liberal or libertarian

[shanek]

That's the great thing about the body of the Federal Constitution, there is a source from the time explaining the reasons they created it the way they did.

Well, I've pointed out to Claus time and time again that the Federal government is limited only to the functions in Article I Section 8. As long as there isn't anything in there giving the Congress the power to limit contracts (and there isn't), they can't do it.

 

[shanek]

Thanks, although our instructer was quite specific that the law doesn't cover the 'meeting of minds' Only specific contract obilgations. Not that my instructor couldn't be wrong. It's been known to happen.

I have read about cases where contracts have been thrown out because there was shown to be no meeting of the minds.

Mind you, I'm not going to accept his invitation to move to his forum.

You misunderstand. I don't have a forum. I linked to an article I wrote on zoning and invited you to start a thread (here, on this forum) rebutting it.

 

[Flex]

Well, I've pointed out to Claus time and time again that the Federal government is limited only to the functions in Article I Section 8. As long as there isn't anything in there giving the Congress the power to limit contracts (and there isn't), they can't do it.

How about Article 1, Section 8, Para. 1:

The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the depts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States....

This paragraph allows Congress to enact all the other legislation it thinks is necessary for the good of the United States, including limiting contracts.

-Cheers

-Flex

 

[Snide]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: libertarian or liberal

Then don't rely on your recollection. Reread the exchange. It really begins on page 3 of this thread, although it was mentioned at the bottom of page 2:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37133&perpage=40&pagenumber=3

The things I'm referring to are comments like this one from Earthborn:



It's clear from exchanges like this that people just aren't going to be convinced that the private sector works unless you can show an example of it working in every possible scenario—despite the fact that, in many of these cases, the government has declared a complete monopoly on the service and so the private sector can't do anything about it at all.

Which brings up another question nobody seems to want to answer: if it's just that the private sector can't or won't do it, then why does the government need to give themselves a monopoly?

Thanks for finding the link for me. It confirms the solid accuracy of my recollection.

It wasn't "these people," it was Earthborn. More people, like me and richardm, concurred with you.

And much of the confusion was cleared up when Earthborn acknowledged my theory of old 1700s style roads or whatever. To which you responded below:

Originally posted by Snide
And I'm only guessing here, but I do know the size of my suburban neighborhood streets makes this kind of thing much easier, than say, a street system that was built for the needs of the 1700s or something. So maybe that also helps it seem less unnatural to me(??)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


shanek:
The street that I'm on, like the other back roads here, is paved on the same path as the old plank roads. Still no problem with private garbage collection.

What I meant, as Earthborn recognized, was not old backroads, but rather, old urban roads, where they are not only narrow, but are jam-packed with houses and many, many intersections.

Now Earthborn did argue from incredulity once it was understood that it's easier in my suburban negihborhood and your backroads to handle more garbage trucks:

Earthborn;
Yes, I was just thinking: there is no way in the world that anyone could make such a system work in for example Amsterdam. Not just because no one would want to block an entire street with a truck that picks up only half of the bags, but also because most would not bother to pay their bill and just dump their rubbish on the street or in a canal. Some already do. If the collection depended on whether someone paid for it to be collected, Amsterdam would turn into a huge pile of junk very quickly.

But for the most part, Earthborn was asking questions, trying to understand more. She eventually seemed to like the cost of $7/month using your/our way (the free market!).

Once Earthborn had a better idea as to what the distinctions among my garbage service, your garbage service and her's (I assume Earthborn is a 'her' from her avatar), this final reasonable comment from her on this particular subject went unanswered:

Yes, but in a densely populated city, it seems to me the routes these trucks go need to be agreed upon so they don't clash. In a city like Amsterdam or Utrecht a truck that's slowly starting and stopping every few meters basically blocks an entire street and you would want to keep that to an absolute minimum.

So that negates your claim of

Every time I pointed out an area where exactly such was the case, and they had private garbage pickup anyway, they just kept moving the goalposts.

Not that there is no answer, but that it was not received. And in spite it being an argument from incredulity, I took it to be an honest attempt at trying to understand something.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm picking on you today. But I do it for two reasons:

1) I think you're reasonably thick-skinned, and
2) You provide a lot of information on this board, but far too much of it gets ignored if for no other reason than your communication style. It's not an effective way of selling your message; in fact, it often seems you'd prefer that people keep disagreeing with you.

edited a typo and some context

 

[Snide]

I have read about cases where contracts have been thrown out because there was shown to be no meeting of the minds.

