Maurice Reeves's Comments
Page 1 of 3  first | prev | next 
Nov 21, 2006 | rating: 9 | comments: 51
Maurice Reeves Nov 21, 2006, 10:04pm EST
Mr. Gingrich, if I may, I'd like to thank you for joining us on Gather. I'd also like to say that it was your rise in politics and the Contract With America that renewed my interest in politics. It actually started me down the path of thinking about where I wanted to reside politically and philosophically and started me reading history. It was the principles of limited government that you and others like Barry Goldwater in your party championed that lead me eventually to the Libertarian Party.

I was curious to know if you believe that the Libertarian Party will ever stand a chance in US Politics, or if it will always exist on the fringes. Do you agree with only a two-party system, or do you think we should open the field to more parties?

Thanks in advance for your time.
Aug 20, 2006 | rating: 7.5 | comments: 103
Maurice Reeves Aug 20, 2006, 8:47pm EDT
Kathryn, I'm sorry that your having a tough time of it with marriage. Certainly my wife and I are not dancing in the rose fields all the time, but you need to put your foot down and tell him that you're not happy with the current arrangement.

If you can't do that, or he's not willing to listen to you, there are deeper issues in your marriage and you need to escalate your complaints until you ARE heard.

Sorry dear, I feel you pain, and I know you're just looking to vent and get it off your chest and get some sympathy, but you need to vent at your hubby.

Good luck.
May 15, 2006 | rating: 7 | comments: 13
Maurice Reeves May 15, 2006, 12:43pm EDT
So what would you qualify as "proof of legal residency"? Are we talking about Social Security numbers? They're not in place to be used as a national ID card, and the profligation of places that wanted those numbers was part of what lead to the identity theft abuses you see today. In fact, Congress wants to pass laws that would further restrict the ways an SSN can be used.

And how in the hell can you say you don't want people that aren't citizens purchase property? You're actually going to tell me that to fight illegal immigration you want to cut off foreign investors abilities to buy land? I don't think that that's what you meant, but that's a side effect of your policy.

How about we start here: reform the existing immigration laws and systems in place to make it easier for people to get in this country legally and work here legally and cross the border safely (w/or w/out family).

Militarizing the border by turning the National Guard into a de facto police force in further violation of posse comitatus is a crap solution done out of desperation by a President whose poll numbers keep sinking lower.

You're going to applaud policy driven by clutching at straws?
May 5, 2006 | rating: 1 | comments: 18
Maurice Reeves May 12, 2006, 7:05am EDT
No one's saying there's a shortage of the type that would shut down gas stations. They're saying that the increased demand is constricting supply, which pushes gas prices upward.

It's not just our consumption that has increased, though if you'd like to see evidence of our increased consumption I suggest that you look at the number of SUVs on the road over the last 5 years compared to when gas prices were $0.99/gallon. Hybrids only account for 1% of the total number of cars in the US while SUV sales continue to climb. Gas consumption around the world is higher: the Chinese economy is booming, the Indian economy is booming, the Japanese economy is booming. Petroleum is not just used to power your go-kart William, it's used in a myriad of ways, from powering the cars that people drive to powering the boats that carry the one million toys made in Fisher-Price's new Chinese factory to the US to the actual manufacture of plastic toys (plastic is most commonly made out of petroleum) to the running of power plants in places like China and India and you have a great drain on the world's potential oil supplies.

Speaking of consumption, most of the fertilizers used in the US now by large agribusiness are based on petroleum. There's another area in which more petroleum is being used in a non-obvious way.

Refinery capacity in the US is also limited. A new oil refinery has not been built in 30 years, and every time someone suggests building a new one everyone screams NIMBY and runs for their congressman. The old ones cannot run forever, and the older they get the harder they are to maintain, and the longer they stay offline, especially since most of our refineries were in the path of Katrina and Rita and were shut down for over 6 months while they were fixed for damage. Fixing a refinery is not just a matter of duct-taping the pipes and starting her back up. You need to be careful and cautious (the stuff is flamable and toxic, you see) and all of your work has to be certified by the state and federal agencies or you can't start. So our refineries can not handle the amount of demand in this country and there is a backlog of crude to be turned into gasoline.

