What presidential candidate would be most beneficial to the climbing community and land access?

youtu.be/r7e6gLht6OQ

Todd Graham wrote:Scott... you are a good man.

Thank you sir! If I can get out of life with that epitaph...I've done well.

Despite all our differences I love the engagement I'm seeing here, and in our communities.

I'm proud to be a part of this hooligan community!!

Traffic lights and Fixed Hardware Review Committees are tyranny.

J Q wrote:It is my dearest hope that we can: Ban the unions. Instate a flat tax. Reduce the Government to the size my left ball. Privatize healthcare. Get rid of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Get rid of Welfare. Reduce schools to factory's that create angry, mindless, and easily manipulable sheep. Get rid of the EPA and other regulatory agencies. Shit, let's privatize this whole shebang. That way, we can finally begin the revolution. It's gonna be like 1790 up in this bitch. I got a closet full of guns and ammunition, no children, plenty of shoe polish to rub on the face, and I watch the walking dead, so I am pretty sure I am gonna be alright. Freedom!!!! Plus, I get to quit the 9-5, boomshaka! Trump for Prez yo!

Voluntaryist response:

PATT

Todd Graham wrote:JQ.. YESSSSSS! FREEDOM!!!! Freedom to succeed .. freedom to fail ... freedom of speech ... freedom from government elites telling us how to live ... what to eat ... what cars to drive ... what homes we live in ....yesssss... freedom. And btw... I ain't a Trump fan. And .. imagine a flat tax. Our economy would explode!

Yea, and think of the growth in the private security sector, alone it would triple our GDP.

Scott ... me too! Hooligans unite!

Cpt. E wrote:PRRose wrote: "How can you write such tripe? Do you even understand that the United States was founded on slavery (blacks and Indians), genocide (Indians), and subjugation (women)?" so....what was the rest of the world's sprouting governments being founded upon at the time? wasn't slavery, genocide and subjugation all pretty much the s.o.p. throughout the world until an 'exception' to that norm came along? Just sayin'....

The U.S. was not only not exceptional, it was decades behind some European countries when it came to abolishing slavery. And, we had to fight a bloody civil war to accomplish it.

Quinn Baker wrote: I think people think that giving small states more power just because they are small is by definition unfair and that doesn't sit well with them, even if the system has good intentions (protect the smaller states form being overruled by larger states). So, the points you make are valid, but I don't think that matters to people opposed to the electoral college (and maybe by proxy the Senate). Personally, I think the system should work for what's best for the largest percentage of the population, regardless of where they live. Why should we pretend (for the sake of lawmaking) more people live where they don't, and less people live where they do? I think protecting less populous states is a great goal, but at the end of the day laws affect the people not areas of land. People need representation, land does not. This is why I don't really like non-proportional representation systems such as the current Senate. I don't necessarily believe that we should abolish it, but it definitely needs some tweaking.

You never read about the federalist papers or the constitutional convention?
But the difference between a national government and a federal government and factionalism are very very important concepts.

Human nature isn't 'antiquated' and I dare say that the founders had a better understanding of that than anyone who wants a democracy.

The structure of the federal government and the bicameral house and the electoral college, were written and ratified on a foundation of PREVENTING democracy, and the inevitable result of a majority faction.

Brian Scoggins wrote: And yet libertarians hold up that one greedy person as the one to emulate.

Please, tell us more about the beliefs and motivations of a ideal that you don't even agree with... I'm dying to hear more about it!
In all seriousness, Want to compare tax returns and THEN talk about who is selfish? I have a bet prepared for you if so, and I know several 501c3's who would be very happy to judge the bet & be the benificiary if you'd agree to make it.

PRRose wrote: Europe carries its own weight.

Yeas and no. We should get the F out of Europe and quit running our 'protection rackets' there.

Tony B wrote: You never read about the federalist papers or the constitutional convention? But the difference between a national government and a federal government and factionalism are very very important concepts. Human nature isn't 'antiquated' and I dare say that the founders had a better understanding of that than anyone who wants a democracy. The structure of the federal government and the bicameral house and the electoral college, were written and ratified on a foundation of PREVENTING democracy, and the inevitable result of a majority faction.

I have read some parts of the federalist papers, and learned about the constitutional convention. I was lucky in that I had a decent civics/history education (which I think is somewhat lacking in a lot of schools).

I think if our current system of government was supposed to prevent factionalism, and to limit federal government power, it has failed spectacularly. The current two-party system (brought on by the mathematics of our voting system, as explained in the video I posted previously) is factionalism to the extreme. And the federal government has more power than it ever has.

Also, I personally believe that the people have the right to govern themselves as they see fit (i.e. democracy), even if it isn't exactly what the founders wanted for the country at the time. But remember, they also realized that the world was going to change, and allowed the Constitution to change because of that. There are ideas that can help foster political diversity and create true representation in government that simply did not exist at the time the country was founded. If you refuse to even consider changing the system because you think the founders' ideals are infallible, then I think you're selling yourself short.

