he does with Paul.
But it's only a slight exaggeration. :-)
"Isn't there an oxymoron somewhere in "liberal fascist-socialist?""
At least one, probably two.
Nothing mutually exclusive in that combination, my friends. As IP notes, it describes McCain to a T.
Liberalism - an ideology associated with support for a strong role of government in regulating capitalism and constructing the welfare state.
Fascism - an ideology that combines dictatorial government, militarism, control of the personal freedom, extreme nationalism, and government control of business.
Socialism - An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity.
Let see the evangelicals won't vote for McCain but they think Hillary maybe the devil and Obama is more Liberal then Hillary, some how I don't think they will have a problem with McCain. There will be no other choice and Ron Paul sure wouldn't have been a better alternative for evangelicals unless they have been smoking pot of course. Would it be better to turn the whole shoot ‘in match over to Pelosi, Reed and Obama they're the real example of people that love big Government? That would be much better then supporting the nominee of the party who most party regulars say they can support even though they do not agree with McCain on all the issues.
"Nothing mutually exclusive in that combination, my friends."
Well, sure, if you can just make up definitions willy nilly. Here are some from dictionary.com you might find helpful:
Fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
Liberalism: a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
For starters, liberalism simply can not survive under fascism. Also, fascism often retains private ownership of industry, while socialism does not. And those are just the superficial differences...
I had no idea that today's liberals were so interested in the freedom of the individual. I thought they wanted higher taxes. They certainly won't let you exercise your freedom to pump oil out of the ground or even have a toilet that can legally take care of things in one flush. Hmm, that sounds more like the dictionary definition of Fascism.
So I guess to go along with Kevin's admonition to not make up definitions, we shouldn't let people make up their own misleading labels either.
Well that certainly explains why Mussolini was elected as a member of the Italian Plumber's Party. In fact, wasn't Stalin's first order to mandate low-flow toilets? I guess that's why he shipped all the sanitation workers to the Poolaug.
Seriously, though, come on. Hysterically overreact much?
"I had no idea that today's liberals were so interested in the freedom of the individual."
They are and they aren't, just as it is with American conservatives.
Liberals support freedom of the individual on things like abortion where conservatives don't. Conservatives support freedom of the indivdual on things like taxes where liberals don't.
It's not like either philosophy is coherent, at least not how they're most commonly described in American politics.
"It's not like either philosophy is coherent, at least not how they're most commonly described in American politics."
Sadly, all too true. Hopefully, the one thing that remains consistent today for the majority of both American liberals and conservatives is an abiding interest in perfecting representative democracy, an attitude which places both of them at odds with the totalitarian and authoritarian extremes of fascism.
Of course these definitions are not made up Willy-Nilly. Willy and I are not even exchanging barbs through our attorneys, blogs or the media, let alone being on speaking terms.
Kevin has, of course, pulled out the definition of "classical liberalism" which is an ideology closely related to Libertarianism. I think that in the general definitions of left/right this one I quoted is more functionally accurate.
"liberalism." The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005. 15 May. 2008. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberalism>
"socialism." The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005. 15 May. 2008. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism>.
The definition of fascism was taken from the glossary at http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/a/c/ach13/Asia/Glossary.htm
"Kevin has, of course, pulled out the definition of "classical liberalism" which is an ideology closely related to Libertarianism. I think that in the general definitions of left/right this one I quoted is more functionally accurate."
Um, no, not "of course" at all. Actually we're both pointing to exactly the same web page. I used the very first definition of straight up liberalism from the top of the exact same page that you and I both cited. It's based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary. You cherry picked a single phrase out of a larger American Heritage Dictionary of Cultural Literacy reference that makes up the very last definition on that page. I should point out that the regular American Heritage Dictionary citiation from the middle of that same page is more in line with what I cited:
"A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority."
In any case, nearly all of the sources make the point that liberalism prefers democracy; fascism does not. I'd call that a fundamental difference. And in regards to "the general definitions of left/right," let's just say that you probably really don't want to go there, since fascism usually gets put on the extreme right end of that spectrum.
Personally, I think that particular conventional wisdom is a bit of a misnomer; fascism isn't really left or right so much as wrong. This is part of the confusion here, since we are really comparing apples and oranges and gorillas. Liberalism is a political philosophy. Socialism is an economic ideology. Fascism is a management model.
The three things have points of intersection in the real world, so that sometimes there might appear to be commonalities or similarities in isolated particulars, but at their core they are really three very different things. Eventually, there were no liberals left (at least publicly) in Nazi Germany, but there were still many individuals who held private ownership of factories and farms.
But, but, but ... a conservative wrote a book, so it must be true!
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
One of my absolutely favorite passages from Carroll, and one which I have used here at IP, as well. :-)
Post new comment