You have political instability in the main oil-producing region of the world, with us invading one country and knocking its oil-production facilities offline, a crazy man in Iran that keeps claiming he'd like to wipe Israel off the map but we should trust him that he only wants nuclear power for good, political upheaval in Nigeria where rebels in the Niger River Delta are kidnapping oil workers and blowing up pipelines to disrupt the flow of oil, and a pedagouge in Venezeula who keeps rattling his sabers and threatening to use his oil as a weapon against the US.

All of this makes some of the oil investors very nervous, so they buy oil futures on the commodities markets which makes the oil more expensive when it arrives. So if you want to start laying blame for the gas prices in the US, start first with the investors who keep nervously bumping up the oil prices in anticipation of a catastrophe. Blame the OPEC countries for not increasing production though they know that demand in the world is sky-high. Blame the people who fight tooth and nail to prevent new refineries from being opened. And blame that lady you see driving 100mph down the highway in her SUV (4mpg Highway and containing a bunch of plastic parts made from oil, like the carpeting) talking on her cellphone (made from plastic, ergo petrol) sipping her latte.
May 7, 2006 | rating: 8.9 | comments: 51
Maurice Reeves May 11, 2006, 4:37pm EDT
William,
If you're including strength of will then yes, you're correct, it is a matter of the stronger in some essence asserting some power over another group, but that does not mean some sort of Darwinian "survival of the fittest" as you've asserted.

But certainly when speaking of it always being the richest and most militarily powerful deciding a person's rights, I push back and say what I did before: "The rights themselves are not arbitrary, it is the government's reaction to and support of those rights that is arbitrary."

In history we've seen groups with less resources, less political power, and less military might evoke huge changes: Ghandi's movement, the Civil Rights movement, the student protests in China, the Nepalese people protesting for the return of a representative government, the Hungarian student protests in the 1960's, and so on.
May 5, 2006 | rating: 1 | comments: 18
Maurice Reeves May 11, 2006, 4:09pm EDT
Just because new gas stations are being built all the time does not mean that there is more supply! That means there's more demand. As more and more people are demanding a product more sellers appear to meet the demand. If there was a glut in supply, and prices were back at $0.99/gallon then people would be closing their gas stations and seeking more profitable enterprises to be engaged in.

I recommend you read "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. Great book.
May 7, 2006 | rating: 8.9 | comments: 51
Maurice Reeves May 11, 2006, 4:05pm EDT
And William, I assert that regardless of the person walking across the border be Mexican or American they have the same essential natural rights. Some governments support people's execution of their natural rights more than others but all governments place some sort of limits on people's rights. The rights themselves are not arbitrary, it is the government's reaction to and support of those rights that is arbitrary.

So what if our freedom of speech is removed? Does that mean you may no longer speak about what bothers you? Are you willing to live under that system? Is that what you truly believe? That if government says it doesn't exist you will too will no longer believe it exists?
May 7, 2006 | rating: 8.9 | comments: 51
Maurice Reeves May 11, 2006, 3:59pm EDT
William, I have personal issues with the whole "smoking in public places" argument, as the restaurants, bars, etc are not public places, they are businesses OWNED by someone, but I'm apparently in the minority on people having the right to smoke. I look at it this way: if a restaurant wishes to permit people to smoke their customers should be able to smoke. If the restaurant doesn't want people to smoke they make that choice and the customers abide by it.

No William, you said the stronger make the rules, and I say that it's not always the stronger that win, unless you're counting strength of will. And yes, sometimes force is needed to secure freedom, but such is the nature of the dynamic between government and rights.
May 7, 2006 | rating: 8.9 | comments: 51
Maurice Reeves May 11, 2006, 3:27pm EDT
And yes William, we do criticize those other countries, and I believe we should. My point is that Jade is an advocate of utilitarianism, and she further states that we do not have natural rights but rather they descend onto us from government.