In 1776, we had to support 13 smallish states and 2.5 million people. Now? We have 50 states (and Puerto Rico) and over 300 million people. That is more than 120x the population. The system of government we have currently does not scale to the degree we need it to. Something has to change. We can create a better representative democracy. And personally, I think we must.

Mike Lane wrote: Slavery: State sanctioned and protected Indian genocide: performed by men with guns working for the State Subjugation: laws written by the State. Obvious answer? MORE FUCKING STATE!

Yeah, so we should privatize everything, cause we didn't have any of this under feudal rule, and because fair negotiation happens between private parties w/ disproportional power. States sanctioned those things b/c the ones in power wanted it, and states have also wholly granted such rights and more here & elsewhere.

Mike Lane wrote: Never mind the 250,000,000 killed in the 20th century alone by governments. And guess which one is leading the way in killing this century. But keep on voting for your rulers.

The Mongol empire arguably did far more impressive damage given the world population of the day. I don't remember anybody voting for Genghis Khan, not from any in his own rank that wasn't worried about the wrong vote turning his skull into a urinal, and definitely not from anyone in the countries he demolished.

Tony B wrote: Please, tell us more about the beliefs and motivations of a ideal that you don't even agree with...

ohhh the irony :)

Tony B wrote: Yeas and no. We should get the F out of Europe and quit running our 'protection rackets' there.

We have a national interest in there not being another major European war.

D B wrote: ohhh the irony :)

Fair enough as a funny line. You've been totally civil in the discussion, so I'll give you that one.

But I actually do assume that most people come by their political dispositions honestly - in that they believe that the best outcomes will be reached by the system they advocate. Studies do tend to show that, despite obvious exceptions.

I generally find it pretty distasteful that people suggest libertarians are selfish. I have that challenge about charitable giving that I offered. In more certain terms it works like this: We arrange for a few 501c3's treasurers, nominated by the 2 betting parties (I'd nominate Access Fund or Nature conservancy - nothing political) to review the 2 their tax returns and objectively say which party gave more or a higher percentage of their income to charity. The looser writes a check for $___ (I suggest $1000) to each of the charities who agreed to do the review. I'm flexible on that, if someone wants to count donated time in cash equivalent, but I am on the board of a 501c3 and am pretty active with 2 others... so advance warning on that. But I digress.

Likewise, I don't presume that every democrat wants to go on welfare, or that every Republican wants to bomb Lybia, etc...
The point was that I generally stay away from trying to tell people from opposing points of view what it is that is motivating them.

PRRose wrote: We have a national interest in there not being another major European war.

Yes, we do. But what is having bases over there going to do when those nuclear powers have one? We're going to stop that with a army base?
How an army base in Germany, France, England, etc... stops a war or does anything other than just drag us into it is beyond me.
Isn't NATO enough? Are our soldiers human shield deterrents more so than the H-bomb?

Although we generally disagree on many things, I'm interested, quite genuinely, to hear how you think that plays out. I haven't heard an articulation of why we need a base in a nuclear power that is in NATO from anyone other than a 'hawk' or Lockheed Martin/Honeywell/General Dynamics. Particularly as I have the impression that you lean to the left, I'm very interested.

Quinn Baker wrote: I think if our current system of government was supposed to prevent factionalism, and to limit federal government power, it has failed spectacularly. The current two-party system (brought on by the mathematics of our voting system, as explained in the video I posted previously) is factionalism to the extreme. And the federal government has more power than it ever has.

Totally agreed on the problem. (But not the cause/solution, apparently)
And I was going to respond that the latter there is cause of the former. The Nationalization of the laws is what caused a majority faction to become possible. In other words, the increase in the size and scope of the Federal government has caused effectively a National Government, and given birth to precisely those problems. We've thrown out the 9th and 10th amendments.
I doubt that progressing further into that direction is the solution.

Quinn Baker wrote: Also, I personally believe that the people have the right to govern themselves as they see fit (i.e. democracy), even if it isn't exactly what the founders wanted for the country at the time. But remember, they also realized that the world was going to change, and allowed the Constitution to change because of that.

Yes, by amendment, and that is supposed to be hard to do. But mostly we just ignore or twist it, as a people/government. I have never said that the document should not be changed by amendment, I've just said we shouldn't just re-interpret it. Now, as for the changes that we make - on that there will always be debate, so it is to stay as it is unless voted on by a strong majority, signed, and ratified...

Quinn Baker wrote: There are ideas that can help foster political diversity and create true representation in government that simply did not exist at the time the country was founded. If you refuse to even consider changing the system because you think the founders' ideals are infallible, then I think you're selling yourself short. In 1776, we had to support 13 smallish states and 2.5 million people. Now? We have 50 states (and Puerto Rico) and over 300 million people. That is more than 120x the population. The system of government we have currently does not scale to the degree we need it to. Something has to change. We can create a better representative democracy. And personally, I think we must.

