Braineack - excellent point. I wonder if the higher taxes/regulations/unions are, in fact, causing the colder climate? Or, thought of another way, since the majority of state governors are now Republican, are they actually causing the average temperature to increase in their states in order to make them more desireable to businesses and families that prefer not to be murdered? :idea:

After all, using Laffer and Moore's logic, if A follows B then A must cause B.

It would be pretty interesting to compare the "social" vs regulatory freedoms. I sometimes forget that stores around here cannot sell alcohol before noon on Sunday.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1364847704

That's the general idea I'm trying to convey, though I have a hard time drawing absolute distinctions.

It seems to me that we tend to use firearms laws as a proxy for freedom in general, under the assumption that gun ownership is somehow directly related to freedom and happiness.

In my personal experience, those states with the most permissive firearms laws tend to be the very same which attempt most heavily to regulate my morality and personal freedoms. That would cover everything from alcohol and marijuana laws to gay marriage, all the way down to simple everyday shit like whether or not the local law enforcement agencies tend to be highly predatory with regard to exceedingly minor offenses such as speeding and other nuisance laws.

Unless you have data to back up that bolded portion I call bullshit. I imagine that reality is that in general red states fall in the norm here. However, there may be a correlation between population density and this behavior and considering most metropolitan areas are blue and most rural areas are red I can see where you might confuse the two.

I do agree with your overall premise though which has a lot more to do with the religious republican base than anything else. I view it the same way I view the liberal position on school choice and overly intrusive governement expansion. Both sides exhibit a certain level of hypocrisy.

The principal source of data I cite is my own personal experience, having grown up in Florida, having lived for several years in southern Ohio and for many more years in southern California, and having spent large amounts of time working in New York (both upstate and the city), Texas, Illinois, Massachusetts, Colorado, and many other places.

I'm sure I don't have to point out to someone as intelligent as yourself the logical fallacy here.

Your personal experience is probably out of the norm of the whole.

In what way?

On the whole, "red" states are much more likely than "blue" states to have laws and ordinances on the books, or popular movements in favor of such laws and ordinances, which restrict:

• Alcohol purchase and consumption
• Marijuana production, possession and consumption
• Access to reproductive care, including abortion
• Equal access to marriage and related institutions for homosexuals

And by comparison, "blue" states are much more likely than "red" states to be restrictive of:

• Gun ownership, including concealed carry

So, as a broad generalization, "red" states want to limit my own rights with regard to the conduct of my own life and affairs, whereas blue states want merely to limit my ability to infringe upon the rights of others.

From what I can recall of Jr. High civics class, the "blue" model is a lot closer to the ideal underlying purpose of having a government.


On the whole, governments tend to enact policy which reflect the values and attitudes of their citizens. This works because We The People elect the politicians who enact these policies, and also directly vote on Propositions to change the law. That's not a naive and idealistic point of view, it's the way representative democracy works.

Yeah, I went to school in Gainesville, and I remember that sign.

For those who don't know, the town of Waldo (in north-central FL) is especially nefarious in enforcing completely arbitrary speed limits, principally as a revenue-generating model. Imagine Boss Hogg from the Dukes of Hazzard. Local groups of private citizens actually pay money to erect those signs as a sort of protest.

That place is an excellent proxy for everything that is bad and wrong with small-town law enforcement in the rurual southeast.

This is why I hate political correctness:

Report: Lego To Stop Production Of ‘Star Wars’ Set Due To Anti-Muslim Backlash « CBS Connecticut


related:



Host: beheading is a little extreme
Sharia Guy: then you think our religion is extreme and youre against islam.
What Host should of said: Yes.

I agree with you on this premise and all but one of those is directly related to religious views held by the republican base as I acknowledged. I do not agree with these types of laws and I understand your point.

I was referring to your comment about enforcement of small time traffic offenses and other ordinances in terms of your personal experience being out of the norm.

I think your making a stretch here claiming that banning gun ownership/concealed carry is any less of an infringment on "my own rights with regard to the conduct of my own life and affairs" than any of the conservative laws you posted.

Banning murder, burglary, and battery would be "limiting my ability to infringe upon the rights of others".

Banning guns or the ability to concealed carry in order to prevent crime is the same argument as me saying I am banning marijuana because it is a gateway drug and it also leads to an increase in petty crime. You are banning an action you believe will lead to the behavior you are actually trying to prevent.

All of these laws are bullshit if you are really for personal freedom and accountability.

This REALLY depends upon your definition of the "ideal underlying purpose of having a government." It does not suprise me that you would be left with that impression from a classroom experience which tend to be dominated by liberal political undertones (even in the red south), especially at the university level.

Not really sure where the conversation went in this direction but yes this is correct. It is, however, also the responsibility of the governement to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

This is also why I specifically differentiated between law enforcement with respect to population density and political beliefs in the area. This type of behavior has a lot more to do with a need to generate revenue and a lot less to do with the political views.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1364921457

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1364921457

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1364921457

http://thelookingspoon.com/images/bl...rg_slavery.jpg

http://thelookingspoon.com/images/bl..._in_office.jpg


This one is for Joe:
http://thelookingspoon.com/images/bl...er_planets.jpg

this one deserved its own post:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1364921661

I don't necessarily agree with the sort of restrictions on gun ownership and carriage which many states enforce, nor do I believe that these restrictions will be any more effective in preventing violent crimes than the laws which outlaw the crimes themselves.

What I do see is a vast difference in the TONE and INTENT of the various laws which I have discussed above. In other words, de-construct the law and look for the subtext.