My point back to her was that if indeed our rights are merely granted to us by our leaders than indeed we would not have the right to criticize any government because rights are merely some arbitrary post in the ground each individual government gets to plant where they see fit for their people, and each and every decision is valid.
May 7, 2006 | rating: 8.9 | comments: 51
Maurice Reeves May 11, 2006, 3:25pm EDT
Actually, William, it is not just a matter of the most powerful in a society. There have been plenty of examples of people in history that are oppressed and seek freedom and achieve it.

And I've never spoken of utopia. You're mixing my words with Jade's. I speak of people asserting their natural rights.
May 7, 2006 | rating: 8.9 | comments: 51
Maurice Reeves May 11, 2006, 3:19pm EDT
But in the end, the argument against natural rights is also faith-based, as it comes down to you saying "I don't believe natural rights exist, therefore they don't".

And no, the dogmas used to justify most tyrannical governments does not come from a notion of rights people naturally have but from "the government knows best" and how government supposedly can do no wrong. Socialism and utilitarianism float both such ideas. Socialism claims that the government knows best when it comes to directing people's care and people's economic activities, while utilitarianism says that since all rights and freedoms flow from the government, whatever the government decides is correct is what is correct.

In a truly utilitarian government, if you don't have the freedom of speech, it's not a valid right to ask for.

What you're trying to allude to are the tactics that despots use to misdirect people from questioning their policies. By speaking of paradises and utopias the leaders turn people's attentions away from the horrors in front of them.
May 7, 2006 | rating: 8.9 | comments: 51
Maurice Reeves May 11, 2006, 1:20pm EDT
Jade, how about we flip your argument against natural rights on its head. if a person does not have natural rights, and all rights are descended from the government then are we qualified to criticize the actions of a country like North Korea or China or Zimbabwe? If rights descend from government then each government is allowed to grant their citizens whatever rights they want, and their choices are valid ones by the nature of coming from a government and the concept of human rights flies out the window.
May 7, 2006 | rating: 8.9 | comments: 51
Maurice Reeves May 11, 2006, 7:26am EDT
John, Thank you for your comments, but I'm not seeking to rebel against the government in some specific way. I'm speaking more about a person's right to rebel against their government. Around the world various countries try to suppress their people, notably right now Nepal.

I don't believe that boycotting oil and gas products over the 4th of July is going to have any effect against gas prices or against the government. But I admire your passion and hope you find a way to get your voice heard.
May 7, 2006 | rating: 8.9 | comments: 51
Maurice Reeves May 10, 2006, 8:18pm EDT
WM, Correct. The person who gives in to their desire to rebel must be willing to accept whatever consequences come from it. And I do believe that rebellion is incremental. It's as the author Ed Howdershelt stated once: "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order."
May 7, 2006 | rating: 8.9 | comments: 51
Maurice Reeves May 10, 2006, 4:22pm EDT
Jade,
I'm not surprised that you would quote Jeremy Bentham to discredit natural rights. As a founder of utilitarianism, he could not advocate or agree with natural rights because utilitarianism held that whatever made the masses happy was the best use of the law. That concept certainly flies in the face of natural rights, which states that even if it makes people unhappy, people have certain rights which are inviolate.

I'm pretty sure that most people would be happy to tell the KKK they can't march down a street espousing hate, or ditto for Fred Phelps, but we can't just make up laws which violate their rights to free speech.

Natural rights are those that are discoverable in nature, but not creatable by law. You do not give someone the right to free speech, they can speak freely in nature. A person's natural rights end where it impacts your freedoms. Really Jade, this should be common sense.
Apr 12, 2006 | rating: 8.8 | comments: 52
Maurice Reeves May 7, 2006, 8:06pm EDT
Another side effect of immigrants (legal or illegal) is that they have a downward effect on inflation. Whereas wages in general increase for the existing population, immigrants are willing to work for less money, so those industries can stay cheaper longer, or better yet, experience a downward rate in cost.

