This Is Why We Have Libertarians

[Muhammed]

I have too much common sense to be a Libertarian. I do have a wide libertarian streak, though,

Would it be innaccurate of me to presume that your self-described "libertarian streak" only exists when it comes to dope? How does your "libertarian streak" feel about firearms and politically incorrect speech?

 

[1srelluc]

I don't see it as any different than a town/county/city denying a large subdivision build-out because they don't have the school or roads capacity.

Government services can only be stretched so far and in this woman's case it would be a net loss to have to hire someone for oversight. Generally speaking one-offs are always a net loss for a municipality if they need special oversight.

 

[Lesh]

Metropolitan governments restrict the number of taxis allowed on the road. They do this by issuing medallions to authorized taxis.

This creates a government-made shortage of taxis instead of allowing the market to decide how many taxis are needed on the road.

As a result, taxi medallions used to sell for upwards of a million dollars at auction in some cities.

Trump's fixer Michael Cohen owned a portfolio of these medallions.

Over time, the value of these medallions rose as the supply of taxis was not keeping up with the demand.

It was a very common practice for the owners of million dollar medallions to take out loans against those assets. Michael Cohen was one.

This was an inflated asset class created by government interference in the free market.

And then came Uber.

Uber was a giant threat to those who owned those medallions. They had a government-manufactured monopoly and they did everything they could to stop Uber from horning in on their business.

But the free market won out. WE won out.

Now those medallions aren't worth as much any more now that their monopoly is busted. And those who took out loans against them when they were worth a lot more are now upside down on those loans.

Michael Cohen is one of them. His 17 medallions are worth about 20% of what they were worth just a few short years ago.

The next time you get in a yellow cab, look for one of these riveted to the body of the cab:

Same is true of liquor licenses on NJ. They sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars. In NY one can be purchased for a mere $2k because they are unlimited.

 

[Independent thinker]

The Supreme Court blew a chance to fix its second-worst decision ever​

​

A woman who has a special needs child of her own is trying to create a business which provides respite care to other families with special needs children.

Respite care is where a caregiver watches over the children while the parents take a break to buy groceries, visit a doctor, etc.

This woman has been denied a license by the Louisiana Health Department. Their mandate is to determine if there is a "need" for such a business.

There most clearly is a need in the community, but the Health Department has decided they already have oversight over too many other businesses and just don't have the time or manpower to regulate another one.

From the link:

By what standard does it measure need? Its own needs. Incredibly, the department says that this barrier to entry into the caregiving field “self-evidently” serves the public interest by giving department bureaucrats fewer caregivers to scrutinize. Never mind any shortage of Louisiana respite care. Newell-Davis is denied government’s permission to practice her craft so that government can conserve its regulatory energies. She cannot work at all so that the bureaucrats can work less than they otherwise would.


George Will makes a very good case that this is a clear violation of the "privileges or immunities" clause of the 14th amendment.


I agree.


Here are some thoughts from the chief author of the 14th amendment:

Liberty, our own American constitutional liberty, is the right “to know, to argue, and to utter freely according to conscience.” It is the liberty, sir, to know your duty and to do it. It is the liberty, sir, to work in an honest calling and contribute by your toil in some sort to the support of yourself, to the support of your fellow-men, and to be secure in the enjoyment of the fruits of your toil. Justice, sir, to establish which this Constitution was ordained, the people themselves being witness, is to give every man his due. The justice to be established by the Constitution is the attribute of God, as to do justice is the perpetual obligation of men and nations. Let justice for all, by the power and majesty of American law be established for all, so that th epoorest man in his hovel on the frontiers of your widely extended domain, bearing with him toward the setting sun the symbols of civilization, and laying in the wilderness the foundations of new commonwealths, may be made as secure in his person and property and the prince in his palace or the king on his throne.

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4883&context=ndlr

Let's hope the US Supreme Court has the wisdom to right this wrong.

I looked but I didn't see anything in your post about Libertarians. Did I miss it?

 

[Libby von H]

The Supreme Court blew a chance to fix its second-worst decision ever​

​

A woman who has a special needs child of her own is trying to create a business which provides respite care to other families with special needs children.

Respite care is where a caregiver watches over the children while the parents take a break to buy groceries, visit a doctor, etc.

This woman has been denied a license by the Louisiana Health Department. Their mandate is to determine if there is a "need" for such a business.

There most clearly is a need in the community, but the Health Department has decided they already have oversight over too many other businesses and just don't have the time or manpower to regulate another one.

From the link:

By what standard does it measure need? Its own needs. Incredibly, the department says that this barrier to entry into the caregiving field “self-evidently” serves the public interest by giving department bureaucrats fewer caregivers to scrutinize. Never mind any shortage of Louisiana respite care. Newell-Davis is denied government’s permission to practice her craft so that government can conserve its regulatory energies. She cannot work at all so that the bureaucrats can work less than they otherwise would.


George Will makes a very good case that this is a clear violation of the "privileges or immunities" clause of the 14th amendment.


