Any thoughts on the Congressional elections?

I like Lawson for representing the 4th district.

http://www.lawsonforcongress.com/

Here is a list of his stances on issues:

* End waste from un-Constitutional spending
* Stop corporate welfare and protectionist regulations written by lobbyists, so we can create our own businesses and jobs
* Stop taking so much wealth to Washington, so our state and local governments can better meet our needs
* Secure the border and end economic incentives for illegal immigration
* Restore accessible healthcare, restore the doctor-patient relationship
* Defend national security
* Support free trade, and oppose managed trade by special interests
* Stop the looting of Social Security
* Protect the environment by protecting private property rights and ending corporate welfare
* Protect our privacy and civil liberties
* Protect the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

4/21/2008 2:09:14 AM

The howlers in this far-left echo chamber will be arriving soon, I'm sure. BTW, at the very least, you will likely be questioned as to whether this next-to-last item above. . .

Quote :

"Protect our privacy and civil liberties"

. . .includes the liberty to have an abortion. FYI--be prepared.

4/21/2008 2:33:30 AM

TWW is to the right of most other internet boards.

Which is not surprising considering how right-leaning NCSU is for a college.

4/21/2008 2:40:47 AM

^ Ah, here's one now--right on cue.

4/21/2008 2:41:30 AM

Lawson personally believes in the "right to life". On his website he states,

"As a physician, I believe that unborn children deserve the same medical care and legal protection as those outside the womb. I support H.R. 1094 (Sanctity of Life Act of 2007), which defines life as beginning at conception."

I do not agree with him on this point but, on the same note, the abortion issue isn't really one that sways my vote. The precedent set by Roe vs. Wade isn't going anywhere.

4/21/2008 2:43:03 AM

Unfortunately one of our dumbest posters in TSB, and biggest trolls, Hooksaw, has crapped on your thread. You'd be wise to ignore his senile rantings.

4/21/2008 2:44:11 AM

^^ That's what I thought. I'm pro-choice, but that's not my top issue or a make-or-break issue for me--it is for some, though.

^ As usual, you have nothing to offer except bile. Fly back to your stinking hole, you fucking moonbat.

4/21/2008 2:48:51 AM

I think his most important stance for me is supporting free trade, and opposing managed trade by special interests.

4/21/2008 2:55:23 AM

^^^ he's not the one crapping on the thread (for example, by engaging in personal attacks with no substance whatsoever).

4/21/2008 3:04:11 AM

^

Quote :

" howlers in this far-left echo chamber"

is pretty blatant trolling, especially for the first post in a n00b's thread.

4/21/2008 3:47:20 AM

no, it's not simply trolling. hooksaw isn't really much of a troll, anyway (The_Judge was a troll). I'm not saying he doesn't say some silly shit, but that doesn't make him a troll.

i've said before, being an asshole is fine. you don't have to engage in polite discourse. you just can't shit talk people without making any sort of argument or contributing anything to the political discussion.

4/21/2008 3:57:44 AM

^I disagree. Just because he has an opinion doesn't make him any less of a troll. He's a political troll who baits others into stupid arguments and then proceeds to talk shit when his arguments fail.

4/21/2008 4:51:37 AM

^ let's not get into the business of policing away bad arguments and opinions. There would only be about a half dozen of us left.

Ok, maybe like 10.

Quote :

"^ Ah, here's one now--right on cue."

It has been brought to my attention that this is no better than what moron posted, and worse, this kinda "started it". both of you consider yourselves warned, and for the love of God, can we now discuss the topic at hand?

4/21/2008 5:02:29 AM

Quote :

"I think his most important stance for me is supporting free trade, and opposing managed trade by special interests."

yeah me too. Our wack trading is a source of a lot of our problems

4/21/2008 8:42:55 AM

I generally take issue with anyone who is 'pro-life' and touts less government control and personal and civil liberties at the same time.

4/21/2008 8:50:58 AM

^ I think the people that do that believe they are protecting the rights of those about to be born. They equate abortion with murder, etc

4/21/2008 9:00:37 AM

Quote :

"I think the people that do that believe they are protecting the rights of those about to be born. They equate abortion with murder, etc"

At the same time they have no problem with those children being born into poverty, bitch about their parents getting welfare, and eventually want to throw them into jail.

4/21/2008 9:55:14 AM

BJ Lawson is running against Augustus Cho to decide who gets to go up against David Price in the fall.

Lawson is basically a Ron Paul republican. Excellent on the issues but lacking much charisma in my opinion.