Sure we could create a better representative democracy. But that's a major overhaul.
We don't live in a Democracy at all, and we are not supposed to. By charter, we live in a Constitutionally Limited Republic (also, a Federation of States).
And in my view, that representative part of hte government and diversity gets whitwashed over every time you nationalize something. The Senate, the electoral college, and the reservation of rights and powers to the states was meant entirely to insure just that. But the growing national government (used to be pretty federal, but that's just a name these days in many ways) has swallowed up that representation. IE: Senators who hold seats in states that they never lived in who were funded by money from yet other 3rd states...

Tony B wrote: Totally agreed on the problem. (But not the cause/solution, apparently) And I was going to respond that the latter there is cause of the former. The Nationalization of the laws is what caused a majority faction to become possible. In other words, the increase in the size and scope of the Federal government has caused effectively a National Government, and given birth to precisely those problems. We've thrown out the 9th and 10th amendments. I doubt that progressing further into that direction is the solution. Yes, by amendment, and that is supposed to be hard to do. But mostly we just ignore or twist it, as a people/government. I have never said that the document should not be changed by amendment, I've just said we shouldn't just re-interpret it. Now, as for the changes that we make - on that there will always be debate, so it is to stay as it is unless voted on by a strong majority, signed, and ratified... Sure we could create a better representative democracy. But that's a major overhaul. We don't live in a Democracy at all, and we are not supposed to. By charter, we live in a Constitutionally Limited Republic (also, a Federation of States). And in my view, that representative part of hte government and diversity gets whitwashed over every time you nationalize something. The Senate, the electoral college, and the reservation of rights and powers to the states was meant entirely to insure just that. But the growing national government (used to be pretty federal, but that's just a name these days in many ways) has swallowed up that representation. IE: Senators who hold seats in states that they never lived in who were funded by money from yet other 3rd states...

If, in your eyes, the problem is mainly to blame on the national government controlling everything (in contrast to state power, I'm assuming?), how would you feel about a system similar to the European Union, but for the States? Each state effectively becomes its own country, governed by itself. But for the purposes of international relations (and to prevent conflicts between the states), we are treated as one country. This is just a thought experiment, and not something I think is truly viable or possible. That said, do you think a system like that would be preferable to what we have now?

JFK today would be booed off the stage at the Dem National Convention, and called a purveyor of hate speech on almost all college campuses. Just sad.

JFK: The ever expanding power of the federal government, the absorption of many of the functions that states and cities once considered to be responsibilities of their own, must now be a source of concern to all those who believe as did the great patriot, Henry Grattan that: “Control over local affairs is the essence of liberty.” Commencement Address, University of Notre Dame, January 29, 1950

JFK: We want prosperity and in a free enterprise system there can be no prosperity without profit. We want a growing economy and there can be no growth without the investment that is inspired and financed by profit. We want to maintain our natural security and other essential programs and we will have little revenue to finance them unless there is profit. We want to improve our balance of payments without reducing our commitments abroad, and we cannot increase our export surplus, which we must, without modernizing our plants through profit…In short, our primary challenge is not how to divide the economic pie, but how to enlarge it. Address Before the United States Chamber of Commerce on Its 50th Anniversary, April 30, 1962

JFK: This administration intends to cut taxes in order to build the fundamental strength of our economy, to remove a serious barrier to long-term growth, to increase incentives by routing out inequities and complexities and to prevent the even greater budget deficit that a lagging economy would otherwise surely produce. The worst deficit comes from a recession, and if we can take the proper action in the proper time, this can be the most important step we could take to prevent another recession. That is the right kind of tax cut both for your family budget and the national budget…Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy. Radio and Television Report to the American People on the State of the National Economy, August 13, 1962

MLK would be called a bigot and a hater today with talk like this:

MLK: I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."I have a Dream," Speech at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., August 28, 1963.

MLK: We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. "Letter from the Birmingham Jail,"April 1963

MLK: One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters they were in reality standing up for the best in the American dream and the most sacred values in our Judaeo-Christian heritage, and thusly, carrying our whole nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in the formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," April 1963

Quinn Baker wrote: how would you feel about a system similar to the European Union, but for the States? Each state effectively becomes its own country, governed by itself. But for the purposes of international relations (and to prevent conflicts between the states), we are treated as one country. This is just a thought experiment, and not something I think is truly viable or possible.

:)

The enumerated powers are a list of items found in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that set forth the authority of Congress.

In summary, Congress may exercise the powers that the Constitution grants it, subject to the individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights. Moreover, the Constitution expresses various other limitations on Congress, such as the one expressed by the Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Todd,

I have no idea why you think people would call any of that hate speech, but as far as him lowering taxes, the marginal tax brackets when JFK took office were the highest they've ever been. 20% at 0$ up to 90% over $400k ($3.2 mil in 2016 dollars).

Bernie's highest bracket, on the other hand, is 52% for income over $10 mil.