I agree.


Here are some thoughts from the chief author of the 14th amendment:

Liberty, our own American constitutional liberty, is the right “to know, to argue, and to utter freely according to conscience.” It is the liberty, sir, to know your duty and to do it. It is the liberty, sir, to work in an honest calling and contribute by your toil in some sort to the support of yourself, to the support of your fellow-men, and to be secure in the enjoyment of the fruits of your toil. Justice, sir, to establish which this Constitution was ordained, the people themselves being witness, is to give every man his due. The justice to be established by the Constitution is the attribute of God, as to do justice is the perpetual obligation of men and nations. Let justice for all, by the power and majesty of American law be established for all, so that th epoorest man in his hovel on the frontiers of your widely extended domain, bearing with him toward the setting sun the symbols of civilization, and laying in the wilderness the foundations of new commonwealths, may be made as secure in his person and property and the prince in his palace or the king on his throne.

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4883&context=ndlr

Let's hope the US Supreme Court has the wisdom to right this wrong.

On that topic of the 14th Amendment

page 190-91 in Justin Buckley Dyer :natural Law and the antislavery constitutional tradition"

JOHN BINGHAM
quoting a 1783 Continental Congress "the rights for which America has contended were the rights of human nature"


James Wilson
Iowa Congressman on the 19th congress
was "establishing no new right, decalaring no new principle"

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Libertarian is just some leftist loon with a moniker

 

[initforme]

Moderates are the people who get things done while you fringes keep arguing.

 

[Lesh]

Moderates are the people who get things done while you fringes keep arguing.

Well you ain’t a moderate so

 

[initforme]

Oh yes I am. REAL AMERICAN.

 

[MinTrut]

Metropolitan governments restrict the number of taxis allowed on the road. They do this by issuing medallions to authorized taxis.

This creates a government-made shortage of taxis instead of allowing the market to decide how many taxis are needed on the road.

As a result, taxi medallions used to sell for upwards of a million dollars at auction in some cities.

Trump's fixer Michael Cohen owned a portfolio of these medallions.

Over time, the value of these medallions rose as the supply of taxis was not keeping up with the demand.

It was a very common practice for the owners of million dollar medallions to take out loans against those assets. Michael Cohen was one.

This was an inflated asset class created by government interference in the free market.

And then came Uber.

Uber was a giant threat to those who owned those medallions. They had a government-manufactured monopoly and they did everything they could to stop Uber from horning in on their business.

But the free market won out. WE won out.

Now those medallions aren't worth as much any more now that their monopoly is busted. And those who took out loans against them when they were worth a lot more are now upside down on those loans.

Michael Cohen is one of them. His 17 medallions are worth about 20% of what they were worth just a few short years ago.

The next time you get in a yellow cab, look for one of these riveted to the body of the cab:

Excellent points.

But Uber should be boycotted in favor of Lyft.

 

[MinTrut]

Okay here’s my question. Why did the government want to do that in the first place? What was the aim according to them?

They claim public safety.

But the reality is much closer to what Guno claims.

 

[Dragonlady]

Great, next you can tell us the one about how you're a libertarian.

I have friends who have been part of caregiver teams for family members and the need for "respite" is enormous for these people. Especially for the parents of severely handicapped children, or seniors with dementia. If the caregivers suffer a health crisis due to burn out or being overwhelmed, their loved one may have to enter full time care, which is even more costly.

Respite care enables the caregiver to take a short break from both the physical and mental stress is caring for someone, 24/7, and not become sick themselves. When you don't have family nearby to help, or your loved one needs specialized care, you can't just call a sitter or a neighbour and go shopping or to the movies. They can't even go out to a support group for other caregivers without a respite worker.

 

[MinTrut]

Libertarian is just some leftist loon with a moniker

Libertarians are conservatives who think they aren't; similar to many liberals.

 

[MinTrut]

The OP has done the nearly impossible - sparking an (almost) entirely rational and adult discussion on USMB.

 

[g5000]

Libertarians are conservatives who think they aren't; similar to many liberals.

Libertarians want our military to be the size of a cub scout troop; all drugs legalized; the elimination of the FDA, FAA, USDA, OSHA, and every other federal consumer safety commission you can name, and you should be allowed to own a nuke.

 

[MinTrut]

Libertarians want our military to be the size of a cub scout troop; all drugs legalized; the elimination of the FDA, FAA, USDA, OSHA, and every other federal consumer safety commission you can name, and you should be allowed to own a nuke.

A little libertarianism is a good thing.

Too much...

Their position on legalizing various dangerous drugs (for instance) is very troubling.

 

[Thinker101]

I have friends who have been part of caregiver teams for family members and the need for "respite" is enormous for these people. Especially for the parents of severely handicapped children, or seniors with dementia. If the caregivers suffer a health crisis due to burn out or being overwhelmed, their loved one may have to enter full time care, which is even more costly.

