Battra92 Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 They would be turning a profit if Congress weren't using them as a piggy bank, making them pre-pay 75 years worth of retirement benefits. They were turning a profit until that law was passed. Oh, believe me I agree! I think the biggest failure of the post office is needing to run as a business and then forbidden to run like a business by Congress. And for anyone who wonders why I am okay with the Post Office despite being it being a Federal program well ... Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To ... establish Post Offices and post Roads ... " That and it never took tax money outside of fees for services used by the general public (the Post office is accessible to all people and does not take from one group to give to another) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 Is the criteria for whether something is good or not really as simple as "It's in the constitution"? O_o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) Is the criteria for whether something is good or not really as simple as "It's in the constitution"? O_o It's easier than thinking about the issue! It also is nice and parallel to the unthinking belief in the Bible or Torah or Koran. You know, fanatic adherence to a document. Appeals to an empty authority, at least vis a vis policy debates. I wonder if battra is okay with slavery, or whether he was just okay with it until the Constitution was magically amended to outlaw it. If we're speaking what's *permissible* rather than what *should* be, then an appeal to the constitution fully makes sense. But that's legal argumentation. For example, I believe that personal ownership of a wide variety of firearms is permissible because of the Constitution. I do not think such a policy *ought* to exist, however. I also acknowledge that America loves its guns and its fantasies of righteous violence, so I spend my advocacy efforts in more fruitful areas than trying to defeat or amend the Second Amendment. Edited March 20, 2012 by Mr. GOH! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 I'm guessing battra was coming at it from the perspective that the constitution was designed to limit the power of the federal government, but if it explicitly gives the federal government a power then it's fine for the them to execute that power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 I think he's trying to make the point that there are plenty of government programs that have been created without any kind of constitutional basis. Yes, it's a legal argument and no it doesn't speak to whether or not that program is "good" or "bad" but it should be the basis for any discussion on a new program. Is the program even constitutional? If not then it shouldn't even exist legally unless you want to amend the constitution. That's the big argument over the health care law right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 Only he is not making an argument for why it is legal, he is making an argument for why he is personally ok with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 But if your primary opposition to most government programs is "it's illegal" then something that's unambiguously legal wouldn't bother you. Re: the healthcare law, I think it's probably way outside the bounds of what the Commerce Clause was ever intended to mean, but that it's within the Commerce Clause as it's been interpreted by the courts over the centuries. If I were the USSC deciding the issue with a completely blank legal history, then I would say no fucking way is that legal, but if I were the USSC deciding the issue with legal precedent as it exists now (or as I'm aware of it existing, I haven't exactly done huge amounts of research into this issue) then I'd say it's legal. So then from a legal standpoint the question comes down not so much to political alignment as to your theory of constitutional interpretation (though often that lines up with politics fairly well). If you're primarily concerned with the intent of the framers then you're probably going to say that this law is illegal, if you're primarily concerned with established precedent then you could go either way (I'd say it's legal, but it does involve some inferential leaps that not everyone might be willing to make), and then if you look on the constitution as a fully living document then you could also go either way depending on lots of things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 Yeah, I'm more opposed to the health care bill because I think it makes medical care more expensive, it costs way too much and it's going to have a negative effect on the actual quality of care and the economy. I also find it amusing that judicial review is not an explicit power granted by the constitution but no court is ever going to rule that it does not have power to rule that it's unconstitutional to rule something unconstitutional. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 lol, yeah. Though I do agree with the theory behind judicial review: judiciary has to decide how the law applies to the facts, which necessarily means first determining what the law is, higher laws overriding lower laws, the constitution being the highest law of all. It's kind of implied in the whole concept of a judiciary. So just like how if a state law says a city can't do X, and a city does X anyway, and a judge can't enforce the city ordinance because they didn't have the power to make it, a judge also can't enforce a law that the constitution forbade them from making. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 I'm guessing battra was coming at it from the perspective that the constitution was designed to limit the power of the federal government, but if it explicitly gives the federal government a power then it's fine for the them to execute that power. Good to know someone can read! My point of recognizing the Constitution was to deter the inevitable "Oh you hate big government! Why are you okay with the Post Office??!!" comments that some people would've tossed out. Damned if you do; damned if you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 I'm guessing battra was coming at it from the perspective that the constitution was designed to limit the power of the federal government, but if it explicitly gives the federal government a power then it's fine for the them to execute that power. Good to know someone can read! My point of recognizing the Constitution was to deter the inevitable "Oh you hate big government! Why are you okay with the Post Office??!!" comments that some people would've tossed out. Damned if you do; damned if you don't. But is your only reason for being ok with the post office because it is in the constitution? If the post office wasn't in the constitution, would you oppose it being added? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 http://boingboing.net/2012/03/19/liberating-americas-secret.html Errrrmmmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 Like I said on twitter, I think that's kind of making mountains out of mole hills. The regulations it's talking about are technical standards for products, not laws that govern the average citizen's actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted March 21, 2012 Report Share Posted March 21, 2012 My understanding is they're part of the laws. And while your average citizen isn't going to be building homes or what not, there will be some that are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 21, 2012 Report Share Posted March 21, 2012 Well they're part of the laws in that the law says "materials used to make bicycle helmets must meet SAE standard blah blah blah" and then the SAE charges a fee for the book. AFAIK municipal building codes are freely available, though I've never actually tried to look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted March 21, 2012 Report Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) I think worrying about what men dead 200 years intended and letting that determine how laws should be read and applied is one of the silliest activities anyone's every proposed. Then again, it's also pretty frightening if laws can be reinterpreted at will. Good thing that legislatures and the people can override the courts. Battra; you wouldn't be damned either way if your stances were logically consistent. I mean, if you're against big government, why does it matter if it's constitutionally permissible or not? It could be bad *and* allowed. What are the reasons, independent from legality, that you're okay with the Post Office? I assume that legality is a necessary condition but not a sufficient reason that the government should act/make agencies/whatever. Ooh, standards incorporated by reference! I love me some regulatory law! I'm all for encheapening access to statutes, regulations and the like. Hell, I get pissed off by PACER's $.08 a page charge. Just post it all online for free. Library of Congress or, better, the GPO could handle it. Standards incorporated by reference can be crucial for small businesses, yet relatively expensive or complicated to obtain. The government should not expect folks to adhere to standards that are not freely available. As it stands, incorporation by reference is just falling prey rent-seeking behavior from whatever entity promulgates the incorporated standard. Edited March 21, 2012 by Mr. GOH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted March 21, 2012 Report Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) Yeah, so I'm an engineer who has to design buildings and if I want to build a building it has to be up to the adopted codes of the local authority having jurisdiction. In most cases that is the International Building Code, International Fire Code, National Electrical Code etc. Those codes are written by private bodies and are copywrited and if I want to read those codes I have to pay for them. If I want to get a copy of the law it's free but it usually says "City adopts the National Electrical Code". Same thing goes for products that have to be made to certain Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories (NRTL) standards. This would include private companies like Underwriter's Labratory and ETL. You see their stamps on your consumer electronics all the time. They develop standards to test things and most laws adopt their standards so it's a bit of mixing of private works and public laws. I bet the people who started the early NRTLs made tons of money. Also, NFPA is technically a non-profit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Fire_Protection_Association Edited March 21, 2012 by Yantelope V2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 21, 2012 Report Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) I want to clarify my position: I think it's bs to incorporate by reference standards that are not freely available. That said, I think the article makes it sound like it's a WAY bigger deal than it actually is. *Edit* - It also seems like it wouldn't be permissible because it's delegating too much legislative authority to a non-governmental body. Hell, the Kansas Supreme Court struck down a Kansas law that basically said "the Kansas minimum wage is whatever the federal minimum wage is" because it impermissibly delegated the KS legislature's authority to the federal government. It seems like if that won't fly then delegating the rules to a private organization would definitely be unacceptable. Edited March 21, 2012 by TheMightyEthan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted March 21, 2012 Report Share Posted March 21, 2012 It is extremely common though. It's kind of difficult thing though. If you want to manufacture a light fixture you have to be sure it's not going to kill someone or burn their house down. In order to do that they test it. You can have the testing done by any one of a number of NRTLs but it's a governmental standards thing to make sure people can't sell you a light that could be dangerous. I'd rather have a range of private options to do the testing rather than be forced to go through what would probably be an expensive and slow governmental process. Same tired argument about privatization. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted March 21, 2012 Report Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) Well, Ethan, maybe it's more efficient to let private bodies formulate standards and compete for adoption and then shift the cost onto the folks actually using these esoteric standards? Better than the rest of us subsidizing government to buy and publicize the standards. Or, heaven forfend, altering copyright law (which never ever ever indulges rent seekers a single bit) to turn such standards over to the public domain upon adoption (with appropriate repayment to satisfy that pesky Takings clause in the Fifth Amendment). And, let's be honest, most of these sorts of standards are used by businesses who can afford the books. Even the small businesses should be able to. If your firm can't cough up a couple hundy for standards books, well, your business has a lot of other problems it should address. Edited March 21, 2012 by Mr. GOH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted March 21, 2012 Report Share Posted March 21, 2012 Yeah, it's a little like toll roads. Only the people who use them fund them. I'm okay with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 21, 2012 Report Share Posted March 21, 2012 Yeah, all of that is why I don't think it's a big deal like the article makes it out to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted March 24, 2012 Report Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) Battra; you wouldn't be damned either way if your stances were logically consistent. I mean, if you're against big government, why does it matter if it's constitutionally permissible or not? It could be bad *and* allowed. What are the reasons, independent from legality, that you're okay with the Post Office? I assume that legality is a necessary condition but not a sufficient reason that the government should act/make agencies/whatever I haven't read this thread in a few days so I'll elucidate. First, the post office, like the military and the interstate highway system provide necessary services to all Americans. UPS and FedEx are good competition on the parcel side of things (which is not a bad thing) I can't see any other company that can replace an actual letter. Still, if some company did (such as Wells Fargo in the days of the Old West) the Post Office is not a forced monopoly and we have other options if we choose to use them. The Post Office is also not subsidized so that the cost of mailing a parcel isn't 10 times less than that of a competitor. Second, and perhaps most important, the post office takes no tax dollars from people who do not use the system. General tax revenue does not fund the post office (and I will argue that Post office income should not be put in the general fund!) Finally, the Post Office is completely fair across the board to all Americans. Whether you are a rich man like Bill Gates or John Kerry or a poor kid working for minimum wage, the cost of a first class stamp is the same. They make no different price schemes based on income level, minority status etc.* Plus it's a phenomenal deal. Who else will stop by your house and pick up a letter and deliver it to your addressee anywhere in the country for less than $0.50? That doesn't mean they shouldn't change with the times, but I think they still are certainly a necessary service. *I know someone will bring up the discounted bulk rate given to businesses but as someone who works for a company that used to ship bulk rate, we (now our vendor) has to presort all the mail by zip code and deliver it to the post office in a way that it can go right into their processes. Essentially our vendor is doing some of the work for the post office, hence the lower rate. Edited March 24, 2012 by Battra92 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 (edited) Surprisingly haven't seen anything on this in here so here we go. http://www.dailymail...glary-tool.html I posted the UK version of it just for fun (and it's what was on drudge). Why do people like to make isolated incidences into something larger without even bothering to learn the facts first? I also found this article pretty fascinating. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/294357/why-manipulate-tragedy-trayvon-martin-heather-mac-donald "There were two and a half times as many white and Hispanic victims of black killers in 2009 as there were black victims of white and Hispanic killers, even though the black population is one-sixth that of whites and Hispanics combined. If Hispanics were removed from the category of “white” killers of blacks, the percentage of blacks killed by Anglo whites would plummet, since a significant percentage of what the FBI calls “white”-on-black killings represent gang warfare between Hispanic and black gangs." Edited March 27, 2012 by Yantelope V2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Not sure if the same is true in America, but the Daily Mail is absolutely awful and infamous for that sort of thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.