Not sure if I can help here, but my contracts prof was pretty clear that "meeting of the minds" is a passe term. It leads to more confusion, and really isn't used by the courts anymore.

 

[Suddenly]

How about Article 1, Section 8, Para. 1:



This paragraph allows Congress to enact all the other legislation it thinks is necessary for the good of the United States, including limiting contracts.

-Cheers

-Flex

That is a novel reading of that section, as the plain meaning and the courts would disagree. It is but an introduction to the laundry list that follows in the body of section 8.

That the Federal Government lacks general police power is a well established principle. The current way that the Federal Government expands its power is not through the section you cite; rather via an expansive reading of the "commerce clause" within the body of section 8.

 

[crimresearch]

"meeting of the minds" is a passe term


I think 'mutual assent' is also in use...in any case, if it can be clearly demonstrated that the two parties were reasonably thinking about different outcomes, it *may* weaken the contract.

If for example, I stipulate something to do with South Boston, you probably aren't going to be bound by a contract when in fact I meant Virginia, and you reasonably thought I meant Mass.

 

[crimresearch]

That is a novel reading of that section, as the plain meaning and the courts would disagree. It is but an introduction to the laundry list that follows in the body of section 8.

That the Federal Government lacks general police power is a well established principle. The current way that the Federal Government expands its power is not through the section you cite; rather via an expansive reading of the "commerce clause" within the body of section 8.

Which of course raises the interesting question of how the Federal government employs thousands upon thousands of Federal GS-0083 police officers in areas where interstate commerce just isn't a real issue. (Postal police, Capitol police, VA police, Smithsonian police, Park police, Secret Service uniformed police, et al.)

 

[shanek]

How about Article 1, Section 8, Para. 1:

This paragraph allows Congress to enact all the other legislation it thinks is necessary for the good of the United States, including limiting contracts.

No; it says it has the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises," and provides the framework and limitations under which Congress may do so. Nothing at all to do with contracts. Only ways of getting money.

 

[Flex]

That is a novel reading of that section, as the plain meaning and the courts would disagree. It is but an introduction to the laundry list that follows in the body of section 8.

That the Federal Government lacks general police power is a well established principle. The current way that the Federal Government expands its power is not through the section you cite; rather via an expansive reading of the "commerce clause" within the body of section 8.

Well, I try to be original.

Thanks for the clarification.

-Flex

 

[Suddenly]

Which of course raises the interesting question of how the Federal government employs thousands upon thousands of Federal GS-0083 police officers in areas where interstate commerce just isn't a real issue. (Postal police, Capitol police, VA police, Smithsonian police, Park police, Secret Service uniformed police, et al.)

Not really. Have you managed to actually read the darn thing?

Postal police have to do with that whole postal thing. Listed in section 8.

Capitol police have to do with, I dunno, the Capitol being Federal Territory. Also in section 8.

The rest likewise, more or less.

The Commerce Clause is not the defintion of the total reach of the Federal government. There are other powers in that list. All the Commerce Clause acts as is a handy rationalization for expansion past the other clearly stated powers, such as the power to establish the post office. Congress can pass all necessary and proper laws to enforce these powers as well as the claimed powers under the commerce clause.

I thought that was obvious. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Snide]

"meeting of the minds" is a passe term


I think 'mutual assent' is also in use...in any case, if it can be clearly demonstrated that the two parties were reasonably thinking about different outcomes, it *may* weaken the contract.

If for example, I stipulate something to do with South Boston, you probably aren't going to be bound by a contract when in fact I meant Virginia, and you reasonably thought I meant Mass.

Well put. Mutual Assent is what we were taught to look for.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: libertarian or liberal

It wasn't "these people," it was Earthborn. More people, like me and richardm, concurred with you.

I meant "these people" in a general sense. The garbage collection example was just the one I thought of at the time.

But for the most part, Earthborn was asking questions, trying to understand more.

Yes, that wasn't intended to be a slam at Earthborn. It was just the example I thought of at the time.