Cho is pretty much an old-school republican. Pro-Iraq war, pro-drug war, Pro-patriot act etc.

While I don't agree with alot of Cho's positions, he is a much more dynamic candidate. He can give an impassioned speech and exudes alot of energy. A welcome change from the weak mumblings of rep. Price.

If we could transfer Cho's charisma into Lawson, we'd have a terrific libertarian-leaning solution to the 4th district's election.

Granted, state legislators have carved up the 4th district to be Price's private fiefdom for life, but I think we could pry him out of there with a little luck.

4/21/2008 10:34:40 AM

Rep. David Price is not going anywhere.

Quote :

"* Protect the environment by protecting private property rights and ending corporate welfare"

How does this protect the environment?

[Edited on April 21, 2008 at 11:06 AM. Reason : .]

4/21/2008 10:57:07 AM

Quote :

"I generally take issue with anyone who is 'pro-life' and touts less government control and personal and civil liberties at the same time. "

i'm personally kind of a centrist on that issue, but what you're describing is not an ideological conflict in the least.

4/21/2008 1:08:38 PM

i guess he could sub "same sex civil unions" in there instead

4/21/2008 1:24:58 PM

yeah, that would be a better fit.

4/21/2008 1:41:46 PM

Quote :

"At the same time they have no problem with those children being born into poverty, bitch about their parents getting welfare, and eventually want to throw them into jail."

yeah, I dont disagree although Im sure this isnt everyone that is opposed to abortion. Its important to note that some people (who also oppose abortion) may not approve of welfare because the size and power it can give the government over people. These people would rather keep their taxes that they pay so that they could give more money to charity instead of the government.

Quote :

"How does this protect the environment?"

some people would maintain that government regulations have small holes in them where companies can still continue to pollute and still be legal. The regulations are the bare minimum (not everyone believes that though). Lets face it, large companies that pollute have a lot of say in our government and of course they dont want any regulations that make them go out of their way. With property rights, if you infringe on my property, then we are going to court and you are going to make it right again, a bigger incentive to not pollute (probably more expensive than fines) As far as air and water go im not sure how it works
I know several environmentalists that used to work with my parents that were huge libertarians, Im still trying to wrap my mind around that part of their beliefs

4/21/2008 1:54:16 PM

Nutsmakr, if you would like to know how private property protection can save the environment I good place to start your research is the "tragedy of the commons". We observe that when land, rivers, etc (the environment) is privately owned that the resulting effect is positive. There are many good examples that have showed this to be true over the years. Consider what the differences would be between the upkeep and overall beauty of a national park that is "publicly owned" via the government compared to one that is privately owned. It turns out that the privately owned park is cleaner, more convenient and overall better in quality to those who patron them. This is naturally because the private owner has a stake in the upkeep, quality and experience of the park goer. He has an incentive to make the park as nice as possible so you will come and spend money. In other words, you benefit because of the nicer park, he benefits because he has more money and the environment is better off for it.

4/21/2008 5:37:46 PM

Quote :

""* Protect the environment by protecting private property rights and ending corporate welfare" How does this protect the environment?"

I'm fairly sure your question pertains to the former half, rather than the latter of this statement. (Because if it doesn't, then we have problems.)

Others have pointed it out above, but issues like tragedy of the commons and regulatory capture profoundly influence polluters' ability to pollute. When no one person owns a resource, the externalities of pollution can be dumped on the commons to deal with. Whereas individual property owners have a significant stake in protecting their own property rights.

To put it another way, governments are inherently going to be in a conflict-of-interest situation when faced with regulating large industries. Not just from the standard corruption angle (although anyone will say this plays a part), but because they have a vested interest in keeping popular with their constituents. Which means that any regulations which have an adversely negative economic impact upon their constituents will be fought tooth and nail.

To put this to an example - think of how the Michigan Congressional delegation - Democrats, mind you - fought pretty hard against more stringent CAFE standards. I'm pretty sure you can guess the reason.

4/21/2008 6:25:46 PM

Whenever talk of restoring property rights in respect to the environment is brought up, it means a removal of environmental regulations. After further reading the website, it becomes even more muddled.

4/21/2008 7:44:42 PM

I don't think it's fair to make the statement "the removal of environmental regulations" as if such should (or would) occur in a vacuum. Sure, there are plenty of Republicans who make that pitch on the grounds of helping business interests, but there are plenty of other folks out there who are trying to come up with an alternative approach which rests in greater control on the behalf of property owners being able to enforce liability.

In short - my property rights forbid you from dumping toxic waste on my lawn. But what happens when "environmental regulations" tell you it's okay to do so, so long as you only do it "a little?"