There was a great set of articles on NPR which showed this not only happening in the US in industries like construction and plumbing, but the UK is experiencing the same effect with Eastern European immigrants going to work in similar fields in Britain.
Apr 4, 2006 | rating: 7.8 | comments: 21
Maurice Reeves Apr 10, 2006, 11:15am EDT
A great article! My friends and I have argued this point back and forth many times, and one thing that we struggle with is whether or not a pharmacy should be considered something like a common carrier. Consider the example of someone who lives in a town where there's only one drug store, and the drug store and pharamcist both believe in not perscribing a certain type of medication (maybe it's run by Tom Cruise, and he retuses to perscribe any anti-depression medication, instead giving them copies of Dianetics) then what does the person do?

As a libertarian, I do believe that it is up to the market and professional organizations to handle this rather than government, but it's something that I personally struggle with.
Mar 26, 2006 | rating: 7.2 | comments: 18
Maurice Reeves Apr 4, 2006, 11:31pm EDT
Bert, I guess we are both having trouble making ourselves misunderstood, because I don't feel like I'm getting my point across, and I don't want to keep flogging the same points like the dead horse it's (going to | has) become.

I don't believe that your idea is a good one, or a practicable one in any incarnation, but I respect your right to believe in it and talk about it openly. As I said, very thought-provoking! Thanks.
Mar 26, 2006 | rating: 7.2 | comments: 18
Maurice Reeves Apr 4, 2006, 4:31pm EDT
Bert, most churches do provide for their own existence in the form of Sunday collections and could continue to exist in such form for a long time. Usually, churches do end up with a largesse and use that money on helping the community. Absolutely, not all churches do, instead choosing to spend it on a bigger building, or what have you, but I support their ability to do so, and say that it's up to people to "vote with their feet" as to what church they go to: an activist one or a wasteful one.

I think your use of the Benjamin Franklin quote is disingenuous. I don't believe that Franklin has tax exemptions in mind when he was speaking but rather the Church of England, that was using money from the King's taxes to support its activities. Franklin was addressing the issue of a church HAVING to use government money to support its activities, which is something you advocate.

In a previous article you state:
"What prevents the church from using the money that it doesn't spend on taxes on missionary activities? Or worse yet, political activities?
Wouldn't it be better for the government to collect taxes from those institutions and then give them a grant...or a subsidy if you will...that is explicitly for those humanitarian activities? With careful oversight to assure that the money is used for the intended purpose?" (emphasis mine).

Also, while I'm here, I'd like to point out that as you state, it would require "careful oversight". I have very sincere doubts about the type of careful oversight the government uses on itself. Social Security is a great example because the money that's in there isn't supposed to be used for anything but, and it is. Time after time after time the government collects money from our pockets with the promise of using the money for one purpose and then squanders it on another. By not putting the money in the hands of the government in the first place you prevent that danger from ever happening. If I knew that my church couldn't run the food bank next week because Senator Ted Stevens wanted another bridge to nowhere, I'd be really mad, but in truth, my ability to do something about it is severely curtailed.

Also, I've yet to figure out how such a plan would reconcile differences in ideologies. And, making all the charitable work done at a church would tie all manner of federal restrictions to the money, for example, ensuring that a church did not assist an illegal immigrant (as is being discussed now). A church could be completely shut down by the government if it broke those rules. Again, that's not something that I want.
Mar 26, 2006 | rating: 7.2 | comments: 18
Maurice Reeves Apr 3, 2006, 1:34pm EDT
My apologies for the few spelling errrors. I'm normally more conscientious about my spelling, but I dashed that off before meetings. Yikes!
Page 1 of 3  first | prev | next 
 
Maurice Reeves
Camp Hill, PA
Gather | Friends | Groups | Share
About Gather | Engagement Marketing | Make New Friends | Gather Points | Advertise on Gather | Gather Press | Privacy | Terms of Service | Community Guidelines
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Version 16811, "Oz"; Copyright © 2009 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.