 

[shanek]

Not sure if I can help here, but my contracts prof was pretty clear that "meeting of the minds" is a passe term. It leads to more confusion, and really isn't used by the courts anymore.

They may have been older cases.

 

[crimresearch]

Not really. Have you managed to actually read the darn thing?

Postal police have to do with that whole postal thing. Listed in section 8.

Capitol police have to do with, I dunno, the Capitol being Federal Territory. Also in section 8.

The rest likewise, more or less.

The Commerce Clause is not the defintion of the total reach of the Federal government. There are other powers in that list. All the Commerce Clause acts as is a handy rationalization for expansion past the other clearly stated powers, such as the power to establish the post office. Congress can pass all necessary and proper laws to enforce these powers as well as the claimed powers under the commerce clause.

I thought that was obvious. Sorry for the confusion.

I was making a small joke at the Federal governments' more creative attempts to assert a federal interest via the Commerce Clause in other areas, until the USSC told them that it was being overdone.

The Feds can have all the po-po they want on federal property.

 

[Snide]

I meant "these people" in a general sense. The garbage collection example was just the one I thought of at the time.



Yes, that wasn't intended to be a slam at Earthborn. It was just the example I thought of at the time.

Cool. I think the point we can all agree on is that it's so easy to get used to the government doing it, and thus it's often assumed to be the only way to do it. Whether it's garbage trucks, street lights, etc.

My own personal anecdote was my grandmother, a liberal, got involved with her rural community to get more tv stations in the area (this was years ago, before cable was in the area), other than the local one and whatever stations you could get form the big towns if your antenna was tall and powerful enough. Entirely funded by user fees. The service took signals from a half dozen or so metro markets, and put them over the rural airways for anyone with a cheap set of bunny ears to pick up. Sure there were freeloaders (it was over the free airwaves after all), but enough caring folks got invovled to collect $100 from enough people each year to have this service.

This was a case where the people wanted more stations, government wasn't helping, and entrepreneurs weren't either.

For a young kid like myself, who visited quite often, it was a godsend. Else my choices were Hee Haw and Lawrence Welk or static.

 

[shanek]

Cool. I think the point we can all agree on is that it's so easy to get used to the government doing it, and thus it's often assumed to be the only way to do it. Whether it's garbage trucks, street lights, etc.

Yes, and that in trying to explain how the free market could provide solutions for these you often end up chasing a moving target. That was my point.

It's kind of like what Randi said at TAM3 about debunking Geller: if you show people one way to bend a spoon, and then Geller does it a different way, people go, "Well, what about that way?" And so you end up losing in their minds unless you can show them every way Geller uses to bend spoons (and there are hundreds of ways). They never seem to make the connection that if they can be fooled by a spoon being bent one way, they can be fooled other ways.

Same kind of thing here. Showing them how the free market delivers a solution in one particular way only satisfies that way, in their minds. They don't make the connection that the free market can find solutions to things even if they personally feel incredulous that it can do so.

Why is the default position government intervention? If it truly is as they say, that we need government to provide services the free market can't or won't deliver, shouldn't we at least give the free market a chance before we go imposing government on everybody?

And then we get things like people denying that government grants itself a monopoly in garbage collection, or the post office, or whatever.

When I've talked about privatizing roads, I get some people saying, "Okay, I can see how neighborhood roads can be private, but obviously Interstates have to be done by government," and others saying, "I can see how Interstates can be done by corporations, but obviously neighborhood roads have to be done by government." Well, maybe it isn't really so obvious then?

My own personal anecdote was my grandmother, a liberal, got involved with her rural community to get more tv stations in the area (this was years ago, before cable was in the area), other than the local one and whatever stations you could get form the big towns if your antenna was tall and powerful enough. Entirely funded by user fees. The service took signals from a half dozen or so metro markets, and put them over the rural airways for anyone with a cheap set of bunny ears to pick up. Sure there were freeloaders (it was over the free airwaves after all), but enough caring folks got invovled to collect $100 from enough people each year to have this service.

And bully for them. It seems to me to be the height of idiocy to say, "We can't provide this service without people freeloading, even if we are making money, so we're not going to do it!"