Respite care enables the caregiver to take a short break from both the physical and mental stress is caring for someone, 24/7, and not become sick themselves. When you don't have family nearby to help, or your loved one needs specialized care, you can't just call a sitter or a neighbour and go shopping or to the movies. They can't even go out to a support group for other caregivers without a respite worker.

What the hell? Not sure what your reply has to do with my post, but it's good you have friends that are caregivers, sounds like you may need them real soon.

 

[Dragonlady]

Okay here’s my question. Why did the government want to do that in the first place? What was the aim according to them?

Licensing always starts out with the goal of protecting the public from scammers and con artists. Quality control - clean, safe, newer cars, with skilled capable drivers who communicate well with passengers, and could find their way around the city. This was in the days before GPS, when drivers had to use paper maps.

One of the big cab fleets (a client) ran afoul of age rule whatever it is. They had to take out a loan to replace the rolling wrecks. The big fleets are usually a combination of fleet owned cars with staff drivers, and independents who contract with the company for radio calls. Restricting numbers of cabs on the road, ensures each tag will be profitable if the driver is prepared to put in the hours, because the demand is there. If you can keep supply just short of demand, everybody makes money.

Where it all went wrong: For a car driver to get a car license, was great. He could drive for 10 or 12 hours, and then rent his cab to another driver and for 10 or 12 hours, and go home to his family. This is where the doctors and the lawyers started bidding up the price and buying up the cab licenses when the drivers retired giving them a lovely retirement nest egg, until the tags cost as much as a house and the younger drivers couldn't afford them. The doctors and the lawyers rented the cars out to drivers. When I lived in Toronto, the driver paid $100 per shift for a cab, plus gas. Whatever they make over and above that, they keep. The owner pays for insurance and repairs and radio call service.

The medical assocations restrict the numbers of students admitted to medical schools, not because they only want the best and the brightest, but in order to make sure that doctors are always in short supply and they can charge whatever the traffic will bear. That's why there's always a shortage of doctors.

 

[Billy000]

Licensing always starts out with the goal of protecting the public from scammers and con artists. Quality control - clean, safe, newer cars, with skilled capable drivers who communicate well with passengers, and could find their way around the city. This was in the days before GPS, when drivers had to use paper maps.

One of the big cab fleets (a client) ran afoul of age rule whatever it is. They had to take out a loan to replace the rolling wrecks. The big fleets are usually a combination of fleet owned cars with staff drivers, and independents who contract with the company for radio calls. Restricting numbers of cabs on the road, ensures each tag will be profitable if the driver is prepared to put in the hours, because the demand is there. If you can keep supply just short of demand, everybody makes money.

Where it all went wrong: For a car driver to get a car license, was great. He could drive for 10 or 12 hours, and then rent his cab to another driver and for 10 or 12 hours, and go home to his family. This is where the doctors and the lawyers started bidding up the price and buying up the cab licenses when the drivers retired giving them a lovely retirement nest egg, until the tags cost as much as a house and the younger drivers couldn't afford them. The doctors and the lawyers rented the cars out to drivers. When I lived in Toronto, the driver paid $100 per shift for a cab, plus gas. Whatever they make over and above that, they keep. The owner pays for insurance and repairs and radio call service.

The medical assocations restrict the numbers of students admitted to medical schools, not because they only want the best and the brightest, but in order to make sure that doctors are always in short supply and they can charge whatever the traffic will bear. That's why there's always a shortage of doctors.

I don’t know anything about this topic but this explanation definitely makes sense. I think it’s important to keep in mind that the government does this stuff for a reason. They don’t do it for the fun of it or for the hell of it. There isn’t some narcissist sitting behind a desk wringing his hands. Shit has a purpose.

 

[Dragonlady]

What the hell? Not sure what your reply has to do with my post, but it's good you have friends that are caregivers, sounds like you may need them real soon.

Wasn't your post asking why they government needed to license the respite service?

I doubt I'll need one "real soon", given my current health and genetics, but at my age, anything can happen at any time. I could fall off my bicycle tomorrow and do serious harm.

I don’t know anything about this topic but this explanation definitely makes sense. I think it’s important to keep in mind that the government does this stuff for a reason. They don’t do it for the fun of it or for the hell of it. There isn’t some narcissistic sitting behind a desk wringing his hands. Shit has a purpose.

Everytime you have a good and profitable set up for hard working people, to help them get ahead, rich people are going to find a way to co-opt that system, and take the profits of other people's hard work for themselves.

The original tags were cheap - $1000 or thereabouts. Even after the price hit $100,000, the city would sell a few hundred tags every now and again for peanuts, and make sure all of them went to real taxi drivers, not holding companies, or fleets. Of course the fleet owners would offer a driver a big chunk of cash to apply for a tag and then sign it over to them. Always looking for any angle.

When the tags first started selling for outrageous amounts it was a real boon to retiring drivers to get a big chunk of cash on the way out the door. But it cut the legs right out from under the next generation of owner/drivers who just end up paying the owners first and getting whatever is left. Slow nights, they might go home with $20.