4/21/2008 9:01:04 PM

I don't like in the same district as any of you anymore, but my representative is one of the coolest in the South. I hear he wants to legalize medicinal marijuana, supports a full platform of civil rights, liberties, and welfare, and was good friends with Warren Zevon. Still, NC deserves good representatives.

Quote :

"* Restore accessible healthcare, restore the doctor-patient relationship * Protect the environment by protecting private property rights and ending corporate welfare"

1. What sort of healthcare is he promising to "restore" here? This is something you don't hear thrown out. When was healthcare more accessible in his opinion?

2. I see widespread environmental protection not being a property rights issue. People who take care of private property by being good stewards (we hope they all would be, but rational actors most people are not) are great, but how is that a solution to the bigger problems (unless we're under the assumption that climate change is fake/not a problem).

3. How will ending subsidies, I'm guessing to polluting industries, curb pollution?

4/21/2008 10:43:47 PM

1. His website lists these reforms to healthcare:
"As your Congressman, I will work to:

* Make healthcare benefits equally accessible to you outside of employment
* Eliminate all taxes on savings for healthcare expenses without arbitrary restrictions on contribution limits
* Free the market for health insurance, so people can buy as much, or as little, coverage as they need"
2.If you are interested in environmental economics regarding private property google the concepts in my previous post. Remember economic thinking is about "seeing what is seen AND seeing what is not seen"(Bastiat)
3.Subsidies reduce competition among firms. Polluting is not exactly the most competitive behavior.

4/21/2008 10:58:14 PM

Quote :

"but how is that a solution to the bigger problems (unless we're under the assumption that climate change is fake/not a problem)."

Carbon has to be one of the biggest commons problems out there, for one. It's costless to emit carbon.

I'm not saying there's a bright-line property rights solution to this particular uncaptured externality, but let's face it - this is a textbook commons problem we're looking at.

Quote :

"3. How will ending subsidies, I'm guessing to polluting industries, curb pollution?"

By creating a more level playing field for other entrants into the market, for one. Not to mention that yes, we are in fact directly subsidizing industries that pollute, both indirectly and directly (see, the energy bill.)

4/21/2008 11:04:48 PM

Quote :

"By creating a more level playing field for other entrants into the market, for one."

yes, this is an obvious outcome of eliminating susidies. how does allowing more entrants into the market for agribusiness/power/etc. reduce carbon emissions without some sort of regulation, which I'm guessing he's against. This would likely be the outcome w/o regulation by eliminating subsidies to agribusinesses, yes, as most new entrants would likely use less machinery and would be smaller farms. in the case of other factories, how do you drop carbon emissions if its 5 small factories instead of one big one without doing something to encourage cleanliness over efficiency? government will have to play some sort of guiding roll unless every one is completely rational with regards to the environment, and history has shown us this is hardly ever a certainty.

Quote :

"Make healthcare benefits equally accessible to you outside of employment * Eliminate all taxes on savings for healthcare expenses without arbitrary restrictions on contribution limits * Free the market for health insurance, so people can buy as much, or as little, coverage as they need"

The first part obviously refers to the health savings account ideas, which could work, I don't know a whole lot about them. What does he mean by "free the market for health insurance"? Tort reform? This is just a catchphrase without more explanation.

Quote :

"2.If you are interested in environmental economics regarding private property google the concepts in my previous post. Remember economic thinking is about "seeing what is seen AND seeing what is not seen"(Bastiat)"

There's a lot more to the economics of the environment than fundamentalist perspectives on rational actors and private property, or platitudes. Regulation is the only guaranteed way to reduce emissions, and thankfully most politicians and respected economists are trying to think of the most efficient and cost-effective methods or doing so, and they're largely coming up with some decent prospects (cap and trade, carbon tax, etc).

Quote :

"3.Subsidies reduce competition among firms. Polluting is not exactly the most competitive behavior."

If you want to harvest more crops faster, it is. If you want to obtain more coal more easily, it is. Coal-fired power, at this time, is much more efficiently produced than other sources of power. This has irrefutably been the case in both industries. There are basic theories of subsidization of industries based on preferential treatment, and in many cases their effects are negative, this is very true. However, to say that the most efficient, cheapest methods are somehow the least polluting? This works when public knowledge is high perhaps and drives people away from bad stewards of the earth. Is this the case when these foods are cheaper and these energy sources are currently cheaper and more efficient to operate? What is the case at this point in the real world?

4/24/2008 1:01:07 AM