In general, "red state" policies tend to give the impression that they are designed to regulate individual morality. Laws which govern when and if I may purchase alcohol and marijuana, what reproductive controls are available to women, etc., may have some secondary effect on society as a whole, but their primary effect is on the individual. These laws, by and large, stem from a Puritanical philosophy grounded in Calvanist / Lutheran-style Christianity. I find them comparable to laws which require that a public school biology class teach the Genesis creationist account as an alternative to Darwinian evolution as an explanation for the development of life on Earth.


By contrast, "blue state" regulations, by and large, seem to be aimed at protecting the safety and security of society as a whole. In doing so they may infringe, to some degree or another, on individual rights. However their primary focus in doing so is to serve a greater good. So, again, regulations on gun ownership (whether they are effective or not) have the INTENT of protecting society from harm, and infringe upon individual liberties only as a necessary evil to achieve that aim.



Well, allow me to give a very simplistic definition of the ideal role of government (any government), and you can tell me where I'm wrong.

• First, to protect the physical security of its citizens and their property, both from foreign armies and from crime.
  
• Second, to protect the liberty of its citizens, by limiting the power of its own laws and armies, and by providing a system of courts to act as a check on the power of the government.
  
• Third, to ensure the freedom of domestic commerce, by establishing and maintaining a stable monetary system.
  
• Fourth, to establish and maintain relations with foreign governments, to provide for means of fair trade and to form military alliances which are mutually beneficial against aggressors (strength in numbers.)

Now, I know that Jason will strongly disagree with me on point 3. But points 1 and 2 pretty well summarize the key idea which I am attempting to convey. The principal duty of the government shall be to protect us from others, not to protect us from ourselves.

I often discuss with friends topics like the opinion of the caller in the video and wonder if shit like this will ever go away. What the frak is wrong with people o_O

First, red state laws that are anti-abortion, anti-marijuana, etc. are also trying to protect society as a whole a promote the greater good. The ideas are just grounded in religion and how certain behaviors effect the fabric of a society. To be fair, I can completely respect anti-abortion laws even if I do not agree with them because if you believe a fetus is a person then an abortion is murder and there is absolutely no way to argue otherwise.

You also cherry picked gun laws from blue state laws to encompass the entire rationale of blue state laws. What if we consider blue state laws that ban school choice, ban soda in too large of a container, or force you to join unions and pay dues? I fail to see how these meet your blue state criteria of protecting me from others.

Both sides do it with "good intentions" and neither is better than the other. You can use whatever logic you would like to justify blue state laws but its all bullshit. Just about the only reason I allign myself with Republicans over Democrats is because I believe that fiscal policy is way more important than socal (EDIT: social* but socal seems to fit just fine too) issues and democrats don't know how to make rationale allocations of funding.

I will agree to all four of those points. Particularly #2. This is where my big problem with blue state laws lies. While both parties infrige on personal freedoms democrats choose to infringe on much more important freedomslike my ability to adequately defend myself and my family.

Red state,"You can't by alcohol before noon on Sunday or smoke pot. You also cannot kill what we believe to be a person (who therefore possesses all of the same rights as any other individual) even if you created it." I may not agree with these laws but honestly, no big deal my life will not be effected greatly by these things.

Blue State, "You cannot own/carry a weapon in order to protect yourself and your family from others, if you work in this industry you will have to join a union that will dock your pay and may eventually drive your company out of business, and we will not support an education system for your children that has been proven over and over to be superior to our current system because they will not succeed control to the unions that destroyed the other system." All of these things will greatly impact my life and the life of my children.

There are actually some reasonable points made in the press release cited about clarifying rules, reforming the potentially silly litigious aspect of representation and warranty laws and using some degree of subjective understanding of the borrower if they have a good credit history and income but happen to have missed one payment somewhere in the past few years.


That said, in all the discussion of trying to make home ownership more accessible to younger, lower and middle income buyers, there is one point I rarely see made: The goal of having home prices "reinflate" ends up pricing people out of the market.

In January 1963, the median sales price of a new home in the US was $17,200. In January 2011, the median sales price of a new home in the US was $240,100.

In 1963, the median income of all families was $6,200. That means the median new home sales price was about 2.77 times the median income. In 2011, the median income of all families was $50,054. That means the median new home sales price was about 4.80 times the median income.


I'm not sure how significant a difference that is, but for a family making $50k, trying to save $48k to put 20% down on that median new home seems pretty damn daunting.


Sources:
http://www.census.gov/const/uspricemon.pdf
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-043.pdf
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/relea.../cb12-172.html

well, we may not be back to 1960 median sales price of new homes, but we are back to the 1960s poverty levels!

U.S. sees highest poverty spike since the 1960s, leaving 50 million Americans poor as government cuts billions in spending

Help shrinks as poverty spikes in the US

In U.S., Child Poverty and Hunger Rates Remain Alarmingly High

This is why most people do not put down 20% on a house purchase in today's market. Lenders still like to see it but it is really not the norm.

In 2010 the average downpayment was 5%.

Right. FHA minimum is 3.5% on many loans. I think that's a problem and it seems rooted in the ideas that (A) home prices don't go down and/or (B) negative equity doesn't bother anyone combined with (C) ever-increasing home prices are a good thing.


Consider that in most retail brokerage accounts, a sophisticated investor can have no less than 50% equity. That is, they can have a leverage ratio of 2:1. If you buy a house at FMV with 20% down, you have a leverage ratio of 5:1. If you buy a house at FMV with 3.5% down, you have a leverage ratio of 29:1.

That's Lehman Brothers level of leverage taken on by Bill the carpenter and his lovely wife, Susie homemaker. I'm not sure that's a good thing.