Which is worse: providing a service and making enough money to keep it going, and having a few people freeload, or forcing everyone to pay for the service whether they use it or not? (We'll ignore for the purposes of this question the fact that the government always does an abysmal job when compared to the free market companies.)

 

[CFLarsen]

It's kind of like what Randi said at TAM3 about debunking Geller: if you show people one way to bend a spoon, and then Geller does it a different way, people go, "Well, what about that way?" And so you end up losing in their minds unless you can show them every way Geller uses to bend spoons (and there are hundreds of ways). They never seem to make the connection that if they can be fooled by a spoon being bent one way, they can be fooled other ways.

Same kind of thing here. Showing them how the free market delivers a solution in one particular way only satisfies that way, in their minds. They don't make the connection that the free market can find solutions to things even if they personally feel incredulous that it can do so.

You don't get it, do you?

It's the skeptical thing to do: Trying to find holes in the explanations. Yes, Randi can do it this way, but what about that way? The thing is, it doesn't stop with just one explanation. Once we investigate how Geller bends a spoon, we can explain how he does it. We don't just throw our hands in the air and give up.

That you try to paint those who don't agree with you politically as stupid does little to boost the credibility of your arguments. People have seen that your precious free market does not find solutions to things. That's why we have a public sector: Because people have given up on the private sector, because it simply doesn't fill the all the needs of the people.

And bully for them. It seems to me to be the height of idiocy to say, "We can't provide this service without people freeloading, even if we are making money, so we're not going to do it!"

Really? Then why do companies bother to pursue people who don't pay for their goods? They make enough money as it is, don't they?

Which is worse: providing a service and making enough money to keep it going, and having a few people freeload, or forcing everyone to pay for the service whether they use it or not? (We'll ignore for the purposes of this question the fact that the government always does an abysmal job when compared to the free market companies.)

This is patently not true. E.g., in Denmark, private companies were allowed to make bids for the task of cleaning government/municipal buildings at night. The biggest company, ISS, won a lot of contracts.

The result? The job wasn't done properly. The employees complained, and some even got sick from all the dirt that wasn't cleaned up. Today, the job has gone back to public services.

 

[Snide]

And bully for them. It seems to me to be the height of idiocy to say, "We can't provide this service without people freeloading, even if we are making money, so we're not going to do it!"

Which is worse: providing a service and making enough money to keep it going, and having a few people freeload, or forcing everyone to pay for the service whether they use it or not? (We'll ignore for the purposes of this question the fact that the government always does an abysmal job when compared to the free market companies.)

My grandmother would get so upset at the freeloaders, but she realized that this was still the best way to accomplish the common good. She was also quite empathetic that the $100 was a lot of money to some people, even though she realized that if they could afford a TV, they could probably save up the $100 bucks over a year's time.

Also, it's obvious that it wouldn't have had to be $100 if everyone did pitch in. Sort of like a built-in price mark-up, like retailers have to pass on to consumers because of theft, bad debts, etc.

This whole thing was an eye-opener to me; I was probably 12 or so. No one was going to build the tower for them, so they did it themselves (without trying to lock up those who didn't help).

 

[Snide]

Really? Then why do companies bother to pursue people who don't pay for their goods? They make enough money as it is, don't they?

Claus, I am extremely confused by these questions.

I agree with Shane that it would have been absolutely stupid for the community to have said, "We'd love more channels, and really ARE sick of only Lawrence Welk and Hee-Haw, but some people will freeload, so let's not bother."

It would be more akin to a group of investors saying, "Gee, other companies experience an annual 5% rate of bad debts...so we might as well not even start our company." Don't you agree that that would be extremely stupid?

This is patently not true. E.g., in Denmark, private companies were allowed to make bids for the task of cleaning government/municipal buildings at night. The biggest company, ISS, won a lot of contracts.

The result? The job wasn't done properly. The employees complained, and some even got sick from all the dirt that wasn't cleaned up. Today, the job has gone back to public services.

The problem with that scenario sounds more like the tendancy for governments to always go for the lowest bidder, rather than weighing in other factors. I'll bet if Donald Trump shopped around to find a maintenance firm for his buildings, this problem wouldn't have happened.

Or he would have fired the firm, rightfully and promptly, a la Shane and the waste management company.

edited for clarity