libertarian party. The brave new way or a wolf in sheeps clothing?

[Timber Loftis]

I support about 90% of their ideas, which is more than the rape-the-earth-for-our-cronies doofuses (called: Republicans) or the no-idea-what-to-do-but-we're-gonna-bitch-anyway doofuses (called: Democrats).

I got a low 1% loan from a private foundation to help with college because I was a poor Appalaichain student. Upward mobility is not assisted only by the government.

Anywhere we find the government doing what private people would do just as well or better, the government should stop. The government is the 3 largest employers in Chicago, 6 of the to 10. The government is too big. The government needs to be cut down. The government should be hacked apart. I hate the government. Clear enough?

As for government contractors, that's the same as government workers, just with more bureaucracy and overhead costs. Some government programs work and are efficient -- Medicare has 2% admin costs vs. private HMO's at 20%, ergo Medicare would be a great model for universal health care (or at least a good enough threat to get the private sector to get its ass in line). Halliburton's subcontracting overcharges of $100M++ on the other hand, are a shite example of government expenditures.

[ 11-28-2005, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: . . . reducing government with realism, common sense, and moderation.

I encourage you to read the party platform. They have some realism on some ways to reduce government. I will readily admit some of their ideas need moderated.

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Anywhere we find the government doing what private people would do just as well or better, the government should stop. The government is the 3 largest employers in Chicago, 6 of the to 10. The government is too big. The government needs to be cut down. The government should be hacked apart. I hate the government. Clear enough?

Gov't employs about 25% of the people here in the central pennsylvania area, agreed that it's far too much.

As for government contractors, that's the same as government workers, just with more bureaucracy and overhead costs. Some government programs work and are efficient -- Medicare has 2% admin costs vs. private HMO's at 20%, ergo Medicare would be a great model for universal health care (or at least a good enough threat to get the private sector to get its ass in line). Halliburton's subcontracting overcharges of $100M++ on the other hand, are a shite example of government expenditures.

In general I agree with you, however my department covers photography needs for all of Pennsylvania with regards to military photos (primarily army, as we're an Army base), we support the War College more cheaply than federally employed civilians did, (it had to be at least a 10% savings in order for the contract to be awarded to a private contractor), and in general it resulted in about 6 - 10 fewer employees, and significant real dollar savings over what the Army was paying their own people to do the contract I'm part of.

[Dreamer128]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: Often large bureaucratic bodies take on effective lives of their own and even defend themselves against attempts at abolition. Integration theorists writing about the EU often use these kinds of models to explain the growth of the European bureaucracy. For example, the European Court of Justice has now grown sufficiently powerful that it plays member states against each other and has just about ensured that no measure designed to reduce its role would ever get enacted.

I've never heard that theory before, nor would I mind reading more on the topic. May I ask what your sources are? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Shamrock is right, of course, though I too would like to see moure of his sources (which may be his own opinion). Governments are very unlikely to reduce their own size -- would you vote yourself out of a job?

The theory that government will always take a mile when given an inch is pretty old. If given power, the government will tend to keep it and try to increase it. If allowed one intrusion into your life, the government will try for 2, then 3, then 4. This notion of governmental behavior is sometimes referred to as "the crack in the egg." For hardcore philosophy behind it, check out Hayek.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek

http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/hayek.htm

[ 11-29-2005, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[shamrock_uk]

Well, the theory was developed by Walter Mattli and Anne-Marie Burley and seems to have made a significant impact in the field.

The papers I read were ~2001 but I don't have access to the old university reading list now so I can't get the journal references for you. Search for Mattli and 'integration' and 'courts' and you should find something.

It's certainly in his book if you have access to a decent library:

Mattli, Walter; The Logic of Regional Integration: Europe and Beyond (Cambridge University Press, 1999)

It's not a bad summary of european integration theories in general actually, I found it very helpful for one paper of mine.

A google turned up these articles, although they do appear to be a bit old.

Anne-Marie Burley and Walter Mattli, "Europe Before the Court: A Political Theory of Legal Integration," International Organization 47 (Winter 1993)

Europe before the court was definitely the right name, I just thought it was a bit newer than that! I could be wrong though.

Also

Walter Mattli and Anne-Marie Slaughter, "Law and Politics in the European Union," International Organization 41, Winter 1995, pp. 183-90.

If you don't want to pay, you'll obviously have to be a member of an academic institute or similar to have access to online journals.

For those of you who like academic buzzwords they basically draw on neo-functionalist theories of integration and apply them specifically to the impact of the European court upon constraining and directing the decisions of member states.

I didn't like most of the liberal theories of international relations (and especially integration), largely because they took account of so many factors that they almost ceased to be theories and became simple descriptions instead. This particular theory however is quite persuasive.