A Libertarian Governor?

[Snide]

This isn't very timely, but I was thinking about issues, elections, politics and such... Imagine a Libertarian candidate for Governor. He might resemble this on the issues:

His general philosophy: "I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative."

On liberty in re victimless crimes: "Maybe we ought to look into decriminalizing drugs and prostitution."

On the politics of organized religion:
"Organized religion is a sham."

On publicly-subsidized sports clubs: "There's nothing wrong with this stadium. We don't replace schools after 16 years."

And what if he was inspired to run initially because he knew the state wouldn't otherwise have given the surplus back to the taxpayers?

Would any States elect this guy?

Mine did. :)

Jesse, of course. I miss him already :(

[Virgil]

[i]

On publicly-subsidized sports clubs: "There's nothing wrong with this stadium. We don't replace schools after 16 years."


[/B]


thats enough for me.

virgil

[Tmy]

-Jessee accomplished squat
-How many new schools have been built in the last 16 yrs

-Downtown St. Paul has been revitized by the new arena, there are sell out hockey games every other night pumping all sorts of money into the local economy, millions of tax dollars have been generated by the new hockey team.

[Hexxenhammer]

I'm starting to miss Jesse with the current gov. ticking me off daily.

My current fave Minnesota republican nonsense:

"We must ban gay marriage! We must legalize gambling!"

[Snide]

Originally posted by Tmy
-Jessee accomplished squat

I wouldn't disagree. Obviously, I selected a few things I liked. I think he was true to what he was when he campaigned, for the most part. 9-11 changed a lot everywhere, though (regarding the economy here).


-How many new schools have been built in the last 16 yrs


Not sure I get your point.


-Downtown St. Paul has been revitized by the new arena, there are sell out hockey games every other night pumping all sorts of money into the local economy, millions of tax dollars have been generated by the new hockey team.

No doubt. So far, so good. But we need only to look to our neighbors' Miller Park to see that there's no guarantee that a new stadium means anything at all.

L.A. Vikings all the way in 2008!!

:)

[Tmy]

Minn has built lots of new schools over the last 16 years. Why? Cuse they were needed to meet current demand. Same can be said about a stadium. (Though I do agree 16yrs is low for a stadium)

I think you can fund parks if done right. What I dont get is this trend againts mult-purpose parks. Why cant the Vikes Twins and Gopher f-ball share one place? Why do they each need their own???

[Brown]

I didn't vote for Jesse. I moved to Minnesota after he got elected.

What I'll always remember about him is a speech that he gave in one of the small towns in the state. He told the people that he didn't derive his power from the political parties, but from the people of the state. He actually got a little choked up saying it.

People have said, "Jesse was just actin', he didn't really get choked up," but I don't buy it. The speech (which appeared to be improvised) was genuinely moving, and I just don't think Jesse was that good of an actor.

[DavidJames]

I just don't think Jesse was that good of an actor. Then you must never have seen him on one of the pro wrestling shows (both talking and "wrestling"). Acting was his job.

[roger]

He said "good" actor.

[DavidJames]

He said "good" actor. I stand corrected, nevermind :)

Actually, I'm not a fan, but as a male, I am required to channel surf and many years ago caught his act a few times. He was good in a "B" movie kind of way. His former occupation required him to to show a wide range emotion.

[Snide]

Originally posted by Tmy
Minn has built lots of new schools over the last 16 years. Why? Cuse they were needed to meet current demand. Same can be said about a stadium. (Though I do agree 16 yrs is low for a stadium)


Maybe I needed to clear up the context of Jesse's point. He was at the dome in '98 watching the Vikings as a guest of Red McCombs, who has made it clear since owning the team that he "needs" a new stadium. The Metrodome was first used by the Twins and Vikings in 1982. When the Sports announcer asked Jesse what he thought about the stadium issue, his reply was, "There's nothing wrong with THIS stadium. We don't replace schools after 16 years." Minnesota has certainly built a lot of new schools in the last 16 years, but the point is, how many school buildings that were only 16 years old were replaced by new ones?


I think you can fund parks if done right. What I dont get is this trend againts mult-purpose parks. Why cant the Vikes Twins and Gopher f-ball share one place? Why do they each need their own???

Because everybody else gets 'em :)

IMO, the Twins and Vikes currently both have a raw deal. But the flaw in their logic is that it can only be fixed if they each get their own new stadium. A new multi-purpose stadium could still satisfy both if done right. And the Gophers, too. But they want to be on campus....

OK, let's not have to take this to the Sports Forum...

[Tmy]

Its only sports talk when commenting on how much they are gonna suck!!!


Gophers on Campus. What a joke. There aint room to park as it is. Is the stadium gonna float over campus??

[Snide]

Oh yeah, here's another one...they're all coming back to me!

On college tuition: "If you're smart enough to go to college, you're smart enough to figure out a way to pay for it!"

[Tony]

I don't mean to de-rail the thread, but why can't owners of teams build stadiums. Why is it always up to the city?

[Snide]

Originally posted by Tmy
Its only sports talk when commenting on how much they are gonna suck!!!

Gophers on Campus. What a joke. There aint room to park as it is. Is the stadium gonna float over campus??

They have a place in mind...by Mariucci. It's a parking lot not. Oops, now where to park??

[Snide]

Originally posted by Tony
I don't mean to de-rail the thread, but why can't owners of teams build stadiums. Why is it always up to the city?

I don't think it's de-railing. It's a Libertarian idea in a Libertarian-titled thread.

You want the long or short answer? Short answer: People are stupid.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Snide
Would any States elect this guy?

Mine did. :)

Jesse, of course. I miss him already :(

I didn't know much about him during his tenure as Governor, but I really got into his MSNBC show (now cancelled! :() last year. I'm becoming a big fan. There was hardly anything he said that I disagreed with. I've also found out in the last several months that he scored 100x100 on the World's Smallest Political Quiz and has had some very good things to say about Libertarians.

And how did he get elected? Mostly because they actually let him into the debates. So, geez, that whole excuse about they don't let Libertarians into the debates because they can't win wouldn't be a LIE, would it???

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tony
I don't mean to de-rail the thread, but why can't owners of teams build stadiums. Why is it always up to the city?

Uh, because they're used to getting a free ride sucking on the government teat? Because welfare panders to just as much greed and selfishness with the rich than it does to the "poor"? Because politicians aren't interested in making things work out for the best but in satisfying politically connected individuals and organizations, while merely giving the appearance of helping the people at large?

Just guesses, mind you...

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Tmy
-Jessee accomplished squat
-How many new schools have been built in the last 16 yrs

-Downtown St. Paul has been revitized by the new arena, there are sell out hockey games every other night pumping all sorts of money into the local economy, millions of tax dollars have been generated by the new hockey team.


No new wealth is created by fans attending a hockey game, nor the other activities generated by the attraction. Entertainment spending simply shifts from one sector to another. Ditto for any increased tax revenues.


-- Rouser

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rouser2
No new wealth is created by fans attending a hockey game,

Yes, it is; like attending a movie, people get a few hours of entertainment out of the deal. That is a form of wealth, as it increases their quality of life.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Tony
I don't mean to de-rail the thread, but why can't owners of teams build stadiums. Why is it always up to the city?

Its not just in sports.

Look into most good sized local business project. Youll find that the govt has given all sorts of incentives and breaks for company X to build a plant in there fair burg.


A team can create wealth. All of a sudden you have a bunch of millioire players working and paying taxes in your state.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by shanek [/i]


Originally posted by Rouser2
No new wealth is created by fans attending a hockey game,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Yes, it is; like attending a movie, people get a few hours of entertainment out of the deal. That is a form of wealth, as it increases their quality of life.


But that few hours of entertainment is exchanged for the wealth of dollars that did not appear from out of nothing. Thus, no new wealth is created, only traded. If those dollars were not spent in trade for a hockey game they would have been spent, or better, invested some place else. And government sponsored sports palaces only give a visible illusion of benefit. The negative conseqeuces of such theft of wealth via taxation, are diffuse and invisible.

-- Rouser

[Tmy]

Yourlooking at wealth as if its a zero sum game.

I buy a tcicjet cause I think its worth more than the $10 its costing me. (otherwise I wouldnt have done so.) THe theater thinks they are getting a deal for the show /$10 trade. In the end we both think we made out (unless its an Adam Sandler movie :p )

Its win win. We created wealth for us both.

If you dont think sports can improve the economy then try getting a good seat at a New England bar when the Sox are playing in the World Series.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy

A team can create wealth. All of a sudden you have a bunch of millioire players working and paying taxes in your state.

Taxes don't create wealth, they hinder wealth creation.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Tony


Taxes don't create wealth, they hinder wealth creation.

Not really. You gotta spend money to make money.

For example if those taxes improve the infrastructer making it easier and cheaper for businesses to ship goods then those businesses gain.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy

For example if those taxes improve the infrastructer making it easier and cheaper for businesses to ship goods then those businesses gain.

Give me an example of this happening.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Tony


Give me an example of this happening.

Ok. UPS is a successful package delivery company. THey pay taxes. Taxes are usedto build/maintain/plow the roads and interstate highway system. These roads are used by UPS to deliver their packages which is how they make money. UPS does not have to build its own roads or plow roads in order to get their trucks around.

[patnray]

Originally posted by Snide
And what if he was inspired to run initially because he knew the state wouldn't otherwise have given the surplus back to the taxpayers?
Why is it that when the government has a "surplus" it is "the people's money" and must be "returned" to them, but when the government has a deficit it is not "the people's deficit" that they must "return" to the state?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rouser2
But that few hours of entertainment is exchanged for the wealth of dollars that did not appear from out of nothing.

What does that have to do with anything?

Thus, no new wealth is created, only traded.

This conclusion does not follow from your above premise.

And government sponsored sports palaces only give a visible illusion of benefit. The negative conseqeuces of such theft of wealth via taxation, are diffuse and invisible.

Now this I will agree with. I was referring to people voluntarily purchasing hockey tickets. (Charlotte's hockey team isn't government-subsidized, so I'm basing my perception on that.)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Not really. You gotta spend money to make money

But not all forms of spending money make money. And if there's money to be made, a private company would step in and do it, no government necessary.

[shanek]

Originally posted by patnray

Why is it that when the government has a "surplus" it is "the people's money" and must be "returned" to them, but when the government has a deficit it is not "the people's deficit" that they must "return" to the state?

It is. It's just that people won't have to pay it back for years (with interest), so they